U
undead_rat
Guest
LOL That’s a good one. . . . .
- Status
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
Any thread that goes on for long enough will pass “666” posts, so this means nothing. No one here is antichrist, or a satanist, or is that the next thing you’ll start to imply about us?
The obvious thing is that you’re off your rocker.
“undead_rat” said:
Have you considered that its because your posts are sounding increasingly paranoid, and you basically have no evidence to justify your belief? We’re not out to get you undead_rat. We’re not here for some ‘insiduous agenda’. I am just a person who isn’t convinced by the arguments by the authenticists and I’ve added my two-cents.
Why is that evidence of a nefarious agenda?
I am not against claims of the miraculous, even though I might admittedly be more skeptical of them than many Catholics are.
Neither you nor I will be judged better or worse for what opinions we held. What matters will be the contents of our character.
Last edited:
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
Actually I don’t understand… why is this such a strong piece of evidence? Its true that details are more apparent in a photonegative, than otherwise, but the details are still there in the original image. They’re just more apparent to human eye in a photonegative.
Why does this “prove” authenticity?
N
nooooby
Guest
Sir, I am disappointed with this response. Given that I am on record as on the authenticist side, I do feel that this type of response makes it look as if you are in a fifth column yourself.
Can I suggest we all stick to discussing the Shroud and its associated topics rather than engaging in any ad-hominin attacks.
Can I suggest we all stick to discussing the Shroud and its associated topics rather than engaging in any ad-hominin attacks.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Every one already knows that. With a user name like “undead_rat” how could it be otherwise?
U
undead_rat
Guest
THE IMAGE OF EDESSA, Guscin ,2009, pg 215:
“Once again, it should be stressed that there are no artistic representations of the Image of Edessa as a full-body image or with bloodstains, and the majority of the texts make no reference to either characteristic; but at the same time it is undeniable that at some point in the history of the Image of Edessa, some writers were convinced, for whatever reason, that it was indeed a full-body image on a large cloth that had been folded over (possibly in such a way that only the face was visible) and that it did contain bloodstains.”
“Once again, it should be stressed that there are no artistic representations of the Image of Edessa as a full-body image or with bloodstains, and the majority of the texts make no reference to either characteristic; but at the same time it is undeniable that at some point in the history of the Image of Edessa, some writers were convinced, for whatever reason, that it was indeed a full-body image on a large cloth that had been folded over (possibly in such a way that only the face was visible) and that it did contain bloodstains.”
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Perhaps they were, although I don’t think the evidence makes it undeniable. However, this does not address your contention that paintings of the Mandylion are “spitting images” of the face on the Shroud, does it?
U
undead_rat
Guest
These photos can speak for themselves and require no comment on my part. The participants on this thread can decide for themselves whether or not they bear any similarity without the condescending advice of a skeptic that doesn’t even believe that Jesus could walk on water.
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
The two images, other than having a superficial similarity to Christ, are quite disimilar. The hair and beard is braided in the Mandylion Icon, but not in that artist depiction of the Shroud. The ears are present in the Mandylion, but not in that painting. All points that Hugh Farey made, and which you don’t engage in.
I don’t think a superficial similarity is sufficient to establish that the Shroud of Turin, which appears first in the 14th Century was the cause of icons around the world.
More than likely it appears to be the other way around. With the rich tradition of depictions of Christ having this mutual gheist and familiarity. If they were based on an actual relic why weren’t the details far more unified in style?
I’d also say that you should be comparing the Mandylion to the Shroud itself, not to an artist depiction, otherwise you risk engaging in the cherry picking fallacy, where you select the evidence that best suit your case. A lot of artistic depictions and renditions of the image of the shroud have been made.
If I were to compare it to any icon of fame it would be the Pantocrator, though the face on the shroud is more box like and square whereas the face of the Pantocrator is more angular and refined. The hair styles are more similiar, even if significant differences remain.
I think Hugh Farey has treated you extraordinarily gracefully considering that you’ve accused him of lying, of being a closet denier of the faith, a bahaist, associated him with the number 666, and a lot of gross misconduct. And of anyone in general who criticises your points to be part of a ‘nefarious bahai plot’, or sock-puppets of his account.
If you’d cut that out, and stop being so hyperbolic about various of your claims I think you’d be treated a lot better.
Hugh Farey has at no point denied that Jesus could perform miracle, or that He could supernaturally walk on water. Whether he believed Jesus in matter of fact did so, is a private belief he is quite allowed to hold.
Now can we get away from this snide and slander from your side? This is the way a person who has no argument acts if they’re childish. I’d much rather see you answers to his questions, or just humbly bow out if you can’t do anything more than repeat yourself.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Indeed so. Does anybody think that the one is a “spitting image” of the other? (By whatever definition they choose of ‘spitting image’)
I see similarities between the two.
It looks to me that one is a stylized painting of the other.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Fair enough. I also see similarities. They’re both front facing men with beards. May I ask you to Google “St Artemius”? If one were really looking for a spitting image of the 11th century painting of the Mandylion, I think St Artemius looks a lot more like it than the Shroud. But I’m open to comments. Anybody else?
U
undead_rat
Guest
Is is possible that this icon:
www.icon-art.info
could have been derived from this image?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Спас Нерукотворный. Первая половина XIV в. - 25540 [639]
Икона. Государственная Третьяковская галерея. Инв. 25540
could have been derived from this image?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Clearly not.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Of course the skeptic who has shown that he has an agenda that the Shroud is not ancient doesn’t think that any Mandylion icon could have been painted using the Shroud’s facial image as a model.
His agenda is incorrect, and I believe that his opinion is worthless.
His agenda is incorrect, and I believe that his opinion is worthless.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
But it is “clearly not” possible that this famous icon was based on the Shroud’s facial Image? That unsupported statement is nothing more than silly conjecture by a skeptic.
Last edited:
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
There is a superficial similarity. They both look similar to the artistic expressions of Christ. However to say that all expressions of Christ are identical, or even just uniform in appearance is a bit unfair. There’s many opinions as to what kind of beard he had, his hair. Whether his face was angular or square.
That the shroud has such a similarity isn’t much of an argument for its authenticity. It seems much more likely given its 14th Century dating that it is based upon icons, or a relief statue from its own time.
That the shroud has such a similarity isn’t much of an argument for its authenticity. It seems much more likely given its 14th Century dating that it is based upon icons, or a relief statue from its own time.
U
undead_rat
Guest
The idea that the carbon fourteen results show a 14th Century dating for the Shroud has been disproven.
Pia’s astounding photos of 1898 proven that the Shroud was authentic, a conclusion supported by the 1978 STURP investigation. Therefore, the 1988 C-14 data could only have been interpreted as showing a date if that date result had been 2000 years old. Since the C-14 data did not show that date, this data must necessarily be interpreted as the result of an event. That event, of course, was the movement of Jesus’ corpse out of this world and into another dimension.
Pia’s astounding photos of 1898 proven that the Shroud was authentic, a conclusion supported by the 1978 STURP investigation. Therefore, the 1988 C-14 data could only have been interpreted as showing a date if that date result had been 2000 years old. Since the C-14 data did not show that date, this data must necessarily be interpreted as the result of an event. That event, of course, was the movement of Jesus’ corpse out of this world and into another dimension.
U
undead_rat
Guest
This icon is known to have been based on the Image of Edessa. The question is, Could it have been based on the facial image that we see on the Shroud? That does seem to be the case as sufficient similarity exists to support that hypothesis.
Last edited:
- Status