ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags pareidolia , shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 23rd December 2011, 06:57 AM   #1
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,121
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

A group called "Mission of the Shroud" put a full-page ad in today's newspaper, showing some of the 'miracles' revealed in their studies of the Shroud of Turin. Their studies, near as I can determine, involve highly imaginative inspections of close-up photos of smudges. They do the same think to rocks, skies and whatever they can find.

In these images, they claim to see depictions of Jesus, Mary, the Bible, a Chalice, and so-on and so-forth.

As for me, I can't see a thing. Even in the photos they've helpfully labelled, all I see is a smudge. I suspect it's either pareidolia, or it's one of those Magic-Eye things (which I normally have no trouble seeing).

Anyway, have a look and see what you see.
Mission of the Shroud photos page

I was also amused to note that this group of overly-optimistic smudge-gazers is local.
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 07:28 AM   #2
ebardos
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 79
I looked, I didn't get it. But if you have to point it out like that - "look there's his nose if you hold it sideways and squint a little" - how reliable is it? It's like getting a Jesus face in your morning toast.
ebardos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 07:49 AM   #3
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
 
Lord Emsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by X View Post
Anyway, have a look and see what you see.
Mission of the Shroud photos page
I refuse to use flash in order to look at some pictures. Kooks.
Lord Emsworth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 07:51 AM   #4
MG1962
Penultimate Amazing
 
MG1962's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,397
Originally Posted by ebardos View Post
I looked, I didn't get it. But if you have to point it out like that - "look there's his nose if you hold it sideways and squint a little" - how reliable is it? It's like getting a Jesus face in your morning toast.
I have a vague memory that someone was selling a toaster this year that did that on demand
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 08:33 AM   #5
paiute
Graduate Poster
 
paiute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,246
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
I have a vague memory that someone was selling a toaster this year that did that on demand
http://www.burntimpressions.com/
__________________
A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine
Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong?
Now free for download!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine
paiute is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 09:32 AM   #6
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,445
The only miracle is why anyone would believe it was genuine.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 09:38 AM   #7
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,121
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
The only miracle is why anyone would believe it was genuine.

No, no...
That's easily explained.
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 02:59 PM   #8
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
This is a nice collection of blurry images. Since they actually show nothing, they could be used as a sort of Rorschach test for religiosity. It's Jesus on a taco all over again.

They do prove one thing though: Pseudoscience never dies. The carbon dating of the shroud as late 1200s to early 1300s should have ended the debate. What is particularly an aspect of pseudoscience vs. science is that, had the carbon dating shown the shroud was from the first century, its advocates would have been trumpeting the findings to the skies. Once carbon dating showed the shroud to be of medieval origin, they couldn't find enough rationalizations to explain it away.
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 03:47 PM   #9
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,959
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
This is a nice collection of blurry images. Since they actually show nothing, they could be used as a sort of Rorschach test for religiosity. It's Jesus on a taco all over again.

They do prove one thing though: Pseudoscience never dies. The carbon dating of the shroud as late 1200s to early 1300s should have ended the debate. What is particularly an aspect of pseudoscience vs. science is that, had the carbon dating shown the shroud was from the first century, its advocates would have been trumpeting the findings to the skies. Once carbon dating showed the shroud to be of medieval origin, they couldn't find enough rationalizations to explain it away.
The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating.


ETA: Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus.

Last edited by tsig; 23rd December 2011 at 03:48 PM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 03:51 PM   #10
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating.


ETA: Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus.
That's as funny as the balderdash about Thomas Aquinas and the fish.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 04:47 PM   #11
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating.
(snip)
Which means that the assertion the shroud is from the first century isn't verifiable / falsifiable; which means it isn't science and isn't even intellectually honest.
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 07:52 PM   #12
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,959
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
Which means that the assertion the shroud is from the first century isn't verifiable / falsifiable; which means it isn't science and isn't even intellectually honest.
Found this:

In recent years, some scientists have tried to link the enigma of the Shroud's images to a resurrection event. In the wake of a miraculous occurrence, they reason, some energetic stimulus brought forth a visible chemical change at the surface of the cloth?


http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-miracle.htm


The argument seems to be that when the resurrection happened there was a blast of energy that 'burnt' the image onto the cloth.

Science? No, but there's nothing new about scientists throwing their brains out the window when it comes to faith.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 08:41 PM   #13
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Am I mistaken or didn't the Church reject the shroud as a latter-day forgery/fake/hoax over a decade ago?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 08:47 PM   #14
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,080
Didn't we have a multiple paged thread on this topic a while back?
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 08:53 PM   #15
Ray Brady
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 806
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus.
You don't need the Shroud for that. Communion wine literally transforms into the blood of Christ, giving you all the DNA you need.
Ray Brady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 11:34 PM   #16
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,959
Originally Posted by Ray Brady View Post
You don't need the Shroud for that. Communion wine literally transforms into the blood of Christ, giving you all the DNA you need.
The accidents (appearance, smell, taste) remains the same but the essence changes into Jesus so no cloning (RCC doctrine)
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:32 AM   #17
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,377
- Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence?
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 09:21 AM   #18
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,121
Is there any compelling reason to?

Right now, pareidolia and wishful thinking suffice. Especially considering that the shroud is only 800 years old, and not 2000.
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 09:22 AM   #19
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,558
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence?
To what end?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 09:46 AM   #20
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence?
Yes. The image on the shroud is an idealised, iconic image of Jesus that did not start to take shape until about 600AD, and didn't reach the form on the shroud until about 800AD. In addition, Tertullian and Josephus left physical descriptions of Jesus in their writings (as did some of the 'other' gospels). Those descriptions match each other quite well. They do not match the image on the shroud.

The crucifixion marks on the image are incorrect. The Romans may have varied their methods regarding the hands, but the feet were always dealt with in the same way, which is not the method shown on the shroud. The carbon dating was performed on 4 distinct samples from the shroud, and all 4 showed a date of between 1200 and 1390.

In short, although the Turin shroud is a fascinating object, it is not the burial shroud of Jesus. In fact, since crucifixion was abolished by Constantine, it is not a burial shroud at all. It is most likely a very unusual example of medieval iconography.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 09:52 AM   #21
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,377
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
Yes. The image on the shroud is an idealised, iconic image of Jesus that did not start to take shape until about 600AD, and didn't reach the form on the shroud until about 800AD. In addition, Tertullian and Josephus left physical descriptions of Jesus in their writings (as did some of the 'other' gospels). Those descriptions match each other quite well. They do not match the image on the shroud...
azzthom,
- Can you point me to the Tertullian and Josephus descriptions?
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 10:04 AM   #22
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
azzthom,
- Can you point me to the Tertullian and Josephus descriptions?
Yes indeed. Josephus' description is in the Slavonic edition of 'The Capture of Jerusalem'. You can find a summary here:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13

It also includes other descriptions I had forgotten about, and quotes Tertullian.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 10:27 AM   #23
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,377
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
The crucifixion marks on the image are incorrect. 1) The Romans may have varied their methods regarding the hands, but the feet were always dealt with in the same way, which is not the method shown on the shroud. 2) The carbon dating was performed on 4 distinct samples from the shroud, and 3) all 4 showed a date of between 1200 and 1390...
azzthom,
- I numbered your statements for easy referral.
- Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine...
- Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters.
-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 10:41 AM   #24
yy2bggggs
Master Poster
 
yy2bggggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.
Citation?
yy2bggggs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 10:55 AM   #25
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
azzthom,
- I numbered your statements for easy referral.
- Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine...
- Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters.
-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.
Here is a summary of Crucifixion evidence from the same website as the physical descriptions of Jesus. http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=15

Here is a paper on experiments done with crucifixion, concentrating on the hands.
http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/ex...n_crucifix.htm

Apologies on the dating samples. It was one sample from the shroud, and three control samples. Memory failed me The strip taken from the shroud was cut into three smaller samples as you said. This link describes the dating process and the results.
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Recent research has suggested that the area tested was a medieval repair, and so the results are of the dating were invalid. Apologies again, I'm working from memory (it's been a long time since I did my checking) Here's another link which summarises and explains the situation.
http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

It agrees that the shroud is much older, but gives a range of 1300-3000 years. The date is still open, but earlier than medieval.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 01:06 PM   #26
Rincewind
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,943
I recall - dimly - a TV program of a few years ago where they tried to reproduce the shroud image.

Apparently, when you wrap a cloth around a face, the resulting image looks distorted.

I wish I could remember it more clearly...
Rincewind is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 01:45 PM   #27
wardenclyffe
Graduate Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,924
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
I recall - dimly - a TV program of a few years ago where they tried to reproduce the shroud image.

Apparently, when you wrap a cloth around a face, the resulting image looks distorted.

I wish I could remember it more clearly...
Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 04:47 PM   #28
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,556
Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
Citation?
A number of groups claim that the area of the shroud sampled for 14C analysis was a medieval patch1 or otherwise contaminated2; this supposition is not generally accepted, nor is there significant scientific dispute on the dating itself.
Ray Rogers is the most often cited doubter of the dating; he published a paper in Thermochimica Acta in 2005 alleging the sampled area was such a patch. However there are a number of utterly unsupported claims in his paper regarding alleged chemical differences between the majority of the cloth and the sample and the cotton content.
Likewise while there are various conspiratorial allegations (financial donations, mysterious deaths et cetera) there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The CSICOP article is a good start for such claims.



1 This is despite the panel of experts selected to decide the sampling area carefully examining the cloth and avoiding any such patches.

2A figure of an additional contamination 2% is often cited by believers in the shroud's authenticity as sufficient to lead to an error of fourteen centuries; however this is utter nonsense, the correct figure being in the range of ~60-70%
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 04:50 PM   #29
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,959
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.
Her explanation works equally well for a painting.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:29 PM   #30
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,482
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.
So Jesus was a black hole.
I don't think he was a Russian.
He had anti-grav. as well as soul
and left his mark on some old linen.
As he left this mortal coil
I'm sure I heard him say:
Energise and make it so, YAHWEH
__________________
Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs

Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

I have eaten breakfast and have not written an Epistle to any Church. - dejudge.
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 11:44 PM   #31
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,332
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
Yes indeed. Josephus' description is in the Slavonic edition of 'The Capture of Jerusalem'. You can find a summary here:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13

It also includes other descriptions I had forgotten about, and quotes Tertullian.
azzthom, are you seriously treating the material in the Slavonic Josephus, where it is additional to the content of the Greek text, as a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the physical appearance of Jesus?

Even the two sparse references to Jesus in the "standard" Josephus, Antiquities Chs 18 and 20, are quite clearly interpolated by a later hand. But the Slavonic ... Dear God!
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 01:03 AM   #32
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,482
The only miracle of the Shroud I see is its incredible ability to continue to suck money from the pockets of morons 700 years after it was painted.

Most medieval relics have long since lost their ability to extract cash, but the Shroud just keeps on fleecing that flock.

Amazing!
__________________
Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs

Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

I have eaten breakfast and have not written an Epistle to any Church. - dejudge.
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 01:59 AM   #33
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
The only miracle of the Shroud I see is its incredible ability to continue to suck money from the pockets of morons 700 years after it was painted.

Most medieval relics have long since lost their ability to extract cash, but the Shroud just keeps on fleecing that flock.

Amazing!


What about the Vatican?
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 03:35 AM   #34
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
azzthom, are you seriously treating the material in the Slavonic Josephus, where it is additional to the content of the Greek text, as a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the physical appearance of Jesus?

Even the two sparse references to Jesus in the "standard" Josephus, Antiquities Chs 18 and 20, are quite clearly interpolated by a later hand. But the Slavonic ... Dear God!
If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 03:53 AM   #35
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,332
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.
Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 04:00 AM   #36
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.
My post that you quoted has a link to a page with a collection of such descriptions. For convenience, here it is again:-
http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13

Can you find a description, following the same rules, which matches the Turin shroud?
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 04:33 AM   #37
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.


I must be getting "good" at "thinking" like a theist maybe due to being exposed to the posts of some people in this thread.


But here is a solution to the dilemma from a theistic twisted point of view....

Jesus when he was in Israel looked like a common place guy in the society of Israel of the epoch.

However, when he got resurrected he deliberately changed his looks to look like a European guy in anticipation of his future role as an inveigler of Europeans.

This also explains why the Disciples did not recognize him when he appeared to them after the resurrection..... he was European looking by then and not at all like the Guy who taught them how to huckster fish for Jewish men. Mark 16:12, Luke 24:18, Luke 24:36-37, John 20:14

Accordingly the shroud would have the image of his new manifestation.

See..... anything is possible for the theistic warped mental gymnastics of casuistry.....reality is what they wish it to be.

I felt conflicted writing this post. On the one hand I did not want to give the casuists more material, and on the other I wanted to beat them to it in order to demonstrate to them that an atheist can beat them at their game.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

Last edited by Leumas; 7th March 2012 at 04:38 AM.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 04:45 AM   #38
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
I must be getting "good" at "thinking" like a theist maybe due to being exposed to the posts of some people in this thread.


But here is a solution to the dilemma from a theistic twisted point of view....

Jesus when he was in Israel looked like a common place guy in the society of Israel of the epoch.

However, when he got resurrected he deliberately changed his looks to look like a European guy in anticipation of his future role as an inveigler of Europeans.

This also explains why the Disciples did not recognize him when he appeared to them after the resurrection..... he was European looking by then and not at all like the Guy who taught them how to huckster fish for Jewish men. Mark 16:12, Luke 24:18, Luke 24:36-37, John 20:14

Accordingly the shroud would have the image of his new manifestation.

See..... anything is possible for the theistic warped mental gymnastics of casuistry.....reality is what they wish it to be.

I felt conflicted writing this post. On the one hand I did not want to give the casuists more material, and on the other I wanted to beat them to it in order to demonstrate to them that an atheist can beat them at their game.
I just laughed out loud at your post, thanks! But I know what you mean. I've given evidence that the physical image is wrong, that the crucifixion marks are wrong... others have brought up the lack of distortion, refuted the claims on the dating being wrong, there's also the problems with the weave not being found anywhere at the right time, the differences between the shroud and actual burials of the time... The list goes on and still they put faith in an object ... well, you know what I mean.
__________________
"To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet
"Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin
"A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is merely a superstition" - Me.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 04:49 AM   #39
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,332
Originally Posted by azzthom View Post
My post that you quoted has a link to a page with a collection of such descriptions. For convenience, here it is again:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13 Can you find a description, following the same rules, which matches the Turin shroud?
No, because I think the Shroud is a mediaeval forgery. But your linked page is most unimpressive as a source about Jesus' physical appearance. It contains NO "descriptions", according to any rules whatsoever.
Quote:
More than 1500 years ago, St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) lamented that: “we have absolutely no knowledge of His appearance”
Quite so.
Quote:
When Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and found it empty, she inquired of the “gardener”, where is Jesus? and promised to lift Jesus’ body up if he told her where he was. Obviously if Mary were capable of lifting Jesus up, he can’t have been very large.
I gasp in amazement at this being presented as a "description" of Jesus, or even as an indication of his stature, for these reasons:

The account is from John, and is not confirmed in the other gospels. John is not historical.

The "gardener" was Jesus and Mary didn't recognise him! In such circumstances her mental condition doesn't inspire confidence as regards the practicality of her intentions, or her ability to describe the Jesus she couldn't even recognise.

As to "lifting up", NIV renders this passage as "Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” Which doesn't mean she intended to lug his body away by herself without assistance.

Angels are present too. Enough said. Pity they didn't leave us a description.
Quote:
The Gospel of Luke (19:3) describes Zaccheus’ attempt to see Jesus while he preached in a crowd: “And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and he could not for the crowd, because he was low of stature.” Of course, Luke may be referring to Zaccheus rather than Jesus.
For sure. In the other case almost nobody at all in the crowd would have seen Jesus.
Quote:
We have another clue to Jesus’ appearance in the Qur’an. One night, a winged snow-white beast takes the prophet Muhammad to Jerusalem to the Temple where he meets Moses and Jesus, and Jesus is the smaller of the two.
I abstain from making any comment on the use of this as a source; and I have already ruled out the Slavonic Josephus interpolations.
Quote:
Jesus Had Short Hair and was Clean Shaven Imagine Jesus as your prototypical Marine - short hair, clean-shaven. Hard to imagine, yet that seems to be our best evidence. Freke and Gandy (2001) note: “the earliest representations of Jesus actually portray him beardless, with short hair….(p. 56).” We can see this in our survey of the earliest Christian art…
All the early representations cited are Roman frescos, in which he was of course depicted as a Roman. That he actually was a clean shaven toga wearer is quite impossible, and this image indicates that the Roman Christians had indeed no idea of his real appearance.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 05:03 AM   #40
jhunter1163
Beer-swilling semiliterate
Moderator
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott
Posts: 21,351
On a somewhat unrelated note, do you guys think that the Sudarium of Oviedo is a similar piece of Dark Ages iconography?
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.