Shroud Of Turin

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 2 2005, 12:17 AM'] Its not that hard to create a physically and medically accurate sihlouette. And if you reverse the image of the image created by the shadow bleaching the fabric, it also creates a negative with far more detail. [/quote]
The painting used to make the silloughette would have to show all that impossibly detailed and accurate detail. That's my point - the original image was not a painting.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 4 2005, 03:44 PM'] The painting used to make the silloughette would have to show all that impossibly detailed and accurate detail. That's my point - the original image was not a painting. [/quote]
I don't get why you're arguing this, because you have no idea what the results of the method I'm talking about were. The painted glass resulted in an equally detailed image, and I'm not going to bother debating this with you anymore because you really don't know what you're talking about.

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 4 2005, 05:46 PM'] I don't get why you're arguing this, because you have no idea what the results of the method I'm talking about were. The painted glass resulted in an equally detailed image, and I'm not going to bother debating this with you anymore because you really don't know what you're talking about. [/quote]
I'm debating this for the simple reason that it is impossible for the "shadow" negative to be more anatomically detailed than the original image (painted or otherwise). It seems you are missing my point (perhaps I am not being very clear).

[Quagmire508]

I dont think that it is a paint


it is pretty cool

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 4 2005, 07:24 PM'] I'm debating this for the simple reason that it is impossible for the "shadow" negative to be more anatomically detailed than the original image (painted or otherwise). It seems you are missing my point (perhaps I am not being very clear). [/quote]
You're being perfectly clear, but you're also clearly wrong. You can't argue something you know nothing about. I don't get how this fact eludes you.

[Socrates]

What I was saying is actually quite simple. If I made a painting or drawing of something, then made a photocopy (of any kind) of it, all the anatomical inaccuraces, etc. would be preserved in the copy. The Shroud simply contains too many medically correct details for its original source to have been a painting.

If you have an objection to why my point is wrong, give it. Otherwise, chill!

[crusader1234]

The shroud isn't all that medically accurate. All of the 'medical details' are quite easy to fake. Especially when you consider that the body on the shroud is out of porportion.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 5 2005, 09:00 PM'] The shroud isn't all that medically accurate. All of the 'medical details' are quite easy to fake. Especially when you consider that the body on the shroud is out of porportion. [/quote]
If you have doubts of the Shroud of Turin, I advise that you voice it in a "softer" manner. Let's go ahead and crush the faith that millions have in this shroud. -_-
Where is this getting you or anyone else?

[crusader1234]

This is the debate board, and if anybody hinges their faith on a piece of mysterious cloth that person needs their head examined. I presented a plausible explanation I saw on television, and Socrates didn't understand and I am trying to explain it to him. If a person is 'crushed' because a piece of material isn't two thousand years old... I don't think that person is a Catholic for the right reasons.

[theculturewarrior]

It seems you're making the mistake a lot of historians make, Crusader, which is evaluating the Shroud by today's standards.

If it's a question of anatomic or physiological accuracy, please, let us know! I haven't heard any of the arguments against the shroud stating that, but I don't know.

However, if it's a case of an accurate detail being easy to fake, please examine the Shroud within its historical context. If it is a painting, it is not a 14th c. painting. The theories of bodily proportion simply weren't around at that time, and though you say the body was out of proportion (not sure what you meant, but feel free to clarify), I've seen the images of the Shroud, and it has the appearance of proportion.

What I'm trying to say, is that it looks real. Look at other painting from that time. The Shroud looks even more real than later Renaissance paintings.

How does that fit into the 14th c.

BTW: My faith no more hinges upon the Shroud than it does on the Theory of Relativity or the genetic theory. The evidence is just compelling.

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 5 2005, 09:00 PM'] The shroud isn't all that medically accurate. All of the 'medical details' are quite easy to fake. Especially when you consider that the body on the shroud is out of porportion. [/quote]
I saw a detailed presentation on the shroud, and saw detailed photos of it. SOme medical doctors have examined it, and found that such things as blood flow, trauma to the body, etc. matched perfectly according to what would happen to a human body undergoing the tortures of Christ. A lot of these things would not be obviously apparent to the non-medical observer. I forget a lot of the details, bu there is a book I can check out about this.

While it may be possible that these things could be faked, it would definitely not be "quite easy to fake."

I fyou can provide specific refutations, I'd be happy to here them, but don't be insulting, and insinuate that anyone who doubts that the shroud is a forgery has weak faith. That is being quite judgmental!

[crusader1234]

I don't mean to insinuate that anybody who doubts the shroud is a forgery has week faith by any means. I am saying outright that anybody whose faith hinges on the shroud is not a real Catholic. I just find it ridiculous that people are so closed minded to the possibility that it might be fake. I say one thing, and you tell me I'm wrong when you have no idea what I'm talking about. Its a little bit... silly.

[FutureSoror]

[quote name='point5' date='Apr 1 2005, 03:42 PM'] One of the plants whose pollen was found heavily around the head area of the shroud belongs to a native plant in Jerusalem that has thorns on it!

Also the blood type found on the shroud is AB...this is also the blood type in the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. I do not think it is a mere coincidence. Only 3.6% of the population have this blood type, and it is the only blood type that can recieve all other blood types!!! Jesus recieves ALL!!! [/quote]
Oohh! I totally forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me!

I used to be more in love with the shroud, but it always kind of bothered me how the head seems really out of proportion with the body. Doesn't this bother anyone else? I've just never brought it up with anyone because I didn't want to be disrespectful.

[crusader1234]

You're not disrespecting anybody by pointing out that its anatomically incorrect. Its wrong to let those in the dark stay blind because the light might hurt their eyes.

[Socrates]

[quote name='FutureSoror' date='Apr 7 2005, 11:32 PM'] Oohh! I totally forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me!

I used to be more in love with the shroud, but it always kind of bothered me how the head seems really out of proportion with the body. Doesn't this bother anyone else? I've just never brought it up with anyone because I didn't want to be disrespectful. [/quote]
How is the head out of proportion to the body?
I have seen detailed photographic reproductions of the whole shroud, and the image does not appear to me to be the least bit out of proportion or anatomically inaccurate. Perhaps you could provide photos and details or something.
Physicians have likewise studied the image in depth, and found nothing at all inaccurate. I'll try to get that book over the weekend so I can give more specific details.