Koyaanisqatsi

Your inability to do as requested demonstrates that you aren't interested in seriously analyzing the "evidence" or addressing the arguments.

The "historical" record Bucklin and Meacham (and Zugibe) all turn to as the pivotal evidentiary link to their findings proves that the Shroud of Turin could not possibly be what Jesus was allegedly buried in.

By using their own standards, the shroud is not Jesus' shroud.

The case for the Shroud of Turin being Jesus' burial "strips" is therefore concluded.

Cheers!

leonarde

Koy, thanks for lending your temperate voice and
finely-honed reasoning to our discussion.
Cheers!

leonarde

Datherton,
That offer still stands: if you are more familiar with Koy's effusive writing style and
can concisely present his objections to authenticity (ie the ones I have not addressed
already)please do so.
Cheers!

leonarde

In a previous post referring to the findings of
Garza-Valdes I inadvertently left out a (very
important) concluding paragraph: Above emphasis was added by Leonarde.
Cheers!

spin

leonarde:
-------------
Spin, I first confronted the Greek words
23 years ago when I first learned about and became interested in the Shroud of Turin. I would hardly call that "avoiding the meaning of the word".
-------------

Obviously it didn't help you. You don't show any knowledge of the meaning of the words after 23 years. That really means "avoiding". You've shown no expertise with the language and that's after 23 years. What does it take to learn a little?

leonarde:
-------------
Your second point is a non-sequitur as you would
know if you read this thread all the way through.
-------------

You can call it a non sequitur: that doesn't make it so. Here's your bald statement:

==================================================
The probability is EXTREMELY high that
the Shroud and the Sudarium were on the same person.
==================================================

The problem is that you haven't shown anything, but merely asserted it. Assertions mean nothing in themselves. You are just not dealing with the information. John is clear about two separate items one, a single cloth which specifically around the head -- epi ths kefalhs autou -- (it was called a soudarion because of its job of removing the sweat from the face) and the second, bands which by implication covered the corpse. It really doesn't matter what you may have said before. The face on the shroud says that it isn't what's being talked about by John. You may hide from the simple description. You may not accept John, but if you accept John you can't accept the shroud. If you don't accept John, then you've got no connection between rag and what it's supposed to be as you don't follow the source.

As you don't know anything about the language (you have admited such), though you say you've had 23 years to get some knowledge, and while you seem to accept John as meaningful, your position makes little sense.

leonarde

Since it appears that my interlocutors are presently otherwise occupied, I thought I might
give a VERY broad outline about what is known
about the Shroud of Turin. Much is perhaps NEGATIVE information (ie there is a process of
elimination, a process that leads the persistent
"Shroudie" to the very high probability of authenticity). So:

1)it is not a painting (probability--100%). See
my links to Piczek for that. (This is DESPITE
the fact that there are trace elements of
tempera and other medieval paints on the Shroud)

2)a "rubbing" can sometimes have certain of the
3D features that the Shroud has (skeptic Joe
Nickell has done one or more rubbings which
bear some resemblance to the Shroud)but there
are other features of the Shroud which all but
rule this out.

3) it has photo-like detail of many of the body
and face features but is NOT a photograph
(proto- or otherwise). There is no reversal
of left/right images typical of photography.

4) the particulars of the weave and cloth type
indicate that it originates in the Syria region
of the 1st Century.

5) it has pollen, some of which comes from plants
indigeneous to the Near East only (Turkey-to
Palestine).

6) the details of the wounds of the Man indicate
that this individual suffered the real wounds
of a crucifixion, a method of execution which
ended with the Roman Empire in the 5th Century.
A medieval artist, even if he had the artistic
means, wouldn't know what to "shoot for" in
such a depiction.

7) comparison of the blood stains, blood type (AB
negative)etc. with the Sudarium of Oviedo
indicates that the S of Turin and Sudarium
covered the head of the same person.

8) the above point invalidates the C-14 tests
since the Sudarium has been in Spain since at
least the 8th Century (well outside the range
produced by the S of Turin C-14 dating test).

9) the actual body image of the Man of the Shroud
is caused by oxidation and premature deteriora-
tion of the upper fibrils of the Shroud. This
is consistent with NO known method of artistic
depiction: ancient, medieval, or modern.

10) the "3D" elements of the image (body relief)
are attributed to the varying distances of the
Shroud to a particular part of the body.

Cheers!

leonarde

Spin,
Please read the thread in its entirety: I addressed the Sudarium a couple times here and
well as gave a couple of links to URLs. There is
little doubt about the coincidence of wounds and
blood flows in the two cloths. The blood type is
the same (AB negative) and fairly rare.
As I mentioned about the Greek: authenticity
will not stand or fall on such an interpretation
(and that is what it is: an interpretation). Even
if we had native speakers of koine Greek walking
around, they couldn't tell us for sure the
semantic range of the word. Citing ancient
Greek sources is of little help either: the meaning of words changes over time and the 750
or so years between Homer and the 1st Century
would be more than enough time to change the semantic range of the word.
Cheers!

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Somebody had to, because you sure as hell weren't.

By the way, one final note. We know Jesus didn't die of asphyxiation if the Gospels are reliable "historical" sources, since people that are slowly strangling to death--whose chests are so distended in death as a result of desperate attempts to breath--can't speak.

Again, going by Bucklin's, Meacham's and Zugibe's guidelines of looking to historical documents for the "missing link," Jesus spoke clearly and (apparently) eloquently, even quoting scripture immediately before "giving up the ghost."

Clearly he was not then dying of asphyxiation, if we are logically consistent with the basis of Bucklin's and Meacham's "historical documents" standards.

Once you rule that out, the only choice left is blood loss.

That gallon jug of milk pouring out in minutes should have been your first clue, but then it's clear you don't apply any critical thinking to your appeals to authority.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Amos

He spoke clearly and said the same thing James Joyce said nearly 2000 years later on the last page of his "Portrait." These same words of Joyce "old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead" were spoken three days before he went underground to emerge on May 1 as a "new man." Notice the 40 day countdown here and how it is that 3 days are missing from April 27 to May 1 to identify his time spend in the netherworld.

Ray K

Amazing how you can pick and choose when you want to invoke the rules of science and the miracles of religion.

What if a scientific analysis concluded that, after correcting for the biofilm, that the Shroud of Turin is not from the first century.

Would you then accept that the Shroud is a fake, or would you start questioning the methods and/or motives of the analysis?

Simple question. What is your answer?