shroud under a cloud

Post Reply New Topic

http://secweb.infidels.org/article815.html

I've known about how the shroud was debunked a few years ago, including that the head was too small to be real. I did not know about how the arms had been been made too long in order to cover the genitalia. So, as I see it, there are two choices: either the shroud was a fake, or our Lord and Savior was a Homo Erectus. I'm betting on the former.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Assume the shroud did cover a man who was brutally killed. How does one know the man was Jesus? Maybe it was the shroud that covered one of the thieves who were crucified along with Jesus. Maybe the shroud covered a criminal who was crucified for buggering his cousin in public? Maybe the shroud is only a thousand years old which is consistent with the carbon 14 tests done on it.

ruveyn

I thought that several people have carbon dated the shroud and found it to be much to recent to be genuine.

Has anyone thought to do a DNA test on the blood stains?

That's a tricky one. I've never been one to jump on the whole "Shroud" bandwagon. So many relics of that time period have been lost (like maybe the cross itself? That was kinda important) and there is very little certainty over the places some of us Christians claim to be milestones in Jesus' earthly life. We Christians and our Israelite predecessors have been too given to idol worship that, had these relics remained intact and "holy places" been faithfully preserved as such, they'd only become objects of worship. That certainly wouldn't be healthy for our faith.

But comparing the shroud with what we know of the crucifixion account, I have to wonder some things about it. You mentioned DNA testing. What we know about the burial is that it came dangerously close to the beginning of the Sabbath, so there was very little time to prepare the body for burial. The discovery of the resurrection on the third day came about because Jesus' family returned to finish the job. Could there have been any preliminary washing of the body first? If so, any kind of dirt/dust that might have settled on the body and taken the place of what we believe to be blood obviously wouldn't carry any human DNA (or very little of it).

But supposing it WAS blood... Something else might explain why features seem abnormally small. What exactly would be the procedure for wrapping a body in a shroud? I'm thinking that the body might have been wrapped tightly in cloth, which would have stretched the cloth. Once removed, the cloth likely would have shrunk, shrinking the image with it. It's also not likely that the cloth would have been stretched evenly, so some features might have seen distorted proportions. Even if that wasn't the case, it still could be that perhaps time and decay have had some influence over changing the appearance of the cloth.

If it had been a hoax, (and it very likely could be), I'd think that an artist would have tried to be more faithful to recreating more exact proportions. Assuming it really was the shroud, what reason would anyone have had in using a shroud to make a "carbon-copy" image of the body? Inconsistencies in proportion add authenticity to the relic, not conclusively disprove it.

I'm just guessing, of course, and trying to keep an open mind. For all we really know (more likely), the REAL shroud has been lost because no one would have cared about it at the time. Besides, according to custom, anything that touches a dead body is unclean. Why WOULD have anyone wanted it? I'm sure we can think of some obvious reasons, but I just don't see what the big deal is. It could be that the shroud is actually from a Knight Templar originally buried in Jerusalem and later "discovered" by someone wanting to make a buck.

Red blood cells dont actually contain DNA. More typically ancient DNA is taken from bone marrow(where blood is produced). They have to cut a bone open to get to sealed sections.



The author of the article deals with that. It might benefit you to take a second read. As well, Linen is a pretty stiff cloth. It doesnt really stretch, which is why it was used for sails. In any case, even an eye examination of the weave and weft of the fibers would show distortion. Even back then they made very consistent cloth.



Surely you know that it is easier to be consistent when telling the truth than lying. Likewise with art, a photo is a closer reproduction than a painting. People make mistakes more easily than cameras.

There was a well known trade for holy relics in the dark ages, and this is sufficient reason for forgery. Faking a shroud would set you up for life. The carbon dating matches a time period in which 2 dimensional representation of humans featured distorted proportions. Again, the article deals with that. To make it look real would violate the visual expectations of the viewer of those times. That is to say, they were so used to seeing it wrong, that a correct proportion would cause disbelief.

For a modern example, you can look up UV mapping for an example of how a 3 dimensional surface (like a face) looks like when it is smoothed out into a sheet. example

Other traditional examples are taxidermy hides example and the projection of the earths surface on a flat map. example

Imprinting on a sheet does not look like the real thing. That is the gist of it. But the shroud image also does not look like it should if a real persons form were imprinted on it. Its inbetween worlds. Neither visually believable nor factually accurate.

For a mundane test, you can take a tape measure or string and measure from one of your ears holes to the other tightly. Its about 12 inches, isnt it? So if that were a sheet of paper or cloth, your face would be very wide. In fact, if you did that tightly with a cloth, your nose would be flattened and this would show in the image. The shroud just doesnt show this. ergo: no tightly stretched cloth.



That seems likely, yes. And it would be evocative of a certain unhappiness for anyone that knew the man. It would be like taking the suit off your loved one before burial. Same goes for the cross, if it were not simply reused for the next crucifixion.

Mundane modern example: my mom strongly associates Nancy Sinatra's "These boots are made for walking" with her dads death. It was pervasively played on the airwaves at the time. She doesnt like it for that association, though her kids all do.



That seems more likely, though the bad proportions persist.

Or a first. That article was awfully long and boring; I only skimmed it and I doubt many will do that much. What difference does it make? Even if it could be proven, one way or the other, I do not think it will have any effect on anyones beliefs.

However the article's author does seem to have an agenda:
But that is not going to happen. The producers of that documentary may have had a bias, the site Mr. Paul posted his essay on may have a bias; so what? It is in understanding biases that truth may be discovered, not in eliminating them.

Don't they all? Something I've observed about evidence for/against God or Christianity is it is only confirmed by the side of the argument it falls on. For the sake of argument, let's say that a leaf falling from a tree was said to be evidence against the existence of God. An unbeliever would look at it and say "Look, there's another leaf falling. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Those Christians are nuts. This PROVES there is no God." Reverse the perspective and the opposite happens. The believers will say "God is in the falling of the leaf. This clearly shows there is a God." Unbelievers would say "Leaves fall from trees all the time. This proves nothing."

Where it gets silly is that unbelievers will come up with a lot of "evidence" that refutes the existence of God based on so many presuppositions that have no "real" basis (that is, based in the natural world). In order to make those assertions against the existence of God, one must already assume some level of bias in the first place.

I don't want to make this a belief/unbelief thing. Those who wish to believe the shroud is what it is said to be will go on believing that it is so. As I've already mentioned, I personally don't buy into it, nor do I see why it is so important that it is such. It seems to me that many of those who don't believe that it's the real shroud really, REALLY don't want to believe that it is.

I dont think the article even touched on whether god existed, nor Christ being divine. It was about the shroud being fake. Its about veneration of objects and the fact that it is wrong. There shouldnt be a argument between believers and pearlists, but somehow it is. It can be fake and not disprove the general idea of god.

This shroud is a big fake! Yay or nay? What say you?

We are living in the 21 st century of the Common Era. Why is the Church still looking for Miracles? Is it not enough of a miracle that there is Something rather than Nothing?

ruveyn

Exactly.

Miracles are fascinating because there are people around to admire them. No people, no miracles.

However, using ruveyn's statement, "Is it not enough of a miracle that there is Something rather than Nothing?" as an axiom, then the case becomes that without that axiomatic miracle there would be no people. So, no miracle, no people.