W
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
It might just be me, but I heard it as calzón, which is Spanish for ‘underwear’.
To be honest, I don’t think I’m buying this interpretation of a loincloth (that picture actually looks more something you might find in ancient Egypt* rather than something from 1st century Judaea) and snakeskin belt on the Shroud. People (even experts) see things on it all the time.
*Kinda confirmed: this is actually a depiction of an ancient Egyptian garment which is apparently extrapolated as possibly resembling the biblical priestly undergarments (the “linen breeches” of Exodus 28).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
From Auguste Racinet’s Le Costume Historique, Volume 2 (1888). The book calls this a caleçon, basically French for ‘underwear’.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
To be honest, I don’t think I’m buying this interpretation of a loincloth (that picture actually looks more something you might find in ancient Egypt* rather than something from 1st century Judaea) and snakeskin belt on the Shroud. People (even experts) see things on it all the time.
*Kinda confirmed: this is actually a depiction of an ancient Egyptian garment which is apparently extrapolated as possibly resembling the biblical priestly undergarments (the “linen breeches” of Exodus 28).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
From Auguste Racinet’s Le Costume Historique, Volume 2 (1888). The book calls this a caleçon, basically French for ‘underwear’.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
poche
Guest
In that case the OP is allowed to wear underwear.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Why would Christ be buried in Egyptian sacred underwear?
(Welp… I can add that to the list of things I thought I’d never say or write…)
(Welp… I can add that to the list of things I thought I’d never say or write…)
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I don’t quite follow the argument here, partly because the sound on my computer needs fixing. Is he saying that the body that was wrapped in the shroud was wearing clothing that nobody would have worn in Judea at the time, and that therefore the body can’t have been that of Jesus?
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
No. The video is about evidence found in the shroud to support the idea that Jesus was wrapped in the shroud.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Thanks, @mrsdizzyd!
W
Wm777
Guest
The video supports the notion that the person on the shroud is Christ.
To understand how the video draws its conclusions, you have to understand how the researcher uses a process known as “photographic restitution” to reconcile the projection of light into various patterns on the cloth; and, then, how it allows him to create clearer picture of what it contains.
The problem is like - if you had an old pair of jeans, even with fades and bleached spots… the actual pattern of the fades and bleaches, which are deeply embedded into the cloth, are actually obscured by the weave of the cloth… or, in other words, you’ll see the more superficial aspects of the weave create a conflicting, linear pattern, which obscures ones perception of the overall image… So using a photographic restitution process to reconcile the orthogonal versus parallel projections of light from the various objects on the body he actually extracts several layers of images - which move over time, as Christ was resurrected…
I do have some reservations about the conclusions, but some of the results are incredibly clear; and, if the whole theory holds, they definitely refute any existing notions that medieval photographic techniques may have been used to forge the image…
As far as the “Egyptian underwear” argument is concerned… it’s off-topic… I was just interested in knowing the name of the garment, so I could google it… However, Christ was known for being very different and cross-cultural, and the Holy Family even spent time in Egypt - which wasnt so far away… and, if it seems so likely to anyone today they know the full story of how Christ looked, what he wore, how his voice sounded, how he walked, and so on - I’d call it presumption… and, yet, if only a possible glimpse at differences (from one’s own perceptions) into the actual God-man’s life confounds one’s faith, then I can see where the pains of purgatory would be all the greater in forming an acceptance… no kidding…
BartholomewB… I’m not accusing you of being closed-minded. I generally like your queries and insights. My point is more like - we just dont know…
this also seems more of an archaeological issue more than a Theological or moral one…
To understand how the video draws its conclusions, you have to understand how the researcher uses a process known as “photographic restitution” to reconcile the projection of light into various patterns on the cloth; and, then, how it allows him to create clearer picture of what it contains.
The problem is like - if you had an old pair of jeans, even with fades and bleached spots… the actual pattern of the fades and bleaches, which are deeply embedded into the cloth, are actually obscured by the weave of the cloth… or, in other words, you’ll see the more superficial aspects of the weave create a conflicting, linear pattern, which obscures ones perception of the overall image… So using a photographic restitution process to reconcile the orthogonal versus parallel projections of light from the various objects on the body he actually extracts several layers of images - which move over time, as Christ was resurrected…
I do have some reservations about the conclusions, but some of the results are incredibly clear; and, if the whole theory holds, they definitely refute any existing notions that medieval photographic techniques may have been used to forge the image…
As far as the “Egyptian underwear” argument is concerned… it’s off-topic… I was just interested in knowing the name of the garment, so I could google it… However, Christ was known for being very different and cross-cultural, and the Holy Family even spent time in Egypt - which wasnt so far away… and, if it seems so likely to anyone today they know the full story of how Christ looked, what he wore, how his voice sounded, how he walked, and so on - I’d call it presumption… and, yet, if only a possible glimpse at differences (from one’s own perceptions) into the actual God-man’s life confounds one’s faith, then I can see where the pains of purgatory would be all the greater in forming an acceptance… no kidding…
BartholomewB… I’m not accusing you of being closed-minded. I generally like your queries and insights. My point is more like - we just dont know…
this also seems more of an archaeological issue more than a Theological or moral one…
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Agreed!
I would go further and say it is exclusively an archeological issue. Any conclusive proof, one way or the other, can only come from an analysis of the material evidence.
W
Wm777
Guest
I really love Biblical archaeology.
The shroud is a relic worthy of veneration, so right now Biblical archaeology seems a worthwhile pursuit.
Maybe one day it will be proven as authentic; maybe one day it will be proven to be just a work of art.
In either case, it’s a pretty amazing piece of history, which has revealed some of the most fascinating techniques, arguments and theories imaginable.
The shroud is a relic worthy of veneration, so right now Biblical archaeology seems a worthwhile pursuit.
Maybe one day it will be proven as authentic; maybe one day it will be proven to be just a work of art.
In either case, it’s a pretty amazing piece of history, which has revealed some of the most fascinating techniques, arguments and theories imaginable.
Last edited:
P
poche
Guest
Maybe that underwear wasn’t so sacred after all. But then, If Christ wore it then it would be very sacred.
- Status