← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · MacDonald CSA
Thread ID: 13730 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2004-05-15
2004-05-15 16:28 | User Profile
[img]http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/adurfee/calculus/shroud-neg.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.freymanc.com/images/corrections.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.shroud.com/shrdbig2.jpg[/img]
Here is something I found on the HEIGHT of the image...
[url]http://www.shroud.com/faq.htm#1[/url]
Q: How tall is the man in the image on the Shroud of Turin?
Editor's Note: I asked Isabel Piczek, noted monumental artist, theoretical physicist and Shroud historian to answer this question. Isabel's expertise is based on her many years of experience in figurative arts and human anatomy.
A: The figurative arts have, as their special subject of study, proportion, type, structure and style of a body, including bone and muscle structure. The size of a face from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin, the type and length of the arms, the type of the fingers, the type and structure of the torso, etc., absolutely determine the height of a man and nature shows no variations. One has to add to all these a keen sense of draftsmanship, which sees foreshortenings and how they effect the height.
To my knowledge, in Shroud studies only three researchers addressed the question with solid authority:
In the early 1960's, Professor Lorenzo Ferri studied at length and in depth the question of the height of the Man of the Shroud. He spent decades with these studies and created, with special permission of the Vatican, a full size statue of the Shroud which is very correct. He has been quoted as saying that "The body of Christ could not have been fully stretched out in burial." And again, "The measuring of the body (by scientific methods) did not allow for the body being in a slightly hunched position." Professor Ferri held that the man of the Shroud was 6'1" to 6'2". Professor Ferri looked at this problem from the structural-sculptural point of view.
Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D., spoke on television and elsewhere about the height of the Man of the Shroud. He gave his opinion as a medical expert, not as a forensic pathologist. He judged the man to be 5'11ý".
The third person to study this problem with authority is myself. I have lectured on the subject at the New York International Symposium, the St. Louis International Symposium, in London at the British Society's special meeting, the Rome International Symposium and the 1996 Esopus Conference. The Rome and St. Louis Proceedings published my work on the subject.
I have approached the question of height from the design point of view - an image which describes a 3D object and vice-versa, including the problem of foreshortening. I have also analyzed body type, muscle structure and proportion. I determined the height to be 5'11ý" to 6'1", give or take 1" for linen stretch and shrinking, both of which are possible. Because of the body type, even with shrinkage, [color=red]the man cannot be under 5'11ý". I lean more towards 6'0".[/color] Whether Jews in Jesus's time were smaller or larger is not relevant here. Jews were not small to start with, judging by the finds in the 1st century cemetery excavated near the wall of the Temple in the sixties. At any rate, there are many historical examples of tall people emerging out of nations with small stature: Goliath, King Arthur, Charlemagne, St. Ladislus the King of Hungary, etc.
Only WHITES (of that time period) are that tall... He certainly looks to have some white features. The last carbon dating places this artifact around the 12th century A.D.
What do you think?
Yes it has been proven as a fake only as it relates to it belonging to that time period and being "Jesus".
But what about the 12th century carbon dating? Could he be a Viking or Saxon?
2004-05-15 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MacDonald CSA]Yes it has been proven as a fake only as it relates to it belonging to that time period and being "Jesus".[/QUOTE]
Really?! When and where was this done, MacD?
2004-05-15 18:35 | User Profile
Regardless of what science may say, THE BIBLE declares that the shroud is a fake.
It's really embarrassingly simple: listen to the testimony of the Gospel:
[COLOR=Blue]John 20:
6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and (9) the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the (10) linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. [/COLOR]
Elementary, my dear Watson: the true shroud of Jesus did not include this face-cloth at all, but it was a separate piece.
On the other hand, the shroud of Turin is one piece of cloth from head to toe.
All this speculation could have been avoided by reading your Bible instead of Catholic fables.
Petr
2004-05-15 19:23 | User Profile
I have never heard it suggested that the image was anything other than a white man--one bearing evidence of having been crucified.
The testing that was done may have been on a portion of the Shroud added at a later time. Different portions should be tested and compared. Pollen samples also connect the cloth to the Middle East.
I don't understand the point about the "face cloth." (My Bible translates to a "napkin wrapped about his head.") First we must decide how this image was made. There should be some natural explanation--whether it was from the 12th century or any other time. Are you aware of one? Afterward, the factor of the face cloth could be assessed.
Incidentally, you are welcome here. But I would suggest to you that this forum is not a place for snide remarks about Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox, all of whom visit here in a civil way.
2004-05-15 19:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Really?! When and where was this done, MacD?[/QUOTE]
There was a carbon dating done that placed it between 1260-1390 A. D.
Debunking The Shroud: Made by Human Hands... [url]http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm[/url] Biblical Archaeology Review
[url]http://web.mountain.net/~havoc/rational/turinrc.html[/url] The Radiocarbon Dating Controversy
2004-05-15 19:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MacDonald CSA]There was a carbon dating done that placed it between 1260-1390 A. D.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=44095&postcount=11[/url]
2004-05-15 20:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Regardless of what science may say, THE BIBLE declares that the shroud is a fake.[/QUOTE] Of course that settles the question! LOL
"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."
Martin Luther, quoted in Walter Kaufmann's Critique of Religion and Philosophy, pages 305-307.
"The opinion of the earth's motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation, should be tolerated sooner than the argument to prove that the earth moves."
Jesuit Father Melchior Inchofer (1631), quoted in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology Volume 1, page 139.
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo in 1615.
"We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides."
St. Ignatius of Loyola, Exercitia Spiritualia
That's right -- God gave you a brain, but He fully expects you to shut it off if some other mortal men (including those who wrote and/or compiled the Bible) tell you to do so. How do you know that's what He wants? You just have to take it on faith. Don't worry -- you'll be rewarded after you're dead and gone!
2004-05-15 20:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther, quoted in Walter Kaufmann's Critique of Religion and Philosophy, pages 305-307.
[url=http://user.txcyber.com/~wd5iqr/tcl/hein.htm]Reason and the Two Kingdoms: An Essay in Luther's Thought[/url] [url=http://www.leaderu.com/science/kobe.html]Luther and Science[/url]
That's right -- God gave you a brain, but He fully expects you to shut it off if some other mortal men (including those who wrote and/or compiled the Bible) tell you to do so. How do you know that's what He wants? You just have to take it on faith. Don't worry -- you'll be rewarded after you're dead and gone![/QUOTE]
Go easy, Angler.
2004-05-15 20:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Go easy, Angler.[/QUOTE] Why do you say that?
2004-05-15 20:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Why do you say that?[/QUOTE]
So you'd ask me why.
2004-05-15 20:46 | User Profile
That vibe again.
2004-05-15 21:08 | User Profile
Angler:
The work of Galileo was really only a footnote to that of Copernicus (d. 1543). Copernicus was a Catholic priest. Far from being censored, he spoke publicly and was encouraged by clerical friends to put his ideas into print, which he also did.
His work was suppressed 73 years after his death when the conflicts with Protestants had erupted and many wanted to attack him and thereby attack the Church. Galileo was just asked to keep a discreet silence until the storm passed. Many educated people were well aware of Copernicus' ideas and his fame.
Here's one more thought, from Arnold Lunn in [I]The Flight from Reason[/I]:
"The medieval Church was uninterested in, rather than hostile to science. The intellectual energies of the great thinkers were concentrated on philosophy. The neglect of science must be ascribed, not to the active opposition of the Church, but to the fact that the great Churchmen were absorbed in other interests. [B]The Popes, indeed, were always ready to patronize scientific discovery[/B] provided the scientists did not tresapass on the provice of the theologians..."
2004-05-15 21:15 | User Profile
Hey Angler, do you hate the Bible so much that it blinds you from seeing how eminently reasonable my position is?
The Bible says clearly that Jesus' burial cloth was made up at the least TWO SEPARATE parts. The Shroud of Turin is a singular piece.
I'd say that the Gospel testimony matters more than some rag discovered centuries later.
(And besides - in the Turin shroud, "Jesus" is long-haired, which was considered to be shameful for males back then in Israel)
You prove only your own immaturity in these issues by starting to rant about Luther and other stuff irrelevant to this discussion.
Petr
2004-05-15 22:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Regardless of what science may say, THE BIBLE declares that the shroud is a fake.
It's really embarrassingly simple: listen to the testimony of the Gospel:
[color=Blue]John 20:
6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and (9) the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the (10) linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. [/color]
Elementary, my dear Watson: the true shroud of Jesus did not include this face-cloth at all, but it was a separate piece. On the other hand, the shroud of Turin is one piece of cloth from head to toe.[/QUOTE] I would not read too much into that, Petr. The fact that there was a separate wrapping for the head (face-cloth) does not necessarily mean that the shroud did not also cover the face. The face cloth could have been an additional head wrapping.
2004-05-15 22:12 | User Profile
Perhaps, Quantrill, but any man who believes in the consistency of Scriptures cannot believe that Jesus wore long hair, as "he" would seem to have in the Turin shroud. Apostle Paul condemned it as unnatural for men, voicing the usual opinion of Israel at that time.
I get annoyed every time this "hippie Jesus" is paraded in the church paintings and on the silver screen.
Petr
2004-05-16 13:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Perhaps, Quantrill, but any man who believes in the consistency of Scriptures cannot believe that Jesus wore long hair, as "he" would seem to have in the Turin shroud. Apostle Paul condemned it as unnatural for men, voicing the usual opinion of Israel at that time. Petr[/QUOTE] You may be right, Petr, although consider that it was uncommon for a rabbi to still be unmarried at the age of 30, and yet Jesus was. So, I think it is at least possible that he had long hair, in spite of local custom.
2004-05-16 16:31 | User Profile
Quantrill, you may be certain that if Jesus had really worn long hair, Talmud would have mocked Him for it. Rabbis mercilessly mocked Jews who deviated from the accepted Jewish outlook.
And how could have Paul written that it was a "disgrace" for men to be long-haired if Jesus had been so?
(Here you can find a detailed discussion on this "Jesus not being married"-thing:
[url]http://www.christian-thinktank.com/singlejesus.html[/url]
Petr
2004-05-16 19:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=44095&postcount=11[/url][/QUOTE]
"Blessed are they that have not seen..."
ââ¬ÅJesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.ââ¬Â (John 20:29)