Shroud of Turin

[FatAndFaithless]

I think this is what you were referring to, Chuck.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/...in.shroud/

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced one of the world's most famous Catholic relics, the Shroud of Turin, to support his belief it is a medieval fake, not the cloth Jesus was buried in. Luigi Garlaschelli says his reproduction of the shroud disproves the claims of its strongest supporters.

Luigi Garlaschelli created a copy of the shroud by wrapping a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painting it with pigment, baking it in an oven (which he called a "shroud machine") for several hours, then washing it.

His result looks like the cloth that many Christians through the centuries have believed is the actual burial shroud of Jesus, he told CNN.

"What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image," he said. "Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532."

Jinx!

[Minimalist]

Yep. It's all out there to frighten the jesus freaks out of their fairy tales.

That must be why they stick their heads up their asses. Shuts out the unpleasant realities of the world.

[Mudhammam]

Thanks guys.. Wish I would've known all of this a few days ago rather than give the Christian who was informing me about it any glee in the possibility of it being genuine! But alas, you win some and you lose some. (Although I think finding anything from the first-century depicting the image of Jesus would be cool in the same way that finding an artifact representing Aristotle or Epicurus would be.)

[Cyberman]

The problem with the Leonardo stuff is that the shroud was displayed and denounced almost a hundred years before Leonardo was born. Argues convincingly against his involvement.

I seem to remember some mention of a shroud that was indeed denounced as an obvious painting, but which vanished once the one we know and love appeared. The argument goes that Leonardo or someone was commissioned to produce a more convincing artifact. It's meant to account for the anomalies in the thing, since Leonardo was supposedly of the Mandean sect that followed John the Baptist. Again I stress that I'm no scholar of history; I share only what I've heard and read.

As I say, the basic implausibilities of the relic ought to be plenty to tear it to shreds as a magical relic regardless.

[Cyberman]

Actually, on a tangential but related point regarding carbon dating:

One thing that gives me a giggle is all the arm-waving about how carbon dating doesn't work, that it gives results of greater age than in reality. Live sea creatures have been touted as being millions of years old, for example. Yet the Turin shroud, using the exact same method, dates much younger than pulpit pounders find acceptable. So which is it?

[Minimalist]

I seem to remember some mention of a shroud that was indeed denounced as an obvious painting, but which vanished once the one we know and love appeared.

More likely, it is the same item which has badly faded due to the ravages of time in the ensuing 700 years since Lirey. They did not know what we know about conservation of artifacts.


Anyway, the earliest depiction of the godboy yet found. From Dura Europus in Mesopotamia c 3d century.

Clean shaven and wearing a fucking toga. Malleable, that jesus. He is whatever you want him to be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And he might be suckling a baby, too. I didn't know he had teats.

[Minimalist]

This is supposed to be raising "lazarus" from the dead...or some such shit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is supposed to be raising "lazarus" from the dead...or some such shit.

Oh, bummer. I was starting to get some dirty thoughts.

[Minimalist]

Don't let me stop you.

Beats the hell out of 'lazarus.'