Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
hugh farey said:
It is a common complaint of authenticists that non-authenticists have been unable to produce a copy that exactly matches all the characteristics of the Shroud. They use this as evidence the Shroud is authentic. Is does not do any harm now and again to reflect their views in a non-authenticist mirror, and say that as authenticists cannot explain how an image could have arisen from a shrouded corpse, that (by their own reasoning) is itself evidence that the Shroud is not authentic.

It's a little petty, but, once in a while....
Click to expand...

The Burden of Proof, sir. Where does it lie?
 
JJ, I'm not sure what you gain by endlessly repeating: "Where is the evidence of this being a 2000 year old shroud?" Jabba seems to have retired for a while, and rest of us have better things to think about. If you want to have a fight with some Shroudies you'll have to find a different site, where people still defend the authenticist evidence.
 
I find the Shroud of Turin thing fascinating because nowhere, not in the gospels, not in the official of any major church, not any of the hundreds of quasi-accepted Fan Fictions of Christianity is any mythical or supernatural importance to Jesus' burial shroud. There's no line in the Bible "And then lou did the cloth contain the image of the Savior" or anything.

Same with the Holy Grail. Just some... random thing that existed in the story of Jesus suddenly having it's own plot line and power set apropos of nothing.

It's like the scene in Superman II where he rips his chest insignia and throws it at Zod.
 
hugh farey said:
JJ, I'm not sure what you gain by endlessly repeating: "Where is the evidence of this being a 2000 year old shroud?" Jabba seems to have retired for a while, and rest of us have better things to think about. If you want to have a fight with some Shroudies you'll have to find a different site, where people still defend the authenticist evidence.
Click to expand...


Hugh, I think it's obvious why I ask the critical question: Where is the evidence for a 2,000 year old Shroud of Turin?

Are you someone else's authorized spokesperson or something? If you think there is an improper or irrelevant question in my posts, report me for some MA violation.

I don't understand your sudden petulance. Has ignoring me suddenly become impossible?

Do you have any evidence for a 2,000 year old shroud? If not, what else matters?
 
Last edited:
No, it's not obvious. Not to me, anyway. I can speculate that you are hoping for a reply from an authenticist so that you can either shoot it down or be suddenly converted, but there seems to be only one likely respondent, and you are already very familiar with the response you are likely to receive from him. There's nothing improper or irrelevant in your question; it just seems pointless, so I wonder why you do it. Not petulant, just curious.
 
John Jones said:
Hugh, I think it's obvious why I ask the critical question: Where is the evidence for a 2,000 year old Shroud of Turin?

Are you someone else's authorized spokesperson or something? If you think there is an improper or irrelevant question in my posts, report me for some MA violation.

I don't understand your sudden petulance. Has ignoring me suddenly become impossible?

Do you have any evidence for a 2,000 year old shroud? If not, what else matters?
Click to expand...

I think what matters at this point is trying to figure out just what this Shroud actually was. The answer to the request for evidence of antiquity is that there isn't any, otherwise it would have been presented long ago. I think most of us get that, and persisting with this question is mildly disruptive and seems to serve no constructive purpose at this point.

I find the question of the true provenance of the Shroud an interesting one that should not need to rely on anyone's prejudices. With Charles Freeman's assistance, there just might be a convincing answer for those wondering about its origins.
 
Olowkow said:
I think what matters at this point is trying to figure out just what this Shroud actually was. The answer to the request for evidence of antiquity is that there isn't any, otherwise it would have been presented long ago. I think most of us get that, and persisting with this question is mildly disruptive and seems to serve no constructive purpose at this point.
Click to expand...

It is the only pertinent response to the question of authenticity, which keeps coming up these last 3 years or so.

If someone wants to discuss the actual origins of this shroud, I have done nothing to inhibit such.
 
John Jones said:
It is the only pertinent response to the question of authenticity, which keeps coming up these last 3 years or so.

If someone wants to discuss the actual origins of this shroud, I have done nothing to inhibit such.
Click to expand...

As long as one voice, any voice, is raised claiming that the CIQ "might" be the "True ShroudTM, you ask a question that deserves an answer.


The nature and provenance of the manifestly medieval CIQ is also interesting, but does not change the fact that there is no evidence at all of the CIQ actually being used to wrap a crucified person (much less a crucified person in the 1st century CE).
 
Last edited:
hugh farey said:
No, it's not obvious. Not to me, anyway. I can speculate that you are hoping for a reply from an authenticist so that you can either shoot it down or be suddenly converted, but there seems to be only one likely respondent, and you are already very familiar with the response you are likely to receive from him. There's nothing improper or irrelevant in your question; it just seems pointless, so I wonder why you do it. Not petulant, just curious.
Click to expand...
I suspect that authenticism is the cloaked agenda. Just JAQing Off is well known behaviour of many fringe proponents.
 
hugh farey said:
No, it's not obvious. Not to me, anyway. I can speculate that you are hoping for a reply from an authenticist so that you can either shoot it down or be suddenly converted, but there seems to be only one likely respondent, and you are already very familiar with the response you are likely to receive from him. There's nothing improper or irrelevant in your question; it just seems pointless, so I wonder why you do it. Not petulant, just curious.
Click to expand...

It is most obvious. If there is no evidence to be presented that the tablecloth is 2,000 years old then the authenticists have no argument to bring to the table. This is not rocket magic.
 
Olowkow said:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/0...tive-marketing/video/playlists/finding-jesus/
Finding Jesus
Sunday at 9:00 ET on CNN. It's John Jackson from the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado. He is one of the original STurP people.

The Shroud is still a moneymaker. One speaker in the trailer said, "If the Shroud is authentic, it proves the existence of Jesus." What a claim! Does that mean that if it is not authentic, Jesus did not exist?
Click to expand...

If you take "authentic" to mean "2000 years old," there seems to be a dead short* between that and the conclusion, since it proves no such thing, only (at most) that it could be the burial shroud of some unidentified crucified man.

If, OTOH, "authentic" means "a miracle!" and "Jesus" means "the guy who did the miracle," then you do have a completed circuit, but an impossible and useless one, since there's no way to tell which end is the power source. What good is a circuit that can never be interrupted?

*ETA- as an electrician, I feel compelled to admit that this hastily chosen metaphor is, in fact, the direct opposite of the right one, but...meh. Close enough for religion...
 
Last edited:
Charles Freeman said:
I am sorry that my History Today article once freely available on the web has now been placed behind a pay wall but I can summarise my argument.
Click to expand...

I found your article some time ago and had been planning on posting these links earlier if the thread was ever revived, but I'm glad the author has joined the forum!

I believe this link is to the original article to which you refer. And yes, it's behind a paywall:

http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin

But using the fabulous wayback machine, I get this link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141217...oday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin

...which looks complete and can be read in full. Interesting reading! It also address a question asked earlier about the artistic changes in modesty (most notably loincloths added) as another way to pin down a timeline.

Hope that helps!
 
Last edited:
BirdyBuddy said:
I found your article some time ago and had been planning on posting these links earlier if the thread was ever revived, but I'm glad the author has joined the forum!

I believe this link is to the original article to which you refer. And yes, it's behind a paywall:

http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin

But using the fabulous wayback machine, I get this link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141217...oday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin

...which looks complete and can be read in full. Interesting reading! It also address a question asked earlier about the artistic changes in modesty (most notably loincloths added) as another way to pin down a timeline.

Hope that helps!
Click to expand...


Thank you! And of course, thank you, Charles, for contributing in the thread. It's already more interesting than it has been for a very long time.
 
John Jones said:
It's not "aimed" at Hugh. It was in reply to his post.
Click to expand...

You're asking him:
John Jones said:
Show us some supporting evidence that the SoT is the true shroud without delay or equivocation, or I shall rightly assume that you have none.
Click to expand...
In response to a post where he said:

hugh farey said:
"And why do you think that there are "sides" in this discussion?"

In some discussions people work together in search of a truth that neither fully owns. In others the participants have opposite opinions, and try to change their opponents' minds to concur with their own. I think it reasonable for these to be called the two sides of the discussion; here, on the one hand, we have Jabba, who would like to convince us of the authenticity of the Shroud, and on the other we have many who would like to convince Jabba that it is of medieval origin. For the medievalists, the principal evidence is the carbon-dating, which, in spite of the minutest examination, has yet to be refuted in my mind, and for Jabba, well, difficult to say what, if I were his attorney, I would lead his case with. Probably an examination of the depiction of the body of Christ over the 12th-14th centuries and an attempt to demonstrate that the evolution of its design depended on a full length, naked, crossed-hands, blood spotted original, which I would suggest was the Shroud arriving in Europe from Constantinople in 1205 or so. Possibly I would use the pollen, the limestone and the vanillin as cumulative evidence. I would however be aware that if the medievalist attorney was as good as myself, he would be able to discredit all these in front of the jury, while I would not be able to budge him on the radiocarbon evidence one bit.
Click to expand...

Hugh is not making any sort of claim for the authenticity of the shroud; quite the opposite, in fact. Yet you continue to badger him as if he was supporting Jabba.

Check your PMs.
Click to expand...
There's nothing here that requires discussion by PM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom