Replies

You are simply ignorant of the facts. For instance, no where in the history of the world has such a image been created as in the Shroud. The forensics fit perfectly with a man who was scourged and crucified in the manner as Jesus was. The carbon dating was found to be invalid because the part they took the sample from was a patch from the medieval era so it dated that time frame.

Your ridiculous speculation that the image in the shroud would not fit the “average Jew” and “average height” whatever the hell that means...you don’t have a clue what those are, neither do the sources you got your information from. Indeed, you never did answer my question asking you if you knew that bronze age Greeks were taller than modern day? I didn’t bother to inform you that there was no real average height for knights in the medieval period. Much depended on food supply while being a child so heights varied quite a bit.

You also were never able to answer what Gene traits God has...he is Jesus’ father after all.

You even stooped to declaring that because Judas went with the Romans to identify Christ that that meant he could not have been tall...gee, we do the same thing today...ever hear of a police line up? There are legal reasons for positive identification of ‘perpetrators’.

The inane ignorance you show is so distasteful that I simply had to respond.

To so rudely and ignorantly disparage a holy relic to people of faith is cruel and you are an obvious ass, an ignorant ass, but an ass just the same. So, crawl back into your little hole and rot.

Wpin: "You are simply ignorant of the facts. "

Of course I'm ignorant, but not quite as ignorant as you claim.
Overall, I'm a bit better informed than your "average Joe." ;-)

I have tried, for sake of brevity, to restrict my comments to the more cogent issues.

Wpin: "no where in the history of the world has such a image been created as in the Shroud."

That being the case, how do we even know for certain it IS a burial shroud?
What known and genuine shrouds can we compare it to?

"The forensics fit perfectly with a man who was scourged and crucified in the manner as Jesus was."

The Romans crucified many thousands in 1st century Judea alone.
Over many centuries the numbers crucified were in the tens and hundreds of thousands.

"The carbon dating was found to be invalid because the part they took the sample from was a patch from the medieval era so it dated that time frame."

I understand that.
I also understand the Church refuses to allow more reliable carbon-14 testing.
As Annalex points out, the Church has good reasons for that, and I agree.
But Annalex also says the Church has not tried to block scientific inquiry if it's reasonable conditions can be met.

Here's what's important: reliable carbon-14 testing could only DIS-prove the Shroud, but never prove it.
If reliable testing showed the Shroud coming from some other time than first-half of the 1st century, that disproves it.
But if testing showed it from the right time period, that would only narrow down the possibilities to thousands of people.

Wpin: "Your ridiculous speculation that the image in the shroud would not fit the “average Jew” and “average height” whatever the hell that means...you don’t have a clue what those are, neither do the sources you got your information from."

It's more than "ridiculous speculation."
Any number of skeletons have been found from 1st century Judea.
These have been studied, measured and averaged.
So it is entirely possible, forensically, to reconstruct the face and height of an "average Jew" from that time:

Yes, it's debatable: what does "average" mean?
If you take skeletons from the most ornate ossuaries of the wealthiest tombs, then you'll get one "average."
But if you stick to obviously common skeletons from less expensived burials, a very different "average."

As Swordmaker points out, some studies show the Shroud image is within the range of "normal," but for the more expensive ossuary burials -- let's call that 5 ft 10 inches to 6 ft.
Other studies show the average "marginal Jew" to have been more like 5 ft 1 inch.
So which group did Jesus belong to?

I think Jesus was more likely to have been a poor "marginal Jew" than a wealthy aristocrat.

Wpin: "you never did answer my question asking you if you knew that bronze age Greeks were taller than modern day?"

Not sure how that could be relevant.
We're talking about forensic analysis of skeletons here, not trying to compare modern populations to the ancients.

" I didn’t bother to inform you that there was no real average height for knights in the medieval period. Much depended on food supply while being a child so heights varied quite a bit."

Obviously, and my point exactly regarding: which group did Jesus belong to?
Did he come from a wealthy and powerful family, or a poor marginal family?
Seems to me that both the Bible and our modern scholars suggest the latter.

Wpin: "You also were never able to answer what Gene traits God has...he is Jesus’ father after all."

And how is this relevant to a discussion of the Shroud?
To my knowledge, no DNA analysis has been attempted or is even possible on the Shroud image.
If it were, we would expect ordinary human DNA, since both the Bible and Christian theology insist that Jesus was fully human.

Wpin: "You even stooped to declaring that because Judas went with the Romans to identify Christ that that meant he could not have been tall...gee, we do the same thing today...ever hear of a police line up?"

I didn't invent this particular argument, but it does make sense to me.
If Jesus were immediately recognizable -- for example, if he were unusually tall -- it would not be so necessary to make the unique identification of Judas' kiss.

Indeed, if we imagine a 6 ft tall Jesus and a 5 ft 1 inch Judas, we have to wonder how such a kiss might even be accomplished.
My point again is: here is another opportunity for the Bible to point out Jesus' unusual height, if it existed. But it doesn't.

Wpin: "To so rudely and ignorantly disparage a holy relic to people of faith is cruel and you are an obvious ass, an ignorant ass, but an ass just the same. So, crawl back into your little hole and rot."

The relic is not holy if it's not authentic, and its authenticity cannot be proved.
Of course, if you wish to treat it as if it were authentic, then that is your choice.

But I don't see how that provides you with a special priveledge to go around insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

If the Shroud reminds you of Jesus, then I say that's fine.
It reminds me of the Knights Templar.

Interesting fact... the heights of medieval knights was thought to be fairly short because of measurements of surviving suits of armor. That has since been found to be erroneous. Excavations of burials of knights have found that they were actually fairly robust and tall men. In most cases indistinguishable from the heights of modern men. The food the knights received as children was usually excellent, being of the nobility, and therefore they were not deprived of anything in their childhood.

The error occurred because, just like today, CHILDREN tend to outgrow clothing before the wear it out. And young knights OUT GREW their original armor... before it wore out. The armor that was placed on display was often the adolescent suits that had been out grown by the families cadets as they grew and were trained. The adult armor was used, remade, and scrapped. The complete sets that were made for teenage boys that were outgrown were the ones placed on display. Those were the one that got measured.