A
adstrinity
Guest
Could this be done without the bones breaking?
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
Anything Anne Emmerich said is not evidence of anything.
First, we don’t have to accept anything that Anne Emmerich said. That is simply a private revelation that has nothing to do with our salvation and does not have to be believed by any Catholic. Do you agree with what I said about private revelations?
Second, what she said has nothing to do with the Shroud. If I wake up after having a dream about Christ on the cross where I saw clearly he was crucified through the palms would you accept that is proof the Shroud is genuine or that Christ was nailed through the hands? Of course not. Nothing to do with the Shroud and we know Christ was nailed through the hands because the Gospels tell us so and I believe that.
Third, you have no idea of my views on the Shroud. I am inclined to believe it is authentic. My “load of rubbish” remark to your comments is what you said about it. Let’s look at what you said.
**“Yes, “true believers” like you don’t care what the evidence is.” **
Unless I have misunderstood your use of quotation marks round “true believers” you are implying that Catholics who do not believe the Shroud is genuine are not true Catholics. Is that what you are saying? If not explain what you mean.
" I know for a fact the Shroud of Turin wrapped the body of Jesus Christ"
NOBODY knows this for a fact. To say that is a blatant lie and the height of arrogance. You may believe that the Shroud is genuine (and you are allowed to believe that) but you do not know that it is a fact. Unless you were acually present in the tomb when Christ rose you do not know the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of Christ.
The most that could ever be proven is that the cloth is from the Holy Land and about 2000 years old (but the age has still not been determined) but it can never be proven that it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. People may believe it to be that but it can never be proven so for you say it is a fact is just laughable.
By the way, Jesus made it clear that it is a wicked and evil generation that looks for signs, and Pope Benedict (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger) told us to stop looking for signs.
L
Luke65
Guest
Of course! And that’s Blessed Sr. Anne Emmerich.
I and many others believe her visions were from God. I mentioned them for those who might be interested to know that she described where the nails were placed - since that is what we’re discussing here.
Good Lord, no! Go back and look at the quote I was responding to. The guy mocked anybody who believes the Shroud is authentic as “true believers” who don’t care what the evidence is. I was being ironical
- haven’t you heard people like Dawkins being called “fundamentalists” and “evangelicals”, and yes, “true believers”?I know for a fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Catholic Church is His one true Church. Don’t you? Prove it! Would you feel more comfortable if I said I know “with certainty” as the Church says (CCC 36, 82, etc.)?
You know, I quoted our Lord before for a reason: “You will know the truth.” Did He put any limits on that? No. He said, “Ask and you will receive.” So I asked, and I received - so why are you so incredulous? Go research it for yourself, and ask the Holy Spirit to lead you to the truth.
First of all, you’re distorting what Cardinal Ratzinger said. Secondly, God has given us many signs in our time - and I didn’t ask for them! I believed first, then God revealed Himself to me - you know, “Believe so that you may understand” (St. Augustine) - excellent advice.
Now, if I were you I would retract your calumnies against me, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
T
thistle
Guest
Are you seriously trying to tell us that believing in Christ and that he is God is on the same level as whether we believe in the Shroud.Of course! And that’s Blessed Sr. Anne Emmerich.
I and many others believe her visions were from God. I mentioned them for those who might be interested to know that she described where the nails were placed - since that is what we’re discussing here.
Good Lord, no! Go back and look at the quote I was responding to. The guy mocked anybody who believes the Shroud is authentic as “true believers” who don’t care what the evidence is. I was being ironical
I know for a fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Catholic Church is His one true Church. Don’t you? Prove it! Would you feel more comfortable if I said I know “with certainty” as the Church says (CCC 36, 82, etc.)?
You know, I quoted our Lord before for a reason: “You will know the truth.” Did He put any limits on that? No. He said, “Ask and you will receive.” So I asked, and I received - so why are you so incredulous? Go research it for yourself, and ask the Holy Spirit to lead you to the truth.
First of all, you’re distorting what Cardinal Ratzinger said. Secondly, God has given us many signs in our time - and I didn’t ask for them! I believed first, then God revealed Himself to me - you know, “Believe so that you may understand” (St. Augustine) - excellent advice.
Now, if I were you I would retract your calumnies against me, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
There is NO evidence that the Shroud is genuine. The Church has not declared it to be genuine and nor will they ever.
As I said the Church allows us to believe it or not and neither side can say the other is wrong. That includes you and me.
What I have been trying to point out to you but you seem to be ignoring it is that from all the research done on the Shroud there is no evidence at all to prove it is the actual burial cloth of Christ and it hasn’t yet even been proven to be 2000 years old. As I said the most that could ever be proven is the age and location of its origin. It can never be proven to be the actual burial cloth of Christ.
If you weren’t so arrogant and lacking in humility you might see that.
L
Luke65
Guest
You have a reading comprehension problem. I said that God did not put any limits on what He would reveal to us. I did not put those beliefs on the same level - they’re infinitely different. I made one comment about what I know about the Shroud; if you didn’t believe it you could’ve just dismissed it, or asked what I based it on. Instead you launched into a barrage of attacks and name calling. So long.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
If, as I said, the nails are well prepare, with a needle point, rather than a spear point, and the rough edges ground away, it would,
1/ made the job of the executioner easier, as the nail could be pushed through the tunnel in the wrist, and,
2/ because the wound was a clean puncture wound, none of the tendons would be damaged, and the nail would carry the weight of the victim without tearing the flesh. Have you seen Indian fakirs lifted from the ground by meat-hooks inserted in the back?
As a secondary point, the shroud seems to indicate that this indeed was the position of the nail, and that there was minimal bleeding from the wound, indicating that it was indeed a “puncture” wound.
A follow-up on this, is that if you examine carefully, the image of the hand/wrist, that was on top, and in direct contact with the shroud, it shows a “double strike” imprint, indicating that this wrist was moved after the body was wrapped.
As for the corrected age of the shroud, working on evidence gathered from other samples, not used in the first C14 test, the age works out to be quite close to 2000 years, and indeed, there is a continuous evidence trail for the shroud, from the days of King Abgar of Edessa.
The actual implication of the shroud is that whoso was wrapped in it, was not dead, according to modern science, but was classified as dead in accordance with the science of the day, in that there was no detectable breathing or heart-beat. This condition still arises in modern medicine, and people are recorded to have awakened on the morticians slab.
Some of these people are convinced that they have been to Heaven, and been given leave to return.
This is in modern medicine called a “Near Death Experience”.
Science tries to call this an illusion, and a confoundment of the dying brain, but those who have had the experience are utterly convinced that it is real.
A death like state can be caused by ingestion of the nerve poison of the puffer fish.
This was known to the doctors of the time, and even recently, in African, and Afro-Carribean cultures it was used by medicine men, to create zombies.
It is possible that this is what caused the “death” of Lazarus, and indeed, it may have been surrepticiously added to the inticted vinager given to Our Lord.
Remember, modern science now considers death to be that sleep from which there is no awakening, hence, if there is an awakening, from whatever cause, then the sleep was not death.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Would you say the puffer fish theory is compatible with a “death like” state induced by a victim nailed to a cross who takes a long shafted Roman spear through the right lung that crosses the medial cavity to pierce the heart after suffering 3 hrs of slow strangulation (due to arms stretched out above the victim’s head where he could not under the weakness, fatigue, stress and loss of blood [from being flogged and skin flailed away with more lashes from a sharp-bone scourge than normally kill man {40} ] ) and after being forced to walk up hill while being buffeted and hit and falling under heavy load of a crossbeam while suffering the shock from lack of hydration and blood loss?
I personally can’t suffer to even imagine but superficially the agony that Christ was under much less comprehend how he survived as long as he did and still be able to speak from the cross. Every word spoken had to have been painful and measured and required deliberate efforts to conserve his breath. Each breath required that he find the strength to push himself up against the cross against all pain to gasp for air before he could settle down with his mutilated raw back pressed against the post to prevent from falling down too far to get his next breath. It’s unimaginable that he could survive for as long as he did.
So now you want to add highly toxic puffer fish toxins of uncontrolled concentration taken in a condition of elevated heart and respiratory rate and raw trauma into the mix to give the illusion of death? Please - don’t take the speculation to the level of absurdity.
The bitter gall received on the cross was just that - soured wine - not puffer fish toxin. It was the last of the 4 traditional pascal cups taken for passover. In the upper room Jesus only drank the fist three at the last supper. He said as much that he would not drink again from the cup until he comes into his glory. He did just that at the glory of his death - the start of his kingdom on earth. The words “it is finished” have multiple meanings - one of which is that Jesus finished his passover ritual on the cross both as victim and as celebrant when he tasted that final cup of bitter pascal wine and completed the ritual.
As a further tidbit of trivia one should understand that the Romans had permanent upright posts in place to crucify people on. The condemned was made to carry the heavy rough hewn cross beam (perhaps about 70 lbs) - lashed to their arms. When Jesus fell with that weight tied to his outstretched arms it must have been agony. He probably smashed his face to a pulp and damaged his shoulders and rib cage. The three falls probably drove the thorns right into the skull. He must have been exhausted and close to death before he got all the way up the hill. Its unimaginable what he suffered - yet he never stopped and gave us every ounce of his strength. He probably would have died if they had not made Simon help carry the beam for him.
Tradition says that Christ was so disfigured and stripped of flesh from the scourges that no one could hardly recognize him as human - much less as the Jesus who had just a short time before rode into Jerusalem triumphantly on a donkey to cheering masses.
Here is another bit of trivia that most don’t know. The cross beam of the cross already had holes at fixed intervals to make it easier to drive the nails in. Victims were probably lashed, at least in part, to the cross as well as nailed to it. There are some who think Christ’s head was pulled back and lashed to the cross with more thorns pulled tight around his head. Before the person was hoisted up on upright part of the fixed cross the executioner laid them out and stretched their arms taught on the cross beam to reach the hole that was just beyond their reach. So the bones were pulled out of their sockets to make the victim conform to the dimensions of the cross and to inflict more pain. Then they were pinned through the palms in that severely stretched position and then roughly hoisted up the pole where the cross member was pegged to the upright member. The foot was nailed to its pedestal one over the other. That foot pedestal was the only way that the victim could gain enough support to lift his weary body up to take a breath of air. Each breath was agony and caused severe pain to take and as the exhaustion set it the breaths came every slower and ever shallower. Given that Jesus was physically beat to a pulp and probably had cracked or severely bruised ribs - each breath must have been excruciating. This form of torture was meant to cause despair and to make the victim wish they were dead.
A unbelievably terrible way to die without the need to conjure up puffer fish theories…
James
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Hi James,
I’ll try to answer your points:
There is no evidence that the heart was pierced. The spear stroke was not intended to kill, but to detect life, ie to check for reaction to pain.
- asphyxiation, not strangulation -
I do know the theory. Actually, loss of blood was minimised to prolong the suffering. Likewise the impaling nails were smoothed to reduce tearing of flesh, so that the body was more securely hung.
The flagellum used was like a cat-o-nine tails, but was not terminated with cutting shards, but with leaden dumbells, to bruise rather than to cut. Again the intent was not that the victim die through loss of blood, hence more quickly. This was contrary to the intent that the execution be protracted.
Again, this assumption is contrary to intent.
It would be a pity if the victim died of shock on his way to the hill.
Great care was taken that he arrive alive, and fit enough to suffer, often many days of hanging on the cross. Surviving a week was not uncommon.
It was not uncommon, when the execution detail was of a merciful intent, that the victim was offered wine inticted with myrrh. this was to disguise the presence of opium, so that the victim might suffer less, and not fight for breath, so dying very quickly, in minutes only.
Puffer fish poison might also have been used for this purpose, but miraculously, accidentally, only the dose required to simulate death was ingested.
The wine was not just sour, it was deliberately intincted with myrrh. It might have been intincted with other compounds, including opium and puffer fish toxin, but known for rapid efectivity.
Yes, as I said, the intent was to avoid premature death of the victim
And was intended to be protracted, using the torturer’s science of walking on the edge of death, but not allowing the victim the merciful exit. This required, and as some have recently discovered, still requires considerable skill and care.
I never posited that the crucifixion was a fraud.
Nor that the resurrection was an illusion.
In the science of that time, Our Lord was dead.
As was Lazarus,
As was the only son of the widow of Nain.
I just said, that to modern science, there is no resurrection from the dead, for if the sleeper awakes, then he cannot have been dead, for death is that sleep from which there is no awakening.
Let it not be said that I minimise the suffering of Our Lord.
However, He spent but three hours hung, whereas it was common for a sufferer to endure up to 160 hours.
Pilate himself was amazed at the brevity of the proceedings.
Peace James.
[/quote]
D
Debra_C
Guest
We don’t know. That’s pretty much that.
There was a scientist who claimed it couldn’t possibly have been through the palms because they could not support the body’s weight. However, his research and expiramentation assumed the feet were unsupported. The only hard archaelogical evidence we can find of a crucifixion is a human heel bone with a nail embedded in it. This would indicate the the feet may well have been supported. More recent experiments have shown that with the feet supported, there is no problem with the palms supporting the body.
Many historians believe there was not any single codified method by which the Romans did this, as it is never documented. And in the Hebrew and Aramaic of Jesus’s times it seems there was often no distinciton made, as we do in modern English, between the palms, wrists, and lower forearms. The only thing we have is the traditional depiction of the nails through the palms, and we have no way of ascertaining when that depiction originated.
The idea of rejecting stigmata based on their placement has been raised by many a skeptic, but theologically it holds little water. The Church’s belief is that this phenomenon occurs as a result of a person’s faith and intense desire to share in the sufferings of Christ. Many stigmata sufferers never incur visible wounds, but only the pain. Since it is a miraculous gift that is given through such faith and meditation on the wounds of Chirst, it would be reasonable to expect that any wounds would appear where the person praying expected them to, not necessarily where Christ’s wounds were actually inflicted. Sadly, there have been some stigmatics that have been proven fakes, making such skepticism ever easier. However, it does not follow that because one person might self inflict the wounds of Chirst in order to win attention, that all stigmatics have done so.
There was a scientist who claimed it couldn’t possibly have been through the palms because they could not support the body’s weight. However, his research and expiramentation assumed the feet were unsupported. The only hard archaelogical evidence we can find of a crucifixion is a human heel bone with a nail embedded in it. This would indicate the the feet may well have been supported. More recent experiments have shown that with the feet supported, there is no problem with the palms supporting the body.
Many historians believe there was not any single codified method by which the Romans did this, as it is never documented. And in the Hebrew and Aramaic of Jesus’s times it seems there was often no distinciton made, as we do in modern English, between the palms, wrists, and lower forearms. The only thing we have is the traditional depiction of the nails through the palms, and we have no way of ascertaining when that depiction originated.
The idea of rejecting stigmata based on their placement has been raised by many a skeptic, but theologically it holds little water. The Church’s belief is that this phenomenon occurs as a result of a person’s faith and intense desire to share in the sufferings of Christ. Many stigmata sufferers never incur visible wounds, but only the pain. Since it is a miraculous gift that is given through such faith and meditation on the wounds of Chirst, it would be reasonable to expect that any wounds would appear where the person praying expected them to, not necessarily where Christ’s wounds were actually inflicted. Sadly, there have been some stigmatics that have been proven fakes, making such skepticism ever easier. However, it does not follow that because one person might self inflict the wounds of Chirst in order to win attention, that all stigmatics have done so.
B
Barukh1132
Guest
B
Barukh1132
Guest
Thistle says, “There is no evidence that the Shroud is genuine.”
What do you understand by “evidence”, thistle?
I presume we are speaking on your terms, in other words in terms of scientific/empirical evidence?
With the exception of the C-14 dating test, which test was severely compromised methodologically - even the chemist who performed the analysis later published stating categorically that the C-14 results were seriously flawed due to a mixture of original fabric and Medieval fabric - not one properly conducted scientific test (to my knowledge) contradicts the characteristics of what would have been the burial cloth of Jesus.
I will repeat that: with the exception of bad science and bad scientific calls by non-scientists and scientists who should know better than to substitute opinion for lab results, there is no test whatever contradicting the sort of evidence WE WOULD EXPECT to find on the burial cloth of Jesus.
Re the claim that the blood on the Shroud is “pigment” (popularized by Dr. McCrone) - “McCrone called ‘good forensic science’ testing of ‘blood’ that had proceeded despite a failure to first solubilize the material, a failure that makes meaningless [McCrone’s] 1973 negative results.”
See shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
If you, thistle, know of scientific research, any OBJECTIVE PROPERLY CONDUCTED scientific research, that conclusively proves the Shroud is a forgery, I will be grateful to learn of it.
That said, I agree with you: belief in the Shroud and belief in Christianity are neither consubstantial nor mutually exclusive.
K
kimdav111
Guest
newgeology.us/presentation24.html
BLOOD EVIDENCE (vs PAINT THEORY)
Most bloodstains on the Shroud are exudates from clotted wounds transferred to the cloth by contact with a wounded human body.
The blood on the Shroud is real, human male blood of the type AB (typed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin and confirmed in the U.S.). This blood type is rare (about 3% of the world population), with the frequency varying from one region to another. Blood chemist Dr. Alan Adler (University of Western Connecticut) and the late Dr. John Heller (New England Institute of Medicine) found a high concentration of the pigment bilirubin, consistent with someone dying under great stress or trauma and making the color more red than normal ancient blood. Drs. Victor and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X & Y chromosomes representing male blood and “degraded DNA” (approximately 700 base pairs) “consistent with the supposition of ancient blood.”
NEW TESTS DATE THE SHROUD
New experiments date the Shroud of Turin to the 1st century AD. They comprise three tests; two chemical and one mechanical. The chemical tests were done with Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy, examining the relationship between age and a spectral property of ancient flax textiles. The mechanical test measured several micro-mechanical characteristics of flax fibers, such as tensile strength. The results were compared to similar tests on samples of cloth from between 3250 BC and 2000 AD whose dates are accurately known.
FTIR identifies chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an infrared absorption spectrum. The spectra produce a profile of the sample, a distinctive molecular fingerprint that can be used to identify its components.
Raman Spectroscopy uses the light scattered off of a sample as opposed to the light absorbed by a sample. It is a very sensitive method of identifying specific chemicals.
The tests on fibers from the Shroud of Turin produced the following dates: FTIR = 300 BC +400 years; Raman spectroscopy = 200 BC +500 years; and multi-parametric mechanical = 400 AD +400 years. All the dates have a 95% certainty. The average of all three dates is 33 BC +250 years (the collective uncertainty is less than the individual test uncertainties). The average date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross in 30 AD, and is far older than the medieval dates obtained with the flawed Carbon-14 sample in 1988. The range of uncertainty for each test is high because the number of sample cloths used for comparison was low; 8 for FTIR, 11 for Raman, and 12 for the mechanical test. The scientists note that “future calibrations based on a greater number of samples and coupled with ad hoc cleaning procedures could significantly improve its accuracy, though it is not easy to find ancient samples adequate for the test.”
They used tiny fibers extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana, who gave them to Fanti. Riggi passed away in 2008, but he had been involved in the intensive scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin by the STURP group in 1978, and on April 21, 1988 was the man who cut from the Shroud the thin 7 x 1 cm sliver of linen that was used for carbon dating.
These tests were carried out in University of Padua laboratories by professors from various Italian universities, led by Giulio Fanti, Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s engineering faculty. He co-authored reports of the findings in 1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, “Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy” by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61-70; 2) a paper titled “A new cyclic-loads machine for the measurement of micro-mechanical properties of single flax fibers coming from the Turin Shroud” by Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi for the XXI AIMETA (Italian Association of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics) congress in 2013, and 3) the 2013 book “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud), written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta in Italian.
- Status