Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- For now at least, I just want to see how well we can organize our past discussion. I don't really plan on arguing the case (for now, at least).
- Mostly, I'd like to present the totality of your case to the Porter blog, and see if my side has good answers. For instance, I'll present your claims re "banding" and "trace elements," and see what authenticity people have to say -- if anything. Before I present your claims, I'll run them past you for your approval.
Click to expand...
Can the Porter blog people not read things for themselves if you provide links?
 
Jabba said:
- For now at least, I just want to see how well we can organize our past discussion. I don't really plan on arguing the case (for now, at least).
- Mostly, I'd like to present the totality of your case to the Porter blog, and see if my side has good answers. For instance, I'll present your claims re "banding" and "trace elements," and see what authenticity people have to say -- if anything. Before I present your claims, I'll run them past you for your approval.
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It seems to me that you are either overlooking, or intentionally ignoring, the fact that when I (for instance) post a list of evidences that the cloth in question is a manifestly medieval artifact, I have already "organized" the issues I am raising. You could, simply, take (for instance) my last post as an organization of a few (a very few) of the indications that the CIQ is not, cannot be, the burial cloth of a person crucified in the 1st Century CE.

You have pretended all along that "agreeing to disagree" is a valid option. However, unless and until you can demonstrate that the manifestly medieval cloth existed in the 1st Century CE, there is nothing about which to "agree to disagree". You must show (without resorting to the magic of "some patching" that does not show up in photos, and has not been seen by any person with actual access to the CIQ) that the 14C dating is in error--not with allegation, but with substantiation. Without that, the facts of the nature of the graphic images are immaterial. Whatever they are, however they were produced, however they have been "improved" and altered (and by whomever) do not signify; a cloth that was not loomed until the late 13th Century CE could not have been used as a burial shroud in the early 1st Century CE.

If anyone at the Porter Blog, or anywhere else, is interested in facts (as opposed to apologetics), the first step, the very first step, is to deal with the 14C dating, triply attested by independent laboratories. Unless and until that step is taken, unless and until that hurdle is surmounted, the rest is (sorry) immaterial.
 
There is really only one claim to concern yourself with: Your claim that the shroud is the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ.

You have not even come close to doing that.

The evidence that the shroud is authentic is not good at all. You have used every logical fallacy known to man to prove otherwise, and you have failed spectacularly.

Don't annoy people with another psychedelic-multi bulleted list of arguments if you have nothing new to bring to the table.

I frankly don't care what the Porter blog says, whatever that is.
 
Jabba said:
- For now at least, I just want to see how well we can organize our past discussion.
Click to expand...


Given that you had to post a query in "Forum Help and Member Support" to even find the past discussion, my prediction is "no hope whatsoever".



Jabba said:
I don't really plan on arguing the case (for now, at least).
Click to expand...


It seems to me that your complete lack of having a case to argue in the first place will greatly facilitate this clever plan.



Jabba said:
- Mostly, I'd like to present the totality of your case to the Porter blog, and see if my side has good answers.
Click to expand...


And you will, of course, serve as the arbitrator of what constitutes "good answers", won't you? Plus ça change . . .



Jabba said:
For instance, I'll present your claims re "banding" and "trace elements," and see what authenticity people have to say -- if anything.
Click to expand...


You seem to be forgetting who it is that actually made "claims" about these (and many other) aspects of the tea towel's analysis.



Jabba said:
Before I present your claims, I'll run them past you for your approval.
Click to expand...


You've already spent years doing just that. What makes you think you'll suddenly achieve a different result?
 
Slowvehicle said:
Good evening, Mr. Savage!

Have you, perhaps, noticed a certain...sameness...to the responses you have gotten, today? Might I make a suggestion?

It would be, in my opinion, rude to the point of actual offense, not to mention disingenuous (if not flatly dishonest), of you to "organize" what you consider "pros" if what you are choosing to call "pros" are the same baseless assertions you have presented multiple times before.

Your primary hurdle is, as it has been, the fact that the linen was tested by three different independent laboratories, using three different cleaning and testing protocols, and found to be a piece of cloth dating from no earlier than the mid-13th Century CE. That is the first obstacle you must overcome, and it is but one of legion.

It will not do, for instance, for you to imply, darkly, that "collusion" was afoot, or that the labs returned the result they were told to return, unless you can indicate some evidence of such dishonesty on the part of the labs other than the fact that the results are not what you want them to be.

It will not do for you to speak of incompetence; to imply that all three labs (as well as every single one of the specialist who have actually examined the cloth itself) simply missed "some patching". The only evidence for a miracle patch is the fact (again) that the 14C tests indicate a result not to your liking.

However, I would like you to consider an even deeper issue. Suppose, simply for the sake of argument, that the cloth itself were, somehow, demonstrated to be of 1st Century CE manufacture (how such might occur is irrelevant to the point I wish to make).

Even if the cloth itself were of 1st Century CE provenance, you would only face more obstacles, to wit:

1. The image on the cloth is not anatomically correct, or even anatomically reasonable.

2. The image on the cloth is depicted in an anatomically impossible position (did you ever even attempt to lie flat and assume the "shroud slouch"?).

3. The image on the cloth depicts scripturally inaccurate "wounds".

4. The image on the cloth does not, itself, match the scriptural description of the "cloths" used to bind the body of Jesus.

5. The image on the cloth depicts "blood' flowing in ways that completely ignore gravity, and capillary action, and the principles of adsorption and absorption.

6. The image on the cloth is a representational (not figural) graphic (not photographic) depiction of a stylized human form. The hands, the face, the head, the limbs, the torso and the pelvis (to name but a few issues) do not conform to actual human bodies.

...and there are more.

I sincerely hope that if you do, in fact, "organize" what you want to call "pros", you will not be so insulting as to simply repeat any of your earlier assertions. If you have new evidence, new ideas, by all means--present them, I will address them, as will others. If all you have is your perfervid desire that the manifestly medieval cloth might yet somehow be the "authentic shroudTM", I sincerely hope you might reconsider. It seems to me that simply repeating unsupported and unreasonable assertions will not go over any better than your original presentation did.

I hope you will consider what I have posted.
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,

- The points you have made are exactly what I'm looking for. Carbon dating would be in the top layer of sub-issues (maybe, number 1), and you have listed some of the sub-sub issues within the carbon dating sub-issue.
- Your 6 other points would be listed under "Image."

- Also, you have reminded me that you and others have given me similar lists in the past. I'll start looking for them -- but, you (and others) can probably find them faster than can I.

- Will you allow me to post your comments over on the Porter blog, if I get your specific approval each time?

- Thanks.
 
Jabba said:
- Will you allow me to post your comments over on the Porter blog, if I get your specific approval each time?

- Thanks.
Click to expand...
What in the world is wrong with the "Porter blog," that people can't post their own words over there?
 
Everyone needs a hobby. Especially if one is immortal. I think the question is how many other people are required to participate for the full hobby experience?
 
Jabba said:
- For now at least, I just want to see how well we can organize our past discussion. I don't really plan on arguing the case (for now, at least).
Click to expand...
So you admit that this thread is pointless as you will, again, refuse to acknowledge the evidence that the shroud is a medieval fake.

Jabba said:
- Mostly, I'd like to present the totality of your case to the Porter blog, and see if my side has good answers. For instance, I'll present your claims re "banding" and "trace elements," and see what authenticity people have to say -- if anything. Before I present your claims, I'll run them past you for your approval.
Click to expand...
Instead of wasting everyone's time why don't these people bring their supposed knowledge and evidence here?
 
Holy molly ! this is still going on ? I give it a sub topic, sub contention , sub point of -5 take it to the undertaker.

Jabba you cannot slice the topic into small sausage and hope to pass it by us and try to convince us. There is only ONE salient point and it is the carbon dating.

game over.

Why don't you score that ?
 
Jabba,

I believe I suggested before that a better relic to investigate would be the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is held by some to be the cloth that was placed over the face of the late J. C. It has been carbon dated to about 700 AD, but this date is considered unreliable due to possible contamination, besides which there are references to the cloth dating back to the year 570. You might want to check it out.

Note to the rest of the thread's participants; I am in no way suggesting that this cloth was in any way connected to any events involving the late J. C., but merely attempting to move the discussion towards something that is not known to be a forgery (at least, not yet).
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,

- The points you have made are exactly what I'm looking for. Carbon dating would be in the top layer of sub-issues (maybe, number 1), and you have listed some of the sub-sub issues within the carbon dating sub-issue.
- Your 6 other points would be listed under "Image."

- Also, you have reminded me that you and others have given me similar lists in the past. I'll start looking for them -- but, you (and others) can probably find them faster than can I.

- Will you allow me to post your comments over on the Porter blog, if I get your specific approval each time?

- Thanks.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Mr, Savage!

You appear to have missed this:
Slowvehicle said:
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It seems to me that you are either overlooking, or intentionally ignoring, the fact that when I (for instance) post a list of evidences that the cloth in question is a manifestly medieval artifact, I have already "organized" the issues I am raising. You could, simply, take (for instance) my last post as an organization of a few (a very few) of the indications that the CIQ is not, cannot be, the burial cloth of a person crucified in the 1st Century CE.

You have pretended all along that "agreeing to disagree" is a valid option. However, unless and until you can demonstrate that the manifestly medieval cloth existed in the 1st Century CE, there is nothing about which to "agree to disagree". You must show (without resorting to the magic of "some patching" that does not show up in photos, and has not been seen by any person with actual access to the CIQ) that the 14C dating is in error--not with allegation, but with substantiation. Without that, the facts of the nature of the graphic images are immaterial. Whatever they are, however they were produced, however they have been "improved" and altered (and by whomever) do not signify; a cloth that was not loomed until the late 13th Century CE could not have been used as a burial shroud in the early 1st Century CE.

If anyone at the Porter Blog, or anywhere else, is interested in facts (as opposed to apologetics), the first step, the very first step, is to deal with the 14C dating, triply attested by independent laboratories. Unless and until that step is taken, unless and until that hurdle is surmounted, the rest is (sorry) immaterial.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, free to quote me, as long as you do so honestly, anywhere you find it fruitful.

I would hope that you would not, this time around, flavour your quotes with the cries of "מָרָא" with which you have seasoned other references to this forum (and its predecessor), in other venues. (Of course, I drink coffee [a lot of coffee] out of a RoosterTeeth RWBY mug, so my grip on reality is a bit..."BOOP".)

I maintain that the devotees of the "Porter Blog" would be better served by joining in the discussion here, rather than by you serving as intermediary (dare I coin the neologism, "anti-locutor"?) and practicing shuttle debatery.

A more important point is this:

The 14C date is not "in the top layer of sub-issues"; it is, in fact, the only issue. Follow: Even if the graphic image on the CIQ were, in fact, an anatomically accurate, posturally possible, scripturally feasible and historically defensible photographic image; even if the tattoo, "My dad can smite your tribe", were discernible, and the letters "JC" were embroidered in the corner; triply-redundant 14C dating, from three independent laboratories, indicates that the cloth did not exist before the mid-13th Century CE, and therefore could not have been used to do anything, in any way, to anyone, in the early 1st Century CE.

Unless and until you come to grips with that fact, there truly is nothing upon which to "agree to disagree".

You might better serve "your side" by inviting them here, to read the exchanges for themselves.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Jabba,

I believe I suggested before that a better relic to investigate would be the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is held by some to be the cloth that was placed over the face of the late J. C. It has been carbon dated to about 700 AD, but this date is considered unreliable due to possible contamination, besides which there are references to the cloth dating back to the year 570. You might want to check it out.

Note to the rest of the thread's participants; I am in no way suggesting that this cloth was in any way connected to any events involving the late J. C., but merely attempting to move the discussion towards something that is not known to be a forgery (at least, not yet).
Click to expand...
J,
- The Sudarium is used in the authenticity argument.
 
Jabba said:
J,
- The Sudarium is used in the authenticity argument.
Click to expand...
Is the formulation of that argument similar to this?

1. C14 shows medieval origin of SoT
2. Sudarium exists and wasn't C14 dated
3. Therefore C14 of SoT was wrong
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom