Posted on 04/17/2016 6:27:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There's no blood on the Manoppello Veil. . . but there is pigment.
I deconstructed the claim that the Manoppello Veil was anything related to Jesus several years ago. I showed evidence that it was a self-portrait of Raphael Sanzio de Urbino which he painted on either Byssus (the rarest cloth in the world) or Cambric (a very fine cotton veil material), which he then sent to his pen pal and fellow artist Albrecht Dürer, who was also experimenting with painting on Byssus. There were extant letters between the two of them describing the paintings the two sent back and forth mentioning the double-sided nature and the transparent media. These letters and paintings were done about 100 years prior to the Manoppello image appearing in the village in the possession of a soldier.
The image appears to be almost identical to a self-portrait of Raphael at the age he was when he and Dürer were sending their experimental double-sided portraits back and forth to each other. As I said, the Manoppello veil has distinct pigment, especially on the areas where the white teeth and whites of the eyes show.
If it was Byssus, it would be highly unlikely to have been in the possession of some woman on the streets of Jerusalem. Byssus was woven from the golden or purple tendrils of a sea urchin. Such cloth was reserved for royalty in the Roman times, being literally worth a kings ransom because it was so hard to collect the raw material and so hard to weave. Possession by anyone other than Royalty was a crime. Cambric Cotton would be even further impossible because it was an invention of 13th Century French cotton weavers and required a loom that wouldn't be invented for 1200 years.
The Veronica's Veil held by the Vatican, which the legend of Manoppello holds was stolen by the soldier, is still in the Vatican. . . and it is a Linen Sudarium (a sweat cloth) that bears a bloody imprint of a face that doesn't look like much. It would be much more logically the veil or head cloth of a woman walking on a Jerusalem street than a cloth made of Byssus or Cambric Cotton.
And we saw this time after time with His miracles, all of which forced the natural trend of events to be reversed.
After mankind fell, in the foolish and impossible claim to know good and evil (an arena that only God could masterfully embrace) it could only reverse goodness until the grace of God engaged with it once more. Now God has put the reversal of evil within our grasp.
We shall see. We are not always able to comprehend what God has planned for us.
There are some things we see now, in a glass, dimly.
And then there is heaven, which no eye has seen. It can’t. Our eyes are not fit to see very much beyond this mortal coil, other than to observe that there needs to be something beyond it and that it has to have a certain general character.
And I think if we all told our own stories, we’d notice a variety of ways in which the Lord bore witness that we were willing to accept.
To me the revelation began when I understood at a very young age that the stars would not last forever. Even the scientists could tell us this much, without having to crack a sacred book other than the book of nature. Much later I was to understand that we must hang our souls on the eternal, or we perish.
What New Testament translation are you using? 75 Lbs? Most of the one's I am familiar with use "about a 100 weight". . . and they don't differentiate it down to a mixture of Myrrh and aloes. Plus there are other descriptions that in Greek, the original language it was written in, define the cloth as a Syndon. . . a Shroud, not separate cloths. Let's look at Mark 15:46.
American Standard Version
And he (Joseph of Arimathea) Bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.Weymouth New Testament
He, having bought a sheet of linen, took Him down, wrapped Him in the sheet and laid Him in a tomb hewn in the rock; after which he rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb.World English Bible
He bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been cut out of a rock. He rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.Greek Text
καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καὶ καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησε τῇ σινδόνι καὶ κατέθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας, καὶ προσεκύλισε λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.Verse 46. - And he bought a linen cloth (σινδόνα). This was a fine linen garment, or shroud, something like that in which the young man fled the night before (Mark 14:51, 52). And taking him down (καθελὼν αὐτὸν). It appears from these words that Joseph himself, assisted probably by Nicodemus and others, actually took the body of our Lord down from the cross. wrapped the sindon round him, and laid him in his own new tomb, which had been hewn out of the rock. The word rendered "tomb" is μνημεῖον, as being intended to be a memorial of the departed. And he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. The door here means "the opening," or "entrance." Thus, while our Lord died with the wicked, he was with the rich in his death (Isaiah 53:9).
The Greek word (σινδόνα), sindon, is SINGULAR. One Linen sheet, odawg, not lots of little tiny bandages. That interpretation and translation came about after Champollion created Egyptology. . . and people started thinking every eastern religion was similar.
But then it also says: "as is the burial custom of the Jews" which means you have to refer to the written customs of the Jews and learn exactly WHAT WERE the burial customs of the Jews at that time. A Shroud was what they used. . . not strips or bandages that many Christians conflate them into, ala Egyptian burial practices. They used strips of cloths to bind the lines and a CLOTH or binding ABOUT the face, not over the face if the family could afford a shroud, which did double duty. The cloth ABOUT the face bound the mouth shut in death to keep it closed. It passed under the jaw, behind the ears, and then was tied above the top of the head. Coins or potsherds were placed on the eyes to keep the eyelids closed.
The Sudarium of Oviedo shows signs of being diagonally rolled into a kerchief and then tied in just such a manner to have been used as the binding about the face, after it was used to cover the face of the man on the Shroud as he hung on a Cross and then again while he was being carried face down with a hand over his face. Again, this is based on scientific evidence and research.
Skulls from 1st Century Jerusalem cemeteries that have not been disturbed have been found with such coins or potsherds in the eye sockets where they fell when the flesh rotted away. We know these were Jewish graves and that it was a practice of the period. We have also excavated a Jewish grave from the first century which did not get collected unto its ancestors in a central ossuary after a year because an Earthquake destroyed the tomb. There were remnants of a large Syndon, a shroud, covering the skeleton. . . similar, but not as fine a cloth, as the one for the Shroud of Turin. The one in the grave appears to have possibly been a sail. It is the only surviving evidence of another such shroud, but it provides evidence of shrouds in Jewish burials beyond the Mishnah and Talmud which tells of their use.
Some people think that the burial wraps had formed into a cocoon, because of the procedures they used, and that was why, when Peter entered the tomb, he immediately “believed”. The cocoon was still intact.
There was no "cocoon" enwrapping Jesus' body. You are still conflating EGYPTIAN burial practices with Jewish practices. Nothing could be further from the truth. They simply did not do that. CLOTH was EXPENSIVE back then and they did not waste it on funeral practices, especially when a year later they had to go back and collect the bones to put in the central ossuary pit in the middle of the tomb with the rest of the previous tomb's occupants. Such a "cocoon" would make that job much harder. Jesus got a Shroud because a rich man bought one for him.
Think about it. . . if what you claim was true, how did Lazarus walk out of HIS tomb still wrapped in his grave clothes cocoon after Jesus resurrected him? The answer is they didn't bury people like you think.
Please show us where the arms are a foot longer! Are you still maintaining that the Hands and arms have to be a foot longer because YOU and your SKEPTIC friends don't have a clue about anatomy? A foot longer so someone can cover their groin???? You've got to be kidding. You don't pay a whit of attention to peer-reviewed science, do you? You'd rather listen to a geologist, a failed stage magician and a guy with an English Literature degree than people who are working in their fields of expertise than scientists who know what they are doing, wouldn't you.
Let's look instead of your fantasies at an actual scientific paper measuring the actual lengths of arms, legs, etc., of the image of the Man on the Shroud for REAL facts instead of your false "factoids" pulled out of someone's ass.
Computerized anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud
+ Giulio Fanti°, Emanuela Marinelli, Alessandro Cagnazzo°,
©1999 All Rights Reserved Reprinted by Permission
° CISAS G. Colombo (Interdepartmental Center Space Studies and Activities)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Padua, Via Venezia 1, 35137 Padua— Italy
Those people dont rise from the dead. God could have decided to elongate his arms And put the hands over the groin so we wouldn’t be looking at the penis of the son of God 2000 years later
I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I merely commented that most people seem to believe that once rigor mortis sets in, the body remains rigid, which is not correct.
My post means that all the talk of rigor mortis and science really doesn’t matter. These people dont rise from the dead. Its impossible...so..if we are already talking about the Impossible..what difference does it make whether you can lay down and put your hands over your groin
Per Barrie Schwortz, we can. . . with computer enhancement, we can see he was circumcised, as any good Jewish man would have been. That computer enhanced image has not been published anywhere for obvious reasons.
1. I never said a word about strips or bandages. I think John’s account speaks for itself. I used the MEV, a modern revision of the King James. You should do a study of the way Jews buried their dead at that time. It was 75 pounds.
2. You don’t really have any idea what you are talking about.
3. Other than that, there is no salvation connected with the shroud of Turin. You can believe in it with every ounce of your heart, soul, and spirit. It has no salvation value, even if it were genuine. It will always have to be taken on faith. Sort of like splinters of the cross.
These people are so desperate to show that someone who faked the Shroud and got everything else right, somehow got this so obvious thing completely grotesquely wrong. . . but it is them who have it completely wrong because their sources are even more desperate to show the Shroud is a fraud that they make up and easy to refute "facturds".
What about this story of Grimaldi and his depiction with a eyes wide open veil?
You ask, "What Genes denotes a particular religion?"
This isn't about a religion. It is claimed that this piece of material was the very shroud that wrapped Our Lord.
If this is true, Our Lord was Jewish. There are DNA markers for those descendants of the tribes. Further, Our Lord was specifically a descendant of a specific tribe of Israel - Judah.
I simply asked of the purported blood on the Shroud has been tested to see if it is genetically Jewish blood. If it is tested and doesn't have the Jewish markers, it is not the shroud of the Savior.
Ping: Godzilla, been a while and hope you are very well. I have some vague memory that at one time in the past you posted material about Jewish DNA markers. If that was you, do you have anything to contribute to this discussion?
He was palestinian..
..being sarcastic given the latest controversy about a temple
“He was palestinian..
..being sarcastic given the latest controversy about a temple”
Sorry, I’m lost on that one...
What about the other Gospels? You seem to ignore Mark's account of a SINGLE cloth purchased by Joseph of Arimathea. Why is that?
I've spent forty years studying the way Jews buried their dead. You obviously have not. In fact, you show you have patently not studied the customs of the Jewish people. If anything, you've studied the claims of someone who also hasn't really studied them either You claim there was a "cocoon" and that is NOT the way any Hebrew or Jew ever buried their dead which proves you never studies anything about it. Your description plainly showed your thought they used "strips or bandages" which a lot of Christians think based on a mis-understanding of Othonia. . . "burial clothes" or "burial cloths" from a few mistranslated versions of the Bible from the original Greek. QED you did indeed refer to "bandages or strips" when you referred to the "cocoon being still intact." when the Bible says nothing about such a thing. NOTHING. . . but the Bible DOES refer to a (σινδόνα), a Sindon, a single large cloth. . . which in Greek is often used to describe a sail, a sheet, or even a table spread. It does NOT describe what YOU describe nor do the Mishnah or the Talmud describe what you describe. They describe what I describe, again showing I know a lot more than do you about the topic than you.
2. You don’t really have any idea what you are talking about.
I know a lot more than do you. See above.
3. Other than that, there is no salvation connected with the shroud of Turin. You can believe in it with every ounce of your heart, soul, and spirit. It has no salvation value, even if it were genuine. It will always have to be taken on faith. Sort of like splinters of the cross.
Where have I said there is? I am following the science and the scholarship. YOU are not following either. You have one thing you obviously follow, a late ENGLISH TRANSLATION of a GREEK BIBLE. . . and a poor translation at that. Try reading it in the GREEK. . . and you will see that somethings are just NOT translatable word for word into English, because there are no equivalent English words, so the translator has to try and explain his or her interpretation of what he things it means.
Just more outrage from UNESCO about the Temple Mount...oh and jews are planting fake graves...and the birthplace of Jesus is Palestian..etc
“You seem to ignore Mark’s account of a SINGLE cloth purchased by Joseph of Arimathea. Why is that?”
Mark 15:45:
“When he learned about it from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 So he bought fine linen, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock.”
Since the gospels were written by different people, it is customary to put all the accounts together to get a complete account. What do you intend to do with the 75 pounds of spice? Throw it out?
Plus it is not customary to use scripture to counter other scriptures. What happened to Nicocdemus, who was with Joseph, and probably others, and his 75 - 100 pounds of spices? Fenton translates it as a “winding sheet”
It is fairly obvious that you don’t have the scholarship to lecture anyone on Bible translations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.