Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
pgwenthold said:
Yeah, you would think. However, Jabba has admitted that he needs the shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ to validate his faith. How it can validate his faith while contradicting the bible is something I never understood.
Click to expand...

What's even more amazing is that even after that admission he still doesn't see that it invalidates his entire argument.
 
Belz... said:
Ooh, ooh ! Can you expand on that ?
Click to expand...

Why would a piece of linen, ostensibly used as a shroud with which to enfold (not wrap--look at the image) a freshly-dead and washed corpse have been treated with the method by which linen is prevented from absorbing liquids into its fibers? (a method, BTW, commonly used on medieval cloth paintings, to prevent the paints and pigments from soaking into, and feathering through, the linen...)
 
hugh farey said:
Whenever somebody of one opinion wants to denigrate the opinion of somebody else, they often accuse their opponents of ignoring contrary evidence. So far on this page, Jabba has accused supporters of the radiocarbon dating of "ignoring any other evidence" and jond has accused Jabba of ignoring Catsmate's evidence. I do not know how carefully Jabba has studied Catsmate's list, reproduced by jond above, but I do know that I, a supporter of the radiocarbon date, have studied all the evidence put forward against it in extreme detail, and found it wanting. I have also explained where I find it wanting. The last thing I can be accused of is ignoring it. I do not think that any conviction, however solid, justifies the ignoring of contrary evidence, partly because one must always reserve room for a tiny element of uncertainty, and partly because, if it fails to convince, it often has the effect of strengthening the conviction it set out to weaken.
Click to expand...

The thing is, this has all been gone through an infinite number of times, and not once has Jabba ever provided an answer for any of those numerous items. Nor has he responded to the oft stated issue that even if you could somehow get the date to 2k years old, you still have nothing that would be evidence of whose shroud it is, let alone that of a guy whose existence is far from certain. As near as I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever in favor of "authenticity" (specifically that it's the burial shroud of Jesus). All that has ever been presented is reasons to doubt the dating.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Why would a piece of linen, ostensibly used as a shroud with which to enfold (not wrap--look at the image) a freshly-dead and washed corpse have been treated with the method by which linen is prevented from absorbing liquids into its fibers? (a method, BTW, commonly used on medieval cloth paintings, to prevent the paints and pigments from soaking into, and feathering through, the linen...)
Click to expand...

I don't know. I never heard about this issue before, which is why I want you to fill my brain with data.
 
zooterkin said:
Can you name them? Or, more importantly, present the evidence that supports their conclusion?
Click to expand...

Just highlighting this question, which has appeared multiple times even recently, but without a response yet. Can you name even 5, and specifically describe their reasons for their conclusions?

And if you intend to cite anyone who has already been debunked in this thread, perhaps you will include the reasons that you disagree with the debunking. Something more concrete than "Well, I need to believe that there are reasons to doubt the scientific data, even if it means rejecting multiple independent studies done by different people in different areas. Even if it involves rejecting historical documents and the beliefs of the leaders of the Church that owns the Shroud. Somehow, the scientific data just doesn't sound convincing to me."

Perhaps you should research your statements before you make them; this would at least provide a foundation for your argument, rather than the current vacuum of real information.
 
Jabba said:
- Somewhere, back in time, I asked if there was anyone in this thread who didn't believe that the carbon dating effectively closed the case. (Those are not the words I used, but they are the gist.)
- As I recall a lot of respondents told me that they believed that the dating trumped the rest, and that there was no need to further consider any other evidence. No one told me the opposite.

- For whatever reasons, I can't find any of that in the archives. Am I making this up? Can someone re-direct me?
- Does anyone here think that the dating is not enough to justify concluding that the shroud is a medieval fraud?
Click to expand...

The carbon dating is the strongest objective evidence that the CIQ is medieval. There is no evidence that the sampled area is not representative of the whole cloth. A textile expert, so highly respected in her field that she was selected by the Vatican to examine the cloth, verified that the sample area was representative of the greater cloth. Photographic evidence agrees that the sample area is representative of the greater cloth, showing banding that is continuous and consistent with the presumption that the sample area was produced on the loom along with the greater cloth.

There has been no evidence produced in this thread that a patch or repair has been made to the sample area, nor that such an undetectable craft has ever been devised by man.

There also has been no evidence produced that supports the premise that the CIQ is from the first century CE. Do you have any of that?
 
Giordano said:
Just highlighting this question, which has appeared multiple times even recently, but without a response yet. Can you name even 5, and specifically describe their reasons for their conclusions?
Click to expand...

There is that one guy that had access to a few fibers and used a non-standard (to say the least (unprecedented is a better description)) dating approach using equipment in his kitchen. I think he gets listed among the "credible scholars"
 
Dinwar said:
Honestly, to my mind the C14 dating is increasingly unimportant. It's a nice trump card, but it's completely unnecessary. The fact that one cannot accept the shroud as authentic without committing heresy is, to my mind, the key issue--in as much as it is evidence that both believers and non-believers in Christ's divinity can accept. It's actually obligatory for anyone who believes the Bible to reject the shroud's authenticity--accepting the shroud of Turin as authentic is to declare the Bible in error, and therefore to destroy the value of the shroud! After that, the rest of the data merely pinpoint the history of the cloth. The heretical aspects of it prove it cannot be the cloth described in the Bible, which means it cannot be the burial shroud of Christ, which means it cannot be authentic by definition.
Click to expand...
In all of the different accounts in the gospels and other related writings detailing the discovery that Jesus had been resurrected, you'd think that somebody would have mentioned the fact that there was this spectacular and miraculous image of Jesus imprinted on the burial cloth that was left behind. Yet there is not a single mention of such a miraculous thing in any writings. I would've thought that such an amazing discovery would have merited some kind of mention by at least one of the many witnesses who visited the empty tomb of Jesus. I wonder if Jabba ever ponders logical conundrums such as this and the many other ones that other posters have suggested in this thread.
 
Pope130 said:
Jabba,
How did any bias on the part of the scientists involved result in incorrect dates for the test sample and correct dates for the control sample when the test operators did not know which sample was which?
Click to expand...

Excerpt from the Nature article which shows that the laboratories perfectly knew how to identify the test samples. This does however not mean that they have manipuled the results of the tests. Furthermore two of the laboratories took measures to prevent the staff in charge of the measurements to be able to identify the test sample.

The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. If the samples had been unravelled or shredded rather than being given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth, then it would have been much more difficult, but not impossible, to distinguish the shroud sample from the controls. (With unravelled or shredded samples, pretreatment cleaning would have been more difficult and wasteful.) Because the shroud had been exposed to a wide range of potential sources of contamination and because of the uniqueness of the samples available, it was decided to abandon blind-test procedures in the interests of effective sample pretreatment. But the three laboratories undertook not to compare results until after they had been transmitted to the British Museum. Also, at two laboratories (Oxford and Zurich), after combustion to gas, the samples were recoded so that the staff making the measurements did not know the identity of the samples.
Click to expand...
 
It's OK, failing memory means that the "final" nail will work its way out in 5, 4, 3, 2... and we're back to having "reasonable doubt" in anything that disproves the TTC is the genuine burial cloth of JC (hot or not?)
 
Last edited:
Carbon Dating Doubts/Case Closed?

Jabba said:
...
- For now, I’ll just address the claim that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence...
Click to expand...
hugh farey said:
I don't know of any non-authenticists who make that claim. On the contrary, those I know well have studied the counter-evidence in much greater detail than many authenticists, but have found it wanting.
Click to expand...
Jabba said:
Hugh,
- Our words seem to be passing in the night...
- I would call the others on this thread "non-authenticists," and would see them as (all) claiming "that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence."
Click to expand...
hugh farey said:
Whenever somebody of one opinion wants to denigrate the opinion of somebody else, they often accuse their opponents of ignoring contrary evidence. So far on this page, Jabba has accused supporters of the radiocarbon dating of "ignoring any other evidence" and jond has accused Jabba of ignoring Catsmate's evidence. I do not know how carefully Jabba has studied Catsmate's list, reproduced by jond above, but I do know that I, a supporter of the radiocarbon date, have studied all the evidence put forward against it in extreme detail, and found it wanting. I have also explained where I find it wanting. The last thing I can be accused of is ignoring it. I do not think that any conviction, however solid, justifies the ignoring of contrary evidence, partly because one must always reserve room for a tiny element of uncertainty, and partly because, if it fails to convince, it often has the effect of strengthening the conviction it set out to weaken.
Click to expand...
Hugh,
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what you're saying. I think you're saying that, for you, the carbon dating wasn't perfect, and though it doesn't really close the case for shroud authenticity, it almost does.
- Re my claim about the non-authenticitists on this thread -- I have not claimed that they have ignored any other evidence. I have claimed, instead, that most, if not all, have said 1) the carbon dating closes the case, and 2) the other evidence supports non-authenticism anyway.
- Do you disagree with what I have claimed?
 
Jabba said:
I think you're saying that, for you, the carbon dating wasn't perfect, and though it doesn't really close the case for shroud authenticity, it almost does.
Click to expand...
Close enough, although not terribly well worded. The metaphor of the 'closed case' is inappropriate to science. In my opinion none of the objections raised to the medieval radiocarbon date, singly or together, amount to sufficient evidence to discredit it.

Jabba said:
I have not claimed that [non-authenticists] have ignored any other evidence.
Click to expand...
Really? Then who was this referring to? "The claim that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence." Or are you saying that although non-authenticists think ignoring other evidence is justified, they don't ignore it? That may be true.

Jabba said:
I have claimed, instead, that most, if not all, have said 1) the carbon dating closes the case, and 2) the other evidence supports non-authenticism anyway. Do you disagree with what I have claimed?
Click to expand...
I think you've got that bit correct.
 
Jabba. Stop worrying about the evidence for "authenticity "or "non-authenticity." Just present your evidence that the tablecloth in question is 2000 years old. Go
 
Jabba said:
Zoo,
- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?
Click to expand...
Name them. With qualifications, citations, details of the tests allegedly carried out, the results of said tests and their methodology.

pgwenthold said:
Actually, my goal in posting Catsmate's evidence was to counter the claim that we only look at the 14C data and don't consider any other evidence. In fact, Catsmate says explicitly that it doesn't depend any one factor.

Even without the 14C data the evidence is clear.
Click to expand...
Exactly. the radiocarbon dating is one element, an important, even decisive, one, but the agreement of all the data with a medieval dating is the real clincher.

The shroud is not a 2,000 year old Jewish burial shroud of Middle Eastern origin.
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/Two Counts

Jabba said:
...
- Re my claim about the non-authenticitists on this thread -- I have not claimed that they have ignored any other evidence. I have claimed, instead, that most, if not all, have said 1) the carbon dating closes the case, and 2) the other evidence supports non-authenticism anyway...
Click to expand...
hugh farey said:
Really? Then who was this referring to? "The claim that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence." Or are you saying that although non-authenticists think ignoring other evidence is justified, they don't ignore it? That may be true...
Click to expand...
Hugh,
- That is what I'm saying.
- I disagree with their position on both counts -- but, I think it is best to deal with only one of these counts at a time, so I'm trying to show why I think that the carbon dating is not reliable enough to conclude that nothing else need be considered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom