Christian Icons thread - Part I. The Shroud of Turin.

[ironduck]

I agree, Thats why I avoided this thread untill now. So many Scarecrows from the Wizard of OZ torn up in here .

What are you thinking of specifically?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't understand why you make all these wrong assumptions concerning my posts. Science has no burden of proof. Science is about exploring the world. It's a methodology. A scientific claim has a burden of proof. That's a completely different thing. I haven't made any scientific claims.

I am sorry for confusing your posts. My harping on proof stems this sentence in post #90

And what burden of proof is on the science side? I don't see science as having any burden of proof here.

I linked that to the claim that the shroud is a forgery. A claim that to my thinking needs support. I see now that I was mistaken.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Btw, do you have any idea of what the patterns on both sides of the cloth are? Is that explained anywhere? Also, what are the exact dimensions of the person on the cloth?

I think you are talking about the newly found second image. If not let me know.

The piece of cloth that covered the front of the body has two sides to it. One side touching the body and one side not. The primary image is on (I think) the side that touched the body. A new image of the face, that matches the old one, has been found on the top side (away from the body) of the cloth. There is no evidence of anything soaking through the cloth to get from one side to the other and yet the images line up perfectly. This would seem to argue against a painted forgery and for a chemical process since the gasses that created the main image would have permeated through the cloth and reacted with the coating on the top side to create a matching, but fainter picture.

I think the only reason this cloth is so interesting to so many people is that it has the whole Jesus thing attached to it now. As the OP states, it's become an icon. If it looked like a woman and was found in South America it probably wouldn't be all about divine this and that. It would simply be an unsolved mystery, and we sure as heck have a lot of those.

You are probably correct here. It pays to have a billion followers.

I will look for dimensions.

 

[GenMarshall]

What are you thinking of specifically?

For me personaly. I believe that The Shroud of Turin is actualy has the imprentation of Jesus himself.

 

[ironduck]

I think you are talking about the newly found second image. If not let me know.

Actually I was thinking of those thingies on the side of the figure.. looks like some kind of elaborate metal bars or something.. but some of it looks more like bones on a radiology picture. One thing that's interesting is that they're burnt through in terms of value the same way the marks on wrists and feet are. It gives the impression that if there was a reaction from pressing something against something for a chemical reaction they were of a different material that increased the reaction. One would think that the same should happen in places where more pressure was applied (even pressure to entire body is not likely), but that doesn't rhyme with the hair in the face and other parts. A body leaving an imprint creating a chemical reaction based on pressure should make different results from what I can tell.

I don't know about the second face, it's really faint, but I can see it if I attempt to. I'll just have to take the word for it that it's perfectly lined up since I don't see any evidence that shows it (it would be simple to photograph both sides in full length to show). We do tend to see faces of people out of random patterns though, so I'm not fully convinced there is one. I do wonder how in the world they checked whether there was evidence of anything soaking through. I have a hard time believing the church would let them dig in the threads at the face, so they must have concluded it only through indirect methods..

 

[ironduck]

For me personaly. I believe that The Shroud of Turin is actualy has the imprentation of Jesus himself.

Ok, but I asked what you meant about there being strawmen, what specific strawmen were you referring to?

And what makes you think it's an imprint of Jesus? Is it just a feeling or are you basing it on any evidence?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Only this so far.

http://www.shroud.com/faq.htm#1

Q: How tall is the man in the image on the Shroud of Turin?

Editor's Note: I asked Isabel Piczek, noted monumental artist, theoretical physicist and Shroud historian to answer this question. Isabel's expertise is based on her many years of experience in figurative arts and human anatomy.

A: The figurative arts have, as their special subject of study, proportion, type, structure and style of a body, including bone and muscle structure. The size of a face from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin, the type and length of the arms, the type of the fingers, the type and structure of the torso, etc., absolutely determine the height of a man and nature shows no variations. One has to add to all these a keen sense of draftsmanship, which sees foreshortenings and how they effect the height.

To my knowledge, in Shroud studies only three researchers addressed the question with solid authority:

In the early 1960's, Professor Lorenzo Ferri studied at length and in depth the question of the height of the Man of the Shroud. He spent decades with these studies and created, with special permission of the Vatican, a full size statue of the Shroud which is very correct. He has been quoted as saying that "The body of Christ could not have been fully stretched out in burial." And again, "The measuring of the body (by scientific methods) did not allow for the body being in a slightly hunched position." Professor Ferri held that the man of the Shroud was 6'1" to 6'2". Professor Ferri looked at this problem from the structural-sculptural point of view.

Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D., spoke on television and elsewhere about the height of the Man of the Shroud. He gave his opinion as a medical expert, not as a forensic pathologist. He judged the man to be 5'11½".

The third person to study this problem with authority is myself. I have lectured on the subject at the New York International Symposium, the St. Louis International Symposium, in London at the British Society's special meeting, the Rome International Symposium and the 1996 Esopus Conference. The Rome and St. Louis Proceedings published my work on the subject.

I have approached the question of height from the design point of view - an image which describes a 3D object and vice-versa, including the problem of foreshortening. I have also analyzed body type, muscle structure and proportion. I determined the height to be 5'11½" to 6'1", give or take 1" for linen stretch and shrinking, both of which are possible. Because of the body type, even with shrinkage, the man cannot be under 5'11½". I lean more towards 6'0". Whether Jews in Jesus's time were smaller or larger is not relevant here. Jews were not small to start with, judging by the finds in the 1st century cemetery excavated near the wall of the Temple in the sixties. At any rate, there are many historical examples of tall people emerging out of nations with small stature: Goliath, King Arthur, Charlemagne, St. Ladislus the King of Hungary, etc.

Isabel Piczek

 

[Birdjaguar]

Actually I was thinking of those thingies on the side of the figure.. looks like some kind of elaborate metal bars or something.. but some of it looks more like bones on a radiology picture. One thing that's interesting is that they're burnt through in terms of value the same way the marks on wrists and feet are. It gives the impression that if there was a reaction from pressing something against something for a chemical reaction they were of a different material that increased the reaction. One would think that the same should happen in places where more pressure was applied (even pressure to entire body is not likely), but that doesn't rhyme with the hair in the face and other parts. A body leaving an imprint creating a chemical reaction based on pressure should make different results from what I can tell.

I don't know about the second face, it's really faint, but I can see it if I attempt to. I'll just have to take the word for it that it's perfectly lined up since I don't see any evidence that shows it (it would be simple to photograph both sides in full length to show). We do tend to see faces of people out of random patterns though, so I'm not fully convinced there is one. I do wonder how in the world they checked whether there was evidence of anything soaking through. I have a hard time believing the church would let them dig in the threads at the face, so they must have concluded it only through indirect methods..

Go here; it is a "click on a shroud" image and the marks are explained. The areas you are interessted in are the areas damaged by fire.

http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm

 

[ironduck]

Go here; it is a "click on a shroud" image and the marks are explained. The areas you are interessted in are the areas damaged by fire.

http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm

Ah, so it's just burn marks and patches..

I found this discussion with points for and against you might be interested in: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_shro2.htm (I have no idea why the put in the bit about homosexual finger length, but there are other good points made).

 

[GenMarshall]

Ok, but I asked what you meant about there being strawmen, what specific strawmen were you referring to?

I have not fully read into this thread mainly to avoid any attacks based because I am a Catholic. The strawmen that I am referring to, in my point of view, are the people who are denying or refuting against the shroud and saying its a hoax.

And what makes you think it's an imprint of Jesus? Is it just a feeling or are you basing it on any evidence?

This is why I am starting to avoid controversial Religious threads that opens me up for attack on my faith. I believe that to me that its both feeling and evidnece that its an actual imprint of Jesus. The person on the shroud has distinct facial characteristics of Jesus as well as blood stains on his wrists and ankles.

In the Catholic Church's viewpoint on regards to this Shroud, As with all relics of this kind, the Church has made no pronouncements claiming it is Christ's burial shroud, or that it is a forgery. The matter has been left to the personal decision of the Faithful. In the Church's view, whether the cloth is authentic or not has no bearing whatever on the validity of what Christ taught. "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." - Pope John Paul II

For me, its a manner of faith on wether or not that the Shroud is genuine. Even if the evidence based on the facial features of Jesus is there as well as the blood stains.

 

[ironduck]

I have not fully read into this thread mainly to avoid any attacks based because I am a Catholic. The strawmen that I am referring to, in my point of view, are the people who are denying or refuting against the shroud and saying its a hoax.

That's not what a strawman is, though. It simply refers to misrepresenting your opponent's position and then attacking that instead of discussing the actual issue at hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

This is why I am starting to avoid controversial Religious threads that opens me up for attack on my faith. I believe that to me that its both feeling and evidnece that its an actual imprint of Jesus. The person on the shroud has distinct facial characteristics of Jesus as well as blood stains on his wrists and ankles.

You're free to believe as you like, I don't think anyone is attacking your right to believe. This thread is about examining the shroud and its context. You say you think it's an imprint of Jesus, which is fine. But are we allowed to ask you why you think so, or do you consider that an attack on your faith? Because if I can ask a question I would like to know why you say that it has the distinct facial characteristics of Jesus. Have you seen him? The bible is pretty lacking in terms of describing his looks.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The Bible clearly states that reverence for images is forbidden. Its pretty fundemental (of course the Catholic church has ignored that and become Images R Us, but anyway). Why would god then leave an image for people to worship? To test the flock? I doubt it. If one considers oneself to be a true Christian, then there can be little doubt that the image is a hoax.

 

[ironduck]

The Bible clearly states that reverence for images is forbidden. Its pretty fundemental (of course the Catholic church has ignored that and become Images R Us, but anyway). Why would god then leave an image for people to worship? To test the flock? I doubt it. If one considers oneself to be a true Christian, then there can be little doubt that the image is a hoax.

For it to be a hoax there has to be an intention to deceive. Since we don't know if it was created with that intention we cannot say it's a hoax. It looks man-made to me, but that's not the same as saying it's a hoax.

Why people keep thinking it's Jesus is beyond me, but I guess that's why you say it's a hoax.

 

[GenMarshall]

But are we allowed to ask you why you think so, or do you consider that an attack on your faith?

Mainly I have been on guard since Curt riticuled my beliefs for not only being a Catholic but being a Christian as well. I have also been on guard for wolves in sheep's clothing such as Inqvisitor. Thats my reason why I consider some or certan things to be an attack on my faith is that I am constantly on guard for uber religiously intolerant atheists like Curt and wolves in sheep's clothing (Self proclamed Christians who attack other Christians) such as Inqvisitor.

Because if I can ask a question I would like to know why you say that it has the distinct facial characteristics of Jesus. Have you seen him? The bible is pretty lacking in terms of describing his looks.

I have only seen Jesus in pictures, statues, and paintings. I only seen the characteristics of Jesus in paintings depicting him panted by renassance painters, Eastern Orthodox icons, and Roman Catholic Statues and Prayer Cards depicting Jesus.

 

[ironduck]

Mainly I have been on guard since Curt riticuled my beliefs for not only being a Catholic but being a Christian as well. I have also been on guard for wolves in sheep's clothing such as Inqvisitor. Thats my reason why I consider some or certan things to be an attack on my faith is that I am constantly on guard for uber religiously intolerant atheists like Curt and wolves in sheep's clothing (Self proclamed Christians who attack other Christians) such as Inqvisitor.

Just ignore people that don't contribute anything to you. You can use the ignore button, that's what it's for.

I have only seen Jesus in pictures, statues, and paintings. I only seen the characteristics of Jesus in paintings depicting him panted by renassance painters, Eastern Orthodox icons, and Roman Catholic Statues and Prayer Cards depicting Jesus.

But how did they know what Jesus looked like? The image of Jesus changed through history because people have each their own interpretation and borrow from the prevalent style of how he is 'supposed' to look like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Images_of_Jesus

 

[Bozo Erectus]

For it to be a hoax there has to be an intention to deceive. Since we don't know if it was created with that intention we cannot say it's a hoax. It looks man-made to me, but that's not the same as saying it's a hoax.

Why people keep thinking it's Jesus is beyond me, but I guess that's why you say it's a hoax.

My own personal opinion is that its a hoax. It doesnt look like some sort of 'photograph' of Jesus or anyone else. To me it was clearly made by someone. The fact that we dont know how it was made is irrelevant. There are all sorts of lost arts and lost methods of doing things in history. There isnt complete agreement on how the Pyramids were contructed, but nobody doubts that they were man-made, right? (well, nobody sane, at any rate)

 

[ironduck]

Sure, but just because it was made by someone doesn't make it a hoax. The pyramids were made by people too, they're hardly hoaxes. It's only a hoax if it pretends to be something it isn't, and we really don't know what it pretends to be. All we can see is what looks like a depiction of a person on a piece of cloth.

 

[GenMarshall]

But how did they know what Jesus looked like? The image of Jesus changed through history because people have each their own interpretation and borrow from the prevalent style of how he is 'supposed' to look like.

I feel its a matter (or is it manner?) of faith and interpretation of what Jesus looks like. Note that I said that for me its part of faith and interpretation of what Jesus looks like.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sure, but just because it was made by someone doesn't make it a hoax. The pyramids were made by people too, they're hardly hoaxes. It's only a hoax if it pretends to be something it isn't, and we really don't know what it pretends to be. All we can see is what looks like a depiction of a person on a piece of cloth.

Oh you mean that maybe it wasnt intended to be a hoax by whoever made it? Thats possible I suppose, but it doesnt seem likely. The immense power of holy relics back then to manipulate the masses couldnt have gone unnoticed by whoever made it.

 

[GenMarshall]

Oh you mean that maybe it wasnt intended to be a hoax by whoever made it? Thats possible I suppose, but it doesnt seem likely. The immense power of holy relics back then to manipulate the masses couldnt have gone unnoticed by whoever made it.

Today, in the Catholic Church, the Vatican would oftenly be skeptical and investigate clames of relics with a rational scientific view point.

They do the samething whenever they hear a Statue of the Virgin Mary crying (eather water or blood). They go out and first investigate it scientificly and rationaly. It could be that the statue has cracks in the areas where the water may have seaped in or condensation.