Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Jabba]

Good morning, Mr, Savage!

You appear to have missed this:


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-13^th Century CE, and therefore could not have been used to do anything, in any way, to anyone, in the early 1^st 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.

Slowvehicle,
- I have invited them; they don't want to come to your site either.
- Essentially, I'll be trying to take your side to them, and see if they have effective answers. I still think that the shroud is probably authentic, but some of your objections/reservations seem quite reasonable...
- One specific question for now: you've probably answered this back in the land that time forgot, but do you think that the shroud was painted?

 

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,
I still think that the shroud is probably authentic, ...

In the absence of any evidence, why?

 

[zooterkin]

- One specific question for now: you've probably answered this back in the land that time forgot, but do you think that the shroud was painted?

How does that change how old it is?

 

[Garrette]

In the absence of any evidence, why?

Because I think the C14 dating was wrong?

Why?

Because I think there might have been a patch. Or invisible reweaving.

Why?

Because I think the scientists involved might have been lying.

Why?

Because I think the Shroud is probably authentic.

 

[John Jones]

Because I think the C14 dating was wrong?

Why?

Because I think there might have been a patch. Or invisible reweaving.

Why?

Because I think the scientists involved might have been lying.

Why?

Because I think the Shroud is probably authentic.

Jabba, is the above the way you see the situation?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I have invited them; they don't want to come¹ to your² site either³.

(highlighted numbering added)

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage!

At risk of derail, I feel led to point out that this sentence, all by itself, contains at least three misstatements.

1. If "they" "don't want to come to" ISF, "they" are not very interested in pursuing fact. I wonder to what extent you, personally, have poisoned that well with your claims of how bitterly you have been treated here.

2. "My" site? Really? I wonder what it is about "my" site that "they" disdain, and why you have presented it to "them" as "my" site.

3. "Either" assumes facts not in evidence. Care to rephrase?

- Essentially, I'll be trying to take your⁴ side to them, and see if they have effective⁵ answers. I still think that the shroud is probably authentic⁶, but some of your objections/reservations seem quite reasonable⁷...

(highlighted numbering added)

4. I sincerely hope that this is no more than an artifact of the absence, in English, of an easy way to distinguish the second-person singular from the second-person plural. It is not "my" "side" you need to "take" to "them". Instead, "they" must deal with the reality of the demonstrable physical evidence.

Not to mention, it is this very act against which I spoke earlier. I do not accept your presumption of serving as anti-locutor. I choose not to get involved in a game of "whisperline", with you as the medium.

5. "Their" answers need not be "effective"; all that is needed is answers that accurately reflect reality rather than being no more than exercises in circularity and special pleading. Why not settle for actual facts instead of clinging to your idea of "effective" answers?

6. Why? What evidence convinces you? What fuels your belief that the CIQ is a 1^st Century CE burial shroud, other than you desire that it be so?

7. And yet you reject them, choosing to "believe" that the CIQ is, not just a 1^st Century CE artifact, but the "True Shroud^TM". Do you understand, yet, the problems with circular reasoning, and special pleading?

- One specific question for now: you've probably answered this back in the land that time forgot, but do you think that the shroud was painted?

The "blood" representations certainly give evidence of being painted, or daubed. As to the rest of the anatomically incorrect, posturally impossible, dubiously scriptural, representational (not figural) graphic (not photographic) depiction of a stylized human form on the manifestly medieval cloth, I do not have a firm opinion. Contact printing, dust transfer, dilute-solution daubing, and scorching all seem feasible.

It is very important that you understand that not knowing how the image was formed does not mean that a burst of "resurrection energy" is a plausible answer.

 

[John Jones]

[...]
It is very important that you understand that not knowing how the image was formed does not mean that a burst of "resurrection energy" is a plausible answer.

Indeed, Jabba. You appear to be sneaking in an Appeal To Ignorance Logical Fallacy.

Just because no one can say exactly how those particular images were made on that particular piece of 13th century fabric, it doesn't follow that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Any number of possibilities arise.

None of them prove that Jesus arose from the dead or even existed.

 

[Jabba]

Sudarium

J,
- The Sudarium is used in the authenticity argument.

How so?

John,
- Believers claim that it matches the blood stains on and around the face on the shroud -- only, the blood has been spread out (something like that).

 

[John Jones]

John,
- Believers claim that it matches the blood stains on and around the face on the shroud -- only, the blood has been spread out (something like that).

Believers claim all sorts of things. They even make appeals to logical fallacies and false Bayesian statistics.

Remember that:

1) The dates don't match-up by any measure.

2) The Sudarium of Oviedo contradicts the SoT by virtue of observation, but matches scriptural descriptions of the burial clothes of JC.

3) There is nothing tying either the Sudarium of Oviedo or the SoT to a first century messiah.

If you have some evidence^* to the contrary, you should have posted it 2 years ago, but I would be pleased to see it now, even at this late date.

^*Claiming that you believe it's probably authentic just because you want to has never gotten you any traction, so don't bother taking that to the Porter Blog. It's not worth discussing.

 

[carlitos]

Jesus' foreskin is sexier and more interesting.

 

[John Jones]

Jesus' foreskin is sexier and more interesting.

I happen to own an authentic dinner menu from the Last Supper, signed by Jesus H. Christ himself in his own script. I've had it since the 1970's, so it's probably authentic.

 

[Nonpareil]

I happen to own an authentic dinner menu from the Last Supper, signed by Jesus H. Christ himself in his own script. I've had it since the 1970's, so it's probably authentic.

Yeah, but there's no value in that. The real money is in the misprinted first edition menus, where they listed leg of the Lamb as the main course.

 

[Ladewig]

I happen to own an authentic dinner menu from the Last Supper, signed by Jesus H. Christ himself in his own script. I've had it since the 1970's, so it's probably authentic.

I'm going to need to see some provenance. Do you have a photo of Him signing it?

(I suppose it would be bad form to start talking about invisible re-laminating?)

 

[Craig B]

Jesus' foreskin is sexier and more interesting.

There were about six of them in the Middle Ages, but only three survived into modern times, and following the Enlightenment they became an embarrassment to Holy Mother Church, which dealt with the problem in the usual way

According to David Farley, in 1900, the Roman Catholic Church resolved the dilemma by ruling that anyone thenceforward writing or speaking of the Holy Prepuce would be excommunicated. Again, according to Farley, in 1954, after much debate, the punishment was changed to the harsher degree of excommunication, vitandi (shunned); Farley also says that the Second Vatican Council later removed the Day of the Holy Circumcision from the Latin church calendar

The last Holy Foreskin recently disappeared - allegedly stolen - from its church in Calcata, Lazio, Italy, to the indignation of the local community, which venerated this relic with mediaeval fervour.

The No 1 suspect; the local priest. But he has refused to report or discuss the theft, citing the 1954 ban on discussing it. Thus the Church deals with the excesses and errors of the past.

 

[Craig4]

Slowvehicle,
- I have invited them; they don't want to come to your site either.
- Essentially, I'll be trying to take your side to them, and see if they have effective answers. I still think that the shroud is probably authentic, but some of your objections/reservations seem quite reasonable...
- One specific question for now: you've probably answered this back in the land that time forgot, but do you think that the shroud was painted?

Why on Earth would you think the Shroud is authentic? Have you not read the "Nature" article? What fault do you find with the refutations of the "it was a patch" and "bio contamination" arguments?

 

[AdMan]

- 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.

Do you have some new evidence to present that you haven't presented in the last couple of years?

Does "The Porter Blog," whoever they are, have any new evidence or arguments to present?

If not, what is the purpose of this whole exercise? Are you going to share with them evidence showing that the shroud is a medieval forgery that they haven't seen?

By the way, your taking on the role of interlocutor between two forums, given your admitted biases, without anyone really agreeing to it, makes no sense. It is just one more of your plans that is bound to fail again.

 

[Slowvehicle]

John,
- Believers claim that it matches the blood stains on and around the face on the shroud -- only, the blood has been spread out (something like that).

Good morning, Mr. Savage:

This, this very thing, this habit of yours, is but one of the reasons I am opposed to your self-elected rôle as 'anti-locutor". You asked me a specific question; I answered it to the best of my ability. You have ignored that answer, as you so often do; leap-frogging past it to answer a different post by a different poster, that was posted half an hour after my answer.

SSDD

 

[Jabba]

Responding

Slowvehicle,
- I need to respond to you guys -- but, I also need to move on to scour past sub-topics and try to organize them.
- If you notice, I tend to respond to posts that are short and not just sarcasm -- your previous post was too long to tackle.
- I'm going to go take a nap, but your next to last post will be first on my agenda.

 

[zooterkin]

Slowvehicle,
- I need to respond to you guys -- but, I also need to move on to scour past sub-topics and try to organize them.

Do you understand that if the cloth is not 2000 years old, all the sub-topics are irrelevant?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I need to respond to you guys -- but, I also need to move on to scour past sub-topics and try to organize them.
- If you notice, I tend to respond to posts that are short and not just sarcasm -- your previous post was too long to tackle.
- I'm going to go take a nap, but your next to last post will be first on my agenda.

(highlighting added for emphasis)

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

This is another of the reasons I oppose your idea that you should serve as "anti-locutor".

There is no "sarcasm" in my "too-long-to-tackle" post. You made multiple misstatements; I addressed them. I encourage you to identify what of my post you, personally, found to be "sarcasm"; failing that, I encourage you to a more particular honesty in the future.

I also answered your question, directly and simply. In what way was my answer inadequate for your consideration?