 |
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:
Do we have documentary evidence of anyone's existence in this period of time? You have an unnecessarily strict standard of evidence. 30 years would be considered very reliable evidence when weighed against all other sources, and how long they wrote after their sources.
|
Great, then I'll have to assume that Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Hammurabi, Alexander and Darius never existed either...
sheesh...
Come on, the guy was supposedly hailed as king of the jews, persecuted by the state, the guy was one of the greatest revolutionaries in history and there's no historical evidence to prove his existence... kinda funny don't you think?
quote:
However, I feel that the circumstantial evidence weighs against the perpetual virginity of marriage. I just don't see why Mary needs to be a virgin after she has had Jesus. |
And why couldn't Mary have ****ged Joseph before? I mean, seriously, what twisted puritan conservative religious BS is that when sex is considered a sin?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:
Do we have documentary evidence of anyone's existence in this period of time? You have an unnecessarily strict standard of evidence. 30 years would be considered very reliable evidence when weighed against all other sources, and how long they wrote after their sources. |
I've answered this several times for you, yet you still keep asking it like it's a new point.
Yes, we have tons of documentary evidence for the existence of lots of people from that time period. Paul, for instance. Caesar, and all the Roman Emperors. Writers, historians, philosophers, religious leaders, politicians, etc.
We can corraborate their existence through contemporary public records, their own writings, writings about them from contemporaries, contemporary effigies, etc. There exists NONE of this for Jesus. And he supposedly, if you believe the events described in the Gospels, made such a huge stink that he had all of Israel in fits. How could such a figure go overlooked by, well, everything?
Take the tale that Herod ordered all the babies to be killed. You'd think such a thing would be noted, especially by the Romans. But it's a fabrication, Herod ordered no such massacre.
On top of that, we have documentary sources that indicate Jesus was a composite character of sorts (such as the Talmud's "Yeshua"), and these characters had probably been long dead by 30 CE. There are many such writings that date back to 100 BCE or earlier, and in them the messianic figure described has similarities to Jesus.
So here's the basic gist:
In Israel, there are literally dozens of messianic cults abounding, much of them a reaction to Roman occupation. Some follow John the Baptist, others "Yeshua," etc., etc. Along comes our dear friend Paul. Now, what do we know about Paul before his supposed conversion? Nothing but what he tells us: That he was a Pharisee who persecuted Christians but had a vision and is converted. But was he really a Pharisee? Is he telling the truth? According the Gnostics, he was a liar. Their documents, which are contemporary with Paul, claim he was a Saducee who had a rift with the Temple leaders in Jerusalem. Probably this is due to his particular philosophy, which he details in his letters.
So Paul goes off on his own, finds one (or more) of these messianic cults and basically co-opts them. He needs a voice for his message, and the "Yeshua" figure fits the bill. You'll notice that Paul's writings, the earliest at all about Jesus, are absolutely devoid of any details of Jesus's life. Paul was concerned with expounding his philosophy.
As the decades wear on, Paul's teachings become popular (his message was, overall, something new and positive for most people). Meanwhile, the myths and stories of these cults are floating around. The mysterious Q gospel and Mark are among the earliest that attempt to describe the life of this Jesus, and are probably part true, part exaggeration, and part utter fiction. The subsequent Gospels of Luke, Matthew and John all use Mark and Q as a basis, adding more exaggeration to the tales. They weren't meant to complement one another (as the contradictions show), but rather be the new tale of this mythical messiah. None of these appeared until almost the 2nd century CE, with John being dated to about 110-130 BCE. We have no idea who wrote any of them, as the attributions were not assigned to them until the 2nd century as well (the earliest known manuscripts are without any authorship attribution), and the notion they were written by the disciples described therein is wishful thinking.
So, after the Christian cult has spread rapidly, thanks to Paul's philosophy, the followers decide to codify the wildly differentiating beliefs with the "New Testament" There were literally thousands of gospels flying around at this time, and they settled on four, and even then omitted and added passages to suit their tastes. This is where we see the real beginning of a single Christian faith, rather than the jumble of different tales going around the ancient world. The rest is history, for here is where the murkiness of early Christianity gives way to documentary evidence.
I don't know if the above is true or not, but I find it quite plausible (moreso than the great Jesus making so much trouble but leaving no footprints). Recent discoveries of early manuscripts has only supported this view, although there is not any conclusive evidence by any means. There is, however, more evidence for this (such as Gnostics) than for the traditional Jesus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
Indeed! If one considers that Mithraism predates Christianity by hundreds of years, it's pretty obvious that much of what was written about Jesus was just co-opting the Mithras myths.
http://www.crystalinks.com/mithra.html
quote:
Mithraism began in Persia where originally a multitude of gods were worshipped. Amongst them were Ahura-Mazda, god of the skies, and Ahriman, god of darkness. In the sixth and seventh century B.C., a vast reformation of the Persian pantheon was undertaken by Zarathustra (known in Greek as Zoroaster), a prophet from the kingdom of Bactria. The stature of Ahura-Mazda was elevated to that of supreme god of goodness, whereas the god Ahriman became the ultimate embodiment of evil.
In the same way that Ahkenaton, Abraham, Heliogabalus, and Mohammed later initiated henotheistic cults from the worship of their respective deities, Zarathustra created a henotheistic dualism with the gods Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. As a result of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews (597 B.C.) and their later emancipation by King Cyrus the Great of Persia (538 B.C.), Zoroastrian dualism was to influence the Jewish belief in the existence of HaShatan, the malicious Adversary of the god Yahweh, and later permit the evolution of the Christian Satan-Jehovah dichotomy. Persian religious dualism became the foundation of an ethical system that has lasted until this day.
The reformation of Zarathustra retained the hundreds of Persian deities, assembling them into a complex hierarchical system of 'Immortals' and 'Adored Ones' under the rule of either Ahura- Mazda or Ahriman. Within this vast pantheon, Mithras gained the title of 'Judger of Souls'. He became the divine representative of Ahura-Mazda on earth, and was directed to protect the righteous from the demonic forces of Ahriman. Mithras was called omniscient, undeceivable, infallible, eternally watchful, and never-resting.
...
Ahura-Mazda was said to have created Mithras to be as great and worthy as himself. He would fight the spirits of evil to protect the creations of Ahura-Mazda and cause even Ahriman to tremble. Mithras was seen as the protector of just souls from demons seeking to drag them down to Hell, and the guide of these souls to Paradise. As Lord of the Sky, he took the role of psychopomp, conducting the souls of the righteous dead to paradise.
According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra. Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation. Anahita was said to have conceived the Saviour from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan. Mithra's ascension to heaven was said to have occurred in 208 B.C., 64 years after his birth. Parthian coins and documents bear a double date with this 64 year interval.
...
According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The God remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil.
The Persians called Mithras 'The Mediator' since he was believed to stand between the light of Ahura-Mazda and the darkness of Ahriman. He was said to have 1000 eyes, expressing the conviction that no man could conceal his wrongdoing from the god. Mithras was known as the God of Truth, and Lord of Heavenly Light, and said to have stated "I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths".
...
As 'God of Truth and Integrity', Mithras was invoked in solemn oaths to pledge the fulfillment of contracts and punish liars. He was believed to maintain peace, wisdom, honour, prosperity, and cause harmony to reign among all his worshippers. According to the Avesta, Mithras could decide when different periods of world history were completed. He would judge mortal souls at death and brandish his mace over hell three times each day so that demons would not inflict greater punishment on sinners than they deserved.
...
The faithful referred to Mithras as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity.
The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of judgement in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.
Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.
|
Now, not all of these beliefs and practices were created at once time, and when the cult transferred to the Romans, it was changed considerably. Christian apologists have claimed that it was Mithraism that stole from Christianity, not the other way around. This, however, is not substantiated, as thier assertions are based on fallacious statements as to the dates of the gospels and complete assumptions as to how widespread and well-known Christian teachings were in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.
The similarities are remarkable enough to give one pause. It also demonstrates how easily a popular cult can arise based on a completely non-existant figurehead, once again pointing out that the existence of Christianity is not remotely proof of the existence of Jesus.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 22-06-2003 at 05:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Even if i already talked about religion in this forum enough for the whole next year, i would like to add a couple of corrections on the Shround and the Mithra things:
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Utter nonsense. And you don't even support these wild claims! The Shroud has been debunked time and time again by science, yet people still cling to it desperately.
|
Science is still debating over the truth of the Shroud, the only reached consensus is that the 1988 C14 analysis were wrong...
The true nonsense is to take C14 dating as an absolute proof 
In fact studing a bit how the whole procedure works one could understand that it's more like a guess-the-date game.
For a correct C14 dating the artifact should meet several requirements, the most importants are that the artifact should remain chemically and physically a closed system since its emplacement and that the radiocarbonist should know the atmospheric concentration of C14 at the dating time.
It's a fact that the radiocarbon dates often diverge from the historical dates by several hundred years and it's famous the mistake about early Egypt samples where the dates calculated using C14 were too young by several hundred years, at least according to the established chronology of dynastic history. Obvioulsy, as in our case, there were a lot of people in the radiocarbon field who argued that it was the chronology that "had to be fixed" because C14 was objective and scientifical. Later, it was confirmed that the chronology was correct and C14 dates needed recalibration.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century. Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.
|
Now, aside the fact that you can "clean" the cloth samples carefully as you want but this doesn't do a lot about "contamination" since there's still the isotope exchange with materials in prolonged contact with the shroud, it still remains the fact that science proved that fire, adding carbon isotopes to the artifact, can alter radiocarbon age by centuries (Jackson, Propp 1998).
But fire is not the only cause that helped skewing the 1988 test:
There's the fact that linens are never correctely dated using C14 (look at egypt samples)
There's the bioplastic coating of bacteria discovered by the microbiologist Garza-Valdes on the linen fibers: these microbes, living, absorb and add carbon (C14) to the linen; they were not known at the time of the test and were not removed by the C14 cleaning protocol, Garza-Valdes thinks that the error added was at least of 1300 years.
Anyway it is a nonsense to try to date shroud with C14, since, like i said, a constrain is that the artifact should remain chemically and physically a closed system since its emplacement, obvioulsy, being an object of religious cult it was exposed to masses for centuries, and this hardly matches the definition of closed-system
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Sometime since in this dioceses of Troyes, The Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not of any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted...
Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [the Bishop] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth was cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed... I offer myself as ready to supply all information sufficient to remove any doubt concerning the facts alleged."
|
Sorry for the artist theory but the image on the shroud is NOT a painting.
There are no signs of penetration; the blood was on the Cloth before the image (an unlikely way for an artist to work); there is no outline, there are no brush strokes, no style of any period or directionality, no binders to hold paint, no evidence of paint, dye, ink, chalk creating the images
furthermore the image shows a perfect photo-negativity and 3-Dimensionality.
Today we still don't really know how that image was done, we only know that it was not painted, because it's caused by a rapid dehydration, oxidation and degradation of the linen due to an unidentified process.
There is even who thinks that this dehydration was due to scorch caused light from a miliburst of radiation consistent with the Resurrection.
This is particularly interesting because the miliburst of radiation could be another factor to the addition of C14 to the Shroud.
As a physicist working on the problem said: "We never had a Resurrection to study and more testing must be done to ascertain whether a neutron-flux effectively occurred".
Plus your interpretation has to face with medieval knowledge about the crucifixion:
just to make an example, the man of the Shroud shows clearly nail wound in the wrist, today we know, thanks to bodies of cruxified people found in Israel in 1960, that nails where placed in the wrist, but the medieval knowledge was different:
as the art historian McNair noticed "I have studied hundreds of paintings, sculptures and carvings of Christ's crucifixion and deposition, from the 13th to the 16th centuries, and not one of them shows the nail-wound anywhere but in the palm of his hand.".
You've to explain me how a medieval artist who wanted to fool other medieval people decided to change the way to depict the crucifixion, not very smart, and, incredibly, he even guessed the historically correct method!!
and there are a ton of other evidences, if science debunked something, it's the painting theory!
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"Blood has not been identified on the shroud directly, but it has been identified on sticky tape that was used to lift fibrils from the shroud. Dried, aged blood is black. The stains on the shroud are red. Forensic tests on the red stuff have identified it as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint. Other tests by Adler and Heller have identified it as blood.* If it is blood, it could be the blood of some 14th century person. It could be the blood of someone wrapped in the shroud, or the blood of the creator of the shroud, or of anyone who has ever handled the shroud, or of anyone who handled the sticky tape. But even if there were blood on the shroud, that would have no bearing on the age of the shroud or on its authenticity."
|
Not true,
The blood on the Shroud is real;
it is human male blood of the type AB as confirmed several times.
the tricky part is that this blood type is rare (3.2% of world population) and the highest percentage is found in, guess where, northern Palestine.
It is red and not black for the high concentration of pigment bilirubin which is consistent with the someone dying under great stress or trauma, and making the color more red than normal ancient blood.
A further study found a "degraded DNA" (approx. 700 base pairs) "consistent with the supposition of ancient blood."
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged "Hitler Diaries" genuine. Frei's tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset since similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had comparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the "lead" (or end), rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud. (See Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Summer 1994 pp. 379-385.)"
|
Not true,
aside the fact that Max Frei was a botanic expert and not an handwriting one (maybe Einstein was a jerk at cooking, this make us dump relativity?) his results were confirmed several times:
by Israeli botanist and expert on the plant life of Israel, Dr. Avinoam Danin
by Dr. Alan Whanger, Professor Emeritus at Duke University
by Dr. Uri Baruch of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
In fact Danin indicates that such pollen grains serve as "geographic and calendar indicators" demonstrating that the origin or provenance of the Shroud was definitely the Holy Land and more specifically in an area in and around Jerusalem. Evidence also suggest that the flowers on the Shroud were picked in the Spring, a period consistent with the time of the Passover and the Crucifixion.
And again there are also a ton of others facts against the fraud theory (what about Tiberious coin? he painted it too? and in a 3D coherent way?) but i wrote enough for today.
Maybe the man was not Christ but another poor fellow crucifixed by romans, anyway i strongly believe that evidence shows us that it can't be just a medieval painting.
About Mithraism:
It's well known that Mithraism predates Christianity, but the point is that Mithraism, being a mystery religion, changed to adhere to Christianity.
In fact Mithra, in ancient Persia and India, was considered a warrior:
From his celestial eyrie he spies out his enemies; armed in fullest panoply he swoops down upon them, scatters and slaughters them. He desolates and lays waste the homes of the wicked, he annihilates the tribes and the nations hostile to him. On the other hand he is the puissant ally of the faithful in all their warlike expeditions. The blows of their enemies "miss their mark, for Mithra, sore incensed, receives them"; and he assures victory to them that "have had fit instruction in the Good, the honor him and offer him the sacrificial libations.
The birth of Mithra is witnessed by shepherds who see him emerge from a rock "adorned with a Phyrgian cap, armed with a knife, and carrying a torch.".
The first battle of the young hero is with the Sun whom he defeats and then restores to power as his vassal. Following this Mithra pursues and upon the command of heaven slays the Bull, the first created creature.
Having insured a good life for people, Mithra is borne into the Heavens by the Sun on his four-sided chariot. Mithra now looks down on the earth to preserve it from evil.
It's hardly a surprise to discover that a warrior God spread easily in roman legions and in Rome itself.
Christianity has to face it during its first steps in Rome but Mithra was changed by the contact, not the other way around, in fact, your quote comes from a later period when "contamination" with Christianity already happened, and it's hard to find in it the warrior traits of the original persian Mithra, and, as you can read, in old Persian myth there's no reference to a virgin mother since Mithra was supposed to born from a rock...ok, maybe a virgin rock but it's not the same...
And i could go ahead since in Mithraism there's no Passion (Mithra never sacrificed himself or died, he simply decided to ascended to heaven riding the sun) or other things that makes Christianity unique (yes, Mithra too incarnated into a human... a human emerging from a rock adorned with a Phyrgian cap, armed with a knife, and carrying a torch... ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
Boris:
The standard keeps shifting, so I have to keep asking the same question.
quote:
writings about them from contemporaries,
|
Well then the Gospels count. Written by contemporaries of Christ, though not while the events happened. Your blade is too dull.
quote:
Take the tale that Herod ordered all the babies to be killed. You'd think such a thing would be noted, especially by the Romans. But it's a fabrication, Herod ordered no such massacre.
|
Really. BAM as it stands, without evidence.
quote:
According the Gnostics, he was a liar.
|
Well, I suppose the Gnostics get along just fine with orthodox Christians. Why should we believe what they say about Paul, over his own testimony, when the Gnostics try very hard to destroy Christianity?
quote:
Their documents, which are contemporary with Paul, claim he was a Saducee who had a rift with the Temple leaders in Jerusalem.
|
Nice work if you can get it, and if you can get it, won't you tell me how?
quote:
You'll notice that Paul's writings, the earliest at all about Jesus, are absolutely devoid of any details of Jesus's life. Paul was concerned with expounding his philosophy.
|
Let's see.
1 Cor 15:3-8
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[1] : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter,[2] and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
True, except the philosophy comes from Christ, not Paul. 
The reason for the delay in the Gospels is that all the Christians trusted Christ when he said that he will come soon, to the point where they mistakenly believed that it would be within their own lifespan. Now, why write these things down, unless Christ might not be coming until much later?
quote:
The mysterious Q gospel and Mark are among the earliest that attempt to describe the life of this Jesus, and are probably part true, part exaggeration, and part utter fiction.
|
According to whom? You? What evidence do you have them for being in any part exaggeration without assuming that miracles do not happen?
quote:
The subsequent Gospels of Luke, Matthew and John all use Mark and Q as a basis, adding more exaggeration to the tales.
|
We know far less about the order of composition. Many scholars favour a Matthean priority over Markan. Why favour Mark over Matthew?
Secondly, where do they exaggerate?
quote:
They weren't meant to complement one another (as the contradictions show), but rather be the new tale of this mythical messiah.
|
What contradictions? Difficulties, but I explained every single one you presented concerning the Gospels.
quote:
None of these appeared until almost the 2nd century CE, with John being dated to about 110-130 BCE.
|
Many assumptions here. Assumes miracles cannot happen, for one. Without this assumption, you get dates around 55-65 AD for the synoptics, and 75-90 for John. I'd love to see your source that says 110-130 for John.
quote:
and the notion they were written by the disciples described therein is wishful thinking.
|
quote:
as the attributions were not assigned to them until the 2nd century as well
|
B contradicts A. Assuming that the books were written that late, second century attributions should not be a problem.
quote:
(moreso than the great Jesus making so much trouble but leaving no footprints).
|
On Earth? I think that he made a huge footprint, in terms of people and soft stuff rather than hard stuff that we can use for archaeology. 2000 years we debate all this over Jesus?
There are a few more logical inconsistences, the death of Paul in Rome. Why die for a lie, comes for starters.
Why would other Jews, and Gentiles believe in a lie, how could Peter attract converts at Pentecost without the Holy Spirit?
Your scenario needs to fill some of these holes.
SPLITTING POST
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra. Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation.
|
Old skepticism.
Go here:
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html
"By the time of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies in the early 70s, the lack of evidence of an Iranian/Roman continuity led Mithraic scholars to suspect that Roman Mithraism was "a new creation using old Iranian names and details for an exotic coloring to give a suitably esoteric appearance to a mystery cult" [MS, xiii] -- and that Roman Mithraism was Mithraism in name only, merely a new system that used the name of a known ancient Eastern deity to attract urbane Romans who found the east and all of its accoutrements an enticing mystery. Think of it as repackaging an old religion to suit new tastes, only all you keep is the name of the deity! And what was that new religion? For years Mithraic scholars puzzled over the meaning of the bull-slaying scene; the problem was, as we have noted, that the Mithraists left behind pictures without captions. Thus in the 70s, one scholar of Mithraism lamented [MS.437]:
At present our knowledge of both general and local cult practice in respect of rites of passage, ceremonial feats and even underlying ideology is based more on conjecture than fact."
Oh and BTW, the star map is indeed a star map.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
Science is still debating over the truth of the Shroud, the only reached consensus is that the 1988 C14 analysis were wrong... |
Who is debating? Have any dating tests shown the Shroud to be older? Is the assertion that the tests are thrown off by other factors based on any evidence, or just wishful thinking? It's the latter. People presuppose the Shroud is real, and invent "what-ifs" to back up their claims without evidence.
quote:
Obvioulsy, as in our case, there were a lot of people in the radiocarbon field who argued that it was the chronology that "had to be fixed" because C14 was objective and scientifical. Later, it was confirmed that the chronology was correct and C14 dates needed recalibration. |
C14 tests done on the Shroud have taken into account the conditions that can throw off dating and have confirmed the dates c. 1200-1400 CE.
quote:
Now, aside the fact that you can "clean" the cloth samples carefully as you want but this doesn't do a lot about "contamination" since there's still the isotope exchange with materials in prolonged contact with the shroud, it still remains the fact that science proved that fire, adding carbon isotopes to the artifact, can alter radiocarbon age by centuries (Jackson, Propp 1998). |
Bullshit. "The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."
quote:
Sorry for the artist theory but the image on the shroud is NOT a painting.
There are no signs of penetration; the blood was on the Cloth before the image (an unlikely way for an artist to work); there is no outline, there are no brush strokes, no style of any period or directionality, no binders to hold paint, no evidence of paint, dye, ink, chalk creating the images |
http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html
"This included careful inspection of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas (Shroud and sample points), characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. The paint pigments were dispersed in a collagen tempera (produced in medieval times, perhaps, from parchment). It is chemically distinctly different in composition from blood but readily detected and identified microscopically by microchemical staining reactions. Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes.
There is no blood in any image area, only red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers.
The Electron Optics Group at McCrone Associates (John Gavrilovic, Anna Teetsov, Mark Andersen, Ralph Hinsch, Howard Humecki, Betty Majewski, and Deborah Piper) in 1980 used electron and x-ray diffraction and found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); their electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone's results and further proved the image was painted twice-once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas."
quote:
furthermore the image shows a perfect photo-negativity and 3-Dimensionality. |
It certainly does not! LOOK at it! Does that honestly look like a photorealistic image to you? Why is the hair perfectly straight down the side of the face? Jesus would have been lying down, so the hair should be back. Why is the image not distorted to account for the shroud wrapping around Jesus?
quote:
just to make an example, the man of the Shroud shows clearly nail wound in the wrist, today we know, thanks to bodies of cruxified people found in Israel in 1960, that nails where placed in the wrist, but the medieval knowledge was different: |
Clearly? BS again. There is a bright sploch over the wrist area. That's all. Why do you assume it represents a wound of any kind? Considering the number of such sploches on the shroud, assuming it represents anything is wishful conjecture. The objection that nobody knew about the wrists at the time is pure conjecture as well. Maybe a lot of artists didn't know, but maybe some did, especially if they were under the instruction of someone to create an authentic-seeming forgery.
You seem to sidestip the bishop's letter and the artist's confession. How do you explain it? Why do you refuse to accept the testimony of the bishop, other than because it isn't convenient?
quote:
Not true,
The blood on the Shroud is real; |
BS, it has never been confirmed. Cite scientific sources.
The shroud itself has NEVER tested positive for any blood, and the supposed blood stains have been tested to be vermillion (as stated above). The only DNA evidence came from tape that supposedly lifted the samples from the Shroud. Contamination and/or outright forgery is what happened.
quote:
Not true,
aside the fact that Max Frei was a botanic expert and not an handwriting one (maybe Einstein was a jerk at cooking, this make us dump relativity?) his results were confirmed several times:
|
Frei was a glory-hog with little concern for the truth, that was the point. You didn't read the evidence carefully. The pollen was tested from a tape sample, like the blood, not from the Shroud itself. The pollen that was on the tape was collected near one end, the end that did NOT collect from the Shroud. The tape sample was a fraud. Whether Frei knew it was one or not is a question, but given his penchant for exaggerating to make news, like the Hitler Diaries, his conclusions are suspect. The source I quoted already explained why Danin's testing doesn't support the Shroud's authenticity.
quote:
And again there are also a ton of others facts against the fraud theory (what about Tiberious coin? he painted it too? and in a 3D coherent way?) but i wrote enough for today. |
Elaborate. What coin? Roman coins were not impossible to be found in c. 1300 Europe, especially not by anyone who had connections to the Church.
You still have to explain why the Shroud is real when we know for a fact that tens of thousands of items were being shuffled around Europe at the same time the Shroud emerged that were frauds, at the height of an hysteria for relics. Seems a little coincidental for the Shroud to have turned up then, yes?
Also, if the Shroud was an image of Jesus, why no mention of the image in Scripture? Surely one of the several people who went into the tomb would have noticed the shroud there with the image! And why is there no mention of the Shroud until the 1300s? Where was it? You'd think it would have emerged much earlier. Where was it found? By who?
quote:
Maybe the man was not Christ but another poor fellow crucifixed by romans, anyway i strongly believe that evidence shows us that it can't be just a medieval painting. |
So if it wasn't a miraculous occurence, what else could it be? This is a rather contrary position to your other arguments.
quote:
About Mithraism:
It's well known that Mithraism predates Christianity, but the point is that Mithraism, being a mystery religion, changed to adhere to Christianity.
In fact Mithra, in ancient Persia and India, was considered a warrior: |
There is no question that Mithraism evolved from its roots, but to assert that it changed to adhere to Christianity rather than vice-versa is conjecture. One can trace a steady evolution in all religious doctrines over centuries, especially those of the ancient era when access to written media was more rare.
quote:
And i could go ahead since in Mithraism there's no Passion (Mithra never sacrificed himself or died, he simply decided to ascended to heaven riding the sun) or other things that makes Christianity unique (yes, Mithra too incarnated into a human... a human emerging from a rock adorned with a Phyrgian cap, armed with a knife, and carrying a torch... ). |
All religions have their unique aspects, so citing a unique belief is proof of nothing. Certainly Christianity isn't as unique as you imply, as many aspects of it can be seen in far more ancient religions. The Resurrection isn't new at all, as it can be seen in the legend of Osiris, among others. Thankfully, in that regard, the Christ myth didn't feel the need for a wooden phallus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
whether the blood is real (no it is not, but I am not going into that)
|
yes, it is, and you won't go into that just because science proved it several times...
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
since that looks liks some copy-and-paste fudamentalist stuff.
|
Yes, i understand that from your point of view science is the worst of fundamentalisms since it's based on facts...
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's all very simple - if you wrap a long strip of clothing around a man's head, then unravel and flatten it, you will not get such an image. By unfolding 3D into 2D, you get an elongated image instead of one that looks like a flat painting job.
|
But you've problems in reading or understanding?
Exactly what part of "perfect 3-Dimensionality" you don't understand?
I repeat
There are no signs of penetration; the blood was on the Cloth before the image (an unlikely way for an artist to work); there is no outline, there are no brush strokes, no style of any period or directionality, no binders to hold paint, no evidence of paint, dye, ink, chalk creating the images
furthermore the image shows a perfect photo-negativity and 3-Dimensionality.
Like i said it shows perfect 3-Dimensionality exactly as it would if you wrap a long strip blah blah blah, and this was proved by NASA using a VP-8 Image analyzer:
Any two-dimensional image (like a painting or photograph) when placed under the VP-8 will not read properly. The image will appear distorted on the machine, but the shroud did not.
This test proved that the image was formed on the shroud while draped over a three-dimensional object.
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Confirmed by who?
|
Dr. John Heller and Dr. Alan Adler
Dr. Joseph Gall
Professor Pierluigi Baima-Bollone and Dr. Jerome Lejeune
Professor Marcello Canale
Dr. Victor Tryon and Nancy Mitchell Tryon.
Are they enough?
As a footnote is interesting to notice that all their works were peer-reviewed (i know you don't understand what i'm talking about since it's part of my fundamentalistic (scientific) terminology...) while McCrone (the author of the ink theory) not only was unable to have his work reviewed in scientific literature but his works on the shroud were even rejected by several conferences because found lacking.
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Blood type does not come into play when attempting to identify whether something is human blood.
|
Yes, but since it's PROVED that it's human blood then the next step is to check its type...
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Who are you trying to fool? Bilirubin is a waste product produced by breaking down of hemoglobin. What's more interesting is it is not red. In fact, an elevated level of bilirubin in humans causes jaundice.
|
Oh nooooo
the great UR caught me again....
Obviously bilirubin is yellow since reddish-brown + yellow-orange = red
anyway if you think to understand this fundie...:
quote:
[...]
For one thing, not all the ‘blood’ material is red, for its
color ranges from yellow to orange to red to brown.
Also, the ‘blood’ is not whole blood, but exudate from
a blood clot (when a blood clot dries, it contracts,
exuding liquid blood material). The ‘blood’ moreover
is blood clot exudate from a beaten, traumatized
individual. A traumatic beating would destroy red
blood cells, and the red cell debris would go to the
liver, which in turn would take the debris’s
hemoglobin and convert it to the bile pigment bilirubin.
Bilirubin levels in the blood would rapidly rise,
meaning that should a cut form, the resulting blood
clot’s exudate will contain serum albumin (a protein
found in blood serum), and that albumin will bring with
it bilirubin. The clot exudate’s hemoglobin oxidizes to
become “methemoglobin,” which is reddish-brown/
brown; this reddish-brown/ brown + the
yellow-orange bilirubin = red. (Malaria can produce
red cell destruction, but severe malaria cases are
rare.) Ancient DNA specialist Thomas Loy agrees
with Adler’s explanation for the seemingly too-red
color of much of the ‘blood,’ himself having found
300,000 year-old blood with the same vivid red
color.
[...]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
cite
|
quote:
The Sunday Telegraph | London | November 16 1998
DNA OBTAINED FROM BLOOD ON THE TURIN SHROUD
[...]
The tests were conducted by a team headed by Dr. Victor Tryon, director of the Centre for Advanced DNA Technology at the University of Texas Health Science Centre.
Gene segments from the stains were cloned and the analysis showed that the blood came from a male with an AB blood type, common among Jewish people.
[...]
He disagreed with suggestions the DNA could be used to clone Jesus in the style of Dolly the sheep, saying that the samples were too degraded.
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
(No, a fundie website doesn't count)
|
But what on the hell are you talking about?
I'm talking about science and science is about facts, i'm not interested if a fact agree with your skeptic theory or confirms a christian one, in fact the only fundie i see in this discussion are you.
I show you scientific analysis and facts and your only answer is: "it's a cut & paste of fundie".
Shroud is NOT a medieval painting, science proved it.
If i'm a fundie because i believe science and not your house-made scientifically-rejected theories? ok, i'm a fundie
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Who is debating? Have any dating tests shown the Shroud to be older?
|
You're right, no one is debating, scientific community agrees that the 1988 results were wrong and trying to date shroud with C14 is a nonsense, like i said it request that artifact is in a closed-system since emplacement and this is hardly met by the shroud.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Is the assertion that the tests are thrown off by other factors based on any evidence, or just wishful thinking? It's the latter
|
Evidence?
I repeat Bioplastic coating, fire, inherently instability of C14 dating when it comes to linen and opened systems (Egypt, remember?)
You may yell "Bullshit!" but this is hardly an evidence, there are a lot of papers which shows that Fire and Bioplastic coating wreak the C14 dating.
And the egypt samples failure is there for you to look at.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
C14 tests done on the Shroud have taken into account the conditions that can throw off dating and have confirmed the dates c. 1200-1400 CE.
|
Bioplastic coating was present on the Shroud and the C14 cleaning protocol didn't take care of it and neither of isotope exchange.
Studies proved that 1300 years perfectly matches the quantity of Biocoating present on the shroud.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous.
|
And you said this? or maybe it was skeptic.org? or McCrone Research Institute 
i'm sorry but you've to give me a paper or something, because Garza-Valdes was pretty convincing and with arguments more sound than your "Bullshit.".
Ah, the McCrone Research Institute website... a very unbiased source
As i said scientific community rejected McCrone conclusions long time ago (why do you think all tests were conducted by the so-called "McCrone Research Institute" and never peer-reviewed by someone else?, the best part of the link was "The Electron Optics Group at McCrone Associates [...] fully confirmed Dr. McCrone's results", Now that's a third-party review... )
BTW McCrone was the same guy who declared false the Vinland Map just to be debunked years later when science community discovered it was original... (a bit like Frei but since he supports your theory, now he's a new Einstein ) (He even placed a page on his website where he still confirms that Vinland Map is false , that guy is incredible...)
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It certainly does not! LOOK at it! Does that honestly look like a photorealistic image to you? Why is the hair perfectly straight down the side of the face? Jesus would have been lying down, so the hair should be back. Why is the image not distorted to account for the shroud wrapping around Jesus?
|
I already answered this one.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Clearly? BS again. There is a bright sploch over the wrist area.
|
And what was that splotch? a watch?
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The objection that nobody knew about the wrists at the time is pure conjecture as well. Maybe a lot of artists didn't know, but maybe some did.
|
Yes maybe, and unfortunately we lost all their paintings... what a strange coincidence...
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You seem to sidestip the bishop's letter and the artist's confession. How do you explain it? Why do you refuse to accept the testimony of the bishop, other than because it isn't convenient?
|
Simply because it's not interesting:
At that age there were a lot of false religious cult objects and the letter is referring to one of them, your connection with the shroud is based on the C14 dating but, as i said, it is completely wrong so there's no connection between the letter and the shroud.
In fact there are several proofs that shroud was seen before the 1355, such as the Hungarian Pray manuscript dated 1192.
Anyway someone could make you notice that there's no proof that the letter is authentic since all other documents related to the Bishop tells a different story. but i'm not an history expert so i'll pass over it.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
BS, it has never been confirmed. Cite scientific sources.
|
It was confirmed, and i cited sources.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The only DNA evidence came from tape that supposedly lifted the samples from the Shroud. Contamination and/or outright forgery is what happened.
|
Contamination with AB type blood containing degradated DNA? yes, very likely
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Frei was a glory-hog with little concern for the truth, that was the point
|
Exactly as McCrone i could add...
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The pollen was tested from a tape sample, like the blood, not from the Shroud itself. The pollen that was on the tape was collected near one end, the end that did NOT collect from the Shroud. The tape sample was a fraud.
|
The only thing false is your quote.
It seems that pollen was present all over the tape:
quote:
[...]
Far less justifiable, however,
is Nickell's allegation, in the same Skeptical Inquirer article, that virtually the only
pollens on the Frei sticky tapes were on their 'lead' edge, and came from the gloves
which Frei had to wear while working with the STURP team in 1978. Quite aside
from the fact that Frei worked without gloves when he obtained his first samples in
1973, all those who have had the privilege of actually studying the tapes under the
microscope, including myself, can attest that the pollens are to be seen on the main
part of the tapes, and in plenty.
|
To whom i've to believe? to Nickell who saw the tape just in photos or to a member of STURP who effectively worked on it?
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You still have to explain why the Shroud is real when we know for a fact that tens of thousands of items were being shuffled around Europe at the same time the Shroud emerged that were frauds, at the height of an hysteria for relics. Seems a little coincidental for the Shroud to have turned up then, yes?
|
I think i explained it well, reread my previous post
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Also, if the Shroud was an image of Jesus, why no mention of the image in Scripture? Surely one of the several people who went into the tomb would have noticed the shroud there with the image! And why is there no mention of the Shroud until the 1300s? Where was it? You'd think it would have emerged much earlier. Where was it found? By who?
|
I already said that i don't know if it's an image of Jesus, read below
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So if it wasn't a miraculous occurence, what else could it be? This is a rather contrary position to your other arguments.
|
No, absolutely, the only thing i said in my post is what science has proved: that Shroud is NOT a medieval painting.
Science can't prove that it wrapped Christ body intead of another cruxified by romans and so neither i can.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
There is no question that Mithraism evolved from its roots, but to assert that it changed to adhere to Christianity rather than vice-versa is conjecture.
|
i missed the point when Jesus armed in fullest panoply swoops down upon his enemies, scattering and slaughtering them or where Jesus slays a bull but since you said that Christianity copied Mithraism i've to reread the whole thing...
Seriously, since Mithraism is, i repeat, a mystery religion, it's obvious that it absorbs every other religion it meet.
Christianity, on the other hand, can't be considered a mystery religion and doesn't need to merge with others (not that it didn't, only not so consistently)
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The Resurrection isn't new at all, as it can be seen in the legend of Osiris, among others
|
where i talked about resurrection?
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Thankfully, in that regard, the Christ myth didn't feel the need for a wooden phallus.
|
No?!? awh i chose the wrong religion!!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:
The standard keeps shifting, so I have to keep asking the same question. |
BS. I've stated the standards consistently, they have not been met.
quote:
Well then the Gospels count. Written by contemporaries of Christ, though not while the events happened. Your blade is too dull. |
Not they don't count, because we don't know who wrote them. The attributions on them were not in the earliest manuscripts, which means they were added later. Nothing within the Gospels gives the slightest indication at who the authors are.
They are not documentary, as they are not contemporary with Jesus's life, the first one having been written about 40 years after the supposed events (if the events described therein happened c. 30 CE).
quote:
Really. BAM as it stands, without evidence. |
:shock: Are you kidding me? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE MASSACRE. Show it! Provide some historical evidence for the massacre Herod ordered! It's YOUR job to prove the positive. The Bible is NOT corroborated by history here, so it is the BAM.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/herod.html
So why is Josephus silent about the massacre?
quote:
Well, I suppose the Gnostics get along just fine with orthodox Christians. Why should we believe what they say about Paul, over his own testimony, when the Gnostics try very hard to destroy Christianity? |
Destroy Christianity? They had a different view of it, for certain:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm
We should consider what they say carefully. If someone came to you positing a dramatically different philosophy, but others gave information that he was a liar, wouldn't you consider it?
quote:
Nice work if you can get it, and if you can get it, won't you tell me how? |
We've been here before as well:
"The next thing we are told about Saul in Acts is that he was 'harrying the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We are not told at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest. Anyone with knowledge of the religious and political scene at this time in Judaea feels the presence of an important problem here: the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect."
The temple leaders were Sadducee, so why would they let Paul do their dirty work if he were a hated Pharisee?
quote:
True, except the philosophy comes from Christ, not Paul. |
Paul claims it is from Jesus, but sans evidence for Jesus, I'm inclined to think he is putting words in the mouth of a third party. Common philosophical tactic (see Plato)
quote:
The reason for the delay in the Gospels is that all the Christians trusted Christ when he said that he will come soon, to the point where they mistakenly believed that it would be within their own lifespan. Now, why write these things down, unless Christ might not be coming until much later? |
Convenient, but conjecture. It still doesn't address the fact that we don't know who wrote them, nor that no extra-Biblical evidence exists for Jesus. The Christians may not have been writing things down, but lots of others were.
quote:
According to whom? You? What evidence do you have them for being in any part exaggeration without assuming that miracles do not happen? |
Has any miracle ever been proven? No. Extraordinary claims like miracles require evidence to be believed. If I were to write a treatise filled with ghosts, dragons and pixies, would you be inclined to believe or disbelieve it in the absence of corroborating evidence?
quote:
We know far less about the order of composition. Many scholars favour a Matthean priority over Markan. Why favour Mark over Matthew?
Secondly, where do they exaggerate? |
Look at Mark: it's the least detailed account, and the other three gospels ALL quote directly from it, whereas Mark does not compare with the other gospels in this regard. A few scholars may hold out on this, but most theologians accept the primacy of Mark. It's self-evident from the way in which the gospels are written. The exaggerations are the elaborations the subsequent gospels present. Consider that Paul does not make mention of the miracles wrought by Jesus ONCE. Why wouldn't he? Mark makes scant mention of them. And then by John, we have loads of 'em! And yet, this supposed mircale-worker is nowhere to be found in contemporary documents. Strange!
quote:
What contradictions? Difficulties, but I explained every single one you presented concerning the Gospels. |
BS. You didn't even address them all, and the answers you provided were unsupported "What ifs" that wormed around the contradictions.
Do you need some cash? Skeptics have offered a $2,000 reward for anyone who can make a timeline of the events of the Resurrection that contains every incident mentioned in the Gospels and have it make sense and not contradict itself. It has never been done. Accept the challenge. You can start by detailing the actions just of Mary Magdelene that morning. It will make your head hurt, and only the most gullible could think it isn't a contradictory account.
quote:
Many assumptions here. Assumes miracles cannot happen, for one. |
A valid assumption, since there hasn't been any evidence for the reality of miracles. If you make miraculous claims, you have to prove miracles happen. They can't be taken on faith.
quote:
Without this assumption, you get dates around 55-65 AD for the synoptics, and 75-90 for John. I'd love to see your source that says 110-130 for John. |
The assumption that miracles don't happen has no bearing on the dates of the texts.
Here are some dating sources, some more slanted than others:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/gospeldate.html
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/synoptic.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodi...97/gospels.html
"The current dating of the four Gospels, accepted by the biblical establishment, which includes scholars of every persuasion, is: Mark 65-70; Matthew and Luke in the 80s; John in the 90s. These dates are repeated by the columnists who write in our Catholic newspapers and the experts who draw up the curricula for religious education in our Catholic schools."
That's from a Catholic source, btw. The John dating is an extreme, perhaps it was written as late as that (one German theologian early in the century placed it at 175 CE). But we can be reasonably sure the author was not an eyewitness to the events described:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
"If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness."
And:
"The external evidence fixes the terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John. Irenaeus of Lyons made use of John (c. 180), and Tatian included the Gospel of John in his harmony (c. 170). The Gospel of John is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200). Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) and the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 140-150) may have made use of the Gospel of John. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen's own commentary). The oldest fragment of the New Testament, known as p52 or the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John and is dated paleographically c. 120-130 CE. "
quote:
B contradicts A. Assuming that the books were written that late, second century attributions should not be a problem. |
Huh? What are you talking about? B doesn't contradict A at all. I stated that we have no idea who exactly wrote the gospels, because originally there weren't any attributions in the texts. None of them said "The Gospel of..." at first. It was added later.
quote:
On Earth? I think that he made a huge footprint, in terms of people and soft stuff rather than hard stuff that we can use for archaeology. 2000 years we debate all this over Jesus? |
2000 years is but a pin drop in time, though. Think of how long ancient religions survived before dying out, such as the cult of Osiris. Egyptian civilization lasted twice as long as Christianity has.
quote:
There are a few more logical inconsistences, the death of Paul in Rome. Why die for a lie, comes for starters. |
We've done this before, and you didn't answer the first time. Show me a shred of evidence of when and how Paul died. There is NO evidence as to when and how, it is pure conjecture to believe he was martyred for his faith.
Regardless, people have died for less. Paul really believed in his philosophy, and he was happy to use Yeshua as its mouthpiece.
quote:
Why would other Jews, and Gentiles believe in a lie, how could Peter attract converts at Pentecost without the Holy Spirit? |
What evidence do we have for this event that corraborates the story told in the Bible? Hmmm?
quote:
Your scenario needs to fill some of these holes.
|
Not as many holes as are in the Bible!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
yes, it is, and you won't go into that just because science proved it several times... |
Wishful thinking
BBC article (Note this article is more recent than the Telegraph one you quoted)
quote:
However independent research carried out in the US has found no evidence of blood on the shroud - ruling out the link between it and the Sudarium, according to BBC Science's Toby Murcott. |
Another link
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
Yes, i understand that from your point of view science is the worst of fundamentalisms since it's based on facts... |
You definitely has a very unique view of fundamentalism, I am not here to debate over semantics, however.
As for science, see below.
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
But you've problems in reading or understanding?
Exactly what part of "perfect 3-Dimensionality" you don't understand?
|
What "perfect 3-Dimensionality?"
It has been demonstrated repeatly that you do not get the same image if you wrap something like a linen strip around a person's head. You can do the same experiment at home, with your own head.
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
I repeat
There are no signs of penetration; the blood was on the Cloth before the image (an unlikely way for an artist to work); there is no outline, there are no brush strokes, no style of any period or directionality, no binders to hold paint, no evidence of paint, dye, ink, chalk creating the images |
First of all, there's no blood (your cite notwithstanding, see below). Secondly,
quote:
The Electron Optics Group at McCrone Associates (John Gavrilovic, Anna Teetsov, Mark Andersen, Ralph Hinsch, Howard Humecki, Betty Majewski, and Deborah Piper) in 1980 used electron and x-ray diffraction and found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); |
Totally refutes your argument
This is also an interesting quote:
quote:
...Alan Whanger admits that threads were obtained from the Shroud which did have the red ochre pigment observed by McCrone... |
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
furthermore the image shows a perfect photo-negativity and 3-Dimensionality. |
As I said, the image on the Shroud in no way bears any semblence to one you might actually lift off any actual human head by wraping strips of cloth around it.
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
Like i said it shows perfect 3-Dimensionality exactly as it would if you wrap a long strip blah blah blah |
No it doesn't. It looks a human head when it's flat, which means it will not look like one when it's wrap around a person's head.
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
and this was proved by NASA using a VP-8 Image analyzer |
You know what's funny? I can't find any "VP-8 Image Analyzer" on NASA's website. However, there are lots and lots of fundie websites that make the same assertion. Can you say something is fishy?
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
As a footnote is interesting to notice that all their works were peer-reviewed (i know you don't understand what i'm talking about since it's part of my fundamentalistic (scientific) terminology...) while McCrone (the author of the ink theory) not only was unable to have his work reviewed in scientific literature but his works on the shroud were even rejected by several conferences because found lacking. |
You snowed the wrong person. You said peer-reviewed? Where were these findings published? Any URLs?
Just to verify my own suspicion, I Googled "Dr. John Heller and Dr. Alan Adler" and found no links to any scientific peer-to-peer journal with regards to "blood on the Shroud of Turin" on the first 3 pages. You may have better luck.
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
Yes, but since it's PROVED that it's human blood then the next step is to check its type... |
I was looking around for the Telegraph article you have cited, and, lo and behold, the findings of Dr Victor Tryon was not published in any scientific peer-to-peer reviewed journal, but rather, in a book published by Dr Garza-Valdes:
quote:
The book details the experiments which show that the "blood" on the shroud is ancient and contains XY chromosones - which establishes it as human and male. The tests were conducted by a team headed by Dr Victor Tryon, director of the Centre for Advanced DNA Technology at the University of Texas Health Science Centre. The samples, on Scotch tape, were provided by the Turin microanalyst responsible for cutting the cloth for the 1988 tests, but came from his private store. |
Please note that the sample was provided by Dr Garza-Valdes from his own private store.
article [Note that the date of the article in your quote is wrong - I give you the benefit of the doubt that you made an honest mistake]
What this means is Dr Tryson found human blood on samples provided by Dr Garza-Valdes, which doesn't establish there is ancient human blood stains on the Shroud.
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
Oh nooooo
the great UR caught me again....
Obviously bilirubin is yellow since reddish-brown + yellow-orange = red |
In the RGB subtractive colour system, red is a primary colour, you can't get it by mixing other colours. In the CMYK system, you get red by mixing yellow and magenta. No idea where you got yours from.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Wishful thinking
BBC article (Note this article is more recent than the Telegraph one you quoted)
|
I note that in the whole article there's not a clue of what is the independent research, who made it and why they ruled out the link...
I'm afraid they're still talking about McCrone, the ONLY one that still refuse to accept evidence.
Again McCrone...
Interesting, but someone else? don't tell me, he's the only source who refuse to consider blood on the shroud, what a surprise...
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You definitely has a very unique view of fundamentalism, I am not here to debate over semantics, however.
As for science, see below.
|
you are the one who compared science with fundamentalism, i only followed your way of reasoning...
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
First of all, there's no blood (your cite notwithstanding, see below). Secondly,
Totally refutes your argument
|
Don't tell me...
McCrone tells a different story!
the strange thing is that he's the only one who support the ink theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You know what's funny?
|
Aside your continue quoting a discredited scientist as McCrone as your unique source? no, tell me.
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I can't find any "VP-8 Image Analyzer" on NASA's website. However, there are lots and lots of fundie websites that make the same assertion. Can you say something is fishy?
|
I would be surprised if you're able to find info on a machine obsolete as the VP-8 (it was built in 1970...) on the NASA site.
Anyway the VP-8 thing is well known and showed in countless conferences and no one from NASA ever said "No, we don't know what VP-8 is..."
In fact, the only thing that NASA said about the Shroud can be found an article appeared in "NASA Activities," September 1978, p. 7.
quote:
Although the "Shroud of Turin" investigation by JPL scientists is not a NASA enterprise, the image enhancement techniques used stem from space technology. The work, therefore, has a NASA connotation. The following article, from the JPL Universe, covers the latest developments in this fascinating story. (See NASA Activities for November 1977 for earlier coverage.)
|
It's interesting to hear the declaration of Lynn, one of the JPL group which worked on the shroud, you can read by yourself on the NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory's magazine:
quote:
"We didn't feel we made any major finds," says Lynn, "partly because we had poor quality negatives to work with. However, frequency analysis did tend to rule out the possibility that the figure was hand painted."
|
Anyway, instead of searching the NASA website try to obtain the original paper:
Jackson, J.P., E.J. Jumper and W.R. Ercoline, "Three Dimensional Characteristic of the
Shroud Image," IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics
and Society, October 1982, pp. 559-575.
Guess what? peer-reviewed by IEEE and no one noticed that VP-8 was an invention of fundie the great UR hit again...
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You snowed the wrong person. You said peer-reviewed? Where were these findings published? Any URLs?
Just to verify my own suspicion, I Googled "Dr. John Heller and Dr. Alan Adler" and found no links to any scientific peer-to-peer journal with regards to "blood on the Shroud of Turin" on the first 3 pages. You may have better luck.
|
Ehm, What is exactly a peer-to-peer review? a review you can download with Kazaa?
If you know what you're talking about at least try to use correct terminology
And it seems you're unable to use google too...
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 16, 1980, pp. 2742-2744.
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103.
It is curious, however, to notice that none of McCrone scientific articles on the Shroud were ever submitted to a peer reviewed journal but were self-published in his own magazine, The Microscopist.
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I was looking around for the Telegraph article you have cited, and, lo and behold, the findings of Dr Victor Tryon was not published in any scientific peer-to-peer reviewed journal, but rather, in a book published by Dr Garza-Valdes:
|
So make me understand better: you don't believe to the director of the Center for Advanced DNA Technologies of the University of Texas who confirmed the (reviewed, see above) work of several others scientist because it's not peer reviewed, but you're ready to believe McCrone, the director of his self-made organization whose conclusions where rejected by the whole scientific community and, consequently, are not peer reviewed by anyone?
interesting...
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
[Note that the date of the article in your quote is wrong - I give you the benefit of the doubt that you made an honest mistake]
|
Eh yes, an error of three days catching the month and the year is obviously suspicious and completely changes the content of the article
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What this means is Dr Tryson found human blood on samples provided by Dr Garza-Valdes, which doesn't establish there is ancient human blood stains on the Shroud.
|
What do you think is the meaning of:
The book details the experiments which show that the "blood" on the shroud is ancient and contains XY chromosones - which establishes it as human and male. The tests were conducted by a team headed by Dr Victor Tryon?
His conclusions about ancient blood was due to, guess what, degraded DNA
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is also an interesting quote:
quote:
...Alan Whanger admits that threads were obtained from the Shroud which did have the red ochre pigment observed by McCrone...
|
|
Yes, it's even more interesting when quoted fully
quote:
Finally, although Alan Whanger admits that threads were obtained from the Shroud which did have the red ochre pigment observed by McCrone, he claims that these are merely "translocated fibers" from the many copies of the Shroud "that were painted during the Middle Ages." According to professor Whanger, such copies "were laid face down on the shroud" and therefore "have nothing to do with the formation of the shroud images."
|
Since you were so kind to give me the benefit of the doubt that i made an honest mistake i'll give you the same benefit of the doubt on this one (although writing 16 November 1998 instead of 19 November 1998 when quoting a newspaper article is not the same than omitting a quote which completely changes the meaning of a phrase...)
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In the RGB subtractive colour system, red is a primary colour, you can't get it by mixing other colours. In the CMYK system, you get red by mixing yellow and magenta. No idea where you got yours from. |
We're not talking about publishing a magazine and choosing the cover colours...
maybe you've to submit your idea based on your RGB monitor to McCrone, probably he'll publish it on his site instantly...
Obviously the guys at Applied Optics which peer-reviewed the paper of Adler and Heller didn't know about the RGB thing, thanks god there's UR...
Anyway, let me think:
i've to believe to a biophisicist as Adler and a chemist as Heller who truly worked on the shroud and whose findings about blood color were confirmed by an ancient DNA expert such as Loy and published on several scientific journals or i've to believe to you and your monitor theory?
... well, nothing personal, i think i'll choose Adler, Heller and Loy...
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What "perfect 3-Dimensionality?"
It has been demonstrated repeatly that you do not get the same image if you wrap something like a linen strip around a person's head. You can do the same experiment at home, with your own head.
|
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
UR is spot-on. Wet your head and wrap a white sheet around it (go ahead and use paint - or blood! - if you have an old sheet). Try it! Try it several times! You can't get anything remotely like the painterly 2D representation of a face found on the shroud. What you get is a distorted image all but unrecognizable as a face.
|
Again, it's not a 2D representation it has incredible 3D properties as showed by VP-8 and confirmed several times using better hardware and software.
It's hard for me to obtain the same representation just wrapping a white sheet around my head with paint simply because it's not paint what you see on the shroud.
I repeat, it's confirmed that what you see is a rapid dehydration, oxidation and degradation of the linen due to an unidentified process.
In fact, there's a way to obtain an image similar to the shroud one:
In an experiments that used injected radioisotopes, Dr. Gus Accetta was able to recreate an image very similar to the shroud. Further, using the same VP-8 image analyzer, he demonstrated the "3-D" similarities that existed between the x-ray images created from internal radiation and the image on the Shroud of Turin.
Carter, Giles F. 1984. Formation of Images on the Shroud by X-rays: A New Hypothesis.
ACS Advances in Chemistry No. 205: Archaeological Chemistry, pp 425-446.
Accetta, August D., "Experiments with Radiation as an Image Formation Mechanism"
Happy reading...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
Angelo, you haven't cited any of your sources in this argument. We have. Please do so.
EDIT: And by that I mean links to where you cut n paste from.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 24-06-2003 at 23:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Angelo, you haven't cited any of your sources in this argument. We have. Please do so.
EDIT: And by that I mean links to where you cut n paste from. |
Boris, i pointed you to papers with data of publications and title, what on the hell do you want?
In fact i've better cited sources than you (since when a web link has scientific authority? a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead has)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If you have those journals in front of you, that's one thing. If you're quoting the cites from web sites that provide them, that's another.
I will happily point you to numerous sources linked to by talkorigins.org and others where Creationist web sites cited peer-reviewed material, but did so out of context to support their claims. It is not an unknown tactic, and I, for one, would like to stake what they claim the authors are saying vs. what they are really saying. |
Ok, it's fair.
As you know, you must be subscribed to a scientific journal to read its articles, so i'm unable to give you direct links to them (but if you don't trust me you just have to check your city public library)
On the net i found several abstracts which refers to the sources i pointed you to, some are of the same authors saying the same things, others are simply people trying to resume advances done on the topic and quoting them.
I hope you'll notice that authors are all academic people and not creationists fundie
(i thank you for not start yelling "you're fundie, you're fundie" like someone else did...)
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf
http://www.west.net/~shroud/pdfs/schumchr.pdf
http://www.west.net/~shroud/pdfs/orvieto.pdf
http://space.tin.it/scienza/bachm/POWER1.PDF
http://space.tin.it/scienza/bachm/MORAN1.PDF
http://space.tin.it/scienza/bachm/VHAELST6.PDF
http://www.shroud.it/MARINO.PDF
http://www.west.net/~shroud/pdfs/daninx.pdf
I think i've covered all my arguments, if not, tell me and i'll try to find the source i got it from
(you know, it's hard when you don't have just McCrone to quote  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
Ok, Dating the Shroud:
The C14 tests are the only tests to have been done to date the Shroud, correct?
Three separate tests conducted, after thorough cleaning of the samples, all had the same conclusion, correct?
Pro-authenticity people have tried to poke holes in the dating using the contamination argument. However, while these claims bring the C14 done into question, there has never been another dating that corroborates a 1st century date, right? Right.
http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm
Roger Sparks, an expert in radiocarbon dating, debates archaeologist Meacham (who, it must be pointed out, isn't).
Sparks points out:
quote:
However, the arguments of Meacham & Garza-Valdes suffer from the same flaw, in that they are qualitative arguments. There seems to be the belief that by simply postulating the existence of a "contamination" the 14C dates must be discarded. But the important question is -how much- contamination is present. If it is insufficient to significantly affect a radiocarbon measurement then it is irrelevant to the argument. The quantitative dimension is essential to this discussion. That is the essence of the problem that I have with the Garza-Valdes theory, and the objections I set out in my original posting have not been answered.
Side issues such as "isotopic exchange" are just red herrings. Isotope chemistry is a well understood science, and exotic effects caused by the 1532 fire should have been observed elsewhere by now. Radiocarbon dating of burnt or charred material is commonly done (notably charcoal). Appealing to the special nature of radiocarbon because it is radioactive leads us into the area of voodoo science. Keeping an open mind for new knowledge is one thing, but all new discoveries must account for what we already know. If the only way we can explain a particular phenomenon is by rejecting what has already been established without providing an acceptable alternative way of interpreting prior knowledge, then that explanation must be viewed with deep suspicion. From this point of view the Shroud of Turin and Cold Fusion have a lot in common. |
Meacham himself says: "Of course, no real age has been *established* for the Shroud, just as it has not been established that fire cannot affect the C14 content of a sample."
Nicholas Allen has dated the Shroud according to iconography, and his conclusions are that it can indeed be seen as a medeival creation:
http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/Dating.htm
quote:
Other claims have been made, concerning factors that may have affected the dating included such things as the possible existence of bioplasmic material on the Shroud fibres (e.g. Dr Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes) as well as the fact that a fire nearly destroyed the Shroud in 1532 However, even if any of these various claims had any merit, no one can yet prove (even with the most circumstantial of evidence) that the Shroud is in fact two thousand years old. Indeed, citing Garza-Valdes' case as an example, the best that can be stated is that the dating could be out by a few centuries.4 In short, even if the dating was out by as much as a say a millennium, this is clearly too late for the historical Jeshua bar Josef to have left his imprint upon it, irrespective of the method employed. |
It must be noted that the samples used by Garza-Valdez have not been authenticated as actual fibers from the Turin shroud. The Vatican has refused to authenticate them. Garza got them from a third party source, not the Shroud itself.
Blood:
There is no consensus that real blood is on the shroud:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/...as/maloney.html
See Maloney's dissection of the blood claims on both sides. Too long to quote here, but his conclusion is that there is no definite yes or no.
Any claims to DNA on the Shroud are out of order, since the DNA of anybody who ever touched it could be on it (see below).
Even if the blood may be real human blood, Nickell points out in the above article that the blood flows are completely incongruous with real corpse bleeding. Maloney points out that the blood could have been applied via brush or other artificial means and not have penetrated the shroud, if done carefully"
quote:
If these are supposed to be natural blood flows issuing from a freshly deceased corpse, then clearly, something very strange was going on at the time. Indeed the blood often defies gravity as well as the contour of the body it is supposed to be running upon. There is a simple explanation for this phenomenon, viz.: the blood flows were applied with an instrument such as a brush or a spouted container (which had a uniform thickness) upon a flat piece of material by human agency. In short, they are clearly applied by hand, showing distinct and common stylistic traits. |
(Nickell)
Your claim that the blood is "ancient" is baffling. Who has dated the blood, and how have they done so? There is no way of determining how old the blood is.
Citing Tyron was funny in this light:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2...cle.jhtml?term=
quote:
"Another recent claim concerns reported evidence of human DNA in a shroud "blood" sample. Actually, the scientist cited, Victor Tryon of the University of Texas, insists that "Everyone who has ever touched the shroud or cried over the shroud has left a potential DNA signal there." Tryon resigned from the new shroud project due to what he disparaged as "zealotry in science." (Van Biema 1998, p. 61)" |
The pollen:
Ignoring the possibility that Frei's samples could in fact be fraudulent, the existence of the pollens of Middle Eastern plants prove nothing as to the origin or age of the shroud. The claim that these plants were all extinct after the 1st century AD is false: All the pollen samples were of plants known to still be in existence to this day. This would indicate the Shroud was in the Middle East, but that says nothing as to its date of manufacture or authenticity. Again from Maloney:
quote:
Before we turn to another topic it is important to sound a word of caution regarding the interpretation of the presence of pollen on the Shroud. In my opinion, if in the evaluations by Horowitz and Danin it appears that the Shroud was in the Middle East at some time, or even specifically in Israel, the pollen could, at the present state of technology, say nothing about when it was there. Due to a misunderstanding of an article published on the pollen data in 1978 by Prof. Giovanni Charrier29, geologist at the Turin Polytechnic Institute, it was thought that the pollen data could date the Shroud, or at least tell us when the Shroud was in the Holy Land. This is emphatically not true. Dr. Horowitz told me that there are no extinct pollen in Frei's list; all the pollen found there have been in existence for at least the last 2000 years (Personal communication). |
The image:
The notion that the full image on the Shroud is authentically human is flawed as well. First and foremost, the body/head ration is 8:1. Human being have a ration of 6:1. The Shroud actually looks very much like the body was done separately from the head.
The head itself has features that resemble gothic artistry, such as an exaggeratedly long face and nose, quite incongruous with standard human features, but common in Gothic art (see Nickell):
Also see: http://www.geocities.com/player2000gi/turin.htm
and
quote:
Also, the hair hangs as for a standing rather than recumbent figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs. Everywhere the "blood" flows are unrealistically neat. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. And even the dried blood has implausibly transferred. In addition, real blood soaks into doth and spreads in all directions, rather than leaving picturelike images. As the noted pathologist Dr. Michael Baden observes of the overall shroud image, "Human beings don't produce this kind of pattern" (Baden 1980). |
It should be noted that numerous people have created Shroud like images using techniques that could have been done in the 12th-15th centuries. Their replicas of the Shroud exhibited all the characteristics the Shroud does, and did not require a real corpse to be present.
Other aspects indicate that there are problems with the Shroud being authentic. First, the analysis reveal that the image shows a light source creating shadows below the nose and other surfaces, indicating a source of light above. No such light source could have been present underneath the shroud when the body lay wrapped up inside.
Second, the blood stains provide a problem in and of itself. Jewish ritual law requires a body be thoroughly cleaned before bwing shrouded and buried. There would not have been ANY blood on a crucified Jewish corpse, as the shroud depicts. This corroborates the above evidence that the blood stains are falsified.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ok, Dating the Shroud:
The C14 tests are the only tests to have been done to date the Shroud, correct?
Three separate tests conducted, after thorough cleaning of the samples, all had the same conclusion, correct?
Pro-authenticity people have tried to poke holes in the dating using the contamination argument. However, while these claims bring the C14 done into question, there has never been another dating that corroborates a 1st century date, right? Right.
|
And in your opinion what is the relevance of this argument?
They made a C14 experiment which is rejected from the scientific community as full of mistakes (i gave you links to the papers, at least you could read them).
Another C14 experiments IMHO is useless since, for the third time, the shroud hardly match the constrains for a correct C14 dating (closed-system != religious cult object)
Anyway, an interesting paper about the 1988 test is the paper of Van Haelst which shows that tests were wrong even on the theoretical side (the 95% of confidence is a joke):
http://www.shroud.com/vanhels5.pdf
just a quote:
quote:
A NEGATIVE Chi^2 is proof, that the dates under examination are NOT CONSISTENT. In
such cases, it should have been wise, to follow the advice, given by Prof. Hoel (University of
California) : "In the case of a Chi^2 test CLOSE to the LIMIT, it is better not to draw
conclusions, but to search for more and better data and to examine the reason of non
consistency."
Probably, nobody in team of the British Museum did read the advice of Prof. Hoel, because
despite of a Chi^2 test not close to, but FAR OVER the limit, one converted these non
consistent data into CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE !
[...]
The answer of the British Museum reads as follows : "Your calculations are correct. The
differences between Yours and our results are due to the use of different weighting
systems". Because I used the recommended Wilson & Ward method, one may wonder,
which method was used by the British Museum.
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Roger Sparks, an expert in radiocarbon dating, debates archaeologist Meacham (who, it must be pointed out, isn't).
|
Yes, it must be pointed out since an archaeologist such as Meacham "uses" radiocarbon dating as well as other
instruments to date artifacts, so he is able to say if it is reliable or not.
I would be really surprised to hear a radiocarbon expert to say that radiocarbon dating is unreliable.
Anyway, if you want a Radiocarbon expert i'll quote you Prof. Gove
"This [Garza-Valdes theory about bioplastic coating] is not a crazy idea. A swing of 1000 years would be a big change, but it's not widely out of the question and the issue needs to be resolved".
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nicholas Allen has dated the Shroud according to iconography, and his conclusions are that it can indeed be seen as a medeival creation:
http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/Dating.htm
|
I must confess that this article of Allen left me wordless, but what is trying to show this guy?
the only scientific theory that Allen raise here was already debunked by a paper i pointed you to last time:
http://www.west.net/~shroud/pdfs/orvieto.pdf
And after that? incredibly enough he said that the Shroud must be a painting of 1300 because it's too realistic to be a painting of early ages (since in early ages Christ crucifixion was depicted in a symbolical way).
But since it's NOT a painting it must be realistic...
And he goes ahead saying what even the most fundie doesn't dare to say, that an obvious correlations exist between the Way of the Cross and the events implied by the design of the image itself
I truly don't think any scientist can prove a similar correlation.
(and it's interesting that you, who said that the wrist wound was just a unidentified splotch, now agree with Allen when he talk about crown of thorns, the evidence of a heavy object, such as the cross, rubbing on body's shoulders and bloodied knees)
The point is that Allen bases his work on the 1988 C14 test instead of confirm it:
Since C14 showed that the Shroud is a medieval painting, his work seems to say, what are aspects of medieval iconography we can find in it? the only problem here is that the C14 date was wrong (i hope you read carefully points i made above)
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It must be noted that the samples used by Garza-Valdez have not been authenticated as actual fibers from the Turin shroud. The Vatican has refused to authenticate them. Garza got them from a third party source, not the Shroud itself.
|
Obviously, the Vatican doesn't like people trying to clone what they think could be the God's DNA, in fact, after the Tryon analysis, not only Vatican refused to authenticate samples but requested back all samples released during STURP experiments to avoid further analysis, it's a questionable decision from a scientific point of view, but understable from the Vatican one.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Blood:
There is no consensus that real blood is on the shroud:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/...as/maloney.html
See Maloney's dissection of the blood claims on both sides. Too long to quote here, but his conclusion is that there is no definite yes or no.
|
Interesting, you started saying that science proved that there was no blood on the shroud and now you admit that there is still no definite yes or no.
Anyway, at least Maloney is a well known authority in scientific field, let me read...
in this paper Maloney simply describes different positions about the blood thing, interestingly enough the only people he quotes of the against-blood front are McCrone and Nickell (see below)
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Any claims to DNA on the Shroud are out of order, since the DNA of anybody who ever touched it could be on it (see below).
|
Where i said that the blood was Jesus blood? I simply said that there is blood on the shroud and that it is ancient Anyway, if there's foreign material on the shroud then it can't be correctly dated with C14, so you've to decide:
or the blood was added after by some pilgrim (and then it can't be dated with C14) or you can date it correctly with C14 (and then the blood was part of the closed-system required by the C14 tests)
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Even if the blood may be real human blood, Nickell points out in the above article that the blood flows are completely incongruous with real corpse bleeding.
|
And Nickell is an authority in the blood field?
You still have to tell me who is Nickell and what is his field of experience.
(where he works? in what he took degree?)
In fact the only information i was able find on him is that Joe Nickell is the Senior Research Fellow (???) for the Committee for the Scientific Investigations of the Paranormal (strange, i never heard about this university... oh it's a private no-profit organization ) and that worked professionally as a stage magician, private investigator, journalist, and university instructor...
note the "instructor" instead of "professor", and that there's no clue about which university worked and that the university instructor title comes after the journalist, private investigator and EVEN stage magician, probably it was placed there just to give Nickell some scientific authority.
In fact on the CSICOP Mailing list he is cited as :
Joe Nickell, CSICOP Senior Research Fellow. Nickell has investigated ghost
claims for more than twenty-five years and has never found a haunted place,
only haunted minds. He is author of _Entities_ and _Secrets of the
Supernatural_.
Joe Nickell, CSICOP Senior Research Fellow, Paranormal investigator who has
tracked countless cases of psychic sleuths. Also expert on psychic mediums
like James Van Praagh and James Edward. Author or editor of fifteen books on
investigation.
Joe Nickell, CSICOP Senior Research Fellow. Expert on alien abduction and
alien implant claims. Contact Nickell regarding Whitley Streiber's latest
book _Confirmation: The Hard Evidence of Aliens Among Us_.
Wow, this is a CV
You started citing a discredited scientist and now end up citing someone who can't be even considered a scientist...
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Maloney points out that the blood could have been applied via brush or other artificial means and not have penetrated the shroud, if done carefully"
|
That was a Nickell theory and not a Maloney one, and the only thing Maloney says about it is:
quote:
Joe Nickell has suggested that the iron oxide was applied dry using a dauber on cloth formed over a bas relief as a rubbing; much in the manner as gravestone rubbings have been produced. From experiments I have conducted the latter technique presents us with some problems.
[...i'm cutting because it's too long but suggest you to read also the parts omitted...]
But one does not need to use a bas relief to prove my point. Simply select a very tight weave piece of cloth, place it on a flat piece of white paper, dip the dauber in the pigment, and rub gently on the cloth. Even with the lightest rubbing the red pigment penetrates and leaves a visible iron oxide dusting on the paper. This point is very important since with a bas relief, when the cloth is molded over the details of the relief, the high points tend to spread the weave. At these particular points even greater amounts of pigment penetrate.
[...]
However, I have not completely ruled out Nickell's approach to producing the Shroud face because I think with practice and experimentation one can learn to control the pressure of one's strokes.
[...]
Nevertheless, it seems to me that such control as Nickell has developed has been after the fact, using the Shroud face as his guide. Since the Shroud is unique; whether as a genuine burial cloth, or as an artist's production; no artist in the mid-1300s had such a unique image to copy. Further, pace Nickell's view, the greater challenge is not to copy the face, rather it is the entire Shroud image which would have required a bas relief of both front and back and consistent control to have rendered an image the size of a human body similar to the one we find on the Shroud without evidence of directional marks.
|
It's difficult to say that Maloney is supporting Nickell's theory here...
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Your claim that the blood is "ancient" is baffling. Who has dated the blood, and how have they done so? There is no way of determining how old the blood is.
Citing Tyron was funny in this light:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2...cle.jhtml?term=
|
the Skeptical Inquirer, the CSICOP magazine... Nickell wrote the article?
The fact that the blood is ancient is due to degraded DNA found in it by Tryon and others.
The funny thing is that you started saying that there wasn't blood and now you say "Yes there is blood but it's not ancient".
In fact i totally agree with Tryon when he says that "Everyone who has ever touched the shroud or cried over the shroud has left a potential DNA signal there."
The only thing i said is that there's blood on the shroud (contrary to what McCrone said) and that it's ancient (medieval and previous ages could be considered ancient too, but 1980 is simply not far enough to degrade DNA, so the X-Filish conspiracy theory evoked by McCrone simply doesn't hold)
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The pollen:
Ignoring the possibility that Frei's samples could in fact be fraudulent,
|
Maloney himself in the same document you cited says:
quote:
Frei's data have not been generally accepted by the Shroud scientific community partially because STURP was unable to find pollen on their sticky tapes. The explanation turned out to be rather simple. STURP, using a torque applicator which limited the pounds per square inch pressure on the Shroud, only took samples strictly from the surface of the cloth. Frei, in a letter to me just before he passed away, told me he was able to secure samples of materials from between the threads by moving the tape (and cloth) laterally, thus lifting the pollen between the threads up onto the sticky tape. The tapes themselves still preserve this evidence.
In 1986, through the kind courtesy of Mrs. Gertrud Frei-Sulzer, the ASSIST organization had access to four of the tape samples Dr. Frei removed in 1978, plus a fifth, unlabeled slide, also removed from the Shroud but of uncertain date. Intense microanalysis of all four of the labeled samples show that 95% of all the pollen are localized in the first 1/2 inch or "lead" portion of the tape. This demonstrates that the sticky tape technique per se is pressure sensitive, the highest number of pollen on the tapes coinciding with the highest number of flax fibrils on those tapes.
Meanwhile, Italian microanalyst Dr. Giovanni Riggi, a member of STURP, has confirmed the presence of pollen on the Shroud. But he has not ventured to identify any of them since his research carried him in directions other than the study of the pollen. He distinguishes two different types: "ancient" and "modern" with the former being identifiable from the mineral coating on them.
[...]
I wish to reiterate that Prof. Shafersman does not support the authenticity of the Shroud, preferring to believe that Dr. Frei himself put those pollen on the cloth. But this suggestion is unfair bacause it needlessly impugns another man's reputation. The evidence in the sticky tapes which the ASSIST Organization examined support a different hypothesis: that flowers were laid directly on the Shroud at some time in its history25.
|
So, even your source exclude the fraud theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
the existence of the pollens of Middle Eastern plants prove nothing as to the origin or age of the shroud.
|
Again, you started saying that the pollen was a fraud and now you say "ok, it's true and they're from middle east plants but it prove nothing"
like i was trying to say, it proves that there is middle east pollen on the shroud and that the fraud you started talking about was simply not supported by evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The claim that these plants were all extinct after the 1st century AD is false: All the pollen samples were of plants known to still be in existence to this day.
|
Where i said that these plants were all extinct after the 1st century? in fact Danin says that you can easily find those plants today if you make a journey to Jerusalem
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
This would indicate the Shroud was in the Middle East, but that says nothing as to its date of manufacture or authenticity.
|
But since, according to the painting theory, the Shroud was made in 1355 and never moved to middle east you have to choose...
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The head itself has features that resemble gothic artistry, such as an exaggeratedly long face and nose, quite incongruous with standard human features, but common in Gothic art (see Nickell):
|
Ah, so now Nickell is also an expert in Gothic art too...
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It should be noted that numerous people have created Shroud like images using techniques that could have been done in the 12th-15th centuries. Their replicas of the Shroud exhibited all the characteristics the Shroud does, and did not require a real corpse to be present.
|
Are you sure? point me to a paper which shows a Shroud replica which exhibit all the characteristics the Shroud does.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Other aspects indicate that there are problems with the Shroud being authentic. First, the analysis reveal that the image shows a light source creating shadows below the nose and other surfaces, indicating a source of light above. No such light source could have been present underneath the shroud when the body lay wrapped up inside.
|
like you said, provide sources for your arguments.
I need to better understand this objection.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Second, the blood stains provide a problem in and of itself. Jewish ritual law requires a body be thoroughly cleaned before bwing shrouded and buried. There would not have been ANY blood on a crucified Jewish corpse, as the shroud depicts. This corroborates the above evidence that the blood stains are falsified. |
In fact, this could be a problem but it seems that the body has been washed, at least according to a paper
which can be found on www.shroud.com but which i don't link because contains disturbing images (it's easy to find but if you can't ask me and i'll PM the link to you, i'm afraid the moderator's wrath since we're threadjacking )
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-06-2003 14:51
|