Post #192,136
1/28/05 5:34:35 PM
|
Re: does it really matter how old it tests out to be?
a fluent speaker of boxlish avers If it was done in the middle ages its a miracle anyway becuase it hasnt been explained HOW it was done. Isn't that setting the bar for miracles rather low? Was sunlight miraculous up until the principles of stellar nuclear fusion were understood, ceasing thereafter to partake of the supernatural? To assert that a phenomenon has merely to be inexplicable (or rather "unexplained"—I suspect that much will ultimately yield to sustained study should technological society endure that long) to be "a miracle" seems to me to cheapen the term to approximately the level of the adman's "washday miracle" ("New enzyme action gets even the toughest stains out of your shroud so you can Turin the other cheek with confidence!"). I don't think Christers ought to throw the term around unless they are talking about a significant intervention by the notional Big Guy to alter the normal operations of, say, biology or orbital mechanics, and once they do I say "bring it on!" They have a way, purported miracles do, of dissolving under scrutiny. cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #192,163
1/28/05 8:27:37 PM
|
And this is all beside the point
As is noted in the article that Another Scott pointed to, we know how it was created. There is no mystery.
All significant features and misfeatures of the shroud can be explained by creating it with a rubbing technique on a bas relief model. It is a well-known technique, and most of us have used a variation to create a drawing of a coin or of bark using paper and pencil. This technique explains the 3-dimensionality, the realism, the vertical distortions in the image, etc.
So we have here a dated artifact, produced using known pigments, using a known artistic technique during a time when many, many fake religious artifacts were produced. There is no evidence of authenticity. It does not have blood on it. Etc, etc, etc.
At this point the only mystery about the Shroud is why so many people (apparently including boxley) continue to believe that there is actually something special about it! The only explanation that makes sense to me is willful ignorance (willful because it takes very little effort to become educated on the topic), and so it is more properly a question of psychology at this time than science.
Regards, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #192,170
1/28/05 10:34:24 PM
|
And furthermore, I recall reading . . .
. . that someone at the time actually confessed to having made it, but by then nobody was interested in hearing that.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #192,171
1/28/05 10:55:17 PM
|
A couple of linkies.
[link|http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html|CSICOP]: Historically, the Shroud of Turin is one of some forty reputed burial cloths of Jesus, although it is the only one to bear the apparent imprints and bloodstains of a crucified man. Religious critics have long noted that the Turin shroud is incompatible with the bible, which describes multiple burial wrappings, including a separate \ufffdnapkin\ufffd that covered Jesus\ufffd face (John 20:5\ufffd7).
The Turin cloth first appeared in north-central France in the mid-fourteenth century. At that time the local bishop uncovered an artist who confessed he had \ufffdcunningly painted\ufffd the image. Subsequently, in 1389, Pope Clement VII officially declared the shroud to be only a painted \ufffdrepresentation.\ufffd
Years later, this finding was conveniently forgotten by the granddaughter of the original owner. She sold it to the House of Savoy, which later became the Italian monarchy. Eventually the cloth was transferred to Turin. In 1983 Italy\ufffds exiled king died, bequeathing the shroud to the Vatican. [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin|Wikipedia]: Forceful arguments and evidence cited against the miraculous origin of the shroud images include a letter from a medieval bishop to the Avignon pope claiming personal knowledge that the image was cleverly painted to gain money from pilgrims, ...
[...]
In 1389 the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon pope, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. Bishop D'Arcis continued, "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been 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." (In German: [[link|http://www.huinfo.at/grabtuch/grabtuch.htm#_Toc499394755|4]]).) The artist is not named in the letter. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #192,178
1/28/05 11:59:51 PM
|
not the sorta how you mention
from what I have seen of it, it looks burned in. Paint is a chemical mixture of various things but I havnt heard of it being reproduced in a lab. Now it has been reproduced in hiroshima and nagasaki, shadows faces burned into stone etc. regards, daemon
I love her dearly, far beyond any creature I've ever known, and I can prove it, for never once in almost seventy years of married life have I taken her by the throat. Mind you, it's been a near thing once or twice. George Macdonald Frasier Clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #192,187
1/29/05 1:28:06 AM
|
Um, actually it has been reproduced in the lab
It is a combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. Both in common use at that time.
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #192,181
1/29/05 12:10:27 AM
|
I say
Iphigenia / Aulis Turin the other cheek - Ima Pisa ona you
(Genoa.. One Good Turandot's alotta Morose Code .. in D# ?)
|