Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mfaber · 06-06-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Another howler from page 1:

No. It was Zacchaeus who was "little of stature". So much for your 'brilliant career as a Biblical scholar'.

Well, it would seem that all you can do is be condescending and insulting, but that's expected from someone with no evidence... Here's the verses:

Luke 19 KJV
1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.
2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.
4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.

Now, the most likely "he" for the short in stature would be Jesus. That is what most people read when they read Luke, as did the scientists who generated the a possible "portrait" of JC in The REAL Face of Jesus (Popular Mechanic), based on the FORENSIC arthropological data known for Middle Eastern Jewish males of the time who on AVERAGE were 5' 1" tall! This would affirm the interpretation of the "he" as a "short in stature" Jesus. But hey, feel free to ignore the anthropological evidence along with the verse, like you apparently are wont to do....

Quote:

From page 2 Popular Mechanic article:
The historic record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds. Since Jesus worked outdoors as a carpenter until he was about 30 years old, it is reasonable to assume he was more muscular and physically fit than westernized portraits suggest. His face was probably weather-beaten, which would have made him appear older, as well.

Speaking of "Biblical scholarship", you apparently have ignored what how the Bible describes the burial accoutrements of Jesus. They conform to that of Jews of the time who used STRIPS of cloth, not a WHOLE body-sized cloth (typical AGAIN of medieval EUROPEAN burial practice). This is precisely WHY the Church rejected the Shroud as fake (not to mention that the perp confessed to the forgery!). Just for you, the "Biblical scholar", allow me to post once again the scriptural evidence that damns the Shroud as a FRAUD.........

John 20:1-9 (NIV). For those who insists on the KJV John 20:2-7 KJV

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him

3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Verses 6 and 7 in both versions make it very plain that there was a FACE CLOTH (both KJV & NIV) plus

KJV--linen CLOTHES<===NOTE THE PLURAL
NIV--linen STRIPS<===NOTE THE PLURAL
It doesn't matter what version of the Bible (Catholic or Protestant) one uses, the burial accoutrements of JC are always in strips, not just 2 pieces (a face cloth + one big single-piece shroud)

The wrapping on the body clearly was in MULTIPLE pieces plus a face covering , NOT ONE solid piece and a face covering . Clement VII declared the Shroud a fake based on these verses in John (would not have had a KJV or NIV then).

This goes along with the Jewish practice of that time. The body, rich or poor, was washed and wrapped with white linen strips to signify that all are the same before God, regardless of earthly status (no fancy duds or riches allowed). These burial shrouds are called Takhirkhin (tachrichim). This custom is followed to this day with the exception that the "shrouds" are pocketless items of clothing made of white linen (no pockets signifies "you can't take it with you"). The point here is that there is no such thing as a single piece shroud for the body. This custom (a single piece over the entire body) was followed by Christians and is just one more nail in the coffin of the Shroud''s "authenticity".

Jewish Funeral Practices, a Celebration of Life

Jewish Funeral Practices

Quote:

Most well organized communities offer the services a sacred burial society (Chevra Kaddisha), which will prepare the body for burial. Men prepare men and women prepare women. They wash the body with warm water from head to foot and, although they may turn the body as necessary to clean it entirely, including all orifices, they never place it face down. The body is dressed in white burial shrouds (tachrichim), which are purposely kept simple to avoid distinguishing between rich or poor.[....]

From the moment of death, the body is not left alone until after burial. This practice, called guarding/watching (shemira), is also based on the principle of honoring the dead. A family member, a Chevra Kaddisha member, or someone arranged by the funeral parlor passes the time by reciting psalms (Tehillim) as this person watches over the deceased.

And you were pontificating about "Biblical scholarship", eh!!??? Looks to me like the only "howlers" here are from you.....

mfaber · 06-06-2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia
Hell, proteins even denature above 60�C.

Very true, but I was cutting leonarde some "scientific" slack here.....

leonarde · 06-06-2003, 09:16 AM

Since Zacchaeus was apparently also a Jewish male of Judea/Palestine there's no reason to suppose ------even assuming the 5 foot 1 datum (which to me seems dubious) ---that it is any more likely that this passage refers to Jesus than to Zacchaeus. I have literally heard this passage read dozens of times at RC masses down through the years and the interpretation was ALWAYS that it was Zacchaeus who was short of stature. Indeed given that no description of Jesus of any kind is given in any of the rest of the 4 Gospels, it would be unlikely that that would only happen (a description of Jesus' height ) simply in order to explain why Zacchaeus climbed a tree.
Furthermore you bizarrely link this with your datum about Middle Eastern Jewish males averaging 5 foot 1. But if ("he") was
'short of stature' then he would be a couple inches shorter than 5 foot 1. Say 4 foot 11. Truly an odd interpretation!
But to each his own (in this case idiosyncratic) interpretation.

Cheers!

leonarde · 06-06-2003, 09:25 AM

Actually getting back to that fire (the one of 1532): if, as posited here, the temperature INSIDE OF the silver box approached the outside temperature as noted here on page 1"

Quote:

However, as stated previously, the Shroud of Turin had been subjected to a fire in 1532 which melted the silver box (melting point of silver= 961�C) in which it was kept.

then there's a close to zero percent chance that the blood and/or body image was painted. Why? Because paint/pigment liquifies at such high temperatures: the images would have followed the laws of physics and "run". There's no evidence of that. Another finding of the STURP team.

Cheers!

leonarde · 06-06-2003, 09:29 AM

Partial post:

Quote:

leonard(e) like so many of his fellow science-illiterate friends thinks that peer-review is a one-time shot, done by those before an article is published in a journal. This is far from the truth.

1) I never said anything like that.

2) Nor do I believe it.

Cheers!

leonarde · 06-06-2003, 09:32 AM

Partial post:

Quote:

So keyser_soze was right to note what leonard(e)'s angle is? He's on an atheist site, spamming people with quotes from another site, and offering no attempts to evaluate the evidence.

That's the second time you claimed that. Can't you count? mfaber and you together have linked/posted far more from 'other sites' here than I have.

Cheers!

keyser_soze · 06-06-2003, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Partial post:

1) The blood: probably a medieval forger wouldn't bother using real blood: there were no tests for blood (ie scientific ones) in the 14th Century. Or the 15th Century. Or the 16th Century.
Or the 17th Century. Or the 18th Century. A 14th Century forger would probably opt for a red dye that looked like blood. So it is of enormous probative value.
Hell, I should think they would use blood. Why bother with anything else? Blood is easily available.

2) I've seen on TV and in documentaries literally hundreds perhaps thousands (in crowd scenes) of Israeli Jews: some looked "European", some didn't. It's a non-starter: we just don't know what Jesus looked like. So no comparison is possible.

Then I would suggest you look at it terms of what the population was like at the time. I would propose you go do some digging into archaelogical records for the middle east, where you should readily find average height and bone structure samples from digs that have been going on there since 1920.

3) Height. It's a myth that over the centuries people have been getting taller and taller; all things being equal (there's a genetic component to height as well) people with good nutrition grow taller. We don't know enough about nutrition in 1st Century Gallilee/Judea to say "this individual is too tall". As in all societies there are enormous differences in height: Chinese are not normally considered to be terribly tall but there's a pro basketball player from China (Yao) well over 7 foot tall. Good player too: evidently not a "pituitary case".
Actually, it's not a myth. People are steadily growing taller over the last 250 years. Life expectancy has also increased. Whether it's due to diet or not is irrelevant, we're not discussing evolution, but rather trends. Again, look above and go do some digging. There are plenty of remains from the age in question.

Cheers!

Principia · 06-06-2003, 09:37 AM

Sure leonard(e), let's count.

Let's start right here:

Quote:

For long thread a year or so back on the Shroud of Turin see:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread....25&pagenumber=1

Cheers!

keyser_soze · 06-06-2003, 09:39 AM

Damnit, Mfaber beat me. Although I wouldn't have offered the sources, he should at least have to look into it himself...might make him more apt to learn something.

mfaber · 06-06-2003, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Partial post:

Well the preponderance of the evidence is what prompted STURP,
the most comprehensive scientifically oriented body to study the Shroud in the last century or so to find that what is known about the Shroud (saving only the later C-14 test) is compatible with authenticity.

Cheers!

Leonarde these are weasel words ==>compatible with authenticity". The only holds so long as someone doesn't point out that their so-called evidence for blood was NOT subjected to follow-up tests to confirm the initial findings. These tests are don't confirm blood is present because there are other things there that would create a "false-positive". In addition, there is NO WAY IN HELL for them to have gotten a "positive" test for human blood from the immunological test because:

The blood, if any were indeed present, would be just too old to still have testable antigens. That's assuming that the Shroud is only a 600 year old fake and NOT the genuinine 2000 year old article. If the thing WERE 2000 years old, that is an even bigger strike AGAINST them being able to get a positive on the immunological test.
The Shroud was subjected to heat in the 1532 fire that would have destroyed any antigens, typable markers (perish in just a few weeks, so no way would they be able to come up with an AB blood type!), DNA, and denatured the proteins. Any claims made about being able to identify the souce of any proteins or DNA (as belonging to JC) would be unreliable because of what happened. What is Meant by Blood Typing and HERE

You also can't escape from the C-14 analysis by waving the bogus "Garza-Valdes contamination hypothesis" crap at us, either because:

The pieces were cleaned to remove the smoke/crud from them before they were tested Nature article
the Shroud, which weighs ~20 lbs would have had to acquired 40 extra lbs of mold/bacteria/soot to give make the date be off by ~1300 years.

The only thing your "data" is "compatible" with is dodging the FACT that the SHROUD IS A FRAUD (once your data is subjected to the NEEDED further analysis).

You don't seem to have any background to evaluate your "compatible" evidence, while exhibiting the fact that you obviously understand all parts of the word "obfuscation".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-06-2003, 09:16 AM	#53
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Since Zacchaeus was apparently also a Jewish male of Judea/Palestine there's no reason to suppose ------even assuming the 5 foot 1 datum (which to me seems dubious) ---that it is any more likely that this passage refers to Jesus than to Zacchaeus. I have literally heard this passage read dozens of times at RC masses down through the years and the interpretation was ALWAYS that it was Zacchaeus who was short of stature. Indeed given that no description of Jesus of any kind is given in any of the rest of the 4 Gospels, it would be unlikely that that would only happen (a description of Jesus' height ) simply in order to explain why Zacchaeus climbed a tree. Furthermore you bizarrely link this with your datum about Middle Eastern Jewish males averaging 5 foot 1. But if ("he") was 'short of stature' then he would be a couple inches shorter than 5 foot 1. Say 4 foot 11. Truly an odd interpretation! But to each his own (in this case idiosyncratic) interpretation. Cheers!

06-06-2003, 09:39 AM	#59
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	Damnit, Mfaber beat me. Although I wouldn't have offered the sources, he should at least have to look into it himself...might make him more apt to learn something.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.