 |
| Fake. |
But evidence is never enough for these folks. So I was amused to see an article about a new book's theory regarding the shroud. The book is called "The Sign" and it's by Thomas de Wesselow. Much to the church's horror, he says the shroud is real -- it's really from jeebus' tomb -- but the resurrection never happened. The stories about people seeing jeebus after he died are, according to the author, merely mentions of people seeing the shroud. He says people used to think that images contained the essence of a person. Here's an outtake from the article:
"I've studied images, what they mean and how they affect people," de Wesselow said. "In the old days, people saw images as potentially alive. They had potentially a consciousness. ... That type of thinking was absolutely standard before the modern age. It has nothing to do with an optical illusion, and it has nothing to do with people being stupid."Duh. Made in medieval times. Repeat after me: "Made in medieval times." The shroud is nonsense. But I'm happy this guy has come up with an idea the church will hate. The popey guy's head must be exploding.
Meanwhile, in a column about the shroud, the Catholic Herald's Francis Phillips basically brushed off de Wesselow's views, saying they were "too eccentric to reproduce here."C'mon kids, say it with me: "Made in medieval times." These people are major dimwits. If it was made in the 14th century (or around that time) how can it be real?! Oy.
6 comments:
If your atheism is founded on the same reasoning that leads you to post that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake, than you have a problem.
The medieval origin of the Shroud is preposterous. End of story. The image can not be replicated by any process demonstrated to have been used in the Middle Ages, actually, no process has been demonstrated today that can duplicate it.
And the FACT is that the examination of the Shroud by forensic pathologists (are you one, or do you know one?) demonstrate physical conditions that are compatible with today's science, but incompatible with known science until the turn of the last century. That is, until 1900 or so no artist - including DaVinci - had the knowledge of anatomy to accurately depict in minute detail the condition of a tortured, crucified man - right down to analysis the content of his blood indicating stress and torture.
Your medieval faker was not only a genius of not yet invented technology, he/she was a master of not then discovered physical and anatomical processes which could only be meaningfully analyzed again, at the turn of the last century. (1900)
Among the autopsies published on the web is http://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm
There is a plethora (a lot) more information at http://shroud.com
I don't feel sorry for your ignorance, but I do feel sorry for those you mislead. Your arrogance is not merited.
If I am harsh, it just that Shroud deniers who cite medieval origin for the Shroud are right-up there with those proclaiming Obama is a Muslem. He isn't and the Shroud is not a fake.
http://johnklotz.blogspot.com
klotzlaw@gmail.com
(drumroll) Heeeeeeere's the wingnut comment that disappeared for some reason:
John Klotz has left a new comment on your post "The Shroud of Turin -- and nitwits":
If your atheism is founded on the same reasoning that leads you to post that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake, than you have a problem.
The medieval origin of the Shroud is preposterous. End of story. The image can not be replicated by any process demonstrated to have been used in the Middle Ages, actually, no process has been demonstrated today that can duplicate it.
And the FACT is that the examination of the Shroud by forensic pathologists (are you one, or do you know one?) demonstrate physical conditions that are compatible with today's science, but incompatible with known science until the turn of the last century. That is, until 1900 or so no artist - including DaVinci - had the knowledge of anatomy to accurately depict in minute detail the condition of a tortured, crucified man - right down to analysis the content of his blood indicating stress and torture.
Your medieval faker was not only a genius of not yet invented technology, he/she was a master of not then discovered physical and anatomical processes which could only be meaningfully analyzed again, at the turn of the last century. (1900)
Among the autopsies published on the web is http://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm
There is a plethora (a lot) more information at http://shroud.com
I don't feel sorry for your ignorance, but I do feel sorry for those you mislead. Your arrogance is not merited.
If I am harsh, it just that Shroud deniers who cite medieval origin for the Shroud are right-up there with those proclaiming Obama is a Muslem. He isn't and the Shroud is not a fake.
Here's my comment to this nitwit.
http://theworlds-writenow.blogspot.com/2012/04/shroud-of-turin-part-ii.html
So what if it is 14th Century? There is still no explanation for how an image like that was created 500 years before photo type images were first created. Set the entire "Jesus" theories aside. Take a look at the face. It is an actual face. An amazing face, BTW. Can't deny that.
Sooo...whatever the theories that abound, The Shroud of Turin is an extremely unusual artifact & clearly unexplained as to how it was produced at what was the level of 14th Century technology.
Finally, a sensible comment. You're right, Sofia. There's still some mystery about the shroud, which makes it an interesting artifact. There are all sorts of mysteries in the world and it's fun to try to figure them out. I'm sure this one will be solved at some point. Meanwhile, it obviously has nothing to do with Jesus since it's from the 14th century. Thanks for posting a civil comment. I really appreciate it. on The Shroud of Turin -- and nitwits
UPDATE: The best article debunking the shroud can be found here: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/11/29/pope-francis-endorses-the-fake-shroud-of-turin/
There is no possibility that the Shroud has anything to do with Jesus Christ.
Post a Comment