Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:17 pm
Finding blood on the cloth at all isn't sufficient evidence that it was the blood of Jesus.
I agree. The blood itself does not point to Jesus. It is the blood
patterns that point to Jesus, which I will be getting to.
The Romans knew how they did it. The people they did it to knew how they did it. It wasn't a secret they could----or even tried to----keep to themselves.
The Romans did not live in the 14th century. So how would "competent 14th-century historians could have known how the Romans carried out crucifixions"?
And if we don't fully know even now how crucifixions were carried out, then we don't know that they didn't have a way of making the hands support the body.
Because of the TS, experiments were made to see which way was more plausible to crucify a person. It revealed a body cannot be supported by nailing through the palm, but could be held up by nailing through the wrist.
To help us understand the injury from the nails, Dr Barbet experimented with cadavers. He estimated Christ’s weight to be approximately 160 pounds. But his body sagged with the arms forming an angle of 65 degrees. From the physics of vectors, it can be shown that the force exerted on each nail due to the angle of the arms was some 209 pounds of force per nail. In experiments, Barbet showed that a nail through the palm of the hand, as traditionally depicted, could not support the force. The nail would tear through the skin very quickly, and probably tear off part of the hand in the process. Bearing in mind that the Romans were masters in the ‘art’ of crucifixion; there must have been another point of affixing a body. Barbet instead goes for the theory that the nails were skilfully hammered through the wrists between the eight carpal bones, thus being supported by the transverse carpal ligament. For the feet, Barbet presumes that these were driven through the second intermetatarsal space. Both sites for the nails would not cause an awful lot of bleeding, so that the condemned would not die too quickly; but the resulting nerve damage would have left Christ in excruciating pain.
https://medicine.uq.edu.au/blog/2019/12 ... sus-christ
Since scripture negates John's claim that it was prophetic fulfillment, such corroboration means nothing.
Here's the passage that corroborates with the TS on the side wound.
[Jhn 19:34 KJV] But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
Linen shrinks. Stretching it involves a deliberate process of wetting, heating and pressing. I doubt that the cloth's curators were willing to risk damaging it by putting it through that.
Shrink, stretch, either way it means the cloth is not a static size. It's not that anybody is intentionally trying to damage the cloth, but handling the cloth and environmental factors can affect it. I agree stretching/shrinking cannot fully account for the difference, but it could be a contributing factor.
The size difference can be more accounted for as an artifact of how it was imaged. Jesus' head was not flat, but was bent forward. So, it would cause more cloth to be exposed to the body from the back than on the front while the cloth was wrapped around the body.
Premature, perhaps, but you yourself have cited Raymond Rogers as a source.
I don't agree the Maillard reaction can fully account for the body image. I'll discuss this more later when I present what I think is the most likely theory that produced the body image.
The article is so short that you would be put to less trouble to read it than I would to copy and paste from it.
It's not short. There are many claims in that article. What specific claims are you making with that article?
What you're saying here is that people can believe that Jesus was resurrected without being Christians.
Actually, I don't have any major problems with your line of reasoning. But, it's still possible to believe Jesus was depicted on the TS and not believe he was the Jewish Messiah. Case in point is Barrie Schwortz...
Barrie Schwortz is one of the foremost experts on the Shroud of Turin.
He is Jewish and not a believing Christian, yet he thinks that the evidence very strongly proves the Shroud is authentic, in the sense that it belonged to the historical Jesus.
https://skepticsandseekers.wordpress.co ... -schwartz/
There are few people in the entire world who know more about the TS than Schwortz. He believes it was the actual burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, yet he does not believe Jesus is the Messiah.
I think the major issue is Jews do not think the NT is authoritative. And they also have a Rabbinic view of what the Messiah should be like, which Jesus did not fulfill. All this is another topic in itself.
