The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2013, 09:05 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(07-06-2013 09:02 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 06:35 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Not a mystery. Art. Fourteenth century. As an artist, "lost technique" ain't a mystery to me.

Sorry double post.

I totally agree with you House. I'm an artist myself. Some guy in Italy did a recreation of the shroud. The photo of it, along side the original, is on page 8 or 9 of this thread.

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
07-06-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
I think the most nuanced argument was BB's, which fact only partially surprised me, since he is indeed highly intelligent.

Bb, is this a good paraphrase of your argument? "Even if you prove the shroud is a resurrection artifact of Jesus, you still have to go back and prove the Bible is true and the resurrection happened."

See, this again underscores the real issue. Authority and obedience to God. The shroud can be traced in history before the 14th century, and again... no one addressed my points:

*They didn't know in the 14th century that 1st century Jews used a long shroud and wrapped it over the person's head then back down to the feet, producing the exact double image that is on the shroud, front and back obverse around the head.

*They didn't know in the 14th century that Jesus was pierced through His wrists through the space of Destot (most artworks from the period and all the way back show nails through the hands)

*They didn't know in the 14th century what the Roman flagrum was shaped like. Shroud lecturers today will hold up unearthed flagrum to images of the shroud on screen, showing the marks in Jesus's body on it.

*They didn't have easy access to Jerusalem thorn in the 14th century, and its pollen is on the shroud.

*They didn't have computer projection in the 14th century, and couldn't project that since the light painted the shroud moving in STRAIGHT angles upward from the body, that extending the image on the shroud via projection produces a perfect human body in three dimensional proportion.

One possible exception, BB has special knowledge that da Vinci painted the shroud, since da Vinci knew about crucifixion and made the shroud forgery as authentically as he could...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2013, 11:44 AM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2013 04:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(07-06-2013 11:24 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I think the most nuanced argument was BB's, which fact only partially surprised me, since he is indeed highly intelligent.

1. BB, is this a good paraphrase of your argument? "Even if you prove the shroud is a resurrection artifact of Jesus, you still have to go back and prove the Bible is true and the resurrection happened."

2. See, this again underscores the real issue. Authority and obedience to God. The shroud can be traced in history before the 14th century, and again... no one addressed my points:

3. *They didn't know in the 14th century that 1st century Jews used a long shroud and wrapped it over the person's head then back down to the feet, producing the exact double image that is on the shroud, front and back obverse around the head.

4. *They didn't know in the 14th century that Jesus was pierced through His wrists through the space of Destot (most artworks from the period and all the way back show nails through the hands)

5. *They didn't know in the 14th century what the Roman flagrum was shaped like. Shroud lecturers today will hold up unearthed flagrum to images of the shroud on screen, showing the marks in Jesus's body on it.

5 *They didn't have easy access to Jerusalem thorn in the 14th century, and its pollen is on the shroud.

6* They didn't have computer projection in the 14th century, and couldn't project that since the light painted the shroud moving in STRAIGHT angles upward from the body, that extending the image on the shroud via projection produces a perfect human body in three dimensional proportion.

One possible exception, BB has special knowledge that da Vinci painted the shroud, since da Vinci knew about crucifixion and made the shroud forgery as authentically as he could...

1. Yes, as far as it goes.

2. No. That's the American Fundamentalist knee-jerk childish nonsense . Honest belief/unbelief is not about "obedience". Again, I ask you, is your god SO dumb, that he wouldn't know one does not believe, if one really doesn't. Faith is a virture, (according to Saul of Tarsus), a "gift of the spirit" NOT given to all. I realize you people NEED to rationalize your capricious god somehow.

3. You don't know that, and it could be a by-product of happenstance. The intention to create a "false" portrait would necessitate this. Your point is valid only if it's non-intentional Nothing about this piece of pious fraud was "unintentional". It was created to draw pilgrims to MAKE MONEY.

4. You haven't read the thread. Da Vinci dissected corpses, (often illegally). He did know this.

5. The Near Eastern pollen is easily explained, especially if it traveled around. There are unlimited ways it could have been contaminated.

6. Again, neither you nor I know how it was created. It makes no difference. In the context of an imaginary Jebus' resurrection, it's all irrelevant. No one can link it to Jebus. So there's nothing it can say about the matter. All you can say is "I don't know, and I don't know".

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
10-06-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(07-06-2013 09:05 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 09:02 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  

Sorry double post.

I totally agree with you House. I'm an artist myself. Some guy in Italy did a recreation of the shroud. The photo of it, along side the original, is on page 8 or 9 of this thread.

Yep. Same. It's why I never get involved with this shroud crap. I'm only here to people watch. Albers looks to be at least an art liker but hey, it's gotta be a mystery for someone, otherwise one doesn't keep the lights on or get to buy beer. Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 12:40 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(07-06-2013 09:05 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I'm an artist myself. Some guy in Italy did a recreation of the shroud.
"STURP, using methods standard for art analysis, found no evidence of paints or pigments."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...oud_2.html

Everything is falling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 03:46 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(13-06-2013 12:40 AM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 09:05 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I'm an artist myself. Some guy in Italy did a recreation of the shroud.
"STURP, using methods standard for art analysis, found no evidence of paints or pigments."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...oud_2.html

Get real.
The early church "fathers" would have given their right nut, or firstborn son to have something like this to show off.
Why is it there is absolutely NOT ONE mention of it, until the 1300's. in church history, or even rumors or lore surrounding it ?
No church historian mentions it, ever. It pops up into European culture exactly when everyone was manufacturing relics.

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
13-06-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(13-06-2013 03:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-06-2013 12:40 AM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  "STURP, using methods standard for art analysis, found no evidence of paints or pigments."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...oud_2.html

Get real.
The early church "fathers" would have given their right nut, or firstborn son to have something like this to show off.
Why is it there is absolutely NOT ONE mention of it, until the 1300's. in church history, or even rumors or lore surrounding it ?
No church historian mentions it, ever. It pops up into European culture exactly when everyone was manufacturing relics.

I'm not saying anything about Jesus, or church "fathers." I am saying that it wasn't fucking PAINTED.

Everything is falling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(13-06-2013 01:28 PM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  
(13-06-2013 03:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Get real.
The early church "fathers" would have given their right nut, or firstborn son to have something like this to show off.
Why is it there is absolutely NOT ONE mention of it, until the 1300's. in church history, or even rumors or lore surrounding it ?
No church historian mentions it, ever. It pops up into European culture exactly when everyone was manufacturing relics.

I'm not saying anything about Jesus, or church "fathers." I am saying that it wasn't fucking PAINTED.

You say that as if you have proof. You don't.

Do we know how it was made? No. But here is one good explanation.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
Chas, good find. I was going to comment that there are other ways to put an image on cloth than painting, such as a chemical agent that could then be washed out. This article tends to prove my idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(13-06-2013 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-06-2013 01:28 PM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  I'm not saying anything about Jesus, or church "fathers." I am saying that it wasn't fucking PAINTED.

You say that as if you have proof. You don't.

Do we know how it was made? No. But here is one good explanation.

I posted the full recreation of the shroud a few pages back that the scientist did but no one seemed to notice it. It is side by side with the actual Shroud and it's hard to tell which one is which.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: