Saint Peter's Bones

[Mudhammam]

It's an atheist forum and shitheads like him deserve to be told off.

If he wants to get blessed and blown by pervert priests he can go to a catholick board.

Because atheists can't be expected to be polite to their guests and to engage in civil discussions even when they disagree with them?

Believe me, Min, you and a few others here have more than confirmed the classic stereotype of the angry atheist.

I agree with you, Randy. The disrespect for individuals often on display here - rather than limiting it to the ideas they put forth - goes a long way to show that irrationality (to say nothing of ignorance and dogmatism) is a problem on both sides.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I don't know enough about St. Peter's bones to opine.  But anyone who bothers to look at the proportions of the body depicted on the shroud of Turin knows it's a fake.  No real person has those proportions, but art made at the time it first surfaced did.  Surely if Jesus were monstrously out of proportion to the extent of being a freak of nature, someone would have mentioned it?  It's not even as if it's a genetic defect commonly found or recognized it's not.  No one has those proportions.  It's as if the shroud first came to light ten or fifteen years ago in Japan and had the huge eyes and bodily proportions of anime cartoons.

Oh---- Welcome back Randy.

One other question:

How is it that the intensity of the image on the shroud translates into a near-perfect 3D image of a man?

It wasn't until a few years ago that we had the technology to recognize and capture that image...how did an artist capture that data on a linen cloth with an image that is no more than a micron or two deep in the fibers?

Either this cloth is the real deal OR it is the most amazing icon ever created.

Yep, Jesus was crucified and wrapped like a mummy in Joe's tomb.  Then after three days he popped wide awake and unwrapped himself and left the tomb to go fishing.  Someone came along and thought it would be a great idea to keep the smelly rags as a souvenir so he took it back to his hovel.  When guests came over he proudly showed them the bloody smelly rags.  Then the person died but the rag was his main asset so it passed to his son.  One day the crap hit the fan and the Romans sacked Jerusalem and carted everyone off in chains to build the Colosseum.  While poking through the rubble a Roman soldier saw the rag fluttering in the breeze and thought that it would make the best war trophy of all time to show the folks back in Italy so he quickly put it in his sack. 

Time passes and the Roman soldier finally makes it back to Italy and home to his family.  He then shows them the blood rag and they ask "WTF is that?"  He tells them that it's a magic bloody rag that some spirit told him to take because thousands of years in the future it will be proof that some Jew had died in Jerusalem.  So they said "that's a cool story, bro."  Time passes with all kinds of wars and disasters swirling around the magic rag that stayed safe from moths and mildew and processes that destroyed other textiles.  And then, centuries after that unknown Roman soldier took the bloody rag from Jerusalem to his home in Italy some guy saw it and said "holy crap, it's Jesus!"

True story.

[Iroscato]

It's an atheist forum and shitheads like him deserve to be told off.

If he wants to get blessed and blown by pervert priests he can go to a catholick board.

Because atheists can't be expected to be polite to their guests and to engage in civil discussions even when they disagree with them?

Believe me, Min, you and a few others here have more than confirmed the classic stereotype of the angry atheist.

You are not a 'guest' here - nobody is. This is a public discussion forum, and that means people might say some mean words. Boo hoo.

If Min - and presumably me, since I (entirely justifiably) called you a cuntstain - have confirmed the angry atheist stereotype, then you have more than confirmed the Catholic stereotype as a creepy, preening, self-satisfied delusional little twit.

Not to mention plagiariser, staunch paedophilia apologist, passive-aggressive, condescending...I really could go on and on. You are not, however, worth the effort. I will say that this forum has been incredibly accommodating to you, and other boards I frequent would have hoofed you out a good 2000 posts earlier. If you think this is bad, why not sniff around?

[Jenny A]

I'm talking faces not arms Randy.  Open your eyes and look:

Here is the face depicted in the shroud:

I don't see a problem.

 
A ruler and a calculator don't lie.  The shroud's eyes are about 38 to 36% down from the top of the head and that's just wrong.  Your strip of images mask the problem by cropping so that we can't see how long the chin and forehead really are.  Even so, both recreations have higher foreheads than the original.

[Jenny A]

I don't know enough about St. Peter's bones to opine.  But anyone who bothers to look at the proportions of the body depicted on the shroud of Turin knows it's a fake.  No real person has those proportions, but art made at the time it first surfaced did.  Surely if Jesus were monstrously out of proportion to the extent of being a freak of nature, someone would have mentioned it?  It's not even as if it's a genetic defect commonly found or recognized it's not.  No one has those proportions.  It's as if the shroud first came to light ten or fifteen years ago in Japan and had the huge eyes and bodily proportions of anime cartoons.

Oh---- Welcome back Randy.

One other question:

How is it that the intensity of the image on the shroud translates into a near-perfect 3D image of a man?

It wasn't until a few years ago that we had the technology to recognize and capture that image...how did an artist capture that data on a linen cloth with an image that is no more than a micron or two deep in the fibers?

Either this cloth is the real deal OR it is the most amazing icon ever created.

And what would prevent a forger from using a statue covered in pigment?  I'd suggest a real body except that that face is clearly not that of any real human.

How do you connect it to Jesus as opposed to any old body?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

One other question:

How is it that the intensity of the image on the shroud translates into a near-perfect 3D image of a man?

It wasn't until a few years ago that we had the technology to recognize and capture that image...how did an artist capture that data on a linen cloth with an image that is no more than a micron or two deep in the fibers?

Either this cloth is the real deal OR it is the most amazing icon ever created.

And what would prevent a forger from using a statue covered in pigment?  I'd suggest a real body except that that face is clearly not that of any real human.

---

How do you connect it to Jesus as opposed to any old body?

Everyone knows Jesus had a beard.  All of the paintings show that he had one.  The man on the cloth has a beard, therefore it's Jesus!

[Randy Carson]

Because atheists can't be expected to be polite to their guests and to engage in civil discussions even when they disagree with them?

Believe me, Min, you and a few others here have more than confirmed the classic stereotype of the angry atheist.

You are not a 'guest' here - nobody is. This is a public discussion forum, and that means people might say some mean words. Boo hoo.

If Min - and presumably me, since I (entirely justifiably) called you a cuntstain - have confirmed the angry atheist stereotype, then you have more than confirmed the Catholic stereotype as a creepy, preening, self-satisfied delusional little twit.

Not to mention plagiariser, staunch paedophilia apologist, passive-aggressive, condescending...I really could go on and on. You are not, however, worth the effort. I will say that this forum has been incredibly accommodating to you, and other boards I frequent would have hoofed you out a good 2000 posts earlier. If you think this is bad, why not sniff around?

You may be right.

You might be one of the angry atheists who lower the standard of the forum.

Yes...I'm almost sure of it.

Kudos to Nestor, btw. He gets it.

[Randy Carson]

I don't see a problem.

 
A ruler and a calculator don't lie.  The shroud's eyes are about 38 to 36% down from the top of the head and that's just wrong.  Your strip of images mask the problem by cropping so that we can't see how long the chin and forehead really are.  Even so, both recreations have higher foreheads than the original.

What books about the Shroud have you read, Jenny?

[Randy Carson]

One other question:

How is it that the intensity of the image on the shroud translates into a near-perfect 3D image of a man?

It wasn't until a few years ago that we had the technology to recognize and capture that image...how did an artist capture that data on a linen cloth with an image that is no more than a micron or two deep in the fibers?

Either this cloth is the real deal OR it is the most amazing icon ever created.

And what would prevent a forger from using a statue covered in pigment?  I'd suggest a real body except that that face is clearly not that of any real human.

How do you connect it to Jesus as opposed to any old body?

The statue theory has been discounted, Jenny.

Were the Romans in the habit of mocking ALL persons they crucified as a king with a crown of thorns? Were ALL crucifixion victims pierced in the side? How many times were the legs NOT broken like those of the Man of the Shroud were not?

etc, etc.

[Jenny A]

 
A ruler and a calculator don't lie.  The shroud's eyes are about 38 to 36% down from the top of the head and that's just wrong.  Your strip of images mask the problem by cropping so that we can't see how long the chin and forehead really are.  Even so, both recreations have higher foreheads than the original.

What books about the Shroud have you read, Jenny?

I just used a ruler.  That is sufficient.  That's not a human head.