• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowvehicle said:
Thank you for this. It did seem to me that you were preparing to declaim, à la manière d' Sauvage, that since the CIQ was not a QQ prop, it must be authentic. I apologize for my assumption, and will avoid, as far as possible, similar error in the future.
Click to expand...

And there you go. It turns out that us heathen unbelievers can be nice. Who'd a thunk?
 
Stick a fork in me. I went back and looked at some of the pro-authenticity rejoinders on this thread since 2013.

These are the ones Jabba wants to collect and offer-up to some pro SoT blog.

I'll be damned if I'm gonna do his homework for him, but his points are even worse than I recalled.
 
John Jones said:
Stick a fork in me. I went back and looked at some of the pro-authenticity rejoinders on this thread since 2013.

These are the ones Jabba wants to collect and offer-up to some pro SoT blog.

I'll be damned if I'm gonna do his homework for him, but his points are even worse than I recalled.
Click to expand...
Correct. Jabba is attempting to get everyone else to do the homework he could easily do himself. As far as I am concerned he can foxtrot oscar in that regard.
 
Hugh,

Welcome back. It's nice to have someone who genuinely would like to believe in the authenticity of the shroud, but is willing to look at evidence.

I'll confess that I have not been following the story that closely, but you are, I believe, a fairly important voice in current shroud study. How has your current stance been received by the rest of the community?

Also, thanks for bringing the Charles Freeman theory about the shroud being a Quem Quaeritis prop. It's an interesting proposition. Just off the top of my head, I'd suggest that if it had any relationship to the QQ, perhaps it was unfinished. I'd also suggest that perhaps it is a "cartoon" or template blueprint for other such props, much like this "cartoon" by Leonardo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virgin_and_Child_with_St_Anne_and_St_John_the_Baptist

Those are pure guesses on my part and perhaps they've already been considered and dismissed.

Again, welcome back.

Ward
 
Thanks, Wardenclyffe. I like the idea of an unfinished work better than the cartoon, given the quality of the cloth, which is particularly fine and required quite a complicated loom to make. Although (contrary to Catsmate's assertion above) this particular weave is vanishingly rare even in medieval times, a twill, herringbone or not, but particularly 3/1, seems to make a particularly good surface for painting on.

As for myself personally, there are certainly a few who think I'm the devil incarnate, but then, there are extremists on both sides, the foundation for whose belief is mostly that they once read a book and it seemed reasonable at the time. However, most of the contributions to shroudstory are very much evidence based, and primary evidence at that. It is no longer enough for anyone to say that Ian Wilson or Joe Nickell say this or that; their sources must be examined in detail, and they are rarely as conclusive as their supporters would like to believe. I'm not sure who "the rest of the community" are, but from their posts I think that I have mostly been received with generosity and respect, even when I have disagreed with their conclusions.
 
Craig4 said:
Jabba,
This is insurmountable. Organizing your points is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless you want to provide a dating method that gives a first century date, sorry not much to talk about.
Click to expand...
Craig4,
- I just still have my doubts about the carbon dating.
 
Slowvehicle said:
I have read what you have said about your treatment here, on at least one other site. I'll hunt it down, if you really, really want to face the false allegations of mistreatment you made...
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,
- Yeah. I, also, would like to see what I've said about you guys in the past...
 
I will expand my proposed table:

Table 1. Carbon dating.
Evidence for a 13/14th century date | Evidence for a 1st century date | Jabba says:
The carbon dating done in three independent labs dates the cloth to between 1260-1390|None|I have unexplained doubts about carbon dating
The banding precludes a patch|None|?

Table 2. Image.
Evidence for a 13/14th century date | Evidence for a 1st century date | Jabba says:
The figure is anatomically impossible|None|?
The face resembles the mediaeval concept of Jesus rather than a 1st century Jew from the Middle East| None|?

Table 3. ??

Perhaps you could fill in the gaps, Jabba, and say what you think the third table should be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom