• 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.
I had a look at some previous comments in the thread.

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, and there is no record of a patch in that area Other patches are obvious and documented.|None|There might be an invisible, undocumented patch that just happened to be the bit of the cloth used for the carbon dating
The control samples were dated correctly, despite being blinded|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. Cloth.
Evidence for a 13/14th century date | Evidence for a 1st century date | Jabba says:
The weave is typical of 13/14th century cloth, and different from confirmed 1st century cloths|None|?

Table 4. Biblical evidence.
Evidence for a 13/14th century date | Evidence for a 1st century date | Jabba says:
The biblical description of the cloths used to wrap Jesus after the crucifixion does not match the shroud|None|?

Perhaps you could fill in the gaps where I've put a "?", Jabba, and propose any further 'sub-topics' that you think are relevant.
 
Last edited:
hugh farey said:
Greetings people! It's been a while since this thread petered out, so I'm glad you're all still here. There is something new to discuss, if any of you can bring any historical expertise to the subject.

Last Autumn Charles Freeman had an article published in History Today magazine (it's online, but although I was a full member of the randi forum I seem to have had to start all over again, so can't link to it yet!), claiming that the Shroud of Turin had started life as a painted liturgical prop for the re-enactment of the visitation of the holy women to the tomb of Jesus on Easter morning, a rite known as the Quem Quaeritis ceremony, which originated in churches and later spread outside as a mystery play. He gave lots of evidence that 'shrouds' consisting of images painted on linen were extremely common throughout Europe, although as far as we know not a single one remains today (unless the Shroud is one). He also suggests that the Shroud transmutated from 'well known old sheet used in a play' to 'genuine burial cloth of Christ' via some kind of miracle that may have been attributed to it, but there is no evidence for this.

On the surface this seems quite plausible, but a number of powerful objections have been raised. Firstly it seems impossible for a painting to have lost so much pigment so uniformly that not single flake is visible today (even if there is indeed a microscopic scattering of iron oxide as described by Water McCrone).

Secondly, although engravings of the expositions of the Shroud invariably show a well demarcated body, usually with a loincloth and sometimes wearing a crown of thorns, actual copies of the Shroud, of which earliest is from 1516 or so, often show the image as vague, amorphous and nude, much as it is today.

Thirdly, there is no evidence that the Shroud was associated with any miracles before it came to be venerated at Lirey in the 1350s.

Any ideas?

One more thing. There are a number of regular contributors to shroudstory.com who follow various other Shroud discussion sites, including this one. The good thing about shroudstory is that commenters are fairly evenly divided between pro- and non- authenticists, with varying degrees of commitment to their views, and some surprising expertise in the various different disciplines connected to the Shroud. It is not true that "they" have been invited to read this site and that "they" have refused, nor that, if any new points get raised here, they don't get discussed 'over there.' I think the last time this forum appeared on shroudstory was to discuss my finding a small extraneous thread in the radiocarbon sample (June 2013), which I first mentioned here. If anybody here has anything interesting to say about Charles Freeman's hypothesis, I have no doubt that will be discussed there as well.
Click to expand...
Hugh,

- My antics have finally done some good -- they brought you back.

- Just wanted to point out that you're probably not saying that "It is not true that "they" have been invited to read this site..." I think you're just saying that when they have been invited, they have not refused. Am I correct?
- Though, I do have to admit that some of them have refused...
 
Agatha said:
I had a look at some previous comments in the thread.

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, and there is no record of a patch in that area Other patches are obvious and documented.|None|There might be an invisible, undocumented patch that just happened to be the bit of the cloth used for the carbon dating
The control samples were dated correctly, despite being blinded|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. Cloth.
Evidence for a 13/14th century date | Evidence for a 1st century date | Jabba says:
The weave is typical of 13/14th century cloth, and different from confirmed 1st century cloths|None|?

Table 4. Biblical evidence.
Evidence for a 13/14th century date | Evidence for a 1st century date | Jabba says:
The biblical description of the cloths used to wrap Jesus after the crucifixion does not match the shroud|None|?

Perhaps you could fill in the gaps where I've put a "?", Jabba, and propose any further 'sub-topics' that you think are relevant.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Thanks -- this is the sort of thing I need.
- As to filling in the blanks right now -- sorry, but that would take me a long time, and I already can't keep up with things, even with my short answers... If you went over to theshroudstory.com and posted your table, you should get your blanks filled in -- except, that they won't know my answers.
 
Jabba said:
Hugh,

[...]

- Just wanted to point out that you're probably not saying that "It is not true that "they" have been invited to read this site..." I think you're just saying that when they have been invited, they have not refused. Am I correct [...]
Click to expand...

It looks like you are trying to put words in other people's mouth.

Do you have any evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Thanks -- this is the sort of thing I need.
- As to filling in the blanks right now -- sorry, but that would take me a long time, and I already can't keep up with things, even with my short answers... If you went over to theshroudstory.com and posted your table, you should get your blanks filled in -- except, that they won't know my answers.
Click to expand...

Jabba,

You said you were going to do that. If not, and if you continually refuse to defend your claims, what's the point of you coming back to this thread?
 
No, Jabba. I posted the tables as an aid to you, as you appeared to want the arguments organised coherently. If you are unwilling or unable to put a few minutes work in so that you can "score" them, or whatever it is you want to do with the topics, that's fine, but I am not your homework elf.

I am as certain as I need to be that the 'shroud' is a magnificent piece of mediaeval art, and have no interest in hearing the special pleading on another site.
 
John Jones said:
Jabba,

Do you have any evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old?

Wondering
Click to expand...
As pointed out earlier in this thread: there's evidence that it is not from the time and place of Jesus' death, even assuming the truth of the NT account of these events.

Because a real shroud from that period was discovered in 2009, and it in no way resembles the Turin object. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Christs-crucifixion-caves-near-Jerusalem.html
Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem's Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud.
Click to expand...
 
Craig4 said:
Do you have evidence regarding problems with the carbon dating? Doubts count for nothing.
Click to expand...
Craig4,
- Yes. But, it will take me awhile to come up with a list. Right now, I'm trying to make a list of evidence supporting the carbon dating. Craig B just provided a good example of support:

"Because a real shroud from that period was discovered in 2009, and it in no way resembles the Turin object. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Jerusalem.html"
 
Last edited:
hugh farey said:
...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.
Click to expand...
Hugh,
- Just wanted to make sure that no one misses that opinion.
 
Jabba said:
Craig4,
- Yes. But, it will take me awhile to come up with a list. Right now, I'm trying to make a list of evidence supporting the carbon dating. Craig B just provided a good example of support:

"Because a real shroud from that period was discovered in 2009, and it in no way resembles the Turin object. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Jerusalem.html"
Click to expand...
I first referred to this a very long time ago, in fact.

If you trawl old posts you'll come across lots of material useful to your project; but if you have some valid scientific reason for rejecting the carbon dating, it would be most helpful if you presented it. As it stands the dating is conclusive and needs no further support.
 
hugh farey said:
...One more thing. There are a number of regular contributors to shroudstory.com who follow various other Shroud discussion sites, including this one. The good thing about shroudstory is that commenters are fairly evenly divided between pro- and non- authenticists, with varying degrees of commitment to their views, and some surprising expertise in the various different disciplines connected to the Shroud...
Click to expand...
- I agree with Hugh.
 
Craig B said:
I first referred to this a very long time ago, in fact.

If you trawl old posts you'll come across lots of material useful to your project; but if you have some valid scientific reason for rejecting the carbon dating, it would be most helpful if you presented it. As it stands the dating is conclusive and needs no further support.
Click to expand...
Craig B,
- There are a lot of credible scientists that disagree. Awhile back, I was reminded of the age gradient found in the sample. It could have been Hugh that reminded shroudstory.com that as the specific samples receded from the edge, they got older readings.
 
hugh farey said:
There are a number of regular contributors to shroudstory.com who follow various other Shroud discussion sites, including this one. The good thing about shroudstory is that commenters are fairly evenly divided between pro- and non- authenticists, with varying degrees of commitment to their views, and some surprising expertise in the various different disciplines connected to the Shroud.
Click to expand...
Does this remark suggest expertise in the relevant discipline?
It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair ... But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
Click to expand...
(Dan Porter) What evidence suggests that? He doesn't bother giving us any detail. And if half the thread in the samples is mediaeval, which seems impossible to me to have passed unnoticed by the testers, then the result would not show a wholly mediaeval date, would it?

All this has been discussed here in the very greatest detail, and shroudstory is still churning out such tosh, without addressing the obvious objections to its credibility.
 
Last edited:
Those who still adhere to the interweave theory think that the interwoven threads are from much later, say the 16th or 17th century, and in sufficient proportion to shift the Shroud date from the 1st to the 14th century. This requires about 60-70% of the sample to be interwoven. The precise details for this, with references and sources, have been given many times at shroudstory. Dan's personal statement is one of belief, not a proselysation nor a scientific explanation, nor does it need to be.

Dan Porter has never pretended to be an expert in any particular aspect of the Shroud and rarely makes extra comments of his own after his initial posts. However he is absolutely invaluable to shroud studies by his careful, impartial and tolerant management of his blog, and his seeming to discover every single mention of the shroud wherever it crops up and notifying his readers to save us the bother.
 
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