Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I contend that the null should be because it is mainly not many of those are left intact to reach us. Not because it was a special piece of art.
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
I contend that the null should be because it is mainly not many of those are left intact to reach us. Not because it was a special piece of art.
I don't think we have a good null hypothesis here. It could be unique, or it could be a rare survivor of a common thing--or it could be a combination, or something else entirely. I think it is premature to start developing working hypotheses. Though we can reject it being >800 years old.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,362
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
I think that is exactly what Charles means, and I tend to agree with him.
Quite possibly. But finding another Quem Quaeritis 'shroud' would be very helpful, and there doesn't seem to be a single one, let alone 'not many'.
The body of Jesus was still covered in the shroud before he arose in South America on top of a pile of potatoes. Mormons for the win.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating Doubts
- So far, I can't find the appropriate links, but there seems to be significant doubt about the veracity of that letter. For one thing, I had read that the "letter" was never actually mailed -- it was more like a found "note."
Hugh,
- You must know about the claims against the "letter." What is your take?
Ward,
- So far, I can't find the appropriate links, but there seems to be significant doubt about the veracity of that letter. For one thing, I had read that the "letter" was never actually mailed -- it was more like a found "note."
Hugh,
- You must know about the claims against the "letter." What is your take?
Last edited:
So, again, you have no sources, after 20+ years of research, yet you are confident enough to discard the letter.
More importantly, you still offer no proof that the shroud is 2,000 years old.
Assume, for the moment, that the letter is not authentic. It does not advance your case in the slightest. The C14 dating can be mistaken (it's not); the letter be a fraud (it's not); the red on the shroud be actual blood (it's not); the proportions of the body be correct (they're not); the space between the front and back of the head be sufficient to allow a body (it's not); the alleged scourge marks be real (they're not); and the image be distorted as it would be if draped over a 3D person (it's not, and still you would have absolutely no evidence that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
Where is your evidence that it is 2000 years old?
I'd be curious as to your definition of "significant doubt". Do you doubt that Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote the memorandum, whether or not it was 'mailed'? Are you familiar with the conventions and practices of correspondence at the time, such as whether the sender would keep a copy? What do we know about the copy of the memorandum? How does any of this make the cloth any older than it actually is?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
There's a surprise.
For values of "significant doubt" which include "unsupportive of my beliefs".
And this affects its evidential value in what way?
One among many, at best.
I believe that we have been ignoring an important point: if Jesus was magically reborn, but the burial shroud remained behind, did he reappear nude? If so, did he have to steal a loincloth before he reappeared to his followers?
Perhaps instead he was wearing some clothes during his burial (even if the SofT image suggests not). If so, is there a loincloth with a magical image of Jesus somewhere around?
It has already been pointed out that the SofT image contains impossibly long arms. If the SofT is authentic, might Jesus have suffered from Marfan Syndrome? Jabba- can we rule this out (section 4.3.6.7)? Of course, I have no explanation for the unusually white skin and blue eyes for someone of the Middle East that are shown in many representation of Jesus- perhaps he had multiple genetic diseases.
Perhaps instead he was wearing some clothes during his burial (even if the SofT image suggests not). If so, is there a loincloth with a magical image of Jesus somewhere around?
It has already been pointed out that the SofT image contains impossibly long arms. If the SofT is authentic, might Jesus have suffered from Marfan Syndrome? Jabba- can we rule this out (section 4.3.6.7)? Of course, I have no explanation for the unusually white skin and blue eyes for someone of the Middle East that are shown in many representation of Jesus- perhaps he had multiple genetic diseases.
Letters from high-ranking officials aren't exactly one-off things; there would be multiple copies, sent to many people. Remembe, Europe in 1300 had no mass communication (bonus points for anyone who catches the reference 
). The only way to make these letters public is to send them to large numbers of people, and possibly have them read aloud in various places. Otherwise one's political enemies could simply burn the letter, and that'd be the end of it--something anyone with enough brain cells to form a synaps wouldn't allow!
Is there anything else--other than the refutation of the shroud's authenticity--that raises any questions about the validity of this letter?
). The only way to make these letters public is to send them to large numbers of people, and possibly have them read aloud in various places. Otherwise one's political enemies could simply burn the letter, and that'd be the end of it--something anyone with enough brain cells to form a synaps wouldn't allow! Is there anything else--other than the refutation of the shroud's authenticity--that raises any questions about the validity of this letter?
Very true. If the letter is proven to be false, it removes one argument against authenticity--but the others remain, and any one of them is sufficient to demolish the authenticity arguments.Garrette said:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Letters from high-ranking officials aren't exactly one-off things; there would be multiple copies, sent to many people. Remembe, Europe in 1300 had no mass communication (bonus points for anyone who catches the reference
Is there anything else--other than the refutation of the shroud's authenticity--that raises any questions about the validity of this letter?
Very true. If the letter is proven to be false, it removes one argument against authenticity--but the others remain, and any one of them is sufficient to demolish the authenticity arguments.
"Don'cha get me wrong; I only wanna know" when I get my bonus points. If they come today they'll only lead to elation...
Great show. I've never performed in it, but I have sung "Gethsemane" at a recital. Killed it, if I do say so myself.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
...I see what you did there...
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
Daniel Scavone, in 'Deconstructing the "Debunking" of the Shroud', brings all the evidence we have to the table, as it were. It consists of a number of letters, which seem to indicate a rather petty spat between two figures of some standing, each attempting to draw crowds, and revenue, from the other. Pope Clement is caught between these, and awkwardly attempts to placate both. De Charny may show his relic as long as he does not declare it the authentic burial shroud, and d'Arcis must stop bickering about it. This instruction precedes the famous 'memorandum' and may have been the reason why d'Arcis did not pursue it. Nevertheless he did write it, made copies, and asked for amendments. There is no reason to suppose he did not believe that what he wrote was true, and it may be that the artist was indeed known, at least to Bishop Henri if not to d'Arcis. If, however, it was created as a prop for something more important liturgically than a mere relic, namely an Easter reenactment, then there is no reason why it, and the priory containing it should not have been welcomed. In the 30 years between its appearance in about 1355 and its display in about 1385, something may have changed. Even if it is one among many Quem Quaeritis shrouds now lost, it is a superb creation far outweighing any contemporary depiction of Christ in design and (artistic) execution. Maybe people began to believe that this was the real thing (and who was de Charny to deny them their credulity) and maybe someone claimed it had caused a miracle, further attesting to its authenticity.
Is there any evidence for this? None whatever. It is merely a reasonable explanation as to why d"Arcis might have written his memorandum, believing it to be true, but not sent it. Without knowing rather more than I do about these Bishops, I think there is little that I can add that does not push speculation into fantasy.
Is there any evidence for this? None whatever. It is merely a reasonable explanation as to why d"Arcis might have written his memorandum, believing it to be true, but not sent it. Without knowing rather more than I do about these Bishops, I think there is little that I can add that does not push speculation into fantasy.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Tell me you're not looking for a 1390 postmark. Assuming it wasn't mailed, why would that discredit the contents? There are plenty of reasons one might write such a letter and not mail it. The fact that the highly (and I mean highly) lucrative pilgrimage trade could suffer jumps to mind. Churches and therefore bishops made bank off the pilgrims who came to pay to see Mary's veil, Jesus's foreskin, bits of the cross (though if you put all the bits of the cross together you'd have enough wood to crucify all of Rome). The CIQ would be the mother load of money making artifacts.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Remember, Europe in 1300 had no mass communication (bonus points for anyone who catches the reference
"If you'd come today you would have reached the whole nation:"
JCSS
Valid point, Messrs Webb and Rice.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating Doubts/Memorandum Fraud?
- Thanks.
- Ward had asked: Why is there a 1390 letter that declares it a forgery and that the forger confessed? I was trying to point out that there is some reasonable doubt about the memorandum Ward was referring to.
- I must have read Scavone's paper at some point, but can't currently find it. Do you have a link?
Hugh,
- Thanks.
- Ward had asked: Why is there a 1390 letter that declares it a forgery and that the forger confessed? I was trying to point out that there is some reasonable doubt about the memorandum Ward was referring to.
- I must have read Scavone's paper at some point, but can't currently find it. Do you have a link?
How about identifying what that reasonable doubt is?
How would that doubt make the cloth 2000 years old, instead of 600?
Even if it didn't by itself, it's reasonable to attempt to attack each argument against authenticity on its own; after all, he has to demolish all of them, because any one destroys his arguments.
Seconded. I frimly believe that Jabba would doubt God himself if God said "That's just a painting"--Jabba's doubt stems from the fact that the data supports the "wrong" answer, not from any facts about the data. But if he could at least provide some criteria, we could actually interpret the phrase meaningfully.
- Status