Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Here is short proof the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    I am a tool programmer by trade. I use computer aided manufacturing software. The image on the shroud at best is a straight on projection. Not that of a wrapped cloth. And I was unaware that there was a back side to the image. What the video did was show that it is impossible to be wrapped image. The front and back images are head to head projections at best. The video makes this error very understandable.

    Besides I had long reject it on biblical grounds. The head being wrapped in a napkin. (see John 20:4-7.) And Shuny made note of other relevant issues.

    1) One of the compelling things about the shroud is that it does not show distortion that would be expected from a cloth on or wrapping something. That's actually a point in its favor since neither the 1st Century nor the Medieval period had the technology to create a projected image. The best attempt to date used a camera obscura and created an extremely poor image. It strains credulity that a medieval artist would have hung a body in a cave for the several days it takes to create that poor image - let alone would have stumbled on the correct combination of chemicals to make the cloth photosensitive as was done in the experiment. It gets just silly to assume that unknown artist then perfected the technique but never used it again for anything else.

    2) If you are so poorly versed in the shroud's facts that you didn't know it had the front and back images how could you possibly be well enough informed to make an actually valid assessment of the evidence? A video of a Barbie doll isn't exactly rigorous science - you should have known better and done a little fact checking before you made such a sweeping - and wrong - assertion.

    3) The napkin is a non-issue. Raphael posted the foremost argument - that it refers to the cloth used to secure the jaw - and I posted the secondary - that it refers to the cloth used to cover the Lord's face as His body was removed from the cross (possibly the Oviero of Sudarium) which was subsequently removed when the body was placed in the shroud. Since tying the jaw was a required part of Jewish custom, it's silly to assume that it would have been left undone hence both the issue of the face cloth (napkin) and the issue of John's use of the plural are answered. I actually favor the second argument as I think the science on the OoS is compelling but either is sufficient to answer the concern.

    4) Shuny's points were refuted - pretty easily.

    I don't care if you accept or reject the shroud - it's just a cloth, after all. But if you're going to post 'proof' make sure it actually proves what you think it does.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Who worships icons, in your opinion? What do you mean by 'worship'?
      I think, human nature being what it is, we can safely assume there are some who mistake the icon for the object of worship - I don't think it's either common or particular to a specific group. My guess is we'd find some Protestant clinging to the altar cross instead of to the Lord just as assuredly as we'd find some Catholic hanging onto an icon instead of Christ. I do NOT think either case is common.

      Now, when we move outside Christianity, it's pretty easy to find people worshiping all manner of silly things (animism, anyone?).

      'Venerate, adore and expect a response' being the short answer to your second question. No, it wasn't a dig at Catholicism or any thing else - not even animism. People is just stupid - which is why we need a Shepherd.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        I think, human nature being what it is, we can safely assume there are some who mistake the icon for the object of worship - I don't think it's either common or particular to a specific group. My guess is we'd find some Protestant clinging to the altar cross instead of to the Lord just as assuredly as we'd find some Catholic hanging onto an icon instead of Christ. I do NOT think either case is common.

        Now, when we move outside Christianity, it's pretty easy to find people worshiping all manner of silly things (animism, anyone?).

        'Venerate, adore and expect a response' being the short answer to your second question. No, it wasn't a dig at Catholicism or any thing else - not even animism. People is just stupid - which is why we need a Shepherd.
        Thank you for the clarification; the language you used IS often intended as a dig at Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, icons are venerated by everyone, and regarded as more than mere paint on wood; they are venerated for what they represent. If the Shroud of Turin were to be conclusively proved real, I'd venerate that too - not for its own sake, but because of its association with Jesus Christ.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #34
          That late at night 'icon' just happened to get pulled out of the vocabulary hat. I'm surprised the thing was coherent at all, to be honest.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Thank you for the clarification; the language you used IS often intended as a dig at Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, icons are venerated by everyone, and regarded as more than mere paint on wood; they are venerated for what they represent. If the Shroud of Turin were to be conclusively proved real, I'd venerate that too - not for its own sake, but because of its association with Jesus Christ.
            I agree. I don't know if it is real or not, of course, but it is an interesting discussion. I first read about it years ago and someone (Ian Wilson maybe?) was advancing the idea that the image was not formed by any known natural process and they thought that it may have been formed as some kind of radiation at the moment of the resurrection. As a kid, that sounded like a pretty cool idea. Doubt it has much scientific validity. Has anyone ever produced a very similar replica? I remember seeing some attempts a while back but they weren't very good replicas.
            Last edited by robrecht; 10-07-2014, 05:44 PM.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #36
              No, no replica has ever been produced that produces all the effects seen in the shroud. A few really cool attempts, however.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                Carry on with your speculation, however. I will stand on scripture.
                Mossy, I have a small problem with your last sentence.
                I should clarify this. I don't think you can accuse people like Gary Habermas of not standing on scripture because they think the Shroud may be genuine. As detailed Habermas has both from Jewish culture of the day and from the Bible how the details of the shroud are not contradictory.
                His conslusions may be different to yours Milady, but they are no less "standing on Scripture."



                Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                I haven't claimed at all that scripture is saying something it isn't.
                But you are claiming that Scripture conclusively proves the shroud is a fake. But it doesn't. I don't think Scripture gives us enough to conclusively reject the Shroud as a fake or to conclusively say it is genuine.

                Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                Tell me this. Why should Christians even care about whether the shroud is real or not?
                Because if the Shroud does happen to be real it then it represents positive proof of Christ's resurrection.

                At the moment I don't think that is has been proved to be genuine, however there are a number of things those consider it to definitely be fake still need to account for.
                Not least of which is if it is faked, how was it made given the technology of whatever era they think it was faked in, and where they think it was made.
                "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
                -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

                Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                1 Corinthians 16:13

                "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                -Ben Witherington III

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                  I should clarify this. I don't think you can accuse people like Gary Habermas of not standing on scripture because they think the Shroud may be genuine. As detailed Habermas has both from Jewish culture of the day and from the Bible how the details of the shroud are not contradictory.
                  His conslusions may be different to yours Milady, but they are no less "standing on Scripture."

                  But you are claiming that Scripture conclusively proves the shroud is a fake. But it doesn't. I don't think Scripture gives us enough to conclusively reject the Shroud as a fake or to conclusively say it is genuine.

                  Because if the Shroud does happen to be real it then it represents positive proof of Christ's resurrection.
                  I do not consider scripture a major issue concerning the authenticity of the shroud. Yes, it does not conform to the traditional shroud nor the one described, but the weakness in the authenticity is the shroud itself.

                  At the moment I don't think that is has been proved to be genuine, however there are a number of things those consider it to definitely be fake still need to account for.
                  Not least of which is if it is faked, how was it made given the technology of whatever era they think it was faked in, and where they think it was made.
                  True, it has not been proven to be a fake, but the case for it being real is weak and hypothetical.

                  First, I do not consider the technology a problem. All it takes is a very imaginative innovative artist. Some of he problems are anatomical inconsistency of the image, paint found on the shroud, and the current status of the carbon dating of the shroud. Some question the dating, but until it is resolved, that is the dating of the shroud we have.

                  Where was it made? Likely a Monastery some place near or north of the holy lands. The material appears to be from that region.

                  The known history of the shroud dates to the time when other shrouds were reported to have been made.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-08-2014, 10:55 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    First, I do not consider the technology is problem. All it takes is a very imaginative innovative artist.
                    Have any artists tried it create anything comparable? Any success?
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Have any artists tried it create anything comparable? Any success?
                      Yes, multiple times. The bas relief was pretty good but failed miserably in the photographic and fiber analysis. It did look like the negative view of the shroud (that's the faint image visible to the naked eye) but distorted in the positive (which looks like a photo negative to most people). The fibers were hysterically bad - not even close to the original. Pouncing didn't help.

                      The camera obscura I mentioned earlier was more promising in those categories but the image was way too poor to compare even to the original negative view.

                      No known techniques reproduce the image in all its characteristics.
                      Last edited by Teallaura; 10-08-2014, 10:00 PM.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Thanks. That does seem like a rather important argument.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The Shroud Painting Explained

                          (Sidebar to Vikan Article)
                          by
                          Source: http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#article



                          Walter C. McCrone
                          Reprinted from Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 1998
                          Volume 24 Number 26 - Copyright 1998 - All Rights Reserved
                          Reprinted by permission


                          Nearly 20 years ago the Catholic Church invited me to determine chemically what the image is on the Shroud of Turin.

                          I obtained 32 samples from the shroud: 18 from areas where there are images both of a body and of bloodstains) and 14 from non-image areas (some from clear areas that served as controls, others from scorch and water stains caused by a fire in 1532). The samples were taken with squares of sticky tape, each of which exceeded a square inch in area and held more than 1,000 linen fibers and any materials attached to the shroud. They were excellent samples. I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud.

                          To determine what substances are present in the shroud images, I conducted tests based on polarized light microscopy. I identified the substance of the body-and-blood images as the paint pigment red ochre, in a collagen tempera medium. The blood image areas consist of another pigment, ver-milion, in addition to red ochre and tempera. These paints were in common use during the Middle Ages.

                          The paint on the shroud was dilute (0.01 percent in a 0.01 percent gelatin solution). I made up such a paint and an artist friend, Walter Sanford, painted an excellent shroud-like image (see photo at right and my book Judgement Day for the Shroud [Chicago: Mccrone Research Institute, 1996]. pp.145.149). Known as grisaille, the style of the painting, with its very faint, monochromatic image, was also common in the 14th century.

                          Based on the complete absence of any reference to the shroud before 1356, Bishop Henri of Poitiers's statement that he knew' the artist, the 14th-century painting style and my test results, I concluded in two papers published in 1980 that the shroud was painted in 1355 ('to give the paint a year to dry"). A third paper in 1981 confirmed these results with X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray determination of the elements present (iron, mercury and sulfur) in the two paints. Eight years after my published results, the carbon-dating results were reported as 1325 ± 65 year - thus confirming my date of 1355.

                          An expert in microanalysis and painting authentication, Walter C. McCrone is director emeritus of the McCrone Reaearch Institute in Chicago, Illinois.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Yeah, slight problem - McCrone wasn't on any of the teams that examined the shroud. He obtained the fiber tapes second hand. http://shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf


                            Originally posted by Deconstructing the "Debunking" of the Shroud
                            Afterword
                            Dr. Walter McCrone: "I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud." With regard to Dr. Walter McCrone's sidebar, it must be noted that Dr. Victor Tryon, also of the University of Texas-San Antonio, whose expertise is DNA research, has found that the substance called red paint by McCrone contains human DNA, i.e., it is blood. Others have insisted with equal certainty that the shroud image is a Medieval "proto-photo" or a rubbing or a real Medieval crucified body. If the research of those who wish to debunk the TS is accepted, its conclusion must be that the TS is a painting and a photo and a rubbing and a human body transfer.


                            http://shroud.com/bar.htm#scavone

                            And:
                            http://shroud.com/bar.htm#letters



                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Yeah, slight problem - McCrone wasn't on any of the teams that examined the shroud. He obtained the fiber tapes second hand. http://shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf
                              How does that make the fiber tapes invalid?
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Two problems with them - first is that the chain of evidence is questionable - if they were subsequently contaminated there would be no way to know.

                                But the bigger issue is that McCrone didn't do his homework - OF COURSE there's some residue of paint on the shroud - for centuries copies were made to be displayed elsewhere and they were touched to the original in a sort of sanctification (they weren't fakes but reproductions for display purposes). Those were indeed painted and transfer is inevitable. The DNA in the bloodstains, ye who didn't read the link, proves there are indeed blood stains on the shroud - a LOT of them, actually.

                                McCrone is the chief skeptic. He has also been thoroughly refuted.
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 10-20-2021, 05:48 PM
                                4 responses
                                44 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X