as Colin Berry does here with Have you seen the new Wikipaedia (UK) entry on ‘scorchophobia’? It’s a must for all Shroudies!
.
Read the whole childish posting here. Actually, it was a creative idea.
When all else fails, resort to ridicule
as Colin Berry does here with Have you seen the new Wikipaedia (UK) entry on ‘scorchophobia’? It’s a must for all Shroudies!
.
Read the whole childish posting here. Actually, it was a creative idea.
And what about “shroudophobia”?
Subject exhibits a fascinating pathology of obsessive fixation, possibly as a means of displacement behaviour in overcoming a fear of the mysterium tremendum, challenging his misplaced faith in agnostic rationalism, an occupational hazard resulting from over-exposure to various chemical processes, and manifested in surrounding the subject’s web-site with repetitive icons of the principal phobic object.
Initially, CB’s first blog title was: “Casting a critical eye at the Shroud of Turin”
Then his second blog title was (on October 3, 2012): “The Turin Shroud: but for the pseudo science it would have been dismissed long ago as a medieval fake”.
His third blog title is now: “The Turin Shroud: medieval scorch? Separating the science from the pseudo-science…”
Was CB’s second blog title symptomatic of his shroudophobia at the height of its season or is it a dormant type of shroudophobia (that doesn’t tell its name) under the guise of pseudo- historical facts and pseudo-factual scientific objectivity?
– Medieval meaning Knight Templars or neo-Knight Templars (with Geoffroy de Charny himself as silent sponsor) hm?
– A scorch? Why not a pre-scorch?
Typo: AND NOW is it a dormant type of shroudophobia (that doesn’t tell its name) under the guise of pseudo-historical facts and pseudo-factual scientific objectivity?
Reminder: CB’s scorch allegedly “historical and scientific” hypothesis is based on:
– his PSEUDO-interpretation of a medieval art item (the Lirey badge)
– a NON-RELIABLE draft memorandum (D’Arcy’s)
– Avignon Antipope Clement VII’s bull PSEUDO-final version
– UTTER IGNORANCE of archaeological blood-stained pattern analysis and Art History (as he just cannot discriminate between genuine aged re-dried remoistened dried human blood of a crucified victim on the Shroud and medicinal leech digesta with leeches being used as felt-tipped-pens to fake up the blood imprints)
– “I THINK I SEE” (the body image does look like a scorch).
Can CB tells/sows us the difference between a scorch, a pre-scorch and a pre-mordanting?
Typo: Can CB shows us
More typo soory): Oops “Can CB show us…
– a NON-RELIABLE C14 dating
Typo: CB’s allegedly “historical and scientific” scorch hypothesis
Rephrasing my question: Can CB tell and show us the difference between a scorch, a pre-scorch and a natural PRE-mordanting?
Never mind me. What about Pope Benedict’s successor? What’s he going to say and do re images and data already in the Vatican’s possession? As Dan has reminded us, there are HD images that need to be in the public domain.
I do agree with Dan… and you. It’s a real shame I haven’t been able to complete my 2011 Torun research paper on the coins on eyes issue JUST BECAUSE I cannot proceed to a minimum double- and triple- checking of my final results via the high-resolution research quality images/files of both Durante (2002) and HAL9000.
So much time and energy wasted in endless debates with coins-on-eyes arch-sceptics as the whole issue had been spoiled by Turin Shroud arch-advocates’ too hasty claims (1979-2001) while none of them had the eye for palaeographic forms to just sense partial Pilate coin patterns at first, second or even third sight-and-brain when the American professional numismatist Mikael Marx and Israeli scholar numismatist, Ari Kindler could only guess more than correctly identify the said tiny intriguing patterns on the right eye area as those of Pilate coins.
Typo: as those of a Pilate coin obverse;
Methinks, CB will never answer my question lest it finally becomes aware naturally pre-mordanted linen can look like… scorched linen.
Typo: lest HE finally becomes aware
+ typo: lest he become aware
…or better said very lightly scorched or pre-scorched linen
Just in case CB had finally become aware naturally pre-mordanted linen can look like… very lightly scorched or pre-scorched linen, I would suggest CB a more suitable blog title: “The Turin Shroud: late antique natural pre-mordanting or medieval scorch? Separating the science from the pseudo-science, the archaeology from the pseudo-archaeology, the history from the pseudo-history”…
Reminder: The “bloodied corpse accidental dye” of the Turin Shroud Man required heat. The Judean desert dust and urea residues covered bloodied corpse released its “colours” as it was subjected to a low temperature fumigation to dry out while tightly wrapped up in the pre-mordanted burial linen cloth i.e. in-soaked with aqueous alkaline solution (Red Heifer ashes and/or Jerusalem malky/lime-stone dust).
Typo: The “bloodied corpse providential/accidental dye” of the Turin Shroud Man required heat
Typo: Just in case CB would have finally become aware
As Louis once suggested (December 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm | #41), a petition should be sent to Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia to make the high-resolution research quality files of both Durante Shroud face photographs (2002) and HAL9000 microphotographs available to qualified Shroud researchers AT LEAST.
Max, There are three things to be considered if the Shroud is proved to be the genuine article:
1. If the image just shows the dead Jesus what can it tell us that is really important?
2. If it does show the dead Jesus in the process of Resurrection does it answer all our questions?
3. As you know, the Church moves slowly, it is in no hurry, and as you yourself agreed with me not long ago it is the risen Jesus, and not any burial cloth, that led to the birth of Christianity, according to the Gospels. Caravaggio understood this very well and therefore his beautiful two versions of the Supper at Emmaus.
It is worthwhile sending a petition to Shroud custodian Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia but the question that arises is if the Church will first create a scientific commission for the purpose of studying the photographs you mention.
Meanwhile… looking forward to your paper on the coins-over-the-eyes theory.
I’m not sure how one could ever PROVE the Shroud is authentic. I suspect that the closest that we’ll ever come will always remain the balance of probabilities on what weight of evidence is now or becomes available. Meanwhile each must come to their own conclusion. Those who assert that the Shroud is authentic, need to show why. Those who assert that it is not, need to show why not!
Assuming authenticity, one thing that the Shroud does demonstrate, is that the image was fixed before there was any sign of corruption, and this image once formed did not deteriorate as a result of any subsequent corruption. What then happened to the body?
Once fixed, we still do not know soon the image first appeared – was it within the 40 hours or so Jesus was in the tomb, or was it much longer, even a hundred or so years. I’m inclined to think it likely it was in the tomb, as otherwise why would a ritually unclean cloth be so carefully preserved? Despite what Augustine has to say about what John came to believe when he entered the tomb (i.e. Augustine asserts he believed what the women had said), Augustine did not know about the Shroud image. claiming no-one knew the physical appearance of Jesus. However if the image had already appeared, this gives a new slant on the particular text. The image may still have had its own part to play in helping to form the disciples’ conviction that Jesus had indeed risen. We can speculate, but we cannot assert either way. But de Wesselow may not be the only one who can be mistaken about the role the image may have played. They were plain folk, and it probably required several pieces of evidence for them to be eventually convinced: the empty tomb, the appearances in the upper room, at Emmaus, at the lake edge preparing a meal, even his Ascension, and just possibly the image on his burial cloth! Here was the proof of his death and crucifixion. It was no bad dream. They had not been deluded. He had been crucified, and He had died! And yet now he walked and talked and ate with them.
Correction (previous comments). It should have been read “Just in case CB had finally become aware naturally pre-mordanted linen ONCE MORDANTED can look like… very lightly scorched or pre-scorched linen,