mfaber

1. We are NOT taking about Jews like Sharon and Koufax who are MODERN Ashkenasi Jews (Europeans), but MIDDLE EASTERN 1st Century CE Jews who would look like more like Arabs (olive skinned, dark hair often curly, dark eyes, strong features)

2. There is more to that analysis that just the FACE. The Bible tells us that Jesus was short if Luke 19:3 KJV is to be taken to mean what it says, Zacchaeus sought to see Jesus who he was,and could not for the crowd, because he was little of stature.

BUT the figure on the Shroud is 5' 11''- 6' 2" TALL. Is the Bible wrong about Jesus being short, leonarde, or could it just simply be that the forger didn't know enough about the Bible to be conversant with the FACT that the Bible said JC was short?

3. His hair would have been short. Paul condemned long hair on men in (1 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV )
BUT the "Jesus" of the Shroud has LONG hair. This was considered an a "shame" to a man, again the forger obviously wasn't aware of the FACT that Jewish men did not wear long flowing "page-boy" styled hair. Strange that this sort of hair style for men was common during the years that the Shroud would have been forged (NOT!).

Couple this with the obvious FACT that the features of the "face" (an out-of-proportion one at that) on the Shroud are obviously VERY European and it's rather obvious that the model for the forgery was a tall, long-haired, European male.

These are rather glaring discrepancies, leonarde that can be hand-waved away by your "variation" argument.

The Mandylion was a relic showing the FACE of Jesus Christ on a cloth. There is no way to actually link this relic to the Shroud(a face suddenly becomes complete with a "body", how is that possible, leonarde, another "miracle" perhaps). People only BELIEVE the Mandylion, which disappeared when Constantinople was sacked in 1204, is the shroud (the hypothesis of the British historian Ian Wilson). There is no actual evidence that the two are the same. All you are doing is repeating and UNSUBSTANTIATED hypothesis and hope that people won't know that it's just a hypothesis, nothing more. Anyway, the C-14 dating, done on bacterial/fungus/smoke-FREE pieces of the Shroud leave no doubt that the two objects are NOT the same because the Shroud dates to the 14th Century. Get over it...the thing's a FRAUD!!!

YHWHtruth

The Gospel writers say that the body of Jesus, after being taken from the stake by Joseph of Arimathea, was wrapped “in clean fine linen.” (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56) The apostle John adds: “Nicodemus also ._._. came bringing a roll of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds of it. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices, just the way the Jews have the custom of preparing for burial.”—John 19:39-42.

The Jews customarily washed the dead and then used oils and spices to anoint the body. (Matthew 26:12; Acts 9:37) On the morning following the Sabbath, women friends of Jesus intended to complete the preparation of his body, which had already been laid in a tomb. However, when they arrived with their ‘spices to grease him,’ the body of Jesus was not in the tomb!—Mark 16:1-6; Luke 24:1-3.

What did Peter find when he came shortly afterward and entered the tomb? The eyewitness John reported: “He viewed the bandages lying, also the cloth that had been upon his head not lying with the bandages but separately rolled up in one place.” (John 20:6,_7) Notice that there is no mention of the fine linen—only of bandages and the headcloth. Since John specifies the bandages and the headcloth, would it not seem likely that he would have mentioned the fine linen, or shroud, if it had been there?

In addition, consider this: If the graveclothes of Jesus had his image upon them, does it not seem that it would have been noticed and would have become a subject for discussion? Yet, beyond what is in the Gospels, there is complete silence in the Bible about the graveclothes.

Even the professed Christian writers of the third and fourth centuries, many of whom wrote about a host of so-called miracles in connection with numerous relics, did not mention the existence of a shroud containing the image of Jesus. This is hard to understand, since 15th- and 16th-century viewers, according to Jesuit scholar Herbert Thurston, “describe the impressions on the shroud as so vivid in detail and colouring that they might have been quite freshly made.”

Max

Radcliffe Emerson

Even if it is human blood, big deal.
The people who faked the Shroud didn't have any access to human blood in those days?

Principia

Well, the big deal is:

1) How low religious zealots are willing to set their standards in order to generate shoddy scientific data whenever it come to "evidence" of their Gods' existence. We see this all the time, in Intelligent Design, in studies on intercessory prayers, in supposed claims of miracles or miraculous sightings... You name it. It's evident here in the hyperboles and editorializing by leonard(e) -- "every scientific test they could think of," "STURP ... is considered the definitive scientific investigation of the S of Turin, have published their findings in numerous peer-reviewed journals," etc.

2) The hypocrisy when these same people judge with extreme prejudice other scientific evidence that diminishes the importance of their Gods -- especially those that relegate them to deistic types or even nonexistence. One only has to look at evolution forums to see this.

3) Faith apparently is not enough. Kinda have to ask yourself -- in the face of inconclusive evidence, is the Shroud more important for its apologetic value or for its historic value?

leonarde

Partial post:But the "others" isn't specified and that's PART of the problem: McCrone himself claimed (in his 1999 book) that his own institute conducted confirmatory analyses. So the "others" might merely refer to his own employees. And working perhaps under his supervision. Hardly the type of confirmation that could be called ideal. Especially given his de facto resignation from STURP.

Cheers!

Principia

Hell, proteins even denature above 60°C.

Principia

I am growing tired of leonard(e)'s reading comprehension problem. In the two quotes I obtained from the Shroud FAQ, will somebody else tell me if it isn't obvious to him, who at least one other person is?

Here. I'll repost the quote for convenience:

Principia

Here is a "definitive" other: Nature article on C-14. It's not about the blood, but it only serves to build a powerful case against authenticity.

PS: note that in the www.shroud.com site, the site owners quickly dismissed the Nature article as not peer-reviewed (LOL!). Goes to show what I mean about religious zealots and their tactics.

leonarde

Partial post:Oh, I don't know about that: the STURP investigators have over the years come up with a very impressive number of articles based on their work on the Shroud. To wit:The above in a very incomplete list. Perhaps number 22 might be considered non-peer reviewed.
Of particular interest in our discussion of the 'blood' on the S of Turin are numbers 6, 7, and 12.

All the STURP members (save the no longer participating Walter McCrone) signed on to a final report in 1981 which stated that the 'blood' was indeed blood.

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post: No. That's probably not true. It probably featured a full-length body as well though perhaps the full body was not always exhibited out of a sense of respect/modesty by the Orthodox Christians of Constantinople.

Cheers!