Boro Nut

Glug...

Glug...

Glug...

leonarde

I made reference to the Shroud of Turin Research
Project, a group of scientists/technicians put
together in 1978 to investigate scientifically
the nature of the Shroud, possible method of image-creation etc. I already provided a summary
of their findings. But they also produced technical papers in their respective fields. Here
is at least a partial list of those papers. leonarde again: the above (I did a tad of editing in the interests of brevity) was
from <a href="http://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm</a>

leonarde

Koy,
No offense but you need to do more reading in
this area EVEN IF YOU DON'T CHANGE YOUR MIND. For
example:
1)"the nineth hour" does NOT refer to 9 PM. Probably he died in the late afternoon so there
were no 'hours in the desert night'. He was buried
by/around sundown for Pete's sake! Nineth hour
meant something different in the Eastern Medit.
of the 1st Century.
2)"wrappings": you are picturing this as if these
were mummy-like strips. The Shroud is 14 feet long
and 3 or 4 feet wide. It gives us a nearly full-
length double image (front and back) of the deceased.
3)blood: you aren't distinguishing between where
the blood is, and where it isn't, where it REALLY
soaked in and where there was too little to give
anything but the most superficial of coverings to
the cloth.
4)the image (NOT the blood) is on the upper fibrils only. THAT is another piece of evidence
that it is not a painting: paint, like blood tends
to seep thru.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

The hell we don't! He risked not only his life, but clearly considerable political favor and wealth in order to just have an audience with Pilate, let alone the release of a "man" for burial that had been convicted of sedition and crucified!

Apply your logic consistently if you please!

If Joseph did not consider Jesus to be anything more than a "man" and an "excellent teacher," then (a) he would not have been described by the gospels as one who "also awaited the kingdom of God," exegetical code words for "believer in Christ," and (b) never would have gone to Pilate to petition (aka, bribe) for his release!

Not according to the Roman guards who declare his divinity upon his death!



Joseph, an alleged wealthy Jew, with enough power and clout to approach Pilate does so on behalf of just a "man;" a "man" who was murdered by either the Sanhedrin in collusion with the Romans or just simply by the Romans, most likely for sedition (if he was "just a man")?

That's quite possibly the most proposterous thing you've conjectured so far. That would be the equivalent of a Jewish concentration camp traitor (the ones who became equivalent to camp prison guards, I forget the term) using all of their favors and most likely a considerable amount of barter to get inside the Kommandant's office in order to beg for the body of a man the Kommandant has had killed as an example to the other prisoners on behalf of other much more important Jewish traitors, for no reason at all, other than the man thought the guy killed was a good teacher.

It also contradicts the biblical accounts, which clearly state that Joseph was also "awaiting the kingdom of God," which every apologist and exegetical scholar will tell you was "code" for a believer in Jesus.

No big deal to unwrap a corpse after it had been place in its tomb? Highly doubtful, but irrelevant regardless. The point is that the body was not washed and therefore the shroud would have been covered in blood if the blood were fresh, which is what it would have to be to have absorbed through the shroud and into the "napkin" John tells us about and you allege is the Sudarium of Oviedo.

Please address the arguments.

Synaesthesia

The shroud of turin isn't of much interest to me, but I find it curious that the first historical mention of it is during the middle ages. A catholic bishop was denouncing it as a pious fraud.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, all I need to do is read what you've already provided, which I have and found serious problems that you have yet to address.

Nor did I say it did. I quoted the scripture, which stated that he died into the ninth hour, which means he was dripping blood profusely from all of those arterial wounds for a little over nine hours.

All the while the blood on him would have been drying, not remained fresh and therefore absorbant, which is the point.

There were certainly hours after he died while Joseph went to Pilate and bribed/convinced him to let him take Jesus and then went to the crucifix and took him down, etc, etc., so it's a pointless quibble of yours to avoid the argument to harp on my use of the word "night." The point was that he was draining of blood from at least (according to Meacham) 34 arterial wounds (30 "spike" wounds in the head, 4 nail wounds in the wrists and feet, most likely the ankles as that's where the feet nail would have to go through) for approximately nine hours in the dessert air (is that better) and then for at least (lest make it conservative) three more hours hanging there dead while Joseph travelled to Pilate's offices, bribed his way in to have a late night meeting with Pilate, convinced/bribed Pilate to release the body, go back to Golgotha, remove the body from the cross, etc., etc., etc., during which time the dead Jesus's already nine hours dried blood would have had three more hours of postmortum drying and draining prior to the body being wrapped by the shroud and the head being wrapped by the napkin, if John's gospel, the only one mentioning the side piercing (oh, yeah, let's not forget that), is to be believed.

If the gospel stories are true, which is under serious doubt independent of all of this nonsense in regard to the Shroud of Turin.

I know. It meant that he had been crucified for at least nine hours! I'm not talking about what time it was on the sundial, I'm talking about a man bleeding from arterial wounds for at least nine hours in the desert sun and then baking there dead for at least another three.

Let's say another one hour, what the hell! Let's say that it only took Joseph one hour to travel all the way from Golgotha to Pilate's office, convince/bribe Pilate to give him the body, get back to Golgotha and take Jesus down off the cross, that's still an entire hour of post mortum hanging after nine hours of bloodletting in the desert sun, which would have meant no fresh blood to absorb into any clothe of any kind, let alone through two layers, which would have been pointless to do in the first place, if the shroud covered the face and head and not just the body, as GJohn tells us was the case!

No, I am not. I am picturing precisely what GJohn and Isabel Piczek and Meacham describe was the case; a body wrapped in a shroud, not mummified.

Right, so there would be no need for a second facial shroud ("napkin") over the face and head!

What are you talking about? I am following precisely what Meacham (an archaelogist) describes is the case.

Not according to your own "evidence." I repeat:

For anything to "seep" through, it must be fresh, not dried.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Interesting:
<a href="http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990806-shroud/" target="_blank">http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990806-shroud/</a>

POLLENS. It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged "Hitler Diaries" genuine. Frei's tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset since similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had comparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the "lead" (or end), rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud. (See Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Summer 1994 pp. 379-385.)

FLORAL IMAGES. Accompanying the unscientific pollen evidence were claims that faint plant images have been "tentatively" identified on the shroud. These follow previous "discoveries" of "Roman coins" over the eyes and even Latin and Greek words, such as "Jesus" and "Nazareth," that some researchers see-Rorschach-like-in the shroud's mottled stains. The floral images were reported by a psychiatrist who has taken up image analysis and made other discredited claims about the shroud image.

BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts The "blood" has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.

OVIEDO CLOTH. Uncritical reportage suggested the Shroud of Turin gained credibility by being linked to another notorious cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo, which some believe was the "napkin" that covered Jesus' face. Unfortunately like other "relics" of Jesus-some 40 shrouds, vials of his blood and tears, and other products of medieval relic-mongering-the Oviedo cloth is of questionable provenance. It has no historical record prior to the eighth century and, in contrast to the shroud, lacks a facial image. The supposed matching of bloodstains on the Turin and Oviedo cloths is but another exercise in wishful thinking. As to the alleged matchup of pollens, once again the evidence comes from the questionable tapes of Max Frei.

DATING. The assertion that blood and pollen matching prove the Shroud of Turin dates to at least the eighth century is--based on the evidence--absurd. The shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated to circa 1260-1390 by three separate laboratories. The date is consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop's report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger and that he had confessed.

CONCLUSION. As in the past, claims that the Turin cloth may be authentic are simply based on "shroud science"--an approach that begins with the desired answer. In contrast, genuine science demonstrates emphatically that the shroud image is the work of a medieval artist and that the cloth never held a body--let alone that of Jesus.
--------


Some other CSCICOP resources on the shroud:
<a href="http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html" target="_blank">http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html</a>
"For example, they claim to have discovered microbial contamination on shroud samples that may have altered the radiocarbon dating. Yet for there to be sufficient contamination to raise the date thirteen centuries there would have to be twice as much debris, by weight, as the entire shroud itself! Moreover, the Vatican and the Archbishop of Turin have challenged the sample’s authenticity, and Walter McCrone insists that the fibers shown in photomicrographs of the piece of cloth “did not come from the ‘Shroud’ of Turin.”"
------
<a href="http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00097.html" target="_blank">http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00097.html</a>
Samples of what was claimed to be blood failed a battery of tests in 1973. In the late 1970s, forensic microanalyst Walter McCrone, an expert in examining the authenticity of documents and paintings, identified the "blood" of the shroud as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint, and concluded that the entire image was painted.

Koyaanisqatsi

What a shock.

Copious: 1 a : yielding something abundantly &lt;a copious harvest&gt; &lt;copious springs&gt; b : plentiful in number &lt;copious references to other writers&gt;
2 a : full of thought, information, or matter b : profuse or exuberant in words, expression, or style &lt;a copious talker&gt;
3 : present in large quantity : taking place on a large scale &lt;copious weeping&gt; &lt;copious food and drink&gt;

The word "copious" is a very specific qualifier as well as a somewhat esoteric one. There is no doubt as to its meaning or intended meaning.

Nice try.

Again, from your own "evidence":

Backpeddling is so telling, yes? Speaking of which:

...upon whether or not this destroys Meacham's credibility and therefore yours through this pathetic attempt to reconcile the obvious contradiction.

Cheers!

leonarde

Koy,
Well maybe YOU use the word "wrapped" differently now than the 25 years or so I spent of
my life in New York but to ME "wrapped" means
covering repeatedly like the wrappings over the
handle of a baseball bat or the wrappings of a
mummy or "Saran Wrap". Still if you did NOT mean
that, then why were you indicating that it would
be such a difficulty to uncover the body on Sunday? It would only prove very difficult if it
were wrapped up LIKE a mummy.
I think Joseph of Arimithea did a fine thing
in burying Christ. But you are making it out to
be the most daring of exploits imaginable. People
are executed in various countries today. In some
of them friends or next of kin gain permission to
take the body away. The Romans killed many by
crucifixion. After death, a corpse is a disposal
problem for the executioner(s). Pilate seems to
have born no particular ill will toward Jesus:
he agreed to the crucifixion under pressure (from
a mob and from members of the Sanhedrin who incited that mob).
I say again: Joseph AND Nicodemus AND many others had only the dimmest of ideas about Jesus'
nature. They were Jews and for them then, as now,
God was unitary (one Person), Spirit, invisible,
and mysterious. Jesus' words must have seemed VERY
odd to even his disciples. They were so astonished
by the Resurrection PRECISELY because they DIDN'T fully understand Him when He said "I and the Father are one". The understanding came (in some cases much)later.
Cheers!

leonarde

Posted by Koyaanisqatsi: Well then, tell me the answer to my (originally rhetorical) question: is a half a pint
of blood a "copious" amount? A quarter of a pint?
An eighth of a pint? All these amounts will show
up on a white sheet of linen but they are NOT the
same amount and people will use different terms
to describe the SAME thing depending on:
1)expectations.
2)standards.
3)experience.

Your dictionary gave, among other examples, "a copious harvest". How many bushels of corn/wheat/
soybeans/whatever would be necessary for that?
Again it depends on:
1)the size of the farm (generally bigger out west).
2)how much of the farm was sown in a given spring.
3)certain expectations based on weather patterns,
insect infestations etc.

I wouldn't make such a big deal out of this if YOU
weren't: it seems that you have given up entirely
on the merits and are mining Meacham for any and
all inconsistencies in what he wrote/said. He is
an archaeologist and spent years, if not decades of his life studying about the Shroud of Turin.
I doubt that you have read a single pro-authenticity book.
Cheers!