The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(04-06-2013 01:22 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:If this is a miraculous explosion of energy or glow from Jesus as he was wrapped in a shroud why isn't the top of his head part of the image? The shroud image stops just above his hair and there is a 6 inch gap then it begins at the back.

See above--it was light that came from Jesus's body straight up, not out of His body at all angles (the top of His head).

PleaseJesus, you didn't read the link I provided. The traditional shroud was NOT wrapped around the body from head to foot and then around the back. The head was wrapped separately going in a right to left direction and the head area was the last part of the body to be wrapped. This provided the loved ones the opportunity to view the deceased one last time and make sure the person was dead. Jews are very practical people, they do these kinds of things.

Also, in regard to the nails in the wrist instead of the hands, the 14th century painters often copies other artists in this regard but there are a few artists that have the nails through the wrist. And if you want to get specific about where and how the nails were placed, the latest archaeological discoveries have found an ankle bone with a nail through it. Here is the article.......


http://www.bible-archaeology.info/crucifixion.htm


So if this is true, that the ankle was nailed in a sideways direction and not the foot, which actually makes more sense because only one long nail is needed, then not only did all artists get it wrong, the Shroud of Turin got it wrong as well.

Artists also got other things wrong. The Romans crucified people completely naked. And this comes as no surprise because many of their sporting events were done in the nude.

Shakespeare Insult 13 – Henry IV Part 1
“That trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, that stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that reverend vice, that grey Iniquity, that father ruffian, that vanity in years?”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
04-06-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
The shroud of Turin is not a match for the description of Jesus' burial garments described in the Bible. That alone should end any inkling of debate about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 09:57 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(04-06-2013 02:28 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  The shroud of Turin is not a match for the description of Jesus' burial garments described in the Bible. That alone should end any inkling of debate about it.


That's very true, TwoCult, very true indeed. All one needs to do is read the biblical text.

Shakespeare Insult 13 – Henry IV Part 1
“That trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, that stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that reverend vice, that grey Iniquity, that father ruffian, that vanity in years?”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 11:10 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(04-06-2013 01:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. That's simply false .

Bullshit. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about. Read a little.

The problem with the Leonardo da Vinci theory is that Leonardo was born in 1452. The Shroud that is today in Turin was being displayed in the 1350s in Lirey, France. To make the theory work, it was necessary to invent the idea that an inferior “fake” shroud existed and the Leonardo replaced it. The argument rests solely on speculation that he had an opportunity (which is questionable) and that the then current owners, members of the House of Savoy, had a motive to possess a better fake (most unlikely).

The arguments continue: The face on the Shroud looks like Leonardo. Yes, it does, somewhat. It looks like many people sporting beards. Picknett and Prince go further. We are told that very precise comparative measurements to Leonardo’s face have been made. No they have not! Very precise measurements have been made to a drawing. Leonardo believed in ideal proportions. He wrote about them. He made drawings to demonstrate this. He used those proportions in his drawings and paintings. The best that can be said is that the face of the man on the shroud compares favorably to ideal proportions. Interestingly, other skeptics frequently argue that the shroud is a fake because the proportions of the face are unlike any real face. Similarly, they argue that the body proportions are wrong. Go figure.

There is plenty of scientific proof the Shroud of Turin is not a proto-photographic image. Among them:

A photographic image does not contain height-field (3D) information
There is no light direction on the Shroud image. A photograph would have light direction.
There are no photosensitive chemical or products produced by photosensitive chemicals.
It would be virtually impossible to put the blood stains on and then take the picture.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Crazy/leonardo.html

Everything is falling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 11:22 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2013 01:46 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(04-06-2013 11:10 PM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  
(04-06-2013 01:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. That's simply false .

Bullshit. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about. Read a little.

The problem with the Leonardo da Vinci theory is that Leonardo was born in 1452. The Shroud that is today in Turin was being displayed in the 1350s in Lirey, France. To make the theory work, it was necessary to invent the idea that an inferior “fake” shroud existed and the Leonardo replaced it. The argument rests solely on speculation that he had an opportunity (which is questionable) and that the then current owners, members of the House of Savoy, had a motive to possess a better fake (most unlikely).

The arguments continue: The face on the Shroud looks like Leonardo. Yes, it does, somewhat. It looks like many people sporting beards. Picknett and Prince go further. We are told that very precise comparative measurements to Leonardo’s face have been made. No they have not! Very precise measurements have been made to a drawing. Leonardo believed in ideal proportions. He wrote about them. He made drawings to demonstrate this. He used those proportions in his drawings and paintings. The best that can be said is that the face of the man on the shroud compares favorably to ideal proportions. Interestingly, other skeptics frequently argue that the shroud is a fake because the proportions of the face are unlike any real face. Similarly, they argue that the body proportions are wrong. Go figure.

There is plenty of scientific proof the Shroud of Turin is not a proto-photographic image. Among them:

A photographic image does not contain height-field (3D) information
There is no light direction on the Shroud image. A photograph would have light direction.
There are no photosensitive chemical or products produced by photosensitive chemicals.
It would be virtually impossible to put the blood stains on and then take the picture.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Crazy/leonardo.html

I never said it was a photograph.
There were at least 10 "shrouds", and "mandylions" floating around Europe, the Near East, and Egypt/North Africa. "Relics" were a dime a dozen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relics_asso...with_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...m-leprosy/
http://catholicreview.org/article/news/b...jesus-time
This may have been one of them. You actually have no clue, or proof, which one was where, or when. Neither does the authors of your article. It is quite possible that the family they talk about did have one of lesser quality.
I never said what it was, (or wasn't). or that it was a photograph. Only that they were experimenting with negative images, the statement concerning which, was a complete lie.
This were a number of things EXACTLY like it in the history if art. You are 100 % wrong about that.
If all the piss-poor god of the Christians can do, who is so fucking obtuse as to only tease his "children'' with 1/2 a "proof", she's not deserving of the title anyway. Why is it Christians are SO desperate that it be real ? If this is all they have, it's really rather embarrassing. Can't the god(s) do better than this ? ANd BTW, thanks for letting it get burned in the fire in the Turin cathedral.
Jebus was a common crook. He would never have been afforded a "burial". ((See Dr. (former "Father") John Dominic Crossan). He would have been dumped into a common grave, and rotted. He had no trial. No burial. Galilean peasants got no trials before Roman aristocrats. Ever. Especially on Passover weekend, when there were NEVER EVER any other trials. Not one. If he *had* been found to be missing from a tomb after execution, the Roman authorities would have gone looking for him, (as well as all the other zombies that were supposedly walking around in Jerusalem, after the "resurrection", and either the Romans or Jews wouold have been concerned AT THE TIME about his *so-called* resurrection), or at least mentioned the saerch once, in official records, as a continuing problem.
Sorry to pop your little fantasy. It's all baloney. The "image" assumes a "resurrection", literally, "physically". That has never once happened in the history of the universe. Many of the other messiahs died and rose, (supposedly). It was a common theme. Before one talks about a "shroud" one must prove :
a. trial.
b. burial.
c. resurrection.
None of them happened. It's sentimental nonsense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 12:53 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(04-06-2013 11:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  <snip>
Before one talks about a "shroud" one must prove :
a. trial.
b. burial.
c. resurrection.
None of them happened. It's sentimental nonsense.

The Shroud of Turin. How was it made, when was it made? No one has to "prove" any of your rant. One thing we can be sure of Leonardo didn't make it. Thanks for sharing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...hroud.html

Everything is falling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 12:59 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2013 01:48 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(05-06-2013 12:53 AM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  
(04-06-2013 11:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  <snip>
Before one talks about a "shroud" one must prove :
a. trial.
b. burial.
c. resurrection.
None of them happened. It's sentimental nonsense.

The Shroud of Turin. How was it made, when was it made? No one has to "prove" any of your rant. One thing we can be sure of Leonardo didn't make it. Thanks for sharing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...hroud.html

Actually you ave proven no such thing. Only that in your opinion it's not a photograph. The rest is up in the air. You actually have no clue who made it, or who didn't make, when or how. You have offered not a shred of evidence that Da Vinci didn't do it. Only that you think it wasn't a photograph. Nice try. Actually you *do* have to prove EVERYTHING if you're trying to say it's Jebus' shroud. So it's a shroud of "anyone" crucified in the ancient Near East ? Why does it have to be Jebus ? You have nothing to link them except the manner of death. I never heard anyone claim, it's the 1st C. Near East shroud, in the Turin Cathedral. Right. You know damn well, it's thought ONLY to be that of Jebus. And the big picture makes no sense AT ALL. Shroud, or no shroud. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(05-06-2013 12:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually you ave proven no such thing. Only that in your opinion it's not a photograph. The rest is up in the air. You actually have no clue who made it, or who didn't make, when or how. You have offered not a shred of evidence that Da Vinci didn't do it. Only that you think it wasn't a photograph. Nice try. Actually you *do* have to prove EVERYTHING if you're trying to say it's Jebus' shroud. So it's a shroud of "anyone" crucified in the ancient Near East ? Why does it have to be Jebus ? You have nothing to link them except the manner of death. I never heard anyone claim, it's the 1st C. Near East shroud, in the Turin Cathedral. Right. You know damn well, it's thought ONLY to be that of Jebus. And the big picture makes no sense AT ALL. Shroud, or no shroud. :weeping:

WTF is with you all? I NEVER said it was the shroud of Jesus. All I say is that it is a mystery. No one can recreate the Shroud of Turin. No one knows how it was made, or when it was made. I also said that there are no negative images in the history of art until photography came along in the 19th Century.

The Shroud of Turin created quite a stir ever since it was first shown... but no one ever even made a decent copy. 500 years plus. People call it a fake, and a "forgery." But what is it a faking? If it is a forgery, then where is the original? People just go nuts when it is called the shroud of Jesus... I am not doing that. I am an atheist.

Everything is falling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 12:41 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2013 02:07 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
Actually the assertion is incorrect. The Florentines and Italians were fascinated with image, perspective, and negative image. It was one of the favorite subjects of the Italian Renaissance artist Brunelleschi, among others. His Florence Baptistry painting is believed to be a negative painted image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi
Galileo also used the idea of a negative, reversed image in the invention of his telescope, and there are drawings of negative images in Da Vinci's notebooks. It was a favorite subject of the period. As such, the shroud would fit in perfectly as an artifact from that period. It was not unique, and fits into the Italian Renaissance, and their interests.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 02:09 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2013 02:12 AM by f0rTyLeGz.)
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(06-06-2013 12:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually the assertion is incorrect. The Florentines and Italians were fascinated with image, perspective, and negative image. It was one of the favorite subjects of the famous Italian Renaissance artist Brunelleschi, among others. I think the Florence Baptistry painting is believed to be a negative painted image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi
Galileo also used the idea in the invention of his telescope, and there are drawings of negative images in Da Vinci's notebooks. It was a favorite subject of the period.
As such, the shroud would be perfectly situated as an artifact, from that period. It was not unique, and it fits in perfectly, into the Italian Renaissance, and their interests.

Well your assertion is not true. I have wandered through all of the great museums in Italy and Europe. I lived in DC and know the National Gallery very well... I know who Brunelleschi is, and of course Leonardo, and his marvelous drawings... but no where in your Wiki article, or anywhere for that matter, can I find a negative image in art history. No doubt some coins with heads on them were copied with pencil or charcoal rubbings, but I would be delighted to see any art works that are negative images.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History...opies.html

Everything is falling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: