St Paul found
Neil Davey
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6219656.stm
Cheers
Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use daveyneil_at_yahoo dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Kendall K. Down
Neil Davey <nda...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> You may have caught this already, if not then it may be of interest.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6219656.stm
It is both exciting and disappointing. Exciting because the sarcophagus
bears an inscription identifying it as belonging to Paul and thereby
confirming the tradition that St Paul was buried on the site.
Disappointing because the sarcophagus dates from the fourth century AD,
making it 300 years older than St Paul, so if it is him inside (assuming
there is anyone inside!) it must be a reburial. However even if there are
bones inside, it will be impossible to prove that they are his - though it
might be interesting to see if the skeleton in any way resembled the
description in the Acts of Thekla.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Peter Ashby
> In message <omiin2ps636e8847j...@4ax.com>
> Neil Davey <nda...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > You may have caught this already, if not then it may be of interest.
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6219656.stm
>
> It is both exciting and disappointing. Exciting because the sarcophagus
> bears an inscription identifying it as belonging to Paul and thereby
> confirming the tradition that St Paul was buried on the site.
>
> Disappointing because the sarcophagus dates from the fourth century AD,
> making it 300 years older than St Paul, so if it is him inside (assuming
> there is anyone inside!) it must be a reburial. However even if there are
> bones inside, it will be impossible to prove that they are his - though it
> might be interesting to see if the skeleton in any way resembled the
> description in the Acts of Thekla.
Or carbon dates to the right period, and can be shown by isotope
analysis of a tooth sample to have grown up in the Middle East. Just two
modern ways of telling. Don't hold your breath on these being allowed
though.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
Phil Saunders
news:1hq2kg0.1lcfnxn1irbsw9N%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk...
What difference would it make to anyone if the bones are proved to be from
the right time and place?
Phil
Peter Ashby
It is more a case of what would be proved if they were not. There can't
have been too many Jews in Rome in the middle of the first century CE,
so it would at the very least reduce the list of possibles.
Considering the activities over relics over time it would seem only
prudent to consider fraud, or simple mistake. Not that I expect the
church to use that logic...
Phil Saunders
Ok what would be proved if they were not?
> Considering the activities over relics over time it would seem only
> prudent to consider fraud, or simple mistake. Not that I expect the
> church to use that logic...
Your cynicism is noted.
Phil
David A.
Neil Davey <nda...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> You may have caught this already, if not then it may be of interest.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6219656.stm
Well yeah, I just hope we don't see all the shenanigans that were
associated with the alleged discovery of St Peter's bones.
<http://www.americanatheist.org/spr97/T2/bones.html>
<http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/historyandclassics/news.cfm?story=27355>
Interestingly enough, Peter's tomb has been discovered in Jerusalem as
well:
<http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm>
Peter Ashby
That they could not thereby be the remains of the person claimed.
> > Considering the activities over relics over time it would seem only
> > prudent to consider fraud, or simple mistake. Not that I expect the
> > church to use that logic...
>
> Your cynicism is noted.
One man's cynic is another man's realist. I base my prediction firmly on
the church's response to the finding that the Shroud of Turin is almost
certainly a medieval forgery. If an object/relic has been an object of
veneration for the faithful it seems it should continue to be so, even
if it is not in any way what it is believed to be.
Prai Jei
<da014b1983-946E2...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Interestingly enough, Peter's tomb has been discovered in Jerusalem as
> well:
> <http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm>
That would be 2 Peter :)
--
Terms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. Subject to status.
Contains moderate language. Always read the label. Keep out of children.
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
sar...@supanet.com
>
> It is more a case of what would be proved if they were not. There can't
> have been too many Jews in Rome in the middle of the first century CE,
> so it would at the very least reduce the list of possibles.
>
There was probably quite a large Jewish ethnic minority in Rome in the
1st century CE.
However establishing that the (hypothetical) corpse was that of a
Jewish
male from the Eastern Mediterranean who died 50-75 CE at an age of
around 60 might cumulatively be impressive.
Andrew Criddle
Debbie
Ashby) wrote:
>It is more a case of what would be proved if they were not. There can't
>have been too many Jews in Rome in the middle of the first century CE,
>so it would at the very least reduce the list of possibles.
Actually there were lots - a significant Jewish population right in
Rome. Most of my church history stuff is at the office, but Walters
(Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the Romans) cites estimates of
40,000-50,000 out of a total population of 650,000.
--
Debbie posting as Debbie
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Or carbon dates to the right period, and can be shown by isotope
> analysis of a tooth sample to have grown up in the Middle East. Just two
> modern ways of telling. Don't hold your breath on these being allowed
> though.
Still wouldn't prove that it was St Paul, though.
Peter Ashby
Indeed, however the benefit of that will be weighed by the church
against the downside if it turns out to be a 30 year old from southern
France dated to a hundred years or so before the coffin. While it would
not be the first venerated fake, this is supposed to be St. Paul, not
just some common saint but he of the restless pen. Oh no, no such tests
will be allowed, or if they are, the result will be embargoed, unless it
is positive.
Peter Ashby
OK, thanks. I will revise my view accordingly. So it will not improve
matters much if the body is a Jewish Male who grew up in Palestine. I
suppose we would be left with the right age. Surely not too hard to find
a beheaded corpse for a fake...
Peter Ashby
> In message <1hq2kg0.1lcfnxn1irbsw9N%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
> > Or carbon dates to the right period, and can be shown by isotope
> > analysis of a tooth sample to have grown up in the Middle East. Just two
> > modern ways of telling. Don't hold your breath on these being allowed
> > though.
>
> Still wouldn't prove that it was St Paul, though.
Maybe not, but it would greatly improve the odds. Think of the kudoes if
at least ONE relic were genuine ;-)
Revd. Eric Potts
I tend to share Peter's cynicism about this.
The most that can possibly be established is that the bones found in
"St Paul's sarcophagus" are not inconsistent with the possibility that
the bones are those of St Paul.
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"
sar...@supanet.com
<SNIP>
>
> Interestingly enough, Peter's tomb has been discovered in Jerusalem as
> well:
> <http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm>
All that seems to have been discovered is an ossuary of someone
called Simon bar Jona
Andrew Criddle
David A.
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
Saul, or Paul, as he was later known, was said to be from Tarsus in Asia
Minor; in those days that made him a Greek. He did claim Jewish descent,
but that does not necessarily mean that his family had connections with
Palestine. It has always been possible to become Jewish by conversion,
and indeed, Judaism was a major proselytizing religion in antiquity,
hence the high figures of Roman Jews that Debbie quotes. (And I imagine
that many of the Jews of present-day Italy are descendants of those
Jewish Romans.)
There were also God-fearers, people who were attracted to the Jewish
religion and vaguely followed it without actually converting (and, in
the case of males, getting circumcised!), and I don't know if they are
included in the numbers above. Ii believe that God-fearers would have
been prime candidates for the Pauline type of Christianity.
DA
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> Or carbon dates to the right period, and can be shown by isotope
> analysis of a tooth sample to have grown up in the Middle East. Just two
> modern ways of telling. Don't hold your breath on these being allowed
> though.
According to Acts 14 , Paul was stoned to the point where people
thought he was dead.
So presumably the skeleton should show evidence of healings of broken
ribs, fractured skull, broken legs etc.
Phil Saunders
news:1165780811.7...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
You failed to note that he was healed instantly then. Hardly the normal
process for recovery, why should you expect normal scars etc?
regards
Phil
Debbie
...or traces of cannabis?
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1165780811.7...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > According to Acts 14 , Paul was stoned to the point where people
> > thought he was dead.
> > So presumably the skeleton should show evidence of healings of broken
> > ribs, fractured skull, broken legs etc.
> You failed to note that he was healed instantly then. Hardly the normal
> process for recovery, why should you expect normal scars etc?
I forgot that the swoon theory is regarded as Gospel Truth by some
Christians, whenever it suits them to say so, and regarded as
ridiculous , whenever it suits them to say that.
If a skeleton with no signs of fractures is discovered, it will be
taken as scientific proof of a miracle?!?
How do we know that beheading actually killed Paul? Perhaps he was
instantly healed.
St. Denis managed to carry his head 2 miles to his final resting place.
What a wimp Paul was!
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> ...or traces of cannabis?
After all these years?
sar...@supanet.com
>
> Saul, or Paul, as he was later known, was said to be from Tarsus in Asia
> Minor; in those days that made him a Greek. He did claim Jewish descent,
> but that does not necessarily mean that his family had connections with
> Palestine. It has always been possible to become Jewish by conversion,
> and indeed, Judaism was a major proselytizing religion in antiquity,
> hence the high figures of Roman Jews that Debbie quotes. (And I imagine
> that many of the Jews of present-day Italy are descendants of those
> Jewish Romans.)
>
Paul claims (Philippians 3:5) to be of the tribe of Benjamin.
This seems to imply Jewish racial/ethic identity. ultimately
going back to Palestine.
Andrew Criddle
David A.
sar...@supanet.com wrote:
>
> Paul claims (Philippians 3:5) to be of the tribe of Benjamin.
> This seems to imply Jewish racial/ethic identity. ultimately
> going back to Palestine.
Were there any actual Benjaminites left in Paul's day? Maccoby ascribes
this to Paul's ignorance, but I would rather think that he is using the
expression in a figurative sense, i.e. truly Jewish but of unspecified
provenance.
Alec Brady
<1165789016.1...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
Well, yes, if he was *that* stoned.
Peter Ashby
We have tested Egyptian mummies as well as South American ones for such
compounds. It might require hair or skin samples though.
philip....@ntlworld.com
> Phil Saunders wrote:
>
> > <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1165780811.7...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > According to Acts 14 , Paul was stoned to the point where people
> > > thought he was dead.
>
> > > So presumably the skeleton should show evidence of healings of broken
> > > ribs, fractured skull, broken legs etc.
>
> > You failed to note that he was healed instantly then. Hardly the normal
> > process for recovery, why should you expect normal scars etc?
>
> I forgot that the swoon theory is regarded as Gospel Truth by some
> Christians, whenever it suits them to say so, and regarded as
> ridiculous , whenever it suits them to say that.
Sorry but were you under the illusion that I have ever suggested that
Paul swooned? Did you think that I change what I believe to suit the
discussion?
If you are under such illusions I suggest that you re assess and start
again.
If you werent then please stop posting such childish rubbish.
> If a skeleton with no signs of fractures is discovered, it will be
> taken as scientific proof of a miracle?!?
No matter what the tests show it makes no difference to anything I
believe or think. Im not a Christian because St Paul is buried in Rome
or because he wasnt, no part of my theology hangs on the final resting
place of the bones of St Paul.
> How do we know that beheading actually killed Paul? Perhaps he was
> instantly healed.
Perhaps he wasnt beheaded, why do you care?
> St. Denis managed to carry his head 2 miles to his final resting place.
Perhaps it was empty and it wasnt required for motor functions in his
case :-) I can think of some people who appear to be like that....
Phil
Neil Davey
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> jumped up and down excitedly and wrote
the following:
>Disappointing because the sarcophagus dates from the fourth century AD,
>making it 300 years older than St Paul, so if it is him inside (assuming
>there is anyone inside!) it must be a reburial.
From another news site: "The sarcophagus is thought to date from AD
390, when the Emperor Theodosius "saved" the remains and moved them to
the site, near the Appian Way."
And "The head is not thought to be with the rest of the remains.
Instead, it is supposed to be located inside a silver bust at the St
John Lateran church on the Celian hill. St Peter's head is also
thought to be there."
>...However even if there are
>bones inside, it will be impossible to prove that they are his - though it
>might be interesting to see if the skeleton in any way resembled the
>description in the Acts of Thekla.
It's an interesting find nonetheless.
Cheers
Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use daveyneil_at_yahoo dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Kendall K. Down
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
> So presumably the skeleton should show evidence of healings of broken
> ribs, fractured skull, broken legs etc.
Though if they were miraculously healed - as the story you quote implies -
it is not clear to me that there would be any evidence of healing. The
phrase "good as new" springs to mind.
Kendall K. Down
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > >So presumably the skeleton should show evidence of healings of broken
> > >ribs, fractured skull, broken legs etc.
> > ...or traces of cannabis?
> After all these years?
Well, I don't know about burial under Italian conditions, but bowls have
been found from the 1st century AD in Israel which bore traces of cannabis.
(It had been used in attempt to alleviate the agony of a girl of 12 who died
attempt to give birth.)
Kendall K. Down
"David A." <da014...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Were there any actual Benjaminites left in Paul's day? Maccoby ascribes
> this to Paul's ignorance, but I would rather think that he is using the
> expression in a figurative sense, i.e. truly Jewish but of unspecified
> provenance.
Whether there were any actual Benjamites left may be a matter for debate,
but there is no reason why people might not have claimed such descent. Ezra
was certainly under the impression that many of those who returned from
Exile were from the tribe of Benjamin.
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Phil Saunders <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote in message
> > > Considering the activities over relics over time it would seem only
> > > prudent to consider fraud, or simple mistake. Not that I expect the
> > > church to use that logic...
> >
> > Your cynicism is noted.
>
> One man's cynic is another man's realist. I base my prediction firmly on
> the church's response to the finding that the Shroud of Turin is almost
> certainly a medieval forgery. If an object/relic has been an object of
> veneration for the faithful it seems it should continue to be so, even
> if it is not in any way what it is believed to be.
I agree that the Shroud of Turin is almost certainly not authentic.
Even if all scientific tests had come out positive, I can't imagine how
one would argue that this was necessarily Jesus' shroud and not some
other male's whose crucifixion happened to display the kind of wounds
that Jesus got. Thousands were crucified in those times, and maybe the
kind of torture that Jesus was subjected to was not that uncommon. One
way or the other the truth about the Shroud of Turin has no spiritual
relevance at all.
On the other hand I find the Catholic Church's official position to be
quite reasonable. Here is what John Paul II stated in stated in 1998,
"Since we're not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can't
pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks
of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the
questions connected to this shroud."
sar...@supanet.com
Mishnah Taanith chapter 4 mentions the Benjaminite family of Senaa
among those who had the privilege of bringing wood for the temple.
There are later rabbinic traditions in which Rabbi Eleazar b. Zadoq and
Rabbi Judah the Prince are claimed to be at least partly of Benjaminite
descent.
Both traditions are problematic (there are also claims that Eleazar was
of
priestly lineage and Rabbi Judah from the tribe of Judah) but at least
it
shows that Benjamite descent was a plausible claim to be made about
prominent Jewish figures.
What may well be true is that at the time of Jesus few Jews claimed
tribal
descent from tribes other than Judah Levi and Benjamin.
Andrew Criddle
David A.
sar...@supanet.com wrote:
> David A. wrote:
> > In article <1165789388.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > sar...@supanet.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul claims (Philippians 3:5) to be of the tribe of Benjamin.
> > > This seems to imply Jewish racial/ethic identity. ultimately
> > > going back to Palestine.
> >
> > Were there any actual Benjaminites left in Paul's day? Maccoby ascribes
> > this to Paul's ignorance, but I would rather think that he is using the
> > expression in a figurative sense, i.e. truly Jewish but of unspecified
> > provenance.
>
> Mishnah Taanith chapter 4 mentions the Benjaminite family of Senaa
> among those who had the privilege of bringing wood for the temple.
> There are later rabbinic traditions in which Rabbi Eleazar b. Zadoq and
>
> Rabbi Judah the Prince are claimed to be at least partly of Benjaminite
>
> descent.
> Both traditions are problematic (there are also claims that Eleazar was
> of
> priestly lineage and Rabbi Judah from the tribe of Judah) but at least
> it
> shows that Benjamite descent was a plausible claim to be made about
> prominent Jewish figures.
Andrew Criddle Does Research
Kudos!
Peter Ashby
Did they repudiate the veneration of the object? advise the faithfull
not to venerate it? order the cathedral to shut it away? No? what a
wonderfully cynical bunch they are. And thinking they can have their
cake and eat it. Too much pondering on the mircacle of the loaves and
fishes there I think.
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Dianelos Georgoudis <dian...@tecapro.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > On the other hand I find the Catholic Church's official position to be
> > quite reasonable. Here is what John Paul II stated in stated in 1998,
> > "Since we're not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can't
> > pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks
> > of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the
> > questions connected to this shroud."
>
> Did they repudiate the veneration of the object? advise the faithfull
> not to venerate it? order the cathedral to shut it away? No? what a
> wonderfully cynical bunch they are. And thinking they can have their
> cake and eat it. Too much pondering on the mircacle of the loaves and
> fishes there I think.
The Catholic Church does repudiate the veneration of the objects
themselves, and does advice the faithful not to venerate any objects:
the veneration of the faithful must be directed to what the object
symbolizes, roughly in the same way that a national flag is venerated.
Also, the cathedral has shut the Shroud away. Peter maybe you are not
as careful with your facts about religion as you are with scientific
facts.
William Meacham
wrote :
>I agree that the Shroud of Turin is almost certainly not
authentic.
>Even if all scientific tests had come out positive, I can't
imagine how
>one would argue that this was necessarily Jesus' shroud and not
some
>other male's whose crucifixion happened to display the kind of
wounds
>that Jesus got. Thousands were crucified in those times, and
maybe the
>kind of torture that Jesus was subjected to was not that
uncommon. One
>way or the other the truth about the Shroud of Turin has no
spiritual
>relevance at all
This exchange concerning the Turin Shroud reveals the cliches
that have entered the public mind regarding the relic. The truth
is that it has NOT been proven to be medieval, as the C-14
dating was seriously flawed. I devoted 100 pages in my recent
book "The Rape of the Turin Shroud" (see
<www.lulu.com/content/144747> to read the preface online) for a
detailed examination of how it happened and why, and what needs
to be done to obtain a reliable radiocarbon age for the cloth,
leaving aside the issue of whether that age equals with the
real calendar age. It usually does, but there are many
exceptions.
Furthermore, there is quite compelling evidence to link the
Shroud to Jesus, and to reject the notion that others were
subjected to similar kinds of torture. One could argue that
anything could have happened and nothing can be proven in
history or archaeology, but applying the same standards used for
other issues in those fields, one can reach reasonable
conclusions from the evidence -- Shakespeare did write the
plays, Hitler and Elvis are dead, men did walk on the moon, etc.
Along with many others who have been deeply interested in the
Shroud, the late Bishop John A.T. Robinson believed that it did
indeed have a very important spiritual relevance. Even if, by
some extremely unlikely confluence of coincidences, it was from
some other crucifixion victim who suffered in the same manner as
Jesus, the facts that the relic demonstrate about the
unimaginable suffering inflicted on Jesus are certainly relevant
to the Christian.
William Meacham
[in email address replace 'z' with 'h']
Dianelos Georgoudis
[snip]
> This exchange concerning the Turin Shroud reveals the cliches
> that have entered the public mind regarding the relic. The truth
> is that it has NOT been proven to be medieval, as the C-14
> dating was seriously flawed. I devoted 100 pages in my recent
> book "The Rape of the Turin Shroud" (see
> <www.lulu.com/content/144747> to read the preface online) for a
> detailed examination of how it happened and why, and what needs
> to be done to obtain a reliable radiocarbon age for the cloth,
> leaving aside the issue of whether that age equals with the
> real calendar age. It usually does, but there are many
> exceptions.
>
> Furthermore, there is quite compelling evidence to link the
> Shroud to Jesus, and to reject the notion that others were
> subjected to similar kinds of torture. One could argue that
> anything could have happened and nothing can be proven in
> history or archaeology, but applying the same standards used for
> other issues in those fields, one can reach reasonable
> conclusions from the evidence -- Shakespeare did write the
> plays, Hitler and Elvis are dead, men did walk on the moon, etc.
Well, I agree that the object itself is quite interesting, and it's a
pity the Catholic Church did not allow for any further tests. They
could have allowed for more radiocarbon dating, as well as for DNA
tasting of the blood stains.
Is it true that nobody has managed to reproduce the physical
characteristics of the Shroud? BTW, the Wikipedia article about the
Shroud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin) has a rather poor
image of it; if you have a better photograph you might want to upload
it there.
> Along with many others who have been deeply interested in the
> Shroud, the late Bishop John A.T. Robinson believed that it did
> indeed have a very important spiritual relevance. Even if, by
> some extremely unlikely confluence of coincidences, it was from
> some other crucifixion victim who suffered in the same manner as
> Jesus, the facts that the relic demonstrate about the
> unimaginable suffering inflicted on Jesus are certainly relevant
> to the Christian.
Let us assume this is Jesus' shroud. I agree it would be kind of neat
to have a photographic image of Jesus. But how would this have a
*spiritual* significance? Surely how Jesus looked like has no spiritual
relevance.
As for the suffering of Jesus we have the gospels that describe it. And
the details of his suffering have no particular significance. Anybody
understands that to be nailed on a wooden cross and be left to die is
suffering enough. I personally find the recent interest in this matter,
as demonstrated in a recent gory movie, to be quite unseemly. Imagine
that somebody you loved was tortured and executed - would you really
want to know the details, or see a picture of your beloved one's
battered body?
Michael J Davis
<wmea...@zkucc.zku.zk> writes
Hi William
I am aware of the arguments that I suspect you employ in your book, so
good on you for writing it!
However, I would be more interested in your qualifications and authority
behind such a text. I couldn't see that on your lulu pages.
(I only discovered lulu a month ago, and I am aware that many cranks are
also using this exciting web publishing opportunity!)
Thanks for any response.
Mike
PS welcome to uk.r.c. I think we have some 2007 flavoured jelly babies,
do help yourself while they last!
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
Official uk.r.c. jelly babies picture:-
William Meacham
Lulu page www.lulu.com/content/144747 -- click on "Preview this
book." It is after the introductory pages and chapter-by-chapter
synopsis.
As an archaeologist, I have a natural affinity for (and also
skepticism towards) relics. In response to Dianelos' last post,
since this thread started with the news that perhaps St Paul's
remains had been found, it has to be recognized that for many
people the physical remains of a saint have a profound spiritual
significance, as does any item that was in contact with the
saint, such as a bishop's ring, or even an article of clothing.
This arises perhaps out of the reverence humans have for the
earthly remains of their deceased loved ones; in the case of the
saints their bones and any items associated with them during
life would recall their holiness. The Shroud if genuine would
clearly be THE relic par excellence.
"Spiritual importance" is obviously a very personal thing, and I
don't know what objective criteria can be used for determining
it. My response about the Shroud's spiritual relevance was the
first thing that came to my mind, based on my own reaction to
it. A similar response was noted by Pope Pius XII, who remarked
that he often came to tears when reading the book "A Surgeon at
Calvary" in which Pierre Barbet described in excruciating detail
the torment and suffering of the man whose image is on the
Shroud. The Pope said " no one ever told us these things." For a
lot of us, repeating the phrase "suffered under Pontius Pilate"
over the years simply never carried the full force of what
terrible pain was endured.
Assuming it is authentic, the Shroud has been called "The Fifth
Gospel" as it provides details of the Passion, burial, and
possibly Resurrection of Christ. There is specific evidence of
the flogging, crowning with thorns, carrying the cross,
nailing, death on the cross and deposition of the body. All of
these very specific details, either corroborating or amplifying
on the biblical account, would have spiritual significance to
many, perhaps most Christians.
The Shroud if authentic also clarifies the biblical account of
the burial linens as found in the tomb, and helps to explain
what was so powerful about the scene that "they saw and
believed." I went back and reread Bishop Robinson's essay on the
Shroud (in the book "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud"), and
his take on its importance is interesting:
"The first thing that the genuineness of the Shroud shakes is
the theory that the whole story of the empty tomb is an
invention of the early church."
Further,
"if genuine, the Shroud would also constrain us to take more
seriously the details in ... the Fourth Gospel ... I have become
convinced that it contains some of the best history in the New
Testament."
In addition to being a relic of Christ as discussed above, if
authentic the Turin Shroud would have an enormous spiritual
significance to those who believe in "His blood which was shed
for us," since some of that blood is preserved on the cloth.
For the Eastern Orthodox and many other Christians, it is not
merely "kind of neat" to know what Jesus looked like. The true
image of Christ would be the holiest icon of all, and something
which would inspire deep reverence, prayer and meditation.
People have said that the majesty of the Shroud face (as
revealed by modern photography with dark and light reversed)
inspired them.
So it seems to me that there are many facets of potential
spiritual significance that hinge on the Shroud's authenticity.
William Meacham
University of Hong Kong
[for real email address change 'z' to 'h']
Michael J Davis
<wmea...@zkucc.zku.zk> writes
>Thanks for the welcome, Mike. I have a short bio on the book's
>Lulu page www.lulu.com/content/144747 -- click on "Preview this
>book." It is after the introductory pages and chapter-by-chapter
>synopsis.
I must be exceptionally stupid. I find I just go round in circles. All I
get is a synopsis and either an order page or back to the main page with
reviews. I haven't yet seen a chapter by chapter synopsis. Just an
overall one. Even clicking on your name merely takes me round again.
>
>As an archaeologist,
Well that's a start! ;-)
Could you just copy and paste what I can't find please?
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Tony Gillam
> Assuming it is authentic, the Shroud has been called "The Fifth
> Gospel" as it provides details of the Passion, burial, and
> possibly Resurrection of Christ. There is specific evidence of
> the flogging, crowning with thorns, carrying the cross,
> nailing, death on the cross and deposition of the body. All of
> these very specific details, either corroborating or amplifying
> on the biblical account, would have spiritual significance to
> many, perhaps most Christians.
>
> The Shroud if authentic also clarifies the biblical account of
> the burial linens as found in the tomb, and helps to explain
> what was so powerful about the scene that "they saw and
> believed." I went back and reread Bishop Robinson's essay on the
> Shroud (in the book "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud"), and
> his take on its importance is interesting:
>
> "The first thing that the genuineness of the Shroud shakes is
> the theory that the whole story of the empty tomb is an
> invention of the early church."
>
in contact with the body longer than Jesus was in the tomb. If genuine,
I would have thought that it was evidence "against" the resurrection.
But then, I'm not a scientist.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Alec Brady
<502r12F...@mid.individual.net>,
"Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>ISTM that for a face to become imprinted on a shroud it would need to be
>in contact with the body longer than Jesus was in the tomb. If genuine,
>I would have thought that it was evidence "against" the resurrection.
>But then, I'm not a scientist.
It sounds like you have a mechanism in mind. How might a face become
imprinted on a shroud?
Dianelos Georgoudis
> In message <459ae568$1...@127.0.0.1>, William Meacham
> <wmea...@zkucc.zku.zk> writes
> >Thanks for the welcome, Mike. I have a short bio on the book's
> >Lulu page www.lulu.com/content/144747 -- click on "Preview this
> >book." It is after the introductory pages and chapter-by-chapter
> >synopsis.
>
> I must be exceptionally stupid. I find I just go round in circles. All I
> get is a synopsis and either an order page or back to the main page with
> reviews. I haven't yet seen a chapter by chapter synopsis. Just an
> overall one. Even clicking on your name merely takes me round again.
You must first click on "Preview this book" and then keep clicking on
the arrow for next page until you get to the bio. An easier way is to
visit Amazon's page where the bio of the author is included:
http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Turin-Shroud-William-Meacham/dp/product-description/1411657691
Tony Gillam
I don't know. Just pondering the discharge of any fluid created in the
decomposition of the body.
Alec Brady
<503rg1F...@mid.individual.net>,
"Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>Alec Brady wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:51:42 -0000, in
>> <502r12F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>>> ISTM that for a face to become imprinted on a shroud it would need
>>> to be in contact with the body longer than Jesus was in the tomb. If
>>> genuine, I would have thought that it was evidence "against" the
>>> resurrection. But then, I'm not a scientist.
>>
>> It sounds like you have a mechanism in mind. How might a face become
>> imprinted on a shroud?
>
>I don't know. Just pondering the discharge of any fluid created in the
>decomposition of the body.
I think your reasoning is circular. You assume a natural mechanism,
and the supposed implications of that assumption become evidence
against a supernatural mechanism. Perhaps the image was a side-effect
of whatever happened at the Resurrection. Perhaps it was caused by the
decomposition of Jesus' body. But, absent any concrete evidence, the
guess one way or the other can't be evidence for itself!
Tony Gillam
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:09:29 -0000, in
> <503rg1F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>> I don't know. Just pondering the discharge of any fluid created in
>> the decomposition of the body.
>
> I think your reasoning is circular.
That's so that I don't bang my shins on the corners. ;-)
Dianelos Georgoudis
> As an archaeologist, I have a natural affinity for (and also
> skepticism towards) relics. In response to Dianelos' last post,
> since this thread started with the news that perhaps St Paul's
> remains had been found, it has to be recognized that for many
> people the physical remains of a saint have a profound spiritual
> significance, as does any item that was in contact with the
> saint, such as a bishop's ring, or even an article of clothing.
> This arises perhaps out of the reverence humans have for the
> earthly remains of their deceased loved ones; in the case of the
> saints their bones and any items associated with them during
> life would recall their holiness. The Shroud if genuine would
> clearly be THE relic par excellence. [snip]
>
> "Spiritual importance" is obviously a very personal thing, and I
> don't know what objective criteria can be used for determining
> it. My response about the Shroud's spiritual relevance was the
> first thing that came to my mind, based on my own reaction to
> it. A similar response was noted by Pope Pius XII, who remarked
> that he often came to tears when reading the book "A Surgeon at
> Calvary" in which Pierre Barbet described in excruciating detail
> the torment and suffering of the man whose image is on the
> Shroud. The Pope said " no one ever told us these things." For a
> lot of us, repeating the phrase "suffered under Pontius Pilate"
> over the years simply never carried the full force of what
> terrible pain was endured.
[snip]
> For the Eastern Orthodox and many other Christians, it is not
> merely "kind of neat" to know what Jesus looked like. The true
> image of Christ would be the holiest icon of all, and something
> which would inspire deep reverence, prayer and meditation.
> People have said that the majesty of the Shroud face (as
> revealed by modern photography with dark and light reversed)
> inspired them.
Please don't get me wrong. Jesus is arguably the most influential
person in world history, and if this should be his shroud and the face
visible in it an actual photographic image of Jesus then the Turin
Shroud would certainly be a remarkably important *historical* object,
indeed one of a kind. But according to my use of words at least it
would still have no spiritual significance; for me there are no holy
icons. I agree though that if we could know that this is Jesus' face it
would have a powerful emotional impact on Christians; we all kind of
lament not to have been lucky enough to have known Christ in the flesh.
Incidentally I found out that there is a huge amount of visual
information hidden in the Shroud. As I was unhappy with the positive
images I could find I processed a photograph of the Shroud myself and
produced what I think is a remarkably lifelike image, which I have
published here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:TurinshroudC3.jpg - it seems
obvious to me that this cannot be a painting by an artist working
around 1350 CE. I also learned that the non-authenticity of the Shroud
is not the slam dunk case I thought it was and that there are still
spirited discussions going on, see for example here:
http://shroud.com/bar.htm
> So it seems to me that there are many facets of potential
> spiritual significance that hinge on the Shroud's authenticity.
What I find infuriating is that we do have the means to date the
Shroud, and the carbon dating could be repeated in a more careful
manner. I don't understand why the RCC does not allow that - after
all it is a large piece of cloth.
Gareth McCaughan
> Incidentally I found out that there is a huge amount of visual
> information hidden in the Shroud. As I was unhappy with the positive
> images I could find I processed a photograph of the Shroud myself and
> produced what I think is a remarkably lifelike image, which I have
> published here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:TurinshroudC3.jpg - it seems
> obvious to me that this cannot be a painting by an artist working
> around 1350 CE.
Can you explain why that isn't obvious?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan
Er, I mean "... why that is obvious", of course.
Quasin
IIRC, there have been contests for artists to paint or an
image in photographic negative that could be made into a
positive image of a person. No successes last I heard, even
though today's artists are familiar with photographic
negatives, unlike artists of centuries ago.
Back in the late 70s some folks at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in California used a VP-8 image analyzer
(produced 3-D images) on photos of the shroud and were
surprised to see a perfect three-dimensional image of a man.
Apparently, a 2-D photo of a person can give only a warped
picture in this 3-D machine, so this result with the shroud
was unexpected.
"Report on the Shroud of Turin" by Dr. John H Heller, and
some other books, describe this 3-D image and why it's unusual.
Gareth McCaughan
> IIRC, there have been contests for artists to paint or an image in
> photographic negative that could be made into a positive image of a
> person. No successes last I heard, even though today's artists are
> familiar with photographic negatives, unlike artists of centuries ago.
A photographic negative of the Turin shroud isn't a particularly
realistic image of a person. If you're seriously claiming that
artists have tried to produce something that in negative looks
as person-like as the Turin shroud does, then I find that extremely
implausible and would like to know where you heard this.
> Back in the late 70s some folks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
> California used a VP-8 image analyzer (produced 3-D images) on photos
> of the shroud and were surprised to see a perfect three-dimensional
> image of a man. Apparently, a 2-D photo of a person can give only a
> warped picture in this 3-D machine, so this result with the shroud was
> unexpected.
It hardly seems to be a "perfect three-dimensional image
of a man", which I agree would be quite remarkable. See,
e.g., http://www.shroud.com/78strp10.htm for some sample
pictures.
The VP-8 results, as I understand them (which isn't very
far; I've not really looked into this), are interesting
because they suggest that darkness on the shroud is
correlated not with light and dark but with distance
from the cloth to a roughly human-shaped body covered
by the cloth. You might get something of the kind if
the image were made by gases emitted from a corpse,
or by radiation emitted from the surface of a body
when it was magically resurrected. What's not clear
is whether the results are compatible at all with the
shroud's having been made by a mediaeval artist. (The
fact that photographs don't tend to give sensible
3-d reconstructions isn't very relevant unless a
hypothetical mediaeval artist would have included
shadows and suchlike in just the same way as a photograph
does, which doesn't seem terribly likely.)
Here's one possible way in which the Shroud could have
been made that seems pretty much compatible with the VP-8
thing. (I make no claim that it's compatible with anything
else.) Cover a person in paint; wrap him in a cloth;
unwrap it again; and then tidy up the image on the cloth
a bit.
Dianelos Georgoudis
My main reason is this:
Suppose the image on the Shroud is painted. Then it must have been
painted some time around or before 1350, as the Shroud is known to have
existed in 1357. Now consider the state of the art painting of this
era. Here are two paintings by Giotto (1267-1337)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Giotto_-_Scrovegni_-_-31-_-_Kiss_of_Judas.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/giotto/mourning-christ/mourning-christ.jpg
In 1450, that is at least 100 years after the Shroud was painted, here
is the most natural faces that Piero della Francesca could manage:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Piero_della_Francesca_045.jpg
Now compare these with the Shroud's positive image I published.
Further consider that the Shroud was painted in reverse, which makes
the task many times harder. I think it becomes clear that the thesis
that some huge and unknown genius painted this shroud is very
implausible.
Here is another reason: There are lot of visual details in the shroud
that were unknown to virtually all artists of the era, for example that
the nails went through the wrists and not through the palms. Other
details are highly uncommon, for example the body's nakedness or the
type of the scourging marks. And why would an artist paint such an
uncommonly prominent moustache? Consider the way the blood is shown
winding around the body. If this was done by a painter then it was not
only a great artistic genius, but also a great historian and
naturalist.
Here is another reason: Linen is absorptive; when painted the fixing
medium and some pigment is supposed to sip into the cloth's threads.
Yet the Shroud's discoloration is completely superficial, it looks
more like its threads were subtly burned than painted over.
Finally: Rather than achieving such a masterly painting it would be
much easier to use a real cadaver to produce the required effect.
Gareth McCaughan
> Suppose the image on the Shroud is painted. Then it must have been
> painted some time around or before 1350, as the Shroud is known to have
> existed in 1357. Now consider the state of the art painting of this
> era. Here are two paintings by Giotto (1267-1337)
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Giotto_-_Scrovegni_-_-31-_-_Kiss_of_Judas.jpg
> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/giotto/mourning-christ/mourning-christ.jpg
> In 1450, that is at least 100 years after the Shroud was painted, here
> is the most natural faces that Piero della Francesca could manage:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Piero_della_Francesca_045.jpg
>
> Now compare these with the Shroud's positive image I published.
I'd say the paintings by Giotto and PdF are no less realistic
than the image on the shroud. I'd also say it's unclear that
realism was their primary aim. Imagine someone arguing that
the shroud couldn't have been produced by any human artist
up to the 20th century: Look, here's Picasso, by common consent
one of the greatest artists of the age, and he can't even paint
a face with the eyes in the right place! :-) I concede that
Giotto and PdF were more interested in that sort of realism
than Picasso was, but still they may have had other goals.
> Further consider that the Shroud was painted in reverse, which makes
> the task many times harder. I think it becomes clear that the thesis
> that some huge and unknown genius painted this shroud is very
> implausible.
I don't see anything about it that requires a "huge and unknown
genius".
> Here is another reason: There are lot of visual details in the shroud
> that were unknown to virtually all artists of the era, for example that
> the nails went through the wrists and not through the palms. Other
> details are highly uncommon, for example the body's nakedness or the
> type of the scourging marks. And why would an artist paint such an
> uncommonly prominent moustache? Consider the way the blood is shown
> winding around the body. If this was done by a painter then it was not
> only a great artistic genius, but also a great historian and
> naturalist.
I wonder how sure we can really be about what the artists of
that era knew and what they didn't.
Your comment about the moustache puzzles me. Is Jesus known
to have had an uncommonly prominent moustache?
> Here is another reason: Linen is absorptive; when painted the fixing
> medium and some pigment is supposed to sip into the cloth's threads.
> Yet the Shroud's discoloration is completely superficial, it looks
> more like its threads were subtly burned than painted over.
Interesting.
> Finally: Rather than achieving such a masterly painting it would be
> much easier to use a real cadaver to produce the required effect.
Given a way to produce that effect using a cadaver, yes.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> A photographic negative of the Turin shroud isn't a particularly
> realistic image of a person.
I disagree.
> If you're seriously claiming that
> artists have tried to produce something that in negative looks
> as person-like as the Turin shroud does, then I find that extremely
> implausible and would like to know where you heard this.
The claim is that it is difficult/impossible for artists to produce a
negative image that, when turned into a positive, looks realistic. We are
used to the concept of negative images, thanks to the process of
photography, so could probably make a fairly successful stab at it, but
artists before the age of photography would have no model to follow and
would therefore be even less likely to succeed.
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
[snip]
> > Now compare these with the Shroud's positive image I published.
>
> I'd say the paintings by Giotto and PdF are no less realistic
> than the image on the shroud.
Please take a second look:
In this image (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ShroudCompareGiotto.jpg ) I
placed faces painted by the contemporary Giotto side by side to the
face on the Shroud. And in this image (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ShroudComparePiero.jpg ) I did
the same with the much later Piero della Francesca. I think both the
evolution in realism from Giotto to PdF is evident, as is the fact that
the image hidden in the Shroud is much more realistic than either. And
taking into account that the image on the Shroud is in negative pretty
much invalidates the thesis that the Shroud is a painting, in my mind.
The face hidden in the Shroud has a photographic quality that is very
rarely found, even in high Renaissance.
> I'd also say it's unclear that
> realism was their primary aim. Imagine someone arguing that
> the shroud couldn't have been produced by any human artist
> up to the 20th century: Look, here's Picasso, by common consent
> one of the greatest artists of the age, and he can't even paint
> a face with the eyes in the right place! :-) I concede that
> Giotto and PdF were more interested in that sort of realism
> than Picasso was, but still they may have had other goals.
I think it is evident that both painters were trying to paint in a
realistic manner. Further there is not one painting of this era (late
Middle Ages) whose realism can be compared to that of the image on the
Shroud.
Also in 2002 a second and much fainter image was found on the back of
the cloth (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin#Second_Image_on_back_of_cloth)
- and surely no painter would care to paint the back of the cloth also.
The idea that the Shroud of Turing is a painting does not work at all,
but as many ideas that were found wanting (e.g. determinism ;-) it
takes a long time for them to disappear. Ideas have their own inertia.
After what I have learned in these few days my confidence in the belief
that this is not Jesus' shroud has gone down from about 0.99 to about
0.90, and my confidence in the belief that this is not a painting has
gone up from about 0.90 to about 0.99. The Shroud of Turin is certainly
an intriguing object. And it is an example of a broad pattern present
in our experience: reality often turns out to be more interesting than
at first assumed.
> > Further consider that the Shroud was painted in reverse, which makes
> > the task many times harder. I think it becomes clear that the thesis
> > that some huge and unknown genius painted this shroud is very
> > implausible.
>
> I don't see anything about it that requires a "huge and unknown
> genius".
>
> > Here is another reason: There are lot of visual details in the shroud
> > that were unknown to virtually all artists of the era, for example that
> > the nails went through the wrists and not through the palms. Other
> > details are highly uncommon, for example the body's nakedness or the
> > type of the scourging marks. And why would an artist paint such an
> > uncommonly prominent moustache? Consider the way the blood is shown
> > winding around the body. If this was done by a painter then it was not
> > only a great artistic genius, but also a great historian and
> > naturalist.
>
> I wonder how sure we can really be about what the artists of
> that era knew and what they didn't.
We can be pretty sure because we have their paintings, and for example
*all* paintings of the crucifixion had the nails go through the palms.
I think there is not even a single painting of the crucifixion up to
the 20th century that shows the nails go through the wrists.
> Your comment about the moustache puzzles me. Is Jesus known
> to have had an uncommonly prominent moustache?
No, and that's the point: Why would a painter paint such a prominent
moustache on the Turin Shroud? It bothers me and strikes me as very out
of place considering the traditional depictions of Jesus; the painter
might as well have painted a fat Jesus. This is the kind of moustache
that Nietzsche would appreciate.
> > Here is another reason: Linen is absorptive; when painted the fixing
> > medium and some pigment is supposed to sip into the cloth's threads.
> > Yet the Shroud's discoloration is completely superficial, it looks
> > more like its threads were subtly burned than painted over.
>
> Interesting.
>
> > Finally: Rather than achieving such a masterly painting it would be
> > much easier to use a real cadaver to produce the required effect.
>
> Given a way to produce that effect using a cadaver, yes.
Right, and if this is a forgery I find it much more probable that such
a way exists.
Gareth McCaughan
>> A photographic negative of the Turin shroud isn't a particularly
>> realistic image of a person.
>
> I disagree.
Would you like to indicate in what ways it's more realistic
than the paintings Dianelos gave as examples of the limits
of mid-14th-century Western art?
>> If you're seriously claiming that
>> artists have tried to produce something that in negative looks
>> as person-like as the Turin shroud does, then I find that extremely
>> implausible and would like to know where you heard this.
>
> The claim is that it is difficult/impossible for artists to produce a
> negative image that, when turned into a positive, looks realistic. We are
> used to the concept of negative images, thanks to the process of
> photography, so could probably make a fairly successful stab at it, but
> artists before the age of photography would have no model to follow and
> would therefore be even less likely to succeed.
Yes, I understand what the claim *is*. I was asking for some
evidence, not for a restatement of the claim. And, as it
happens, Dianelos's claim goes much further than yours; you
say that modern artists could probably manage to paint
something that looks like a person in negative whereas
mediaeval ones couldn't have, but Dianelos says that
even modern artists couldn't, and that they've tried and
conspicuously failed.
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Ken Down wrote:
[snip]
> > The claim is that it is difficult/impossible for artists to produce a
> > negative image that, when turned into a positive, looks realistic. We are
> > used to the concept of negative images, thanks to the process of
> > photography, so could probably make a fairly successful stab at it, but
> > artists before the age of photography would have no model to follow and
> > would therefore be even less likely to succeed.
>
> Yes, I understand what the claim *is*. I was asking for some
> evidence, not for a restatement of the claim. And, as it
> happens, Dianelos's claim goes much further than yours; you
> say that modern artists could probably manage to paint
> something that looks like a person in negative whereas
> mediaeval ones couldn't have, but Dianelos says that
> even modern artists couldn't, and that they've tried and
> conspicuously failed.
I did not mean to claim that. My original claim was "it seems obvious
to me that this cannot be a painting by an artist working around 1350
CE."
But I am willing to raise the stakes: I think that even today an artist
using only the kind of tools available in 1350 CE would not be able to
paint a negative image of such realism.
Finally, why would the forger want to paint a negative image in the
first place? It would certainly be much easier to paint a positive
image and the forged relic would be much more impressive and valuable.
Gareth McCaughan
[me, to Ken:]
>> Yes, I understand what the claim *is*. I was asking for some
>> evidence, not for a restatement of the claim. And, as it
>> happens, Dianelos's claim goes much further than yours; you
>> say that modern artists could probably manage to paint
>> something that looks like a person in negative whereas
>> mediaeval ones couldn't have, but Dianelos says that
>> even modern artists couldn't, and that they've tried and
>> conspicuously failed.
>
> I did not mean to claim that. My original claim was "it seems obvious
> to me that this cannot be a painting by an artist working around 1350
> CE."
My mistake; it was not you, but Q., who made the claim in
question. Sorry about that.
> Finally, why would the forger want to paint a negative image in the
> first place? It would certainly be much easier to paint a positive
> image and the forged relic would be much more impressive and valuable.
Maybe the forger, if there was one, had some notion that
something too obviously like a typical painting would be
recognized as a forgery, and gave some thought to what
kind of image might be more convincing.
I should add that I have no particular attachment to the
idea that the Shroud was a painting, or even that it was
painted. I'm just trying to understand why you're so very
sure it wasn't.
Gareth McCaughan
> Using a "camera obsura" [sp].
"Obscura"; a "camera obscura" is an obscure chamber, a darkened
room.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Maybe the forger, if there was one, had some notion that
> something too obviously like a typical painting would be
> recognized as a forgery, and gave some thought to what
> kind of image might be more convincing.
But what on earth would give a mediaeval painter the idea of a negative?
> I should add that I have no particular attachment to the
> idea that the Shroud was a painting, or even that it was
> painted. I'm just trying to understand why you're so very
> sure it wasn't.
I can't speak for others, but I do not think the Shroud is genuine (though I
would be very pleased if it were). However there are mysteries about the
Shroud which intrigue me and one of them is that no pigment has been found
associated with the image. The forger/artist appears to have used some
process not known to us today to produce the picture, which is why I and
others find it difficult to believe that the Shroud is *just* a painting.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> A photographic negative of the Turin shroud isn't a particularly
> >> realistic image of a person.
> > I disagree.
> Would you like to indicate in what ways it's more realistic
> than the paintings Dianelos gave as examples of the limits
> of mid-14th-century Western art?
You are now introducing new qualifications into your statement.
> Yes, I understand what the claim *is*. I was asking for some
> evidence, not for a restatement of the claim. And, as it
> happens, Dianelos's claim goes much further than yours; you
> say that modern artists could probably manage to paint
> something that looks like a person in negative whereas
> mediaeval ones couldn't have, but Dianelos says that
> even modern artists couldn't, and that they've tried and
> conspicuously failed.
No, I am saying that modern artists could produce something that was
reasonably accurate. I am pretty sure, however, that if a modern artist were
to try it - and I have no information on whether any have or not - unless he
were to constantly reverse his image and check, there would be some detail
or other that would give away the fact that he was producing a false
negative.
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <87r6u7w...@g.mccaughan.org.uk>
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>> A photographic negative of the Turin shroud isn't a particularly
>>>> realistic image of a person.
>
>>> I disagree.
>
>> Would you like to indicate in what ways it's more realistic
>> than the paintings Dianelos gave as examples of the limits
>> of mid-14th-century Western art?
>
> You are now introducing new qualifications into your statement.
Dianelos said that the Shroud couldn't have been produced
by a mid-14th-century Western artist because they weren't
able to achieve such realism. That was the context for my
response; I thought it was obvious that I meant that it
didn't look so realistic as to justify Dianelos's claim.
Did you take Dianelos to be saying something different,
or did you think I was saying something unrelated despite
apparently responding to what he'd written?
>> Yes, I understand what the claim *is*. I was asking for some
>> evidence, not for a restatement of the claim. And, as it
>> happens, Dianelos's claim goes much further than yours; you
>> say that modern artists could probably manage to paint
>> something that looks like a person in negative whereas
>> mediaeval ones couldn't have, but Dianelos says that
>> even modern artists couldn't, and that they've tried and
>> conspicuously failed.
(Note: no, it was Q., not Dianelos, who made that claim.
Sorry about that.)
> No, I am saying that modern artists could produce something that was
> reasonably accurate. I am pretty sure, however, that if a modern artist were
> to try it - and I have no information on whether any have or not - unless he
> were to constantly reverse his image and check, there would be some detail
> or other that would give away the fact that he was producing a false
> negative.
You are welcome to believe that. I see no particular reason
why it should be true. Anyway, no one claims that the Shroud
is a negative image perfect in every detail, so even if artists
aren't able to produce such things it's hardly evidence of
anything.
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <87k5zzv...@g.mccaughan.org.uk>
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe the forger, if there was one, had some notion that
>> something too obviously like a typical painting would be
>> recognized as a forgery, and gave some thought to what
>> kind of image might be more convincing.
>
> But what on earth would give a mediaeval painter the idea of a negative?
Dunno.
Actually, I think the "negative" thing has been somewhat
overblown. The Shroud image isn't in fact all that much
like a picture of a human face in negative. The negative
of the Shroud image has, for instance,
- the hair lighter than most of the face
- light patches under the eyes
- a light-coloured "moustache"
- light-coloured eyebrows
none of which is plausible even for quite a light-haired
person (which Jesus is AIUI unlikely to have been). The
lightness does correspond quite well with proximity to
the cloth, but there's nothing particularly "negative"
about the way it does so; that is, there's no reason
why close-to-the-cloth should map to "light" rather
than to "dark".
What's true is that the image is more *striking* when
viewed in negative form. No doubt about that. But it isn't
"a negative".
>> I should add that I have no particular attachment to the
>> idea that the Shroud was a painting, or even that it was
>> painted. I'm just trying to understand why you're so very
>> sure it wasn't.
>
> I can't speak for others, but I do not think the Shroud is genuine (though I
> would be very pleased if it were). However there are mysteries about the
> Shroud which intrigue me and one of them is that no pigment has been found
> associated with the image. The forger/artist appears to have used some
> process not known to us today to produce the picture, which is why I and
> others find it difficult to believe that the Shroud is *just* a painting.
It seems to be a matter of controversy whether there are in fact
pigments in/on the shroud. Walter McCrone, one of the first group
of scientists to investigate it, claimed to have found plenty of
pigments. He claims that he was then booted out of the group and
his samples confiscated. Everyone else who's looked at the shroud
claims to have found no pigments. Presumably someone is either
lying or incompetent, but it's hard to see how to tell who.
(Normally it would be sensible to go with the majority, but
there are obvious reasons for suspecting that the people
permitted access to the shroud might be chosen on ideological
as well as scientific grounds.)
Dianelos Georgoudis
> In uk.religion.christian on 6 Jan 2007 16:06:12 -0800, "Dianelos
> Georgoudis" <dian...@tecapro.com> wrote:
>
> }I did not mean to claim that. My original claim was "it seems obvious
> }to me that this cannot be a painting by an artist working around 1350
> }CE."
>
> hypothesized that Leonardo Da Vinci painted it.
>
> Using a "camera obsura" [sp].
We know for certain that the cloth now stored in Turin was displayed in
a church at Lirey, France, in 1357 CE. Leonardo da Vinci was born much
later, in 1452. So one thing we can be certain about is that the Shroud
of Turin was *not* painted by da Vinci. So here you have an example of
how little trustworthy, indeed grossly inaccurate, even "very
convincing TV programs" can be.
Dianelos Georgoudis
[snip]
> I should add that I have no particular attachment to the
> idea that the Shroud was a painting, or even that it was
> painted. I'm just trying to understand why you're so very
> sure it wasn't.
I gave a 0.99 confidence value for my belief that the image on the
Shroud is not a painting. Now it may be a tad lower than that, because
I have found out that relatively soon after the Shroud surfaced in
Western Europe in 1357 CE the two Flemish painters van Eyck were able
to produce remarkable lifelike images at around 1420, see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubert_van_Eyck_016.jpg and
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent_Altarpiece
Anyway, speculation can only lead one so far. The RCC should allow for
more scientific tests to find out how probable the authenticity of the
Shroud is. One way or the other the Turin Shroud is a remarkable
historical object and I find it unconscionable that the RCC hinders its
study.
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
>> I should add that I have no particular attachment to the
>> idea that the Shroud was a painting, or even that it was
>> painted. I'm just trying to understand why you're so very
>> sure it wasn't.
[Dianelos:]
> I gave a 0.99 confidence value for my belief that the image on the
> Shroud is not a painting. Now it may be a tad lower than that, because
> I have found out that relatively soon after the Shroud surfaced in
> Western Europe in 1357 CE the two Flemish painters van Eyck were able
> to produce remarkable lifelike images at around 1420, see
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubert_van_Eyck_016.jpg and
> here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent_Altarpiece
Noted.
> Anyway, speculation can only lead one so far. The RCC should allow for
> more scientific tests to find out how probable the authenticity of the
> Shroud is. One way or the other the Turin Shroud is a remarkable
> historical object and I find it unconscionable that the RCC hinders
> its study.
I agree, though it's understandable that it does so.
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > Anyway, speculation can only lead one so far. The RCC should allow for
> > more scientific tests to find out how probable the authenticity of the
> > Shroud is. One way or the other the Turin Shroud is a remarkable
> > historical object and I find it unconscionable that the RCC hinders
> > its study.
>
> I agree, though it's understandable that it does so.
I don't understand RCC's stance. Why do you think they are hindering
the scientific study of the Shroud?
Gareth McCaughan
Either it's genuine or it isn't. If it's genuine, then messing with it
is (I can see that some people might think) disrespectful to an
artefact of great holiness. If it's not genuine, then looking closely
might reveal the fact, which would greatly disturb some of the
faithful.
If you think that truth is more important than preserving faith
that's based on an error, and that there's nothing specially
holy about a piece of cloth even if it did spend some time in
close proximity to Jesus and have the image of his body magically
imprinted on it at the Resurrection, then of course you won't
find those views plausible. But if you're more concerned that
no one's faith be disturbed, and have been making a big deal
of relics for centuries, you're likely to take a different view.
(Here's another way in which it could be disturbing to the
faithful. Imagine that the shroud is studied carefully, and
experiments are done, and someone reports that the shroud
is indeed of the right age to be authentic, and that a reliable
way to produce an image like the one on the shroud is to
wrap a corpse in a linen cloth *and leave it there until
the body rots away*. That wouldn't upset people whose view
of the resurrection is like yours, but you're in a minority
on that one...)
Michael J Davis
Dianelos Georgoudis <dian...@tecapro.com> writes
I saw the programme (I think), it discussed using a camera obscura and
using eg urine as a fixing agent based on a solagraphic image. While
Leonardo may have been mentioned, IIRC, he was only mentioned as
someone, who was experimenting in the same way. Not that he had done it.
As I say, IIRC.
One other issue - the RCC had resisted until very recently to submit
samples for scientific testing. The main reason had been the size of
samples required.
When at last the Church was satisfied, that the samples need be only
small ones. it made a couple of conditions - the scientists had to be
independent so that the bias of one could be eliminated, and the samples
must not deface the main image.
The problem appears to have been that although the carbon dating tests
were carried out, they may have been influenced by the release of carbon
from the fire in the C14th that damaged the material. AIUI, the
scientists appeared to be have been not scientific[1] enough (ha!),
apparently ignoring information of textile specialists familiar with
C1st weaving, and some botanical experts who suggested that the pollen
may have shown a uniquely East Mediterranean flora.
However, that's all from what I have read about the tests and may not
have remembered correctly.
I would expect our new friend's book to cover all that.
Mike
[1] ie they concentrated on physical and chemical analysis.
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Religion is worthless unless it helps us rise above it to get closer to God
<><
Michael J Davis
Dianelos Georgoudis <dian...@tecapro.com> writes
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>> In message <459ae568$1...@127.0.0.1>, William Meacham
>> <wmea...@zkucc.zku.zk> writes
>> >Thanks for the welcome, Mike. I have a short bio on the book's
>> >Lulu page www.lulu.com/content/144747 -- click on "Preview this
>> >book." It is after the introductory pages and chapter-by-chapter
>> >synopsis.
>>
>> I must be exceptionally stupid. I find I just go round in circles. All I
>> get is a synopsis and either an order page or back to the main page with
>> reviews. I haven't yet seen a chapter by chapter synopsis. Just an
>> overall one. Even clicking on your name merely takes me round again.
>
>You must first click on "Preview this book" and then keep clicking on
>the arrow for next page until you get to the bio. An easier way is to
>visit Amazon's page where the bio of the author is included:
>http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Turin-Shroud-William-Meacham/dp/product-descr
>iption/1411657691
Oh thanks, that's helpful.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>> A photographic negative of the Turin shroud isn't a particularly
> >>>> realistic image of a person.
> >>> I disagree.
> >> Would you like to indicate in what ways it's more realistic
> >> than the paintings Dianelos gave as examples of the limits
> >> of mid-14th-century Western art?
> > You are now introducing new qualifications into your statement.
> Dianelos said that the Shroud couldn't have been produced
> by a mid-14th-century Western artist because they weren't
> able to achieve such realism.
I was replying to you, not Dianelos, but in any case I would regard the
Shroud as *more* realistic than mediaeval paintings - not necessarily in the
proportions of the face but in the fact that the face is far from the
handsome ideal usually found in paintings of Christ.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
If it's genuine, then it's an utterly crucial record of history -
probably the most important single object of its kind in the world.
Even if it isn't genuine, in the sense of having had contact with
Jesus, it's still a very old and unique object which may have a lot to
tell us about artistic methods and religious beliefs of the time when
it was created. Either way, the primary responsibility of its
guardians is to ensure that it is preserved intact. Scientific
research on it can only be considered acceptable if the integrity of
the shroud is not in any doubt - to permit damage, or the risk of
damage, would be unthinkable. Not knowing as much about the shroud as
we could may well be a bad thing, but losing it would be almost
infinitely worse. The next generation will not forgive us if we
destroy something that they develop the technology to assess.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.CorporateContact.info - phone and email contacts for Amazon, Paypal, eBay and lots of other hard-to-contact organisations
"I've got too much life running through my veins going to waste"
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <87r6u6z...@g.mccaughan.org.uk>
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> A photographic negative of the Turin shroud isn't a particularly
>>>>>> realistic image of a person.
>
>>>>> I disagree.
>
>>>> Would you like to indicate in what ways it's more realistic
>>>> than the paintings Dianelos gave as examples of the limits
>>>> of mid-14th-century Western art?
>
>>> You are now introducing new qualifications into your statement.
>
>> Dianelos said that the Shroud couldn't have been produced
>> by a mid-14th-century Western artist because they weren't
>> able to achieve such realism.
>
> I was replying to you, not Dianelos,
What a surreal discussion. My comment, which you entered
the thread to disagree with, was a response to Dianelos.
It doesn't seem inappropriate to me to explain its context
and what that means for its interpretation.
> but in any case I would regard the
> Shroud as *more* realistic than mediaeval paintings - not necessarily in the
> proportions of the face but in the fact that the face is far from the
> handsome ideal usually found in paintings of Christ.
Noted.
My guess is that, however the image was formed, the process
did involve wrapping the linen around a human body, either
alive or dead, even if only to get the proportions right. It
therefore wouldn't surprise me much if the general dimensions
were more realistic than in typical paintings of the time
(whatever that time was), regardless of how realistic or
unrealistic the details are.
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > I don't understand RCC's stance. Why do you think they are hindering
> > the scientific study of the Shroud?
[snip]
> (Here's another way in which it could be disturbing to the
> faithful. Imagine that the shroud is studied carefully, and
> experiments are done, and someone reports that the shroud
> is indeed of the right age to be authentic, and that a reliable
> way to produce an image like the one on the shroud is to
> wrap a corpse in a linen cloth *and leave it there until
> the body rots away*. That wouldn't upset people whose view
> of the resurrection is like yours, but you're in a minority
> on that one...)
Interesting point. The scientific study of the Turin Shroud may produce
evidence that shows that this is indeed Jesus' shroud and image, but
may also produce evidence contrary to RCC's official dogma, such as
that Jesus was not resurrected the way RCC states, or maybe that His
father was a Roman.
Dianelos Georgoudis
The primary evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud is the
radiocarbon dating carried out in 1988 which resulted in the estimate
that the Shroud comes from the 14th century. But in the meantime there
are serious theories about mistakes committed in this dating process,
so why not repeat it? The Shroud is a big piece of cloth measuring 4.4
x 1.1 meters, most of which is outside the image of the body visible on
the cloth (see a complete image here:
http://www.shroud2000.com/ImageGallery/Set2/003_3.jpg ). To repeat the
radiocarbon dating you only need postage stamp sized pieces of cloth. I
don't think this amounts to actually damaging the relic itself in any
way.
I fear Gareth may be right, and the reason the Catholic Church's
authorities do not allow any further scientific tests to be made is
basically that they are afraid of the truth. If so it is a shame. No
one who believes in God should be afraid of the truth - it's
incoherent, because God is truth.
David A.
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dian...@tecapro.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting point. The scientific study of the Turin Shroud may produce
> evidence that shows that this is indeed Jesus' shroud and image, but
> may also produce evidence contrary to RCC's official dogma, such as
> that Jesus was not resurrected the way RCC states, or maybe that His
> father was a Roman.
Absolutely not! I can't possibly think of a test that could prove that
that piece of cloth was the shroud of Jesus, even if it was shown to be
from the right period and to have originated in Palestine.
The radiocarbon tests that have been done show a mediaeval origin, but
they have been contested. If we were to allow more such tests, they too
would be contested by some, whatever they showed, and yet further tests
would be called for. I believe the keepers of the shroud are wise to
say: 'Enough is enough!' at this point. If people want to believe it's
genuine, that's OK by the church, and it's also OK if people believe
it's false. Allowing further experimentation would just result in the
relic experiencing the death of a thousand cuts and that is the worst
possible outcome.
Kendall K. Down
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dian...@tecapro.com> wrote:
> I don't understand RCC's stance. Why do you think they are hindering
> the scientific study of the Shroud?
The only really definitive test is C-14 dating, but that unfortunately
results in the destruction of the part tested. They have allowed one C-14
test, but I doubt they'll be allowing any more holes to be cut in their
relic any time soon.
Michael J Davis
<da014b1983-0331E...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David A.
<da014...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
Agreed. And to avoid confusion - the RCC has ** never ** claimed that
the shroud is that of Jesus. (And frankly, nor could it.)
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I was replying to you, not Dianelos,
> What a surreal discussion. My comment, which you entered
> the thread to disagree with, was a response to Dianelos.
> It doesn't seem inappropriate to me to explain its context
> and what that means for its interpretation.
No doubt, but your response to Dianelos was a bald statement that, in my
opinion, was entirely wrong.
> My guess is that, however the image was formed, the process
> did involve wrapping the linen around a human body, either
> alive or dead, even if only to get the proportions right. It
> therefore wouldn't surprise me much if the general dimensions
> were more realistic than in typical paintings of the time
> (whatever that time was), regardless of how realistic or
> unrealistic the details are.
An interesting suggestion.
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <877ivxt...@g.mccaughan.org.uk>
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> I was replying to you, not Dianelos,
>
>> What a surreal discussion. My comment, which you entered
>> the thread to disagree with, was a response to Dianelos.
>> It doesn't seem inappropriate to me to explain its context
>> and what that means for its interpretation.
>
> No doubt, but your response to Dianelos was a bald statement that,
> in my opinion, was entirely wrong.
It was a statement with a conspicuously vague term
("particularly") in it, whose meaning was clear in
its context. You've given no reason at all to think
that what I said was wrong, when interpreted as the
context made it clear it was meant.
But it's no big deal. As I've said, I don't think it
makes a big difference to anything whether or not the
Turin shroud turns out to have been painted.
Michael J Davis
<nos...@spam.nium.org> writes
>In uk.religion.christian on Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:27:58 +0000, Michael J Davis
>shroud, or its box, that says "This is probably not a shroud that Jesus was
>wrapped in".
I haven't visited Turin, so I don't know what *is* said. For all I know
it says that. Even if it doesn't, why should they? The key question is
what is the probability?
>If not why not?
Why should they?
As a matter of interest are you being devious or dishonest by posting
here without telling us your name?
Trevor Jenkins
> In uk.religion.christian on Tue, 9 Jan 2007 22:27:51 +0000, Michael J Davis
> <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }As a matter of interest are you being devious or dishonest by posting
> }here without telling us your name?
>
>
> {R}
It is a trivia exercise with Google to discover {R}'s name, interests, and
proclivities.
God Bless You.
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Simon Robinson
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:14:29 +0000, {R} <nos...@spam.nium.org> wrote:
>> If you do not know who I am, then you are not of much interest to me.
> It is a trivia exercise with Google to discover {R}'s name, interests, and
> proclivities.
It is???? I did some googling and couldn't find anything. {R} doesn't
exactly amount to much as a search term, though I did also try nium.org.
Tony Gillam
interest to us either.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Peter Ashby
>
> As a matter of interest are you being devious or dishonest by posting
> here without telling us your name?
How do I know that anyone who gives me a name in this place is who they
say they are? This is usenet, usernames are simply labels. You may seek
to put faces to these by wetware meets, but I suspect that this says
more about those who participate than those who do not. One of the
beauties of usenet in particular and the net in general is that you can
be whoever you wish to be, vis the popularity of things like Second
Life.
Note: I do not and never have posted to Usenet under a pseudonym. I do
and have posted to some web based forums under a pseudonym.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
Quasin
> Ken Down wrote:
>
>>>If you're seriously claiming that
>>>artists have tried to produce something that in negative looks
>>>as person-like as the Turin shroud does, then I find that extremely
>>>implausible and would like to know where you heard this.
>>
Somewhere in my house I have a book about the shroud that
mentions a contest for artists to paint a picture of a human
face in negative that will reverse to a positive image
looking at least as human as the shroud image. (Some of?)
the paintings and their positive images are reproduced in
the book, all of them significant failures when used as
photographic negatives compared with the shroud image.
The contest artists had the advantage of familiarity with
the concept of a negative image (unlike any painter in 13XX).
Sure, the book author might have published bogus paintings,
what do I know? :)
No, I can't put my hands on the book right now, it's on a
lower bookshelf blocked by a huge fallen stack of books.
Sigh, I'm sure no one here ever has that problem!
But really, I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove beyond
a doubt that it's fake (unless someone can duplicate the
process, which apparently hasn't been done yet in spite of
efforts with bodies and sweat and various burial spices
etc), nor can it ever be proved true because even if
everything tested out possible we don't have an autographed
photo of Jesus to compare the image to.
So it's an intriguing historical curiosity. Any conclusion
beyond that is a personal, not a scientific conclusion. And
always will be. Which is why I was surprised the church
allowed part of it to be destroyed for one experiment!
Simon Robinson
[Trevor:]
>>> It is a trivia exercise with Google to discover {R}'s name,
>>> interests, and proclivities.
[Me:]
>> It is???? I did some googling and couldn't find anything. {R} doesn't
>> exactly amount to much as a search term, though I did also try
>> nium.org.
[Trevor:]
> It appears he may be selling a PC World mouse, so he isn't of much
> interest to us either.
Now I'm *really* intrigued.
If you have some information about who {R} is, then, pray, do tell...
Steve Marshall
> But really, I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove beyond a doubt that
> it's fake (unless someone can duplicate the process, which apparently
> hasn't been done yet in spite of efforts with bodies and sweat and various
> burial spices etc), nor can it ever be proved true because even if
> everything tested out possible we don't have an autographed photo of Jesus
> to compare the image to.
>
> So it's an intriguing historical curiosity. Any conclusion beyond that is
> a personal, not a scientific conclusion. And always will be. Which is why
> I was surprised the church allowed part of it to be destroyed for one
> experiment!
The scientific community seems to me to have proved it is a fake. The
religious community is searching for any and every excuse to say otherwise
as if the existence of god depended upon the whether or not the shroud were
genuine. It would hardly be the first religious artefact discovered to be
fake.
Steve M
Robert Marshall
>
> If you have some information about who {R} is, then, pray, do
> tell...
A visit to the uk.net.news.config archives may be of help
alternatively it may just depress you (for other reasons)
Robert
--
Conformity means death for any community. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/
Philip Gardner
That is simply untrue. Even the Roman Catholic Church makes no
official claims about the shroud, and other Christians generally
aren't bothered about it. I am not aware that anyone bases an argument
for the existence of God on the claimed genuineness of the shroud of
Turin; if they do, they are very foolish. And even if a few Christians
are that foolish, "the religious community" - by which I suppose you
mean the entire Christian church - is certainly not.
> It would hardly be the first religious artefact discovered to be
> fake.
That's true - the mediaeval fascination with relics led to a lot of
forgeries being created. This is not, however, an argument against
Christianity.
Phil
Michael J Davis
Marshall <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com> writes
>"Quasin" <qua...@nosuchisp.com> wrote
>
>> But really, I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove beyond a doubt that
>> it's fake (unless someone can duplicate the process, which apparently
>> hasn't been done yet in spite of efforts with bodies and sweat and various
>> burial spices etc), nor can it ever be proved true because even if
>> everything tested out possible we don't have an autographed photo of Jesus
>> to compare the image to.
>>
>> So it's an intriguing historical curiosity. Any conclusion beyond that is
>> a personal, not a scientific conclusion. And always will be. Which is why
>> I was surprised the church allowed part of it to be destroyed for one
>> experiment!
>
>The scientific community seems to me to have proved it is a fake.
In which case the scientific community (whoever they are) are far too
easily satisfied.
>The
>religious community is searching for any and every excuse to say otherwise
>as if the existence of god depended upon the whether or not the shroud were
>genuine. It would hardly be the first religious artefact discovered to be
>fake.
** Nothing ** can prove that the shroud is "genuine". So don't kid
yourself that it is of particular religious significance.
Fake or genuine, it may help some people reflect upon the passion, death
and resurrection of Christ. In that it may have some merit.
Trevor Jenkins
In the spirit of my respone to Paul Roberts "it's none of my damned
business" to reveal anything concerning {R}'s identity. {R} choses to post
here under a pseudonym and also to prevent Google from archiving posts to
this group. He has his reasons for this. All will say is that Google holds
sufficient information for you to answer your own questions; someone with
your technical background ought to be able to figure out what to do.
Steve Marshall
>> The scientific community seems to me to have proved it is a fake. The
>> religious community is searching for any and every excuse to say
>> otherwise
>> as if the existence of god depended upon the whether or not the shroud
>> were
>> genuine.
>
> That is simply untrue. Even the Roman Catholic Church makes no official
> claims about the shroud, and other Christians generally aren't bothered
> about it.
It'sbeen blessed and it is treated with reverance as if it is genuine and
there are those that treat the very idea of doubting it as anything but
genuine with scorn.
I say 'community' because it is more the religious populous rather than the
church itself that has some faith as to the shroud. Some (religious) people
seem to accept a claim from a church as genuine, so if they claim to have
the shroud then they do. If scientists show it is fake then they are wrong.
You should have a look at some of the websites devoted to this thing.
> I am not aware that anyone bases an argument for the existence of God on
> the claimed genuineness of the shroud of Turin
See: "as if"
>> It would hardly be the first religious artefact discovered to be
>> fake.
>
> That's true - the mediaeval fascination with relics led to a lot of
> forgeries being created. This is not, however, an argument against
> Christianity.
I never said it was (?)
Steve M
Steve Marshall
>>The scientific community seems to me to have proved it is a fake.
>
> In which case the scientific community (whoever they are) are far too
> easily satisfied.
Well if it isn't old enough to be genuine, job done !
> ** Nothing ** can prove that the shroud is "genuine". So don't kid
> yourself that it is of particular religious significance.
Perhaps, but you can prove it is fake.
Steve M