hyzer

I’m a lurker. I distinctly read that the opinions of lurkers were requested.

Yes, opinions are like one’s backside – everyone has one. I offer my opinion freely and without evidence other that of how the shroud appears to me. I am eminently un-qualified to render a professional opinion of rubbings.

Warning – another opinion – I believe that it was created with the intent to deceive the faithful.

You are one of the faithful (fact, correct?).

Beyond that you have provided only intellectual hand waving.

BTW: I have, in my very possession, the ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree in his youth. And I can provide lots of opinions to support my statement. And the fact that the handle has been replaced, well, the ax head was replaced once upon a time too, but it is still George Washington’s ax! I dare anyone to prove otherwise!


edited for some spelling

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: hyzer ]</p>

leonarde

Hyzer,
Please go to the George Washington's Axe Thread
;that is on another forum. This is the Shroud of
Turin thread.
I NEVER said (maybe someone else did) that I
wanted to get responses from lurkers; I said I was
giving information about the Shroud and its possible authenticity for any present and FUTURE
lurkers.
A "lurker" is a passive participant only (ie
doesn't post). This is your 2nd or 3rd post: you
ain't a lurker anymore!

Cheers!

leonarde

One detail about the Sudarium of Oviedo which was
NOT in the excerpt that I provided at the top of
page 10 from a URL was the fact that when pollen
samples were taken from the Sudarium years ago,
the pollen included species of the Near East and
North Africa so that the pollen trail is consistent with the historical information we have
as to the whereabouts of the Sudarium since the
7th Century.

Cheers!

Hans

If not a theologian, of what relevance is the shroud?

Principia

This statement, of course, is what I have been trying to tell leonarde all along. The death is multifactorial, and unlikely to be teased apart millenia after the fact. Notice that hypovolemic shock is medically defined to be inadequate blood perfusion as a result of blood loss (i.e. 'hypo'=low 'volemic'=volume). Perhaps, leonarde would like to indict his own authority now?

I do not know the specifics of what Asha'man claims, but the idea is that the circumstances surrounding this particular crucifixion as described in the Bible is consistent with death by excessive blood loss. Surely, leonarde is not saying that all crucified victims are the same and die by the same mechanism? This was the point that I believe Koy was talking about. Multiple open arterial wounds, plus being in an upright position would cause severe hemodynamic problems.

Once again, I believe this is an example of citing an authority without understanding the contents.

SC

leonarde

Posted by Scientiae: No, if you look at his
posts, Koy has said repeatedly that he KNOWS that
the cause of death was bleeding, so MUCH bleeding
that the considerable bloodstains on the S of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo are ABSOLUTELY
incompatible with Jesus' death.

By contrast what I said is at the top of page 7 of
this very thread: As the above makes clear I have been far from asserting I know the immediate cause of death.
I merely listed some of the more likely suspects.
Cheers!

leonarde

Posted by Scientiae: What do you mean,
all along? You entered this thread very late in
the day. As my previous post indicates, I said that the cause of death was NOT certain and I said
it on page 7 (ie long before you were posting).
Evidently you weren't even reading the thread then
either....

Cheers!

Asha'man

Ever go hunting and dress a deer? (I haven’t done this personally, but my brother has.) You cut an artery (usually in the neck) and hang the carcass from the other end. When you are done, it is empty of blood. (I will have to check with my brother to see how long this really takes.)

Clearly, an unstaunched arterial wound in the feet would be lethal pretty quickly. Maybe one of your assumptions is wrong? Maybe one of your “experts” is leading you down a path that isn’t very stable. Ever step on a nail as a kid? Did that nail hit an artery? I keep hearing about 34 arterial wounds, maybe that is where the mistake is?

I saw something on TV the other day about an actual skeleton from a Roman crucifixion. The interesting thing was that a nail was piercing the heel bone. Now, when the feet are unsupported, death by asphyxiation is pretty quick. If supported (by a nail), then it takes a good bit longer to die. The Romans wanted the victim to suffer, so supporting the feet makes sense.

However, if you pound that nail through an artery, you are back to a quick death. Presumably, there is a way to drive a nail through a foot that does not hit an artery, and at least one path probably goes through the heel (given the skeletal evidence I saw). Sure, it will bleed, but nothing like an open artery, and clotting may keep the bleeding down.

However, this may not help your case. Where exactly is the foot wound on the Shroud? (I don’t know, so I am honestly asking.) Would that wound hit the artery? If so, then there are still major flaws with the evidence. If not, then it is possible that some blood remained in the corpse, pooled in the legs. (Of course, there are other serious problems, such as how that blood would only lightly stain the shroud, rather than soaking the whole thing.)

If you would just look at the evidence critically, you should be able to see these types of problems for yourself. I know little about forensics, but this seems pretty self-evident. However, you have chosen to listen only to the opinions of biased experts, people who (like yourself) have already decided what the outcome must be. Open your mind a little, think for yourself, and you may be amazed at what you can figure out.

Koyaanisqatsi

Leonarde, you're disingenuousness is just appalling.

You claim on the one hand that the cause of Jesus' death is not known, then you post things like this:

because you know you've got to discredit the notion of death by blood loss at all costs in order to maintain the tenuous link between Shroud of Turin and burial strips as described in the NT.

Yet you have never addressed the fact that--applying your own source's edict of going to the historical documents in order to establish identity--all of them mention the fact that Jesus spoke just before dying!

It is not possible to speak just before dying if you are dying of suffocation!

What I concluded (i.e., derived from) the evidence you presented was that 34 arterial wounds pumping out a little over a milk carton's worth of blood over a three hour period (and the fact that they didn't need to break his legs in order to hasten death by asphyxiation, thereby demonstrating he was already dead by blood loss) pretty much points to only one method of death, especially since poisoning has also been ruled out; death by blood loss, the most logical and obvious to everyone but someone like you who is desperately trying to build a straw man regarding the shroud.

Your evidence doesn't just contradict itself, it shows repeated (and even granted by you) evidence of clear and obvious bias, but even worse is that it does not critically analyze its own conclusions in any way at all!

Even the simplest deconstruction has resulted in discrediting just about every source you've presented and your only response is to say, in essence, "Nu unh! Has not! Here's another source from the same (or similar) website."

Why? What's the point? It is obvious to everyone that you are building a house of cards using snippets and tidbits from sources that either contradict themselves or do not apply even the most obvious of critical analysis to their findings due to a religious blindness.

The Gospel of John is the only source that can be used to establish any kind of link to the shroud at all and just about every single detail found in that gospel proves that the shroud could not possibly be Jesus' burial linens (note the plural).

Likewise with your continued plate spinning regarding the Sudarium of Oviedo.

Quality of evidence is all that matters, not quantity.

As you can see from the responses of the "lurkers," no one is fooled by your ploy.

And pointing out that no modern day forensics pathologist would have any direct experience with a crucifixion victim only further destroys their credibility, not supports it.

Here are the "facts" your own sources have provided: A gallon and a half of blood pumping out of 34 arterial wounds, four of which from primary points that would be constantly reopened every time the victim moved, breathed, shifted, thought a thought, for at least three hours alive, two hours dead, all while hanging from a cross.

According to "historical accounts," we know Jesus didn't die of asphyxiation since they all clearly show that he was capable of speaking just prior to death.

Any possible remaining post mortem blood would have pooled in his shins/feet and certainly not have remained after two hours hanging upright from a cross in his upper body.

Burial strips are wrapped around the body, while a separate cloth is wrapped around the head.

End of the Shroud of Turin mystery regarding Jesus for anyone actually intent upon any form of honest, critical analysis of the "evidence" at hand.

(eidted for lysdexia - Koy)

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Principia

Hmm... another reading comprehension ad hom. Now, where have I heard that argument used futilely before?

All along, in my last 4 posts on this thread, I have been suggesting to leonarde and others that he lacks the medical and physiological background to interpret the findings that he is citing. Shall I repeat that assessment again? I would still be saying the same thing I have been 'all along.'

Leonarde in fact does not say that the death is merely uncertain, but with consistency he says that the cause is more likely one way or another (actually in a manner contrary to what two 'experts' he has cited suggest). We can only hope for him to argue ignorance in this matter rather than argue with a pretense of probable certainty.

EDIT:
Leonarde offers this option as an alternative in his list of mechanisms above. In fact, hypovolemic shock is a direct result of loss of blood (i.e. scenario 1). This statement is another evidence, in my opinion, of leonarde's lack of understanding of the physiology behind crucifixions. But, once again, I will appeal to the judgment of leonarde's supposed target audience: the lurkers (yoohoo, knock knock, are you behind the monitor? ).

SC

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>