Shroud of Turin

[Robert_Brenchley]

Magnentius was the one who issued a coin with a big chi-rho. He was orthodox, while Constantius was Arian. So it could be a way of presenting Magnentius as the 'proper' Christian emperor. It depends on whether anything in the context of the mosaic suggests a religious or a political meaning.

[Maffeo]

Magnentius was a pagan, even if he did try to curry favour with the Catholic Christians who were predominant in his part of the Empire.

[Robert_Brenchley]

I may be wrong, then. What's the evidence?

[Dino]

Doug Smith's website states that Magnentius was a pagan, but the statement is unsourced.

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac26.html

[DruMAX]

I could be wrong, Zosimus has a lot to say about him but not regarding his religious affiliation.

[Maffeo]

Practically all the secondary literature claims that Magnentius was pagan. I've been curious myself about a primary source for this, but have not been able to find an explicit statement (not even in Zosimus who gives a lengthy account of him). I suspect that historians have simply inferred Magnentius' paganism from his tolerance of pagan rites.

[Robert_Brenchley]

That implies that he sat on the fence, perhaps to keep the people behind him. It says nothing about his personal views.

[Howard Cole]

They have just found a rare shroud from the time of Jesus.  This shroud has a much simpler weave than the Shroud of Turin.  This new shroud raise serious questions about the authenticity of the one in Turin.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html

On coast to coast am (www.coasttocoastam.com) the guest talked about the shroud and this in paticular. He said, do we all berry our dead today in the same coffins, same cloths as eveyrone else? Theres compelling evidence on both sides of the authenticity.

The burial with the shroud was from an upper class person.  Most likely he would have been buried with the best.  Jesus was most likely not buried with the best since he was considered a criminal by the authorities at the time.  So if someone is buried with the best and it is a simple weave burial cloth, most likely Jesus was not buried with something better. 

The Turin Shroud has a complex herring bone weave, most likely not used for burial shrouds because of the time and effort that goes into making that weave.  If you are selling a fake holy relic you would use the best because you can increase the selling value and make it more special.

Howard

[mwilson603]

Latest news report on the BBC tonight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8615029.stm
regards
Mark

[slokind]

When I observed that recent "proofs" concerning the Capitoline Wolf were among the weakest, I only had in mind that the very worst journalism and "science" has been reserved for the Turin Shroud.  It is an object of worship for persons, to be pitied rather than despised, of course, who actually prefer fantasy coins of the most egregious sort to the best of ancient coins.  The folks who prefer the fantasy of St. Christopher to a real saint.  P.L.

[David Atherton]

"Shroud Science" is unlike any other science I know of - you start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it instead of going wherever the evidence may lead.

Joe Nickell has written a wonderful book about the shroud (Inquest on the Shroud of Turin) which has a more skeptical view of this relic. You may also learn how science is supposed to work along the way.

[gavignano]

David - I'd like to offer an alternative view. I find Nickell's work (e.g., his piece i n the Skeptical Inquirer) guilty of the very same "Shroud Science" that he criticizes. Here is a view much more elegantly written than I can do;
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/schneider.htm

One of course can look for a bias in Schneider's views. Personally, I find the suggestion of a completely unbiased scientist in matters such as the Shroud as naive and laughable. But some arguments are way more objective than others, and we all need to examine the arguments closely. the best scientists (and commentators) are conscious of their biases and temper their conclusions accordingly.

[David Atherton]

David - I'd like to offer an alternative view. I find Nickell's work (e.g., his piece i n the Skeptical Inquirer) guilty of the very same "Shroud Science" that he criticizes. Here is a view much more elegantly written than I can do;
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/schneider.htm

One of course can look for a bias in Schneider's views. Personally, I find the suggestion of a completely unbiased scientist in matters such as the Shroud as naive and laughable. But some arguments are way more objective than others, and we all need to examine the arguments closely. the best scientists (and commentators) are conscious of their biases and temper their conclusions accordingly.

I really don't think it "naive or laughable" to suggest there are scientists who are unbiased in matters of faith oriented material. The same can be said of historians - there are many who put aside their faiths and search for facts. Yes, there are a few who have agendas to push, but then again they are the ones not advocating the true scientific method.

Joe Nickell is a professional paranormal investigator who has investigated everything from weeping statues to New England ghosts. A highly engaging interview with him can be heard here: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=118  An interesting podcast in its own right.

[basemetal]

The historical Jesus was most likely in appearance, similar to others of his time.   
Christians may lament, but he would have probably not met the requirements of "If Jesus Came To your House".  He was of small stature, a bit dirty by modern standards-not dipped in poop-but smelling a lot of perspiration , and stale cloth.

"Gloria, come"ere.
 There's some bum outside that claims he's  a Jehova's Witness or something".
"Looks like Carlos Santana's brother. Give him some change or some'tin".


Bruce
Basemetal

[Robert_Brenchley]

The Jews used ritual baths, so he probably wasn't as smelly as an Ancient Briton!

[klairday]

Not to get into a religious debate or anything, but I feel like those (relics) are things that people have adopted over the centuries; while it makes for a nice story, I can't see any of them as being genuine.

[Cleisthenes]

Back in the News,

The story of the Shroud of Turin is fascinating. It began, for me, ironically when I thought the "story" had finally been laid to rest. Carbon 14 dating conducted in 1988 (quite near my graduation from college) had just proved that the Shroud was medieval. Along with most, I accepted these results--the fact that two of my former Alma Maters (The University of Arizona and Oxford University—although I spent most of my Oxford days dodging back and forth between Lincoln and Exeter colleges, oblivous about anything I was not studying) were involved in the testing lent to me a comfortable sense of closure (to give them their due, scientists from the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich, Columbia University, and the British Museum were also involved in the tests).

I was re-engaged by the Shroud story in 2005 when an article in the scholarly, peer-reviewed, scientific journal Thermochimica Acta by an equally eminent scientist, Raymond N. Rogers, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory; subverted the 1988 tests. Very briefly, the sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was shown not to be valid. In fact, the article noted, the Shroud was much older than the carbon 14 tests suggested.

Curiouser and curiouser. . . and I'll leave the story at this juncture. If you are interested, see the following site:
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/pantocrator.htm

Jim