Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/29/2002 5:40:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 5:49:17 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Are you familiar with the Shroud of Turin, the supposed 'burial cloth of Christ' that has been venerated by the Catholic Church and presently rests in Turin, Italy, since approx. 1356 AD? Well, what do [u]you[/u] think about it? The true burial cloth? or a 'pious fraud'? For me, the jury is still out. I had thought that the radio carbon dating tests taken in 1988 might have settled the matter once and for all, but then... [img]http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.shroud.com/shrdfacn.jpg[/img] Go to the following sites, if you have never heard of this relic, or to see what others have said: Pro-authenticity: [url]http://www.shroud.com/[/url] [url]http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm[/url] [url]http://www.sindone.org/en/welcome.htm[/url] [url]http://www.shroudstory.com/[/url] Contra-authenticity: [url]http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html[/url] [url]http://www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/dearte/51/dearturn.html[/url] This last study concludes that the Shroud was the result of a 14th Century [u]photographic[/u] process of a previously unknown type! C'mon, it's Good Friday, for Christ's sake, go check it out! And then vote! Eric The(Enshrouded)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 5:52:04 AM EDT
I think its the real deal. Happy Good Friday
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 5:52:15 AM EDT
Filth stained cloth, marked with the image of some bearded guy. Not from the time of Jesus. Oh my God! I see the image of the Virgin in my Cheerios!! No wait, it's gone.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:01:20 AM EDT
Now, now, Cincinnatus, no one here is claiming to see any Virgin in their Cheerios![:D] So how do you explain the process of the forgery? You surely know what representing a three dimensional object on a flat surface must entail! [b]Go look at [u]any[/u] painting prior to Giotto![/b][:D] Eric The(Knowledgeable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:15:39 AM EDT
I'm fairly certain what happened was this: Bob Ross used a time machine to go back to the 10th century. There, he briefly had a television show on PBS where he painted bearded men on linen cloths. The Shroud of Turin is the only surviving work from his time in the 10th century.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:16:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 6:27:08 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
Roman Painting,130 AD [img]http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~classics/images/1923.0060.200.gif[/img][img]http://www.metmuseum.org/special/ancientfaces/art/Port_young_woman.4.R.jpg[/img][img]http://www.metmuseum.org/special/ancientfaces/art/Port_man.R.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.metmuseum.org/special/ancientfaces/art/Port_priest.21.R.jpg[/img][img]http://www.metmuseum.org/special/ancientfaces/art/Port_woman.16.R.jpg[/img][img]http://www.metmuseum.org/special/ancientfaces/art/11.139.R.jpg[/img] All of the above were created prior to 200 AD. Sarcophagi were decorated with painted images of the deceased. People mistakenly believe that well modelled, and rendered paintings came first, from the early Renaissance or Medieval periods. Not so. The shroud is less than 1000 years old. Eric, you aren't marvelling at it's craftsmanship, are you?
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:21:26 AM EDT
IMO, pious fraud. the proportions are all wrong for a shroud draped over a face, it should be wider. some well-intentioned monk made this (by accident?) in order to praise god, never intending it to be considered a holy relic.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:23:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:23:27 AM EDT
I watched the Scifi channel "The Outer Limit" episode "Shroud of Turin". Quite an interesting episode I say, there is this group of religious folks who want to resurrect Chris by taking the DNA off the Shroud of Turin and implanted into this woman who is a virgin. There were arguments between the scientists who did the cloning and the religious folks about the origin of the shroud. "What if ...." said the scientist, that the shroud is only of a normal man who had special kinetic ability during that period of time that everyone think that he is god. Not so said the religious folks who believed that the Shroud is of Christ the Son of God. The ending is quite interesting though. A must see.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:25:36 AM EDT
Post from Cincinnatus -
The shroud is less than 100 years old.
View Quote
What???? You obviously haven't read the links. It was photographed by Italian photographer Secondo Pia in 1898, fer crying out loud. It's been in continuous observance since at least 1356-1357. And the carbon dating tests that have been done on it reveal a date somewhere between 1242 and 1390!
Eric, you aren't marvelling at it's craftsmanship, are you?
View Quote
Yes, as well as it's other 'qualities.' When medieval and Renaissance painters were busily painting scenes of the crucified Christ for their patrons showing the nails going into Jesus' Hands, the Shroud shows the nails as having gone through Jesus' Wrists! Pretty savvy for someone in the 14th Century to know what no one else seemed to know: That if the nails were placed through the palm of the victim's hands, the nail would simply rip through under the weight of the victim's body. If the nails were put through the victim's [u]wrists[/u], however, the body weight could be supported! How'd this clever 'Steppenwolf' know [u]that[/u]? 'Trial and error'? [:D] Eric The(Astonished)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:32:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 6:34:13 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
Sorry Hun, I mistyped. I meant 1000. You guys may know your scripture, but NOBODY knows art history, from caves to contemporary, better than me. ...as far as how did the shroud-maker know the details of proper crucification? Who knows? Apparently he did. Remember, the shroud maker probably was not an artist, so the popular conventions of representing the Crucification, didn't apply. The Shroud is as well rendered as a "snow angel".
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:36:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: I think its real. But if it is not, the fact that it has brought attention to Christ, in what ever maner, is good. Whether some disagree or not, it has made people think about Christ and may have lead them to believe in the teachings. Just my ¢2
View Quote
No flame, but that's the same type of stuff the feminists and the enviromentalists say. "It doesn't matter if our facts are not true, as long as it brings attention to the issue..."
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:43:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]Go look at [u]any[/u] painting prior to Giotto![/b][:D] Eric The(Knowledgeable)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Compare, Giotto (left)to a painting done 1000 years prior to Giotto(right): [img]http://www.culturalresources.com/images/Giotto.jpg[/img][img]http://www.metmuseum.org/special/ancientfaces/art/Port_youth.51.R.jpg[/img] Giotto's great, but his inovation was in rendering space, not form.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:43:41 AM EDT
I do not see the relevance of it.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:44:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 6:48:34 AM EDT by Fearandloathing37]
Sorry Hun, But I think it's a total fraud, You know, My favorite religiuos relic fraud of all time has to be the French pilgrams that brought back supposed body parts of Christ in a period of relic collecting mania. Some Rabbi in the holy land, had convinced these pious frenchmem, That they had the product of the circumcision of Christ (That's Right, The Holy Foreskin) These French Knights braved many deaths, Bandits, War, Weather, sickness, Years of slogging travel.... All so the members of some little congregation in France could pass during the mass, And kiss the Holy Foreskin. The world is truely strange beyond belief.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:46:48 AM EDT
Post from Cincinnatus -
Sorry Hun, I mistyped. I meant 1000.
View Quote
Yeaahhhh, sure you did.[:D] Just joking, but you know that it is in my nature to 'forgive'!
You guys may know your scripture, but NOBODY knows art history, from caves to contemporary, better than me.
View Quote
That's for certain, Big C, and that's why I pointed out [b]Giotto[/b] as the first modern European painter to figure out perspective. Apparently, he had [u]unbelievable[/u] competition from someone 200-300 years before [u]him[/u]! Some 'painter' who could make [u]three-dimensional renditions of his subjects[/u] certainly is rather advanced over anyone of this period! And such a 'painter' only made [b]one[/b] such rendition! Just think, it's like a Michelangelo fell from Heaven, painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and then left never to appear and paint again! How credible is that? Eric The(Incredible)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:53:04 AM EDT
Ha....Pish Posh...Lords of History, ye calls yer selves. This Place is Jurasic Park and I'm T-Rex, I'm the Biggest meanest animal in the Political Science and History food chain...ROARrrrr
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:54:04 AM EDT
There's no "perspective" displayed in the shroud. As far as 3D rendering goes, did you see the paintings I posted that predate the shroud by more than 1000 years? The Shroud is as technically impressive as a "snow angel".
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:59:31 AM EDT
Come on Arafat....Pick up that krinkov....I know ya can do it....Just for a second.....and it will all be over....Go ahead Arafat......you send lots of kids out to blow them selves up...The IDF Special Forces team is right outside the door, with the flashbangs, Uzi's and M-16's...Come on Arafat....Just pick up the Krink...it'll be over quick...
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 7:12:52 AM EDT
Done with something like Ye Olde Fotoe Shoppe.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 7:14:13 AM EDT
Post from ar10er
I do not see the relevance of it.
View Quote
Hmmmm, the supposed burial cloth of some Middle Eastern Semitic adult male, obviously the victim of a crucifixion, that had wounds on his head, a wound in the right side of his chest, and that this image has been left on a cloth of linen with herringbone weave common in the First Century AD and [b]which cannot be duplicated by modern processes to any successful degree?[/b] What is the relevance of [u]that[/u]? Well, it pretty much describes the details of the story of Jesus' crucifixion from the Gospels, that's all! Why the wounds to the head on a typical victim of Roman crucifixion? On Jesus, it would have been from the crown of thorns forced down upon His Head by the taunting Roman executioners. Why the wound to the right side of this victim? On Jesus, it would correspond to the Roman soldier's stab wound to make certain that He was dead. The usual way that one died on a cross under a sentence of crucifixion was by asphyxiation. The victim would push down with his legs against the nails in his feet to lift himself up to take a breath. The excruciating pain on pushing down on the nails would simply add to the victim's agony. A quick death to the victim was made by simply breaking his legs with a cudgel. No longer able to push up with his legs, the victim simply died of asphyxiation, within a very short time. The Roman soldiers, we are told, broke the legs of the two thieves who were with Jesus, but not His Legs. Had His Legs been broken, a requisite prophecy concerning the Messiah would have been violated! 'For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.' John 19:36 Citing Psalm 34:20 (He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.) This is very strange, indeed, since we are specifically informed by John that Pilate had [u]ordered[/u] (John 19: 31-33) that the legs of these crucified men were to be broken. So that's what relevant about this cloth. Trust me, if the 'others' found an [b]occupied[/b] grave of someone who had been the victim of a crucifixion in the First Century AD with the inscription 'This is Jesus of Nazareth' and whose body bore all of the distinguishing and unique characteristics of the Shroud of Turin figure, you can rest assured they would move Heaven and Earth to prove that it and the hapless fellow inside was from that era! Hell, they wouldn't even need the inscription to be convinced! Eric The(Believing)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 7:17:58 AM EDT
[peep] Eric - check your instant messenger!
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 7:19:22 AM EDT
Let's see here....the shroud was C13 dated to be less than a 1000 years old, I think they were allowed a square cm to do this, and we still ask is it the real deal? Do we buy into the dating process? Is it flawed? If we do and it's not, we narrow the possible answers we can give on this.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 7:44:40 AM EDT
[b]a3kid[/b], I did, and I can't help you on that - ask DonR (remember my IM message center can only receive not send) Good to hear from you, Man! You, Josie, Emily and the kidz have a lovely Resurrection Sunday!!!! Eric The(SeeYouInMay)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 7:58:37 AM EDT
Who cares? The whole controversy just goes to show how little we have "progressed" since paganism and idol-worshipping. Let's go to Mt Ararat and find Noah's Ark while we're at it, shall we? [rolleyes]You either believe in Christ, or you don't. His reality does not need to be confirmed by objects. If one needs to have reliquaries and other 'evidence' that he existed laid out before oneself in order to shore up one's belief in his existence and divinity, then I'd say that faith is pretty shaky to begin with. Otherwise, we might as well be a more sophisticated version of the "cargo cults" of the South Pacific.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:07:03 AM EDT
I don't know what it is. I DO KNOW no one should be worshipping it, or calling it sacred or anything.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:14:38 AM EDT
Post from 95thFoot -
Who cares?
View Quote
I do, along with a great number of other folks, some who believe, others who don't, and some who are searching for the truth.
The whole controversy just goes to show how little we have "progressed" since paganism and idol-worshipping.
View Quote
Not at all. It all goes to show you how many folks are interested in the Life of Christ, and whether or not there is tangible, factual proof that He ever lived. It's an intellectual and spiritual quest for the truth.
Let's go to Mt Ararat and find Noah's Ark while we're at it, shall we?
View Quote
Yes, let's do. What would be wrong with doing that?
You either believe in Christ, or you don't. His reality does not need to be confirmed by objects.
View Quote
Not for True Believers, of course. Some of us believe without seeing. That is true faith.
If one needs to have reliquaries and other 'evidence' that he existed laid out before oneself in order to shore up one's belief in his existence and divinity, then I'd say that faith is pretty shaky to begin with.
View Quote
I'd say so too. I believed in Jesus, oh, about thirty years [u]before[/u] I ever had even [u]heard[/u] of the Shroud of Turin! And Jesus certainly never made believing on a piece of cloth a requirement in His Kingdom!
Otherwise, we might as well be a more sophisticated version of the "cargo cults" of the South Pacific.
View Quote
Not so. We are as entitled to investigate this matter as we are any other matter of the ancient world. It has been said that the Shroud is the most investigated single artifact in the history of the world. While I'm not certain about [u]that[/u], I do know that it has captured the attention of folks from, oh, say around 1356, to the present time. Eric The(Inquisitive)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:18:15 AM EDT
Post from garandman -
I DO KNOW no one should be worshipping it, or calling it sacred or anything.
View Quote
Nor do I think that it should be worshipped. But [b]if[/b] its authenticity was ever to be proved, I would say that we would have every right to call it sacred! Still no reason to worship 'it' even then. Eric The(Inquisitive)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:21:41 AM EDT
Course, [b]garandman[/b], it does beggar the imagination to believe that the earliest disciples and followers of Christ, would not have kept the burial clothes of Christ that they would have retrieved from that empty tomb that morning. Wouldn't you have? I know I would have gathered up everything in sight! And there is the story of the 'Sindone' that appears very, very early in Christian tradition. Eric The(Intrigued)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:33:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: And the carbon dating tests that have been done on it reveal a date somewhere between 1242 and 1390!
View Quote
And when did this guy supposedly die?
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:34:01 AM EDT
I think it falls into the same category as the Holy Grail, etc. The burial shroud and grail DID once exist, but we don't have them anymore. For the "son of GOD" Jesus led a fairly unremarkable existence. There is no record of him at all from ages 13-29 (I'm sure those dates are wrong but approx. to the real ones). In addition very few people believed him at all, or they sure as hell wouldn't have killed him. Even after his death there were few believers. It wasn't until several hundred years after his death that Christianity became prominent. Then suddenly the "Jesus artifacts" became important. The grail, lance and shroud were highly coveted but at this point probably lost forever. Especially in light of the Catholic desire to have "things" on display (Saints remains, etc.) it is highly probably they either created the shroud or allowed themselves to believe they were attaining the genuine article from some profiteer with a counterfeit.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:35:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: And the carbon dating tests that have been done on it reveal a date somewhere between 1242 and 1390!
View Quote
And when did this guy supposedly die?
View Quote
Were they crucifying people then? If not, does this change anything?
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:35:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kar98: Done with something like Ye Olde Fotoe Shoppe.
View Quote
LOL
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:43:21 AM EDT
Post from 1GUNRUNNER -
And when did this guy supposedly die?
View Quote
If by 'this guy' you mean the fellow on the Shroud, who knows? That's what is trying to be determined. If by 'this guy' you mean Jesus of Nazareth, called The Christ by His followers, then 32-33 AD. The carbon dating tests have not sufficiently determined the answer for most folks [u]inclined[/u] to believe in authenticity, due to several factors, which you will need to review in the posted links. I think the carbon dating testing were questionable simply because fact that the Shroud was in a fire in the 1500s may have caused irregularities in the amount of carbon contained in the fibres tested. But there are those who are testing this even now. See the pro-authenticity sites. Eric The(JuryStillOut)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:45:41 AM EDT
Gee....I will be cleaning my windows next weekend.......I am a little short of rags. Do you think I could borrow it?
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:06:22 AM EDT
Post from SteyrAUG -
It wasn't until several hundred years after his death that Christianity became prominent.
View Quote
If by meaning 'prominent' you mean that it became a 'permitted religion' in Rome, then you mean 310 AD, if by meaning prominent it became an official religion in Rome, then you must mean 324 AD, if by meaning prominent you mean when it became the official state religion of the very people who executed Jesus, then you must mean 387 AD, which is about 350 years after Jesus' supposed death. That's not, in my view, 'several hundred' years, but let's not quibble over so minor a point. But I would consider 'Christianity' a 'prominent' religion by 50 AD, when it was referred to by Paul's accusers before the Roman governor Felix Agrippa as a religion that had turned the world upside down, or maybe by 64 AD when Nero blamed the Great Fire on the presence of 'Christians' in the City, or maybe by 95 AD when the Roman governor Pliny the Elder wrote to Rome requesting guidance on how to treat confessed Christians. But we will never agree on any particular date. Eric The(Believing)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:19:10 AM EDT
It's always a pleasure to see intelligent discussions of life's mysteries, even though there's no sure answers.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:22:44 AM EDT
Eric Hunny...it has been duplicated....using a bronze statue and heat..as for the marks...this would not be the first time that someone previously knew something that Modern times has just discovered....as for the dating---give or take a million years---the sample were too small and not repeatable. As for the reality...hopefully Iesus the Kristos was here and now is not but, as G-man would say, proof is not needed only faith.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:22:47 AM EDT
Stormbringer: This is coming from one of the least sensitive, "PC" guys you will ever meet. That being said, you can use it to wash your windows as soon as I can use your dick as a drift punch. I'm not a religious guy, but I have enough respect not to mock anyone's religion on one of its holiest days. It may be a fraud, it may not be...even if it is only a pious fraud, it still depicts Jesus Christ, and as such, the idea of using it as a rag is very offensive to anyone with an iota of decency. Your humor is lost on me.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:31:29 AM EDT
oooh artifacts---I am in on this one The grail..unknown at this time...many rumours the lance or spear of Longinus-- [url]http://sxws.com/charis/relics8.htm[/url] The ark---most likely in Axum in Ethiopia
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:25:48 AM EDT
Hi ETH, Hmmm.... Anything "researched" by the catholic church is totally under suspicion. Sorry... These are the same folks who have "scientific proof" that after their eucharist is "blessed" by a priest during mass that it is indeed flesh. You know, transubstantiation in action. Is this friday good? Yes, any day I wake up and it is friday is GREAT! But that, biblically speaking of course, is it folks. Period. Any thing from Italy, the home of the papacy, in reference to scientific proof of biblical events.... is SPECIOUS at best... lamentable fraud at the least. Anybody care for some more "relics"? Saints fingerbones... pieces of the true cross... or perhaps someone might like to sit in, chortle... guffaw, the chair of saint peter perhaps? You know, the chair where the pope sits, ex cathedra, when he wishes to give "infallible" dissertations on doctrine. So... there is a neat sheet.... pretty kewl pic on it. There is NO living man who can say what Jesus looked like. And to put the final nail in this sucker...... take a peek at this geek... do you honestly actually believe that this is what a first century Jew looks like?? Just like all the other paintings that rome churned out with images of the Lord looking as lily white as ever. What a joke folks.... Move along nothing to see here folks..... And for those of you who think I am a hater of catholics.... sorry..... about half of my good friends are, and that is quite a number of people. I just detest the lies and fallacies pawned off on honest good hearted people. Dram over/out
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:40:06 AM EDT
actually Dram, research conducted by the church would have been very well researched and they have the tools to do so. Would it be biased? yes But the church itself has not and I believe, will not take an official stand on this cloth. THIS IS FROM SOMEONE WHO SPECIFICALLY DESPISES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE SAME LEVEL THAT MOST OF US FEEL ABOUT THE BATF..sorry I will stop screaming now. And before anyone asks why.. Joan, St.Francis, The library at Alexandria...
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:51:12 AM EDT
Is it possible? Sure it's possible. Is it likely? Hmmmmmm. Does it change my belief structure either way? Nope. My belief in God is not limited by artifacts, doctrine or dogma. I know He Is in my bones, and I've felt Him at work in my life. I need no shroud, no lance, no grail, etc. to prove Jesus Christ to me. The impact his life and teachings have had on the world is proof enough. As far as the evils perpetrated by the catholic church in the world. I am well aware of those as well. But a faith should not be judged by the corruption and frailty of it's human officers. The church is built of the souls of the faithful not the bricks and mortar of the earth nor of human doctrines.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:10:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dissipator556: Stormbringer: This is coming from one of the least sensitive, "PC" guys you will ever meet. That being said, you can use it to wash your windows as soon as I can use your dick as a drift punch. I'm not a religious guy, but I have enough respect not to mock anyone's religion on one of its holiest days. It may be a fraud, it may not be...even if it is only a pious fraud, it still depicts Jesus Christ, and as such, the idea of using it as a rag is very offensive to anyone with an iota of decency. Your humor is lost on me.
View Quote
Fraud is Fraud Is FRAUD!! I just get sick of people making such a do about such laughable things as this....... Hey did you want to buy one of St. So and so's finger bones??? It is all in the same vien. As for making fun of peoples religions....well there seems to be plenty Islam Bashing going on in these parts of late..... Think of me as an equal opportunity basher. If you need some help in finding your humour give me a call and we can form a search party.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:37:03 AM EDT
Awwww, why can't we all just get along? Happy Easter, everyone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes, there's more: [img]http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3811/easter_jesus.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:40:08 AM EDT
Oh I always get along Kar!! But it is time to take my two kids out to the range.... Its Junior rifle night!!!!!! I guess that is my religion!!!! LOL AND HAVE I GOT FAITH!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:50:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: There's no "perspective" displayed in the shroud. As far as 3D rendering goes, did you see the paintings I posted that predate the shroud by more than 1000 years? The Shroud is as technically impressive as a "snow angel".
View Quote
The shroud actually displays a three-dimensional image in negative. I can't remember the exact type of photo analysis (it was something to do with an electron scan) that they did on it, but the image is [i]actually[/i] three-dimensional. I don't know if it is or not, but it sure is interesting. Me thinks that it is probably an divinely-inspired work, as opposed to being actually created by the face of God.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 3:15:02 PM EDT
I read a book a few years ago that postulated the shroud was the world's first photograph, made by DaVinci as a hoax. The figure was DaVinci himself. This fits in with DaVinci's personality. He was gay, anti-church, and took every opportunity to laugh behind his hand at religion. He was known to experiment with light and chemicals, and loved to try new art methods. Using sunlight alone it was possible during his era, to make a crude photograph. By spreading a chemically treated sheet sheet over a body, and using sunlight to expose it, a crude image could be produced. This is the only method that could produce a 3-dimensional image on a cloth. The authors managed to reproduce the shroud with an image that was a duplicate of the Turin shroud. Interestingly, there is no record of the shroud BEFORE DaVinci's time.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 3:31:14 PM EDT
Post from faris -
This fits in with DaVinci's personality. He was gay, anti-church, and took every opportunity to laugh behind his hand at religion. He was known to experiment with light and chemicals, and loved to try new art methods.
View Quote
So it's not a 'pious fraud', but an 'impious fraud.' But he (or whoever it may have been) never concocted another such fake? And it was first shown in France, only later (c. 200 years) ever arriving in Turin, Italy. Hmmm. So Leonardo was the 'Steppenwolf', eh? Eric The(Doubtful)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 5:20:02 PM EDT
Arguing on the internet (especially about religion) is like participating in the special olympics- even if you win, you're still retarded!
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 6:42:54 PM EDT
It's been several years since I read the book, but this was apparently the kind of scam that you only did once. And, if their right, it's still working. Leonardo was constantly at odds with the church, and was officially accused of heresy more than once. This would have been just the kind of payback he would have relished, having the secret, known only to him, laugh at their expense. The authors also discussed other works by Leonardo, in which there are eliments of this secret ridicule present. This sounds very much like todays Federally funded artists, using our own money to make fun of us. "Piss Christ" any one? One odd fact about the Turin shroud, is that the head doesn't "fit" the rest of the body. It's too large, and appears distorted. The authors theory is that Leonardo used a corpse to do the body, since it would have required a good many hours in the sun to expose the chemicals. He then posed himself, to add the head later. He was about 7 feet tall, so the head didn't fit right. Again, this was the kind of ultimate back hand slap he would have enjoyed: The church displaying, and people praying to the greatest dissenter of the age-Leonardo. As a side issue: There is a theory that the Mona Lisa, is in fact, Leonardo in drag. Being somewhat conflicted, he may have done it as a "what if".
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top