Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still don't understand why the shroud's validity matters so much. It's such a little thing.

If you need Jesus to be real, swell. His existence isn't resting on the truth of the damn shroud. It's a mere folk story. It's definitely not worth the massive conspiracies and cover-ups that keep getting proposed. Plenty of Christians don't even give it a second thought. Why is it such a big deal here?
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/Sample Not Representative

- From: http://www.internationalskeptics.co...=9407195&highlight=trace+elements#post9407195

Tim,

- I've tried to answer your question twice before: 8530 and 8770. I don't understand what's wrong with my answers...

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached). But then, my Dad told me to "never give up" -- and while I have at times decided to concede on something that I'm attempting, I do tend to be stubborn and forever hopeful. And so far, I still think I'm the better man in this fight...
- So far, as I recall, I've lost rounds on "trace elements," "serum clot retraction rings," "banding" and probably more (but then, these might need to be reopened) -- and, if you guys can show me that the stains are not blood, I will, in fact, cease and desist...
- But then, I keep remembering all those times that I've misplaced something in the house, swearing that there's a black hole in our house, only to find the lost item staring me in the face (in our house) sometime later... Whatever, I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.

- Unfortunately, the old thread seems to contain most of the relevant action. In the sample above, I admit to lost -- or, at least weak -- rounds... These would be integral to the diagram/map I'd like to construct.
 
Jabba said:
Ward,
- I have been looking -- just not finding...
- Do you remember the name of the book, the re-weaving company or the owner?
- Otherwise, I have very little "spare" time and I'm slow anyway... Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...



One wonders upon what possible basis are founded your claims of having "studied" the Shroud of Turin.

To put it more bluntly, if there was ever a contest to discover who had learned the least from the discussion of the shroud which has taken place in this forum, you'd be a hands-down winner.
 
Why Authenticity Important

isissxn said:
I still don't understand why the shroud's validity matters so much. It's such a little thing.

If you need Jesus to be real, swell. His existence isn't resting on the truth of the damn shroud. It's a mere folk story. It's definitely not worth the massive conspiracies and cover-ups that keep getting proposed. Plenty of Christians don't even give it a second thought. Why is it such a big deal here?
Click to expand...
isissxn,
- It's a long story. Here's the tip.
- So far, I think that there is a lot more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- though, not enough to make me actually "believe in" him.
- I would like to believe in him (I think it's a functional belief), and a scientific/rational consensus in the shrouds favor would go a long way towards that end...
- So far, I believe that mainstream science is missing at least a big piece of our puzzle. I think that "scientifically speaking," the world is "magical." I don't think that mainstream science has a clue in regard to consciousness --and, especially, in regard to individual consciousness ("selves")...
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
isissxn,
- It's a long story. Here's the tip.
- So far, I think that there is a lot more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- though, not enough to make me actually "believe in" him.
- I would like to believe in him (I think it's a functional belief), and a scientific/rational consensus in the shrouds favor would go a long way towards that end...
- So far, I believe that mainstream science is missing at least a big piece of our puzzle. I think that "scientifically speaking," the world is "magical." I don't think that mainstream science has a clue in regard to consciousness --and, especially, in regard to individual consciousness ("selves")...
Click to expand...


Please link the Dear Lady to those pages on your website which discuss "magic". It will, I'm sure, answer all of her questions.
 
Jabba said:
- Here’s my best guess, so far, at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".

- We have assumed that the sample had been closely examined microscopically prior to the cutting, but it hadn’t. The “tiny” corner used for the sample had nothing more than a naked eye examination. And, the re-weave was not visible to the naked eye.
Click to expand...


How do people equipped with nothing more than their naked eyes accomplish a reweaving which is invisible to the naked eye?
 
Jabba said:
isissxn,
- It's a long story. Here's the tip.
- So far, I think that there is a lot more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- though, not enough to make me actually "believe in" him.
- I would like to believe in him (I think it's a functional belief), and a scientific/rational consensus in the shrouds favor would go a long way towards that end...
- So far, I believe that mainstream science is missing at least a big piece of our puzzle. I think that "scientifically speaking," the world is "magical." I don't think that mainstream science has a clue in regard to consciousness --and, especially, in regard to individual consciousness ("selves")...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I also think you've got it backwards. It's my understanding that religion and whatever "magic" surrounds it is, by its very intrinsic nature, beyond science. It must be taken on faith. If there was a scientific consensus to reassure people, there wouldn't be so much god damn turmoil in the world over religion.

You're saying you want a scientific consensus so you can maybe get yourself to believe in something that can't be explained by science. That ain't happenin', whether Jesus was a real dude or not (and he probably wasn't).
 
Jabba said:
isissxn,
- So far, I think that there is a lot more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye --
Click to expand...

If i got 1 cent for every time a woo told me the same things about UFO/9-11 CT/bigfoot/reptilian people/chemtrail/etc...etc...

I guess belong to a quite happy and diverse group. You should make a convention out of it.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I have assumed that there was some repair done on the sample.
Click to expand...


I have assumed that there wasn't.

What makes your assumption better than mine?



Jabba said:
The problem, from my side, is that there appears to be so little of it -- not nearly enough to account for 1300 years.
Click to expand...


Surely this shouldn't be a problem. Why not just assume that there is?



Jabba said:
- Didn't FL say that there wasn't any repair?
Click to expand...


You don't remember?
 
Slowvehicle said:
And here is the crux of the problem.

Q: Why is it that you assume there was some repair done?

A: Because you need there to be a problem with the 14C dating.

Your assumption is supported by no other evidence.
Click to expand...

Much worse than that: if no one ever checked if there was a repair on the sample, then Jabba's assumption would be supported by no other evidence. In fact, it was checked to see if the patch was part of a repair, and shown not to be. Thus Jabba's assumption is disproven by the evidence,
 
Giordano said:
Much worse than that: if no one ever checked if there was a repair on the sample, then Jabba's assumption would be supported by no other evidence. In fact, it was checked to see if the patch was part of a repair, and shown not to be. Thus Jabba's assumption is disproven by the evidence,
Click to expand...

One step at a time...

:D
 
Jabba said:
- From: http://www.internationalskeptics.co...=9407195&highlight=trace+elements#post9407195

Tim,

- I've tried to answer your question twice before: 8530 and 8770. I don't understand what's wrong with my answers...

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached). But then, my Dad told me to "never give up" -- and while I have at times decided to concede on something that I'm attempting, I do tend to be stubborn and forever hopeful. And so far, I still think I'm the better man in this fight...- So far, as I recall, I've lost rounds on "trace elements," "serum clot retraction rings," "banding" and probably more (but then, these might need to be reopened) -- and, if you guys can show me that the stains are not blood, I will, in fact, cease and desist...
- But then, I keep remembering all those times that I've misplaced something in the house, swearing that there's a black hole in our house, only to find the lost item staring me in the face (in our house) sometime later... Whatever, I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.

- Unfortunately, the old thread seems to contain most of the relevant action. In the sample above, I admit to lost -- or, at least weak -- rounds... These would be integral to the diagram/map I'd like to construct.
Click to expand...

(Highlight) Except you keep losing, even by your own admission, and claim to not remember where your arguments or "evidence" might be, which is why you can't post them now. All you have is the vague remembering that somewhere you might have left convincing evidence, sort of like your keys, somewhere around the house.

You appear to recognize that the new thread is worse than (in fact, further undermining) your arguments in the old thread. So spend the time to privately get better organized (it should be fun for you, if your own description of enjoying organizing arguments is true) until you can come back and present a stronger-still argument.
 
Jabba said:
isissxn,
- It's a long story. Here's the tip.
- So far, I think that there is a lot more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- though, not enough to make me actually "believe in" him.
- I would like to believe in him (I think it's a functional belief), and a scientific/rational consensus in the shrouds favor would go a long way towards that end...
- So far, I believe that mainstream science is missing at least a big piece of our puzzle. I think that "scientifically speaking," the world is "magical." I don't think that mainstream science has a clue in regard to consciousness --and, especially, in regard to individual consciousness ("selves")...
Click to expand...

I fear that if your belief in the divinity of Jesus (and resurrection?) is uncertain and depends on the authenticity of the Shroud, then you have hooked your train to a disfunctional engine. If you want to believe in the divinity of Jesus, then linking it to the authenticity of the Shroud will only lead to your bitter disappointment in both.

If for some reason you really have this need to believe in the biblical story of Jesus, then you really should seek other confirmation, perhaps internal. Talk to a priest or preacher to find out other ways of strengthening your need to believe, and abandon your linkage of this belief to the discredited (and ultimately peripheral) Shroud.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Well, see, if you assume that there is an invisible patch there, then that creates reasonable doubt about the validity of the date.
Click to expand...

It would be easier to assume that the magical radiation generated by Jesus's rebirth caused (somehow) more 14C to appear in the Shroud, thus making the radiological date seem more recent than "its real date" of ~30 AD. Frankly, it is invoking magic either way.
 
Craig4 said:
And the people making the repair did so on the edge of the fabric but did complete hack jobs on the more prominent sections.
Click to expand...


Good point, but this has been discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseam for months and years. Do we really need to go over everything yet again because of one guy's faulty memory?

Jabba, I'm sorry you have problems remembering things. We'll all face similar issues, I'm sure. But if you do, I don't think you can expect to be able to conduct online arguments like you are attempting to. It is just a waste of time for everyone trying to retread discussions held months or years ago.

Do you have anything new to bring to the discussion, after all these years? That would be refreshing. :)
 
Last edited:
Keep it civil, folks. Please bear in mind rule 12 in particular.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom