Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Dinwar]

Very good, and if I were in the 14th century, I might try something like this. But I would use a cadaver too.

Again, that time period believed that punishment should be as public as possible--dead guys were hard to NOT come by, by design. If they wanted to make the shroud look accurate, they could have easiliy found one to use.

Good point! Crucifixions often resulted in dislocations. ~Poster 3

Name three archaeological sites that include victims of curcifixion. I know of one. I haven't looked in too much depth, but the blog Bone Girl is run by an archaeologist (she started it during her PhD studies) and she knows of one. What that means is that this "argument" is merely more wishful thinking. It makes sense, but there's no data to support it.

Now maybe if I am lucky I could spent thousands of man hours too going through all these proofs/disproofs, reading books on the subject, and finally coming to a strong conclusion one way or the other, which would be nice.

It takes about ten, if you have any background in science. I came into this knowing nothing about the shroud, and now feel comfortable that I at least know the basics.

From the anti-shroudies, I suppose what I am looking for is some almost indisputable disproof like the corpse's penis being uncircumcised or else someone being able to make a reproduction of the cloth so successfully that I could not tell the difference.

There's a very serious difference in the quality of evidence you demand of the folks arguing against authenticity and those arguing for it. Anti-authenticists like myself have a smoking gun: the C14 dating. Unless you allow the laws of physics to change, the C14 dating proves it cannot be from the 1st century. But that's not good enough--you want "indisputable disproof". Here's the thing: Jabba and his ilk will always, ALWAYS dispute the disproof; it's inherent in the nature of their arguments.

What all this means is that, functionally, you are saying you will never believe any disproofs offered.

I mean, there are excellent art forgeries of Rembrandt, so why couldn't someone make an exact copy of the shroud if the technology exists?

We have several. We just need to wate 600+ years for them to fade. Sorry, but there's no technology that mimicks the passage of time--and if we DID use such technology, it would be dismissed because it would have obviously not been done to the shroud itself.

That's a very, VERY serious flaw in your argument: You ignore the well-documented fading of the image through time. Thus you are asking us to produce, right now, an image that is not the original on the shroud.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee,
- I think you're alluding to the same thing that I was alluding to that got moved to AAH. We could map the discussion...

No, I'm not.

 

[Jabba]

Mapping

- Going back a few pages, I've tried to develop a list of arguments against authenticity. What have I missed?
- My next post will show the quotes I’m referring to.


1. Carbon Dating

2. Historical

3. Physiological
a. Posture
b. Distortions
c. Blood Flow
d. Hair
e. Front & Back
f. Arms too long
g. Top of head

4. Textile
5. Testimony

6. Artistic
a. Byzantine
b. Fading

7. Reproducibility
8. Analytic

9. Cultural
a. Customs
b. Scripture

10. Serological

 

[Jabba]

Mapping/Quotes

- These are the quotes.
- These last two posts are just the very beginning of a map that theoretically would work like a Google street map. If I can do it right, anyone could look up whatever sub-issue of interest and see what the latest arguments are...

Do you understand the nature of "special pleading"?

Look, for instance, at the posture in your diagram. Your diagram shows a posture not seen in corpses laid on flat surfaces; the only reason the diagram depicts that posture is to make the "shroud slouch^TM" so that the arms cover the genitals, NOT because a corpse on a flat surface will be configured so.

Nor does it even begin to explain the fact that the head comes to a wedge point; that the arms are too long; or that the front and back of the figure to do not correspond.

To say nothing of the misstatements about 1st Century CE Jewish funerary customs, or the lack of conformity with the 'god'spiels.

In what way does wanting the CIQ to be "really real" represnt "conforming your understanding" to:

1. The ¹⁴C data, for which no reasonable counter has ever been offered;

2. The anatomically inaccurate representation of the "body" (including the fact that the head comes to a wedge point and the front and back do not conform to each other);

3. The posturally impossible aspect (did you, in fact, ever try to assume the "shroud slouch^TM" as I suggested?);

4. The casual ignorance of the laws of physics, as exemplified by the "blood" and "hair" of the image; and,

5. The utter disragard for scriptural accuracy;

...among others?

You keep ignoring the actual evidence, depending instead upon wishes, and innuendoes of incompetence, dishonesty, collusion, and/or outright fraud.

...as long as you are willing to presuppose a miraculous image transfer mechanism...

There is not room at the top for the thickness of an actual head, if the cloth were held flat. The distance from the front of a real head to the back of a real head is as far as the distance from the chin to the hairline...that space is not there in the image on the CIQ.

...have you READ this thread, and its predecessor? These points have been made before.



Umm...the "blood" on the arms is NOT the issue...and, if the CIQ were the image of a body prepared by 1st century CE Jewish customs as alleged in the 'god'spiel, it would have been washed off, anyway.

The issue is the "blood" that flows "down" the "hair"...while the "body" is on its back. Not to mention the way it ignores the reality of capillary action.

These points have been made in this thread and its predecessor. The "search" function is your friend.



If, and only is, you presuppose a miraculous, supernatural provenance. Do you understand what a circular argument is?



Nor, evidently, much time reading this thread and its predecessor.



I encourage you to present what you consider to be "good-sounding" counters to the ¹⁴C date. I would be willing to wager that they have been dealt with in this thread and its predecessor.



Read again. it does no such thing.



And, of course, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the image is not anatomically possible, much less correct; that the front and the back of the image do not correspond; that the image is posturally unachievable...to name but a few.

Nor is there any actual evidence of the CIQ even existing before the mid-13th Century CE.



Why do you continue to ignore the fact that a duplicate of the CIQ would have to look like the CIQ did when it was first made, not as it looks after 700 years of fading? (Especially since it did not, evidently, fade AT ALL in its first 1200 years, if the myth of its 1st century CE provenance are given any credit.)



Or, just what it appears to be: a manifestly medieval artifact of ordinary provenance. No "miracle", no "mystery".

WADR, the apparent gradient being an artifact of the different error bars used, and the fact that the CIQ is near if not within the minimum limit for meaningful ¹⁴C dating, seems much less "improbable"--even without all the staggering.

Precisely what "detail" do you see, that could not have been painted?

The anatomical inaccuracies?

The impossible hair?

The anti-gravity "blood"?

Seriously, what do you see?




...missing the point that to "duplicte" the CIQ, one would need to "duplicate" what it looked like when it was displayed in the 13th Century CE; NOT as it appears after 700 years of wear.



"Other" is misplaced, since even a cursory glance demonstrates that the anatomically impossible, posturally unachievable, byzantine styled image was not made from the "impression" of a body.

1. The anatomy of the figure on the CIQ is, simply, not human anatomy. The head come to a wedge point, the arms are impossible long, the hair-images behave in ways hair does not, and so on.

2. The "blood" and other fluids represented in the image on the CIQ are depicted as behaving in ways that simply ignore the effects of gravity and hydrodynamics.

3. The posture in which the poor, wedge-headed figure is depicted is a posture that cannot be assumed by a normal human being (you are welcome to try it--lie flat on the floor and assume the "Shroud Slouch^TM).

4. The image on the CIQ shows none of the distortion that would be seen if the cloth had been wound around, or draped over, a three-dimensional figure.

...and so on.

Dear Mr. Savage:

No person who has handled the CIQ has detected any evidence of "some patching" in the tested corner. Anyone who claims that "some patching" might exist, despite the fact that such "patching" has never been detected by any person who has examined the CIQ in person is, in fact, indulging in wishful thinking--whether it is one person, or a score, or a legion.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Please explain how your lack of understanding about the nature of science in general supports your conclusion that the anatomically impossible, hydrodynamically incorrect, historically inaccurate, and scripturally indefensible byzantine image on a piece of sized, manifestly medieval linen can, in any way, be considered a candidate for the True Shroud^TM.

Overlooking the fact that such an effort presupposes duplicating the image on the CIQ as it appears now; ignoring the evidence that it has faded significantly in the 700 years since its production.

The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic, spectroscopic and radioisotopic), expert examination (textile, weave and artistic style) and historical research (comparison to others, culture and documentation) and is supported by other evidence:

Historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a bo.dy lying flay (the arms aren't long enough).

Textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testimony: the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake not many year later.

Artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods.

Analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin.

Cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355.

Serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue.

Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.

 

[carlitos]

This thread is already searchable, for someone who is competent. There really is no reason to recap several posts by quoting them.

 

[jond]

Jabba, don't forget to bring some evidence that directly links the shroud to Jesus.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Sorry, Hugh. I misunderstood what you said.

How is it is possible that "I do not believe that there is any evidence of repairs or patching to the section of the SoT which was subjected to ¹⁴C dating" could be misunderstood as meaning "What Jabba said"?

Really???

 

[Akhenaten]

- For the whole exchange, start with #1831.


- If you think that there is such a thing as free will, you believe that there is something unexplainable. So far, you've been saying the opposite. If you don't think that is relevant to our discussion, I'll just have to agree to disagree.

The relevance of this irrelevant nonsense extends no further than a conviction that your (plural) willingness to believe in something endows it with some kind of legitimacy.

And that's all the argument that you've ever presented here over the course of years, Jabba: belief in a belief. Not a single skerrick of evidence that the cloth is as old as it needs to be to ratify the fairy tale that you so long to be the answer to life, the Universe and everything.

 

[Akhenaten]

- The people on my side also think that they conform their understanding to the evidence.

Who amongst these alleged allies conforms to an understanding that there is evidence that the "shroud" is 2,000 years old?

A list of their names and credentials might be helpful to us at this point.

 

[John Jones]

- Going back a few pages, I've tried to develop a list of arguments against authenticity. What have I missed?
- My next post will show the quotes I’m referring to.


1. Carbon Dating

2. Historical

3. Physiological
a. Posture
b. Distortions
c. Blood Flow
d. Hair
e. Front & Back
f. Arms too long
g. Top of head

4. Textile
5. Testimony

6. Artistic
a. Byzantine
b. Fading

7. Reproducibility
8. Analytic

9. Cultural
a. Customs
b. Scripture

10. Serological

Lack of any acceptable evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[hugh farey]

How is it is possible that "I do not believe that there is any evidence of repairs or patching to the section of the SoT which was subjected to ¹⁴C dating" could be misunderstood as meaning "What Jabba said"?

I think it was a previous post that Jabba misunderstood; possibly one in which I mentioned what evidence for repair has been put forward although I think I have always explained why I think such evidence is unsatisfactory. Or perhaps my natural scientific reserve (I would never say that the Shroud was not patched, only that there is insufficient evidence for such a hypothesis to be sustained) may make less scientifically minded people think that I am ambivalent about the subject.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think it was a previous post that Jabba misunderstood; possibly one in which I mentioned what evidence for repair has been put forward although I think I have always explained why I think such evidence is unsatisfactory. Or perhaps my natural scientific reserve (I would never say that the Shroud was not patched, only that there is insufficient evidence for such a hypothesis to be sustained) may make less scientifically minded people think that I am ambivalent about the subject.

I would suggest kind of the latter. Jabba is SO desperate to justify his beliefs that he'll grasp at anything that is not explicitly and vehemently opposed as supportive, and, over time, that turns into a memory that it was agreement.

You made statements that were contemplative and reasonable, and Jabba interprets it as support, despite it not being anywhere near it.

 

[catsmate]

- Going back a few pages, I've tried to develop a list of arguments against authenticity. What have I missed?
- My next post will show the quotes I’m referring to.


1. Carbon Dating

2. Historical

3. Physiological
a. Posture
b. Distortions
c. Blood Flow
d. Hair
e. Front & Back
f. Arms too long
g. Top of head

4. Textile
5. Testimony

6. Artistic
a. Byzantine
b. Fading

7. Reproducibility
8. Analytic

9. Cultural
a. Customs
b. Scripture

10. Serological

Who amongst these alleged allies conforms to an understanding that there is evidence that the "shroud" is 2,000 years old?

A list of their names and credentials might be helpful to us at this point.

I asked that a while ago. I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

[Dinwar]

Lack of any acceptable evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

This was probably said in jest, but it's a valid point that Jabba has failed to address. In science, one test failing to support a hypothesis is usually not definitive (Strong Inferrence situations are exceptions). After all, statistical phenomena DO occur. Repeated failure to support a hypothesis supports the conclusion that the hypothesis is wrong, however.

Or perhaps my natural scientific reserve (I would never say that the Shroud was not patched, only that there is insufficient evidence for such a hypothesis to be sustained) may make less scientifically minded people think that I am ambivalent about the subject.

Scientific reserve is a fine thing, but it can be taken too far. All arguments must be supported by evidence--and since there's no evidence for a patch, we can dismiss this concept as not rising to the level of an actual argument. It's wishful thinking, which means--arbitrary.

 

[Jabba]

Scientific reserve is a fine thing, but it can be taken too far. All arguments must be supported by evidence--and since there's no evidence for a patch, we can dismiss this concept as not rising to the level of an actual argument. It's wishful thinking, which means--arbitrary.

Dinwar,
- Can we discuss evidence for "some sort of repair," rather than "patch"? To me, there are different connotations re the terms.

 

[Agatha]

There's no evidence for either "some sort of repair" or a "patch" in the sampled area.

Do you have any evidence supporting the hypothesis of "some sort of repair"? For the avoidance of doubt, statements such as "if there was a repair, the carbon dating could be wrong" are not evidence, but conclusions based on circular reasoning.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dinwar,
- Can we discuss evidence for "some sort of repair," rather than "patch"? To me, there are different connotations re the terms.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

"Some sort of repair" that has never been detected by anyone who has actually handled the CIQ in person?

Be so kind as to present what evidence you have that such exists.

 

[Giordano]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

"Some sort of repair" that has never been detected by anyone who has actually handled the CIQ in person?

Be so kind as to present what evidence you have that such exists.

Would it be too much to ask that Jabba's evidence be new to this thread and un-refuted here already.

 

[Mojo]

Can we discuss evidence for "some sort of repair," rather than "patch"?

Only if someone provides evidence for "some sort of repair" in the sampled area, which so far has not been forthcoming. Since you want to discuss this (so far hypothetical) evidence, that "someone" really ought to be you.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Can we discuss evidence for "some sort of repair," rather than "patch"?

We could do, if you'd provide any. As it is, all we can discuss at the moment is the lack of evidence for "some sort of repair", and the evidence against "some sort of repair".