Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Representations and depictions of the deity

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

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post

    It was for some I suppose. No one complained about it and the room seemed to always be occupied.

    Fair enough. It seems very odd to me to use such a representation for contemplation.

    It reminds me of the joke about the old Jewish gentleman in the Catholic hospital. Naturally his room contained a crucifix on the wall which he asked the nurse to remove, noting that "one suffering Jew is enough ".

    Leave a comment:


  • Machinist
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Was such an icon actually conducive to quiet contemplation?


    It was for some I suppose. No one complained about it and the room seemed to always be occupied.


    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    Years ago, I went to a Christian camp where there was this prayer closet, and in this space, there was a life size statue of Jesus upon the Cross.
    Good grief! A [lapsed] Catholic friend of mine recalls when he was at kindergarten in England the building, which was an old Victorian school next to the church, had a particularly gloomy corridor and in an alcove of this corridor was a mid-shot life size statue of the Christ [complete with a flashing sacred heart]. This image rested on a pedestal making it quite tall!

    He remembers his terror at this object.

    Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    This was with a non-denominational, charismatic type church. The closet was a small room where you could have some quiet time in prayer.
    Was such an icon actually conducive to quiet contemplation?


    Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    Also, if anyone could tell me...but I read somewhere that the ancient Jews were the first to have this notion of an image-less deity (no graven image), the name also couldn't be spoken or written. I've read that no other religion has ever had such a concept.
    The iconoclasm of Judaism came later. The early Hebrews were far from being so.

    And of course the "Priestly" views were not always followed by the ordinary man or woman, as the "folk religion" of archaeological evidence has attested with regard to Asherah, the goddess that was venerated as the traditional consort of the god Yahweh, the god of the Bible..
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 12-01-2021, 07:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Machinist
    replied
    Years ago, I went to a Christian camp where there was this prayer closet, and in this space, there was a life size statue of Jesus upon the Cross. This was with a non-denominational, charismatic type church. The closet was a small room where you could have some quiet time in prayer.


    Also, if anyone could tell me...but I read somewhere that the ancient Jews were the first to have this notion of an image-less deity (no graven image), the name also couldn't be spoken or written. I've read that no other religion has ever had such a concept.



    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    OK - you and Hypatia Alexandria have between you made a good enough case to hold that the shroud is not authentic. With the usual rider that unexpected and particularly impressive evidence to the contrary might make reopening the books worthwhile.
    The really interesting question remains as to how it was actually created.

    Should you ever find yourself in Vienna you should visit the Schatzkammer. There you will find some fascinating artefacts that represent both credulity and superb craftsmanship. These include Jesus' swaddling bands, yet another of Veronica's veils, another thorn from the crown of thorns, the lance of Longinus, and even the Holy Grail.

    If you have any interest in embroidery there are also stunning examples of needlework dating back several centuries.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    OK - you and Hypatia Alexandria have between you ....
    Eww. Cooties! Get em' off me! Get 'em off! Now I need some of seer's homebrewed anti-cootie serum. I understand it's 120 proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    That would likely by Walter McCrone's conclusion. Back in the day he was regarded as the preeminent expert in microscopic analysis (not that he's infallible) and his conclusions were prominent in nearly everything I've read about the authenticity of the shroud. It seems that much of the effort from the pro-authentic crowd has been spent seeking to debunk his findings,
    OK - you and Hypatia Alexandria have between you made a good enough case to hold that the shroud is not authentic. With the usual rider that unexpected and particularly impressive evidence to the contrary might make reopening the books worthwhile.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post


    OK - if that panned out, the evidence would be all but conclusive. Strange that I haven't encountered mention of that research before now - it should have been at the forefront of every article declaring the shroud a fake. So - I have to assume I haven't been looking in the right places.
    The investigations have been far from open. As noted the initial commission convened in 1969 was secret and the 1978 examination by STURP, [Shroud of Turin Research Project] was undertaken by a group of mostly religious, pro-shroud scientists. Unsurprisingly they found what they wanted to find.

    Purely for amusement and following the comment by Faber over the rather long arms, one pro-authenticity pathologist concluded the excessively long extremities indicated that Jesus suffered from Marfan's syndrome!

    Edit I note Little Sir Echo has repeated my reference to Walter McCrone.
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 11-28-2021, 08:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    OK - if that panned out, the evidence would be all but conclusive. Strange that I haven't encountered mention of that research before now - it should have been at the forefront of every article declaring the shroud a fake. So - I have to assume I haven't been looking in the right places.
    That would likely by Walter McCrone's conclusion. Back in the day he was regarded as the preeminent expert in microscopic analysis (not that he's infallible) and his conclusions were prominent in nearly everything I've read about the authenticity of the shroud. It seems that much of the effort from the pro-authentic crowd has been spent seeking to debunk his findings,

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    I am of the opinion that the evidence is inconclusive. Documented errors in C14 dating do exist, and resulting from circumstances relevant for the shroud.

    From the article that you cited:

    The material in question is linen twill - said be some experts to not have been present in the region until late second century. Reverse Z weave twill was found in a rag bag in Masada's ruins. (If I remember rightly, Teallaura can confirm.)

    The "pigments" used are of an unidentified origin, and the image bears no evidence of having been painted.
    Why then did McCrone find traces of ochre, rose madder, and vermillion?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The artist's confession: The investigator decided prior to beginning his investigation that the image was a forgery. He did not set out to discover whether the shroud was a forgery, he set out to prove that it was a forgery, which set up conditions for confirmation bias. Interrogating the artist would have been conducted using the standard interrogation techniques of the time - which you would be familiar with. A confession wrung from a suspect by those techniques cannot be considered factual.
    The investigation was set up by the Bishop of Troyes. As for the artist, he was highly skilled but he did make mistakes, for example, he did not include the wrap-around distortions that a real body would have left on the cloth.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The shroud bears pollen that could only have come from Palestine - nothing in the documented history places the shroud anywhere that has the necessary mix of plants producing that pollen.
    That is based on the claim of Swiss criminologist Max Frei-Sulzer, who reportedly found certain pollen grains on the cloth that could have come only from plants growing solely in Palestine at the time of Jesus.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Rome does not classify the shroud as a relic - which testifies to reservations about its authenticity.

    Again: as much as I would like the shroud to be a fake, it simply cannot be declared inauthentic on the basis of current information. Though it can be fairly stated that with the ongoing investigations, the likelihood of authenticity is reducing.
    The biggest question concerns its remarkable state of preservation if it is indeed 2000 years old. Davd Sox made this observation in an interview:

    There are lots of samples much older than 2,000 years. Linen, which is essentially cellulose, is an extremely durable material. But what is a problem is that you just don’t find anything quite the size of the Shroud except for Egyptian mummy wrappings—certainly nothing that measures fourteen feet, the size of the Shroud. That’s a helluva lot of linen! What I’m suggesting is that it’s just too large to be convincing, too much to have been kept intact for so long.

    Furthermore one may assume that the burial customs of the earliest Christians must have been premised on that of the Jews. In the Acta Martyrum are references to shrouds, linen fabric, plain linen cloths and even rich fabrics with gold etc, as was discovered when the body of St Cecilia [c. 200- c.235 CE] was exhumed in the late sixteenth century.

    Towards the end of the first century a tunic possibly with a sindon [i.e. a linen cloth that could be used for a garment, shroud,or other purpose] wrapped around it was used by Coptic Christians in Egypt, the body was then bound round with ribbons of cloth in the manner of a mummy and burial tunics of this period are preserved in museums today. The writer of the gospel of John clearly refers to multiple burial garments, using the plural othonia and these are understood by biblical scholars to be those “strips of linen cloth” or “wrappings” or “linen bandages,” indicating that the body was wrapped mummy style; with some suggesting that that the sindon, or sheet, was torn into strips for this purpose.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    [QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1329047] Oh good grief are you contending this artefact may be authentic?

    To what blood are you referring? The secret commission [1969-1976] that was established to study this item included internationally recognised forensic serologists and efforts to validate the blood including microscopic, chemical, biological, and instrumental tests all proved negative.
    OK - if that panned out, the evidence would be all but conclusive. Strange that I haven't encountered mention of that research before now - it should have been at the forefront of every article declaring the shroud a fake. So - I have to assume I haven't been looking in the right places.


    Entire books have been written on the lucrative trade in Christian relics and among those that are most revered, and disputed, are relics of the Passion and Jesus' burial . These artefacts include the [alleged] marble slab on which his body was laid, complete [allegedly] with traces of his mother’s tears and also bits of the angel’s candle that lit Jesus’ tomb, although why a celestial being would require such a mundane item as a candle remains an unanswered question.
    The problem with fake relics has been well documented, and as I said before, I don't like the idea. Or rather, I don't like the associated idea that they are something beyond ordinary remains, as of a bone dug up in an archaeological dig perhaps. Assuming that the shroud was beyond all expectation shown to be authentic, that is all it would be. Confirmation of a body wrapped in linen from the first century - even if there was conclusive confirmation that it was Christ himself (and I can't see any way to prove THAT) it would prove nothing beyond the fact that his dead body had been wrapped in cloth.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    I am of the opinion that the evidence is inconclusive. Documented errors in C14 dating do exist, and resulting from circumstances relevant for the shroud.
    As noted those who make these claims cannot produce a single expert in radiocarbon dating to agree with them. And the other factor often cited, bacteria, is a non-starter. As someone quipped that for bacteria to have that sort of affect the entire shroud would have to be composed of bacteria.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    From the article that you cited:

    The material in question is linen twill - said be some experts to not have been present in the region until late second century. Reverse Z weave twill was found in a rag bag in Masada's ruins. (If I remember rightly, Teallaura can confirm.)

    The "pigments" used are of an unidentified origin, and the image bears no evidence of having been painted.

    The artist's confession: The investigator decided prior to beginning his investigation that the image was a forgery. He did not set out to discover whether the shroud was a forgery, he set out to prove that it was a forgery, which set up conditions for confirmation bias. Interrogating the artist would have been conducted using the standard interrogation techniques of the time - which you would be familiar with. A confession wrung from a suspect by those techniques cannot be considered factual.
    I'll agree that the original investigation wasn't up to today's scientific standards but it seems that it was conducted by the church and not by civil authorities and the church frowned on the use of torture except in extreme cases (look at all the steps and precautions used to avoid it except as a last resort even during the Inquisition).

    Moreover, do you envision them rounding up artists willy-nilly and torturing them until one confesses? Given the number of possible suspects it may well be that the artist responsible stepped forward.

    As for being painted, this appears to be true with wet paint but there are several techniques using dry pigments that IIRC have produced remarkably similar results. And btw, wasn't iron oxide detected in the "blood"?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The shroud bears pollen that could only have come from Palestine - nothing in the documented history places the shroud anywhere that has the necessary mix of plants producing that pollen.
    As well as from plants found only in the Americas. Contamination appears to be the cause.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Rome does not classify the shroud as a relic - which testifies to reservations about its authenticity.

    Again: as much as I would like the shroud to be a fake, it simply cannot be declared inauthentic on the basis of current information. Though it can be fairly stated that with the ongoing investigations, the likelihood of authenticity is reducing.
    At this point it would effectively take a miracle for it not to be a fake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Not so hasty good sir.

    The cloth of Oviedo (a face-cloth of the type that you mention) is being compared with the Shroud of Turin. The provenance for that cloth is somewhat more certain than that of the shroud, and there are some interesting comparisons. So far there are matches in key points - blood type particularly - AB, not exactly the most common of groups. As for the C14 tests on the shroud - it is unfortunate that, the shroud having been exposed to heat of fire, those tests might be rather unreliable.
    Oh good grief are you contending this artefact may be authentic?

    To what blood are you referring? The secret commission [1969-1976] that was established to study this item included internationally recognised forensic serologists and efforts to validate the blood including microscopic, chemical, biological, and instrumental tests all proved negative.

    Claims were made for the "blood" on the shroud by Dr. Pierluigi Baima Bollone, a professor of legal medicine, and somewhat partisan in his views on the authenticity of this piece, who reported that not only was the “blood” real but he even identified it as type AB. His finding was utterly negated by those forensic serologists.

    Walter McCrone a distinguished microanalyst found that the “blood” actually consisted of red ochre and vermilion pigments, along with traces of rose madder, in a collagen tempera binder. These pigments were used by medieval artists to depict blood in their paintings.

    Entire books have been written on the lucrative trade in Christian relics and among those that are most revered, and disputed, are relics of the Passion and Jesus' burial . These artefacts include the [alleged] marble slab on which his body was laid, complete [allegedly] with traces of his mother’s tears and also bits of the angel’s candle that lit Jesus’ tomb, although why a celestial being would require such a mundane item as a candle remains an unanswered question.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    AFAICT, in spite of some minor issues being raised, there is not one radiocarbon expert who has ever said the results were unreliable.

    And as Faber notes, the Bible is very explicit about there being two separate cloths -- one for the head and another for a body -- which the Shroud of Turin contradicts. Moreover, IIRC there is no evidence that the Jews ever wrapped the deceased in the manner of the shroud, much less in a cloth using a weave that didn't become popular until centuries later.

    As for more recent research, from 2018: Forensic research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake and Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest
    I am of the opinion that the evidence is inconclusive. Documented errors in C14 dating do exist, and resulting from circumstances relevant for the shroud.

    From the article that you cited:
    textiles experts and art historians have suggested that the materials and images are not from the right era.
    The material in question is linen twill - said be some experts to not have been present in the region until late second century. Reverse Z weave twill was found in a rag bag in Masada's ruins. (If I remember rightly, Teallaura can confirm.)

    The "pigments" used are of an unidentified origin, and the image bears no evidence of having been painted.

    The artist's confession: The investigator decided prior to beginning his investigation that the image was a forgery. He did not set out to discover whether the shroud was a forgery, he set out to prove that it was a forgery, which set up conditions for confirmation bias. Interrogating the artist would have been conducted using the standard interrogation techniques of the time - which you would be familiar with. A confession wrung from a suspect by those techniques cannot be considered factual.

    The shroud bears pollen that could only have come from Palestine - nothing in the documented history places the shroud anywhere that has the necessary mix of plants producing that pollen.

    Rome does not classify the shroud as a relic - which testifies to reservations about its authenticity.

    Again: as much as I would like the shroud to be a fake, it simply cannot be declared inauthentic on the basis of current information. Though it can be fairly stated that with the ongoing investigations, the likelihood of authenticity is reducing.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Not so hasty good sir.

    The cloth of Oviedo (a face-cloth of the type that you mention) is being compared with the Shroud of Turin. The provenance for that cloth is somewhat more certain than that of the shroud, and there are some interesting comparisons. So far there are matches in key points - blood type particularly - AB, not exactly the most common of groups. As for the C14 tests on the shroud - it is unfortunate that, the shroud having been exposed to heat of fire, those tests might be rather unreliable.

    And point 3 ... without viewing the relevant parts of the image to see what supports the argument, it seems strange that a perfectly ordinary anatomy would be unable to reproduce that circumstance.

    We discussed the shroud on TWeb some years ago - nothing offered since has given me cause to modify the conclusions reached then - it can't be definitively declared a fake. Nor has anything changed my opinion of relics in the interim - I don't trust the reports, I don't like the concept.

    ETA: https://www.catholicculture.org/cult...fm?recnum=3953
    AFAICT, in spite of some minor issues being raised, there is not one radiocarbon expert who has ever said the results were unreliable.

    And as Faber notes, the Bible is very explicit about there being two separate cloths -- one for the head and another for a body -- which the Shroud of Turin contradicts. Moreover, IIRC there is no evidence that the Jews ever wrapped the deceased in the manner of the shroud, much less in a cloth using a weave that didn't become popular until centuries later.

    As for more recent research, from 2018: Forensic research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake and Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
39 responses
162 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
130 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,506 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X