Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Interesting thoughts. I have to say I disagree because, at least going by the Gospel narratives, it was most definitely meant to be an act of mockery and humiliation and the reason why Jesus was taken down had more to do with His followers and the belief that leaving a body hanging over night was against Jewish law.

Yes, I know...sticky for a believer.

Crucifixions are not my specialty but I attend every lecture I can on this subject matter and will be included in my post doctoral work. Roman manhood would not remain intact if he cried, begged, etc. Bleeding someone prior to crucifixion meant they died shortly thereafter, meaning they could not be reduced to womanly begging. Control of one's bodily functions was very important to one's dignitas.

A criminal, a slave perhaps, was whipped and tied naked to a tree. Crucifixions were not always meant to kill, some were meant to humiliate. In all cases, they were a lesson and warning to the public.

Back to Jesus, did you not ever read the Gospels and think: Jeez that Pilate seems to actually like Jesus and wants to let him go, so why brutally crucify him?

He found "no fault" in him. He tried to release him but the crowd did not choose it. You know, we are treading into my thesis, so stop me if I go past another paragraph.

Okay, so we can look at the Gospel narratives and say that someone inserted Cicero and Caesar into them post facto. OR we can look at it from a different context.

The Antonia had been established years prior to Jesus. Rome wasn't going anywhere. Jesus grew up in the shadow of Roman occupation much like kids in Iraq grow up with US troops around. Some troops are kind and helpful to the local children and they will have favorable impression, some are not and the children will be left hateful as they grow.

We already know that he is is of the rabbinic movements or what would be the rabbinic movement; that he is schooled in the teachings of Rabbi Hillel, that he would be followed by men such as Rabbi Akiba saying much the same as Yeshua would.

He is a Pharisee and has many friends who are Pharisees whose homes he feasts at, and yet...he is different. Here is a man who is spouting Cicero and Julius Caesar. He is a Jew who associates with Romans and quotes famous Romans and is also popular among the poor and disenfranchised. This man is saying "love your enemies", "pay taxes" to Caesar. He is a Roman sympathizer.

Nowhere in the Gospel narratives does it show Pilate saying that he is a threat to Rome or Caesar. In fact, of the two choices he would rather crucify "Barabbas".

Wait! I think I'm doing it again. You're a mod. You should have stopped me.

Ummmm, the Shroud of Turin pollen dates correctly, has elements that support crucifixion, and I think it's really neat.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Did millions from that era die of crucifixion, have a crown of thorns on their heads (punctures in the head), have a wound with their side where they were pierced with a sword, etc.? Crucifixion victims typically had their legs broken- they were not pierced in their sides like Jesus was.

Can you provide a reference to a body found displaying all of these characteristics, I'm sure Ashley D would be interested as she seems totally unaware of it/them

Um, no. There are remains of crucifixion victims, but none that we could conclusively know that had been pierced through the side, with a crown of thorns. No. I was stating that we have crucified remains (bones), depictions, and writings. No "bodies"...mummified bodies have not historically shown crucifixion elements as it was not employed in Egypt even under Roman occupation.

Note: Caesar might have crucified some Egyptians, but if so we do not know it.

In case anyone regards the pollen found in the Shroud as indicating that it originated in Jerusalem or somewhere around there and so proves that it a genuine burial cloth, let him or her ponder on this: the person who hoaxed the Roman Catholic Church could have obtained the linen sheet from a pilgrim returning from the Holy Land who purchased it whilst he was staying in the city.

And in case anyone thinks that its herringbone weave is proof that the Shroud is ancient, let him or her ponder upon the possibility (nay, likelihood) that the linen was already hundreds of years old when it was brought back by the pilgrim and sold to the hoaxer.

Originally posted by micpsi
In case anyone regards the pollen found in the Shroud as indicating that it originated in Jerusalem or somewhere around there and so proves that it a genuine burial cloth, let him or her ponder on this: the person who hoaxed the Roman Catholic Church could have obtained the linen sheet from a pilgrim returning from the Holy Land who purchased it whilst he was staying in the city.

And in case anyone thinks that its herringbone weave is proof that the Shroud is ancient, let him or her ponder upon the possibility (nay, likelihood) that the linen was already hundreds of years old when it was brought back by the pilgrim and sold to the hoaxer.

Occam's Razor, my friend.

What is more likely:

, that a group of individuals with forethought to future technologies thought to buy fabric from North Africa that was hundreds of years old with proof of authenticity (as if), and then got together with said buddies who were geniuses beyond their time and figured out how to create a camera and take pictures (because why else would you mimic this?), but chose not to introduce that money-making technology to the masses and instead used that technology to fake an artifact in such a manner as to convince that it was indeed Jesus to humans of the future, and the then sell it to the Catholic Church,

OR

someone found an interesting looking design on a cloth and told people it was Jesus and then they kept it and told their children it was Jesus, and so on until it ended up in the hands of the Church?

One implies aforethought and technology not present in the medieval age, and the other just oral tradition.

I'm not arguing it is Jesus because I do not know. I am arguing that this whole "hoax" theory is a waste of time and not well thought out.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by A Fortiori

OR
someone found an interesting looking design on a cloth and told people it was Jesus and then they kept it and told their children it was Jesus, and so on until it ended up in the hands of the Church?

Or

A group of warrior monks find the tomb of a jesus and learn of his bloodline hinted at by the gnostics living in france.
Said monks acquire a shroud and use it as evidence to back up their claim of their find, to blackmail the church.

The church and king eventually get pissed off with the monks and call their bluff killing all but a handful of them.

The knowledge goes deep underground and the shroud eventually resurfaces minus the secret it kept hidden.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

OR
someone found an interesting looking design on a cloth and told people it was Jesus and then they kept it and told their children it was Jesus, and so on until it ended up in the hands of the Church?

Or

A group of warrior monks find the tomb of a jesus and learn of his bloodline hinted at by the gnostics living in france.
Said monks acquire a shroud and use it as evidence to back up their claim of their find, to blackmail the church.

The church and king eventually get pissed off with the monks and call their bluff killing all but a handful of them.

The knowledge goes deep underground and the shroud eventually resurfaces minus the secret it kept hidden.

OR

the Pleiadian mothership beams up Jesus from the tomb and the Shroud is the only known evidence of teleportation in human history.

Can you provide a reference to a body found displaying all of these characteristics, I'm sure Ashley D would be interested as she seems totally unaware of it/them

I was ignoring you because this was such a nice discussion that I didn't want to ruin it by answering illogical questions. Interesting how you fail to answer my question but instead just throw another question out there (one that is odd nonetheless). However, I'll answer yours though if you are sincere:

1). Yes, through archaeology, a crucifixion victim bearing the obvious signs of crucifixion has been discovered last century. He is pretty famous and is used often as evidence:

Crucifixion of Johanan ben Ha-galgol

Johanan ben Ha-galgol is the name of a man whose remains in an ossuary were discovered by archaeologists in 1968 near Jerusalem. The remains show clearly that the man had been crucified. One of the notable facts about the discovery of this man’s remains is that it proves crucifixion victims were nailed through their wrists, as opposed to the palms. Both the grave and the remains have been dated to between 7 A.D. and 70 A.D. One nail had also been driven through both of the man’s feet, as described in the Bible in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus.

socyberty.com...

So that answers the first part of your question. There has been discoveries that validate the basic wounds of Roman crucifixion. To answer the second part of your question, No. There is no find that exactly resembles Jesus' wounds because His crucifixion was unique. He died quicker (within hours while most crucifixion could take days), he was speared (this was unusual), His bones were said to not be broken (the legs were often broken to speed death by asphyxiation), etc.

To answer your other question I ignored: No, Jesus' body was not found. As I'm sure you know, Christians do not believe His body was on earth to have accompanied the shroud.

To answer your third question: Yes, archaeological evidence has been confirmed with inscriptions of Jesus, the Christian cross, and other biblical names dating back to the time Jesus would have lived.

Please don't take offense that I was ignoring you. I have an honest interest in this and don't want to derail it by those who are trying to make this thread hostile and silly with talks of ninja monks and such.

I was intrigued a little by this story, because you hear of this every now and then. Until it was mentioned who funded the program research... of course... much like the research - it is all speculation now.

From the Globe and Mail "Version" of the story...

"Many still believe that the shroud “has unexplainable characteristics that cannot be reproduced by human means,” lead scientist Luigi Garlaschelli said in the statement. “The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure,” lead scientist Luigi Garlaschelli said in the statement.

The research was funded by the debunking group(the Scientists) and by an Italian organization of atheists and agnostics, he said."

Garlaschelli also stated in the same article... "“They won't give up,” he said. “Those who believe in it will continue to believe.”

So even though this proves the simple fact - that it could be done, back in the day... Biased research also proves - it still remains speculation...

"Many still believe that the shroud “has unexplainable characteristics that cannot be reproduced by human means,” lead scientist Luigi Garlaschelli said in the statement. “The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure,” lead scientist Luigi Garlaschelli said in the statement.

The research was funded by the debunking group(the Scientists) and by an Italian organization of atheists and agnostics, he said."

Garlaschelli also stated in the same article... "“They won't give up,” he said. “Those who believe in it will continue to believe.”

So even though this proves the simple fact - that it could be done, back in the day... Biased research also proves - it still remains speculation...

Yes, of course, it could have been done with materials common to the medieval period. You could also have built an airplane during that period, too, but they didn't.

Yes, I realize that the Professor was able to make a bamboo lie detector that he used on Gilligan and shows like that inspire this type of skepticism, but that's not quite the same, now is it? One, the Professor had knowledge relevant to the twentieth century (much like Luigi Garlaschelli), and, two, it was a television show and didn't really happen.

*note another "skeptic" argument in play--I love skeptic style argumentum*

reply to post by A Fortiori


Exactly!

I did not mean to sound skeptical, I'm not a big fan of MSM... which the Globe and Mail is... that was my reason for throwing up the good old fashioned quotations around the word - version.
I did not seek argument, I was merely trying to quote a few paragraphs that caught my attention... and swayed my opinion. That was all.

So I say again... as per your "style argumentum" - Exactly!

*note - I never really watched G's Island*

reply to post by AshleyD

Please don't take offense that I was ignoring you. I have an honest interest in this and don't want to derail it by those who are trying to make this thread hostile and silly with talks of ninja monks and such.

What is silly or hostile about proposing that the templars were aware of jesus' tomb a far more likely event than the occupant of the tomb reanimating and nipping out to see his mates which is totally silly.

In relation to the wounds, you were initially alluding to the specific wounds (if that is what they are) on the shroud practically confirming that the image is of jesus as no other character had these unique wounds.

I merely attempted to point out that you cannot confirm this to be true just because a body has not been found with this combination of wounds.

You seem to imply that if a body is found with this combination of wounds, the combination itself is unique to as jesus and therefore the body is more than likely that of jesus.

The shroud still remains but a piece of cloth with an image of a wounded man upon it . If we accept for a minute that the cloth came from a certain area around a certain time as true and that the wounds match up to that of a man that died with similar wounds then we may have a possible link but no more.

I don't for a minute discount the possibility of this image being that of a man called jesus that is mentioned in bibles, but I would certainly require some solid evidence for the confirmation.

If you are claiming that because of the alleged uniqueness of the wounds and the circumstances of the cloth, make it highly probable that the image is that of jesus . Then surely if that criteria of circumstance is all that is required, to set the level of probability. Is it ont equally probable that the image is that of the jesus residing in the tomb at talpiot ?

Over here you have many jesus', over there you have a story about a specific jesus with certain attributes. Over there you have an image of a man bearing some of those attributes and over here you have a tomb of man bearing even more of those certain attributes.

If the attributes of the image are enough to confirm it is that of the one specific jesus, then the attributes of the tomb should be enough to close the book on the jesus character.

You have a story, an image, a name , a tomb, some leftover body bits, there's jesus case closed how can I not agree with you?

I forgot to mention the beard. The bible speaks of Jesus beard being 'plucked'. The beard in the shroud has parts missing. Someone had their beard torn out while he was still alive.

I have a book somewhere in the house that talks about this.
I'll have to see if I can find it ....

Kinda brings home just a bit more how much Christ suffered.
Perhaps that's why it has survived 2,000 years.
As a reminder to us all about just how much Christ suffered.

reply to post by moocowman


Ref Talpiot tomb:

Moocow, a lot of people have not heard of this, so I will briefly summarize...

There have been tombs discovered in the "Holy Land" containing ossuaries that had the name of (in Aramaic or Hebrew) Jesus son of Joseph. This particular tomb had a "family" with names very similar to those seen in the Bible, in particular what may be "Mary of Magdalen".

The controversy of this tomb lies in two names and their "derivatives" that of a possible Mary/Miriam and a "Judah" who would be the "son of"... the names themselves are the sticking point and what drives academic controversy. Matching them to the Gospel narratives is difficult as no "Judah" is spoken of, nor is a wedding detailed (hold on, hold on), and it was plainly accepted that a particular spelling and derivative of the name Mary Magdalen was used in consistency in early accounts, none of which match to the ossuary. Moreover the tomb itself is not listed as that belonging to Joseph of Arimathea.

As all of these are common names, then the devil is in the details.

As I stated earlier the study of the historical Jesus is always political. Always. There are those that honestly will go to great lengths to claim "evidence insufficient" in a manner that would not be devoted to say Cicero or Julius Caesar, and there will always be those that jump the gun on evidence, hoping to find proof, and not treat the find in the same they would a Caesar or Cleopatra.

I suggest that people, if interested, do the research for yourselves and use your own best judgment.

Peace out, homies!

reply to post by A Fortiori


I initially raised the issue of this particular jesus in response to the criteria required(by some) for the shroud to that of jesus of the gospels.

The criteria to be met (as I was led to believe by some) was that, the shroud should have it's origin in a particular area around a particular time and that the shroud should carry the image of a man with specific wounds and (perhaps) traces of oils used around a specific area and time .

According to some, because the criteria is met then the shroud is likely (or defiantly) that of the jesus of the gospels.


I have applied the same type of reasoning to the talpiot tomb in that, if similar criteria requirement is applied to this tomb then we can deduce with the same logic that this is the jesus of the gospels.

The specifics of the tomb match the gospels far more accurately than the shroud in that, it is in exactly the right place and time. We have a name of the man, and also his family, the tomb is quite elaborate for a "carpenter" without a pot to piss in and his ossuary appears to be marked with the symbol of the cross.

You seem to be implying that this tomb cannot be that of "the" jesus because the gospels don't ( although the gnostic gospels would appear to allude to this) specifically state that he was married to Mariamene, nor mention the son Yehuda bar yeshua.

If these "extra" attributes would preclude this jesus from being "the" jesus then the same logic should apply to the shroud.
The gospels do not mention coins being placed on the eyes of jesus nor do they mention jesus being nailed through the wrists nor that he was above average height.

If the talpiot jesus is precluded because of circumstances omitted in the gospel editorial room then the same rule must apply to the shroud so neither can it be the shroud of "the" jesus.

reply to post by moocowman


Well, Moocow, I did not say that I did not believe the tomb to be the tomb of the Jesus per the Gospel narratives. I cannot make a personal comment on the tomb.

However, I like your reasoning.

EDIT: I rethought my position on this topic. If you would like to start a thread about the tomb, or, if done before, find it and continue on I would gladly involve myself.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

I have read the Knight and Lomas book and find it very fascinating. They detail much of how they think the image was made but also they answer many questions about how it got to where it was found, why DeMolay was he treated in a manner that the Christ was and much more.
To me, this approach makes much more sense than the original thought of it being from Christ for many reasons but this is my belief.
This debate can go on for a very long time but the main thing is believe.. because you truly believe....no matter what it is you believe.
Peace

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

I initially raised the issue of this particular jesus in response to the criteria required(by some) for the shroud to that of jesus of the gospels.

The criteria to be met (as I was led to believe by some) was that, the shroud should have it's origin in a particular area around a particular time and that the shroud should carry the image of a man with specific wounds and (perhaps) traces of oils used around a specific area and time .

I'm with you...

According to some, because the criteria is met then the shroud is likely (or defiantly) that of the jesus of the gospels.

Uh huh.

I have applied the same type of reasoning to the talpiot tomb in that, if similar criteria requirement is applied to this tomb then we can deduce with the same logic that this is the jesus of the gospels.

The specifics of the tomb match the gospels far more accurately than the shroud in that, it is in exactly the right place and time. We have a name of the man, and also his family, the tomb is quite elaborate for a "carpenter" without a pot to piss in and his ossuary appears to be marked with the symbol of the cross.

Yes, and no (on the Shroud) if you go by pollen dating (200 BCE to 80 CE) and the weave of the cloth (1000 BCE to 1000 CE), and the details (payot, coin, broken nose, wounds, etc) and you are "investigating" like you would a crime scene versus trying to "disprove" something so that you can achieve the goal of academic detachment (See Note) then you would look at the "Missing Person" report and think: Wait a second! This might be our guy!

You seem to be implying that this tomb cannot be that of "the" jesus because the gospels don't ( although the gnostic gospels would appear to allude to this) specifically state that he was married to Mariamene, nor mention the son Yehuda bar yeshua.

That is what the scholars who disagreed gave as their reason. One would think that they utilize the gnostic texts and apply it, but remember the goal is not to prove the existence of Jesus in history. It truly isn't. Academia takes very seriously the notion that they must try to disprove his existence, first, and if they can't they are left with something "special". There was a good reason the seminar was started and that was so that no one appeared biased or pushed Christology in a history class.

The problem is they do not do this with Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or any other historical figures. They actually do give him "special treatment". Do you know what the carbon date is on the oldest "Gallic Wars" or the histories of Plutarch, Josephus, and Tacitus? Yes, the same Tacitus and Josephus that they say are non contemporary to Jesus. Right, and yet...we believe them when they wrote that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and entered Rome, that he had an affair with Cleopatra, that he kicked the crap out of the Gauls, etc. We believe all of it and teach it as history without question. Why is he treated differently? In his death he was thought of as a god, so why not critique his "death" in the forum to betrayal? He, too, was martyred. Maybe the ancients loved a good martyr story?

Or...maybe, history repeats itself. We see it in the modern era. Three thousand years from now will scholars sifting through our remains think that Dr King didn't exist and was just an amalgam of Gandhi and others?

So back to Mary Magdalen and the child...

Arguments for:

Some say the wedding where he turned water into wine was his own as no one would insult the host by supplying wine.

A Jewish rabbi of his age ought to have married lest people think he had "the Greek disease".

Children would honor his wife by proving she could bear sons.

Sex wasn't naughty and the gods of the ancient world had a lot of sex with people.

Maybe it is left out of the Gospel narratives because it was "common knowledge", or maybe she was the "disciple whom the Lord loved".

*shrugs*

The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.

If these "extra" attributes would preclude this jesus from being "the" jesus then the same logic should apply to the shroud.
The gospels do not mention coins being placed on the eyes of jesus nor do they mention jesus being nailed through the wrists nor that he was above average height.

No, they do not.

If the talpiot jesus is precluded because of circumstances omitted in the gospel editorial room then the same rule must apply to the shroud so neither can it be the shroud of "the" jesus.

Again, if there was a "Missing Persons" and both artifacts were found by a CSI team and told a crime had been committed, they would piece it together differently than someone who is trying to disprove it to show impartiality.

Let's say somehow the shroud was proven to be authentic and of Jesus. The road wouldn't stop there because even early Christians didn't agree on 'who' Jesus was.
The miraculous nature of the shroud wouldn't prove much either because we hear miraculous happens with holy men and women throughout history and even unto today.
If the Shroud was forged, why couldn't one suspect that it was done by means of an unknown technology? The ancients were able to acomplish things that we even today cannot seem to duplicate. This dosn't mean they had ray guns and what not but who knows.
If I have spoken ignorantly, do forgive. Just some thoughts I had.

Originally posted by Agent Thunder
Let's say somehow the shroud was proven to be authentic and of Jesus. The road wouldn't stop there because even early Christians didn't agree on 'who' Jesus was.

Not being "smart" but why do you think that the early Christians didn't agree on "who" Jesus was? Are you referring to the "one iota"? Whether he was considered a prophet, a god, Messiah, or G-D, they would have still collected a token/relic. The ancients were very into collectibles, as it were.

The miraculous nature of the shroud wouldn't prove much either because we hear miraculous happens with holy men and women throughout history and even unto today.

It would prove quite a bit because we hear that these things happen, but we are also quick to question them.

If the Shroud was forged, why couldn't one suspect that it was done by means of an unknown technology?

Maslow. Greed is an extension of our base need. If we had the technology to produce photo images we would have capitalized upon it. This was true of the ancients and true today.

The ancients were able to acomplish things that we even today cannot seem to duplicate. This dosn't mean they had ray guns and what not but who knows.
If I have spoken ignorantly, do forgive. Just some thoughts I had.

Not at all ignorantly!

They were very good suppositions. If you are interested...try researching astro-archaeology. In order for the Egyptians to make a calendar over 1750+ years (I'd have to look at notes, but some crazy number like that) per cycle of Ra they would have had to record close to sixty generations back. Very cool stuffs.

Shroud of Turin...

Another one?

When will it end......