Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

- The following has been cut and pasted from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci.

- Hopefully, I don’t need to cite all the primary sources…
- The original document did not include the numbering
- The first set of claims represent shroud skeptics’ take on the d’Arcis’ memo; the second represent shroud believers’ take.
- Probably the most basic aspect of my thoughts about effective debate is the need to go slow, with small steps (effective debate will necessarily be tedious). Consequently, I’ll try to focus on the d’Arcis memo – itself, a relatively ‘tiny’ piece of the puzzle?
- I have two objectives here: 1) support authenticity of the shroud, and 2) develop an effective debate model. I figure that I will have won if I can do either.
- Let’s see if we can develop an actually effective debate about the d’Arcis memo.


1. The Shroud of Turin suddenly appeared in France , in Lirey , in the diocese of Troyes, towards 1355. Immediately Henri de Poitiers , the bishop of the local diocese of Troyes, which was opposed all’ostensione made, considering it an obvious fake.
2. The exhibitions resumed after about thirty years, and yet the new bishop, Pierre d’Arcis , opposed.
3. After a long standoff between him and the dean of the church where the exhibitions took place in 1389, the bishop appealed to Pope Clement VII with a long memorial, in which he tells how his predecessor had even found the artist that ‘ had ‘cleverly painted’.
4. The Pope allowed the exhibitions only as long as you say every time that it was a representation, and not the true Shroud of Christ.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited in compliance with rule 4. Do not copy and paste material available elsewhere; include a few sentences and a link.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Which, if any of these, in your opinion, has not been addressed?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Wollery,
Taken from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci, in answer to #1. Pierre stated that Henri had the shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. It was removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area, to keep it from being captured by English forces.

...false dichotomy.

 

[ferd burfle]

Captain Jabba wants us to help him align the deck chairs so we won't notice that other little problem.

 

[pgwenthold]

Captain Jabba wants us to help him align the deck chairs so we won't notice that other little problem.

The bizarre** thing is, people in this thread HAVE done things like, made tables to organize the data and arguments to help facilitate the discussion. All Jabba had to do was to fill in the blanks. Of course, he ignores it all.

**It's not really bizarre, considering the futility of the discussion. Of course he won't address anything substantive, because he's got nothing.

 

[Jabba]

d'Arcis Memo

- The d'Arcis memo has been used as substantial evidence against shroud authenticity. I accept that it's 'evidence'; I just don't accept that it's "substantial." I claim that if we add up all the evidence pro and con the d'arcis claim, the con side wins... The scale clearly tilts to the con side.
- If you guys disagree, I'm happy to tackle that evidence piece by piece -- one pitch at a time.
- Which is the basic strategy of my effective debate idea. We need to accept that effective debate will be slow and tedious. Like many baseball games.
- You guys keep throwing me several pitches at once, volley after volley, and then claim that I'm a terrible batter. Throw me one at a time, and I'll knock some of them out of the park.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos,

- I assume you're joking, but numbering does help me, and I think it's useful in debate in general.

Yes, I was joking.

No, you are not having a "debate" here.

Useful in the way you randomly number every sentence? No. Wrong.

 

[wollery]

Jabba, we can throw out the D'Arcis memo, ignore it completely, it's utterly irrelevant.

The cloth itself is all the evidence that's required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Which is the basic strategy of my effective debate idea. We need to accept that effective debate will be slow and tedious. Like many baseball games.

It's been, what, 2 and a half years so far and you've got nowhere so far. Not even a little bit.

- You guys keep throwing me several pitches at once, volley after volley, and then claim that I'm a terrible batter. Throw me one at a time, and I'll knock some of them out of the park.

We tried this, remember? A dedicated thread in which it was just you and someone else, following your rules to the letter. And what happened? You kept not following your own rules, instead constantly changing the subject and trying to talk about more than one thing at once, and then gave up entirely.

Besides, how many times have you promised that you'd follow just one strand on this thread? Like proving the C14 dating wrong, for example. And what happens? Rather than knocking it out of the park, you flounder around, admit that your case isn't as strong as you thought it was, then change the subject, wait a few months, then start up again as if the previous conversation had never happened.

 

[Jabba]

d'Arcis Memo

Wollery,
Taken from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci, in answer to #1. Pierre stated that Henri had the shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. It was removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area, to keep it from being captured by English forces.

...false dichotomy.

- I accept that the existence of one cause does not rule out the other -- it just allows for a different explanation for what happened.

 

[pgwenthold]

- The d'Arcis memo has been used as substantial evidence against shroud authenticity. I accept that it's 'evidence'; I just don't accept that it's "substantial." I claim that if we add up all the evidence pro and con the d'arcis claim, the con side wins... The scale clearly tilts to the con side.
- If you guys disagree, I'm happy to tackle that evidence piece by piece -- one pitch at a time..

You miss the point.

Even if you refute all the evidence that we have that it is a medievel cloth, that does NOTHING to support the claim that it is the first century burial cloth of Jesus. In order to claim that, you have to have some evidence for it.

Just proving that it is not a 13th century art project does not show that it is the 1st century burial cloth of Jesus. YOU need evidence for that.

 

[wardenclyffe]

- The d'Arcis memo has been used as substantial evidence against shroud authenticity. I accept that it's 'evidence'; I just don't accept that it's "substantial." I claim that if we add up all the evidence pro and con the d'arcis claim, the con side wins... The scale clearly tilts to the con side.
- If you guys disagree, I'm happy to tackle that evidence piece by piece -- one pitch at a time.
- Which is the basic strategy of my effective debate idea. We need to accept that effective debate will be slow and tedious. Like many baseball games.
- You guys keep throwing me several pitches at once, volley after volley, and then claim that I'm a terrible batter. Throw me one at a time, and I'll knock some of them out of the park.

Jabba,

The burden is on you. You are making the extraordinary claim that science and the world as a whole does not accept. You are the pitcher, not the batter. Pitch us your best evidence that the shroud is genuinely the shroud used by Jesus at his burial. When you do, you will forgive us if we sometimes point out that the evidence on our side has already been presented upthread (sometimes by you, yourself). One at a time, please. Take as much time as you want between pitches. There is no delay of game penalty. If there were, this thread would have been shut down long ago.

Ward

 

[catsmate]

- I accept that the existence of one cause does not rule out the other -- it just allows for a different explanation for what happened.

 

[Giordano]

Wollery,
Taken from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci, in answer to #1. Pierre stated that Henri had the shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. It was removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area, to keep it from being captured by English forces.

I may easily have missed this on the cited website because of the many posts there: are there specific documents that the Shroud was removed due to threat of war, and not due to forgery? if we are to dismiss the d'Arc letter because some copies are not signed, or are drafts, or are not proven to have been posted (of a letter over 700 years old!), then I must ask: exactly which documents specifically state that the Shroud was removed from the church to keep it safe from wars? Where are they now?

Why dismiss one document that does have hard copies in favor of alleged documents that, as far as I can tell, are just non-physical creations of pro-Shroud advocates?

And even if such documents do exist that indicate removal of the Shroud was due to a threat of war (by the way please cite them): clearly the immediate owners of the Shroud have valued and protected it over the years, whether real or fake. Why wouldn't they state that they were removing the Shroud from the church due to a threat of war, when the higher church authorities actually ordered it removed due to a lack of authenticity?

 

[Giordano]

More generally, as already pointed out here, Jabba's only defense for the authenticity of the Shroud is not to present any evidence in its favor, but to present his small doubts about individual, tiny aspects of anti-authenticity evidence, often by providing hypotheticals ("although not a weave previously found for 30 AD, perhaps the status of Christ justified an unusual form of cloth...") rather than facts. And the enormous pieces of evidence against authenticity (isotopic dating, the incorrect portions of the image, the pattern of the "blood" flows, etc.) are not dealt with by Jabba at all.

Jabba seems to needs to believe the Shroud is real, for reasons I don't fully understand (even if the Shroud is fake, that does not mean the Christ story need be a lie). So I find this discussion somewhat painful.

 

[Giordano]

-
- If you guys disagree, I'm happy to tackle that evidence piece by piece -- one pitch at a time.
- Which is the basic strategy of my effective debate idea. We need to accept that effective debate will be slow and tedious. Like many baseball games.
- You guys keep throwing me several pitches at once, volley after volley, and then claim that I'm a terrible batter. Throw me one at a time, and I'll knock some of them out of the park.

You have tried batting one by one without hitting any, let alone sending one out of the park. For over 2.5 years! You still can deal with the evidence individually if the pitches are coming too quick for you. People have even suggested more than once that you focus just on the isotopic dating, but it is you who keeps changing the topic. Lately, you appear to have stopped swinging at any pitch. So neither your posted views of the Shroud, nor of this thread, appears to be accurate.

 

[jond]

You miss the point.

Even if you refute all the evidence that we have that it is a medievel cloth, that does NOTHING to support the claim that it is the first century burial cloth of Jesus. In order to claim that, you have to have some evidence for it.

Just proving that it is not a 13th century art project does not show that it is the 1st century burial cloth of Jesus. YOU need evidence for that.

In all the times this has been pointed out to Jabba, it's been ignored each and every time. I wonder why?

 

[Craig4]

- The d'Arcis memo has been used as substantial evidence against shroud authenticity. I accept that it's 'evidence'; I just don't accept that it's "substantial." I claim that if we add up all the evidence pro and con the d'arcis claim, the con side wins... The scale clearly tilts to the con side.
- If you guys disagree, I'm happy to tackle that evidence piece by piece -- one pitch at a time.
- Which is the basic strategy of my effective debate idea. We need to accept that effective debate will be slow and tedious. Like many baseball games.
- You guys keep throwing me several pitches at once, volley after volley, and then claim that I'm a terrible batter. Throw me one at a time, and I'll knock some of them out of the park.

No, it doesn't have to be slow and tedious. You need to make it slow and tedious because you can only find small faults on periphery issues. You are incapable of answering the big questions related to how old the cloth is and was it put over Jesus's corpse during his rough weekend. This is far more simple than you'd like it to be. Now, please show evidence that the CIQ is old enough to be around in the first century CE.

 

[Jabba]

Regrets

- I have 2, maybe 3, hours a day that I can justify spending on this stuff. I wish it was my job, and I could justify 8 hours a day! Really. You guys don't think much of my thinking, but it is my primary hobby...
- Since my next to last post yesterday morning, I've received 11 unanswered responses -- some of those with multiple Q/Cs to which I would really like to respond. As soon as I respond to one of those, I'll probably have more responses to which I would really like to respond.
- And, as often claimed, I'm old and slow anyway, and responses of any length take me a lot of time to formulate.
- I'm just saying...

- Now, I'll go select my next response.

 

[Jabba]

Blood

- The d'Arcis memo has been used as substantial evidence against shroud authenticity. I accept that it's 'evidence'; I just don't accept that it's "substantial." I claim that if we add up all the evidence pro and con the d'arcis claim, the con side wins... The scale clearly tilts to the con side.
- If you guys disagree, I'm happy to tackle that evidence piece by piece -- one pitch at a time.
- Which is the basic strategy of my effective debate idea. We need to accept that effective debate will be slow and tedious. Like many baseball games.
- You guys keep throwing me several pitches at once, volley after volley, and then claim that I'm a terrible batter. Throw me one at a time, and I'll knock some of them out of the park.

Jabba,

The burden is on you. You are making the extraordinary claim that science and the world as a whole does not accept. You are the pitcher, not the batter. Pitch us your best evidence that the shroud is genuinely the shroud used by Jesus at his burial. When you do, you will forgive us if we sometimes point out that the evidence on our side has already been presented upthread (sometimes by you, yourself). One at a time, please. Take as much time as you want between pitches. There is no delay of game penalty. If there were, this thread would have been shut down long ago.

Ward

Ward,

- It seems to me that it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood. I need to review the rules some more so as to know how I should present what I see as evidence, but the following link ought to get us started. http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
- Not to say that the presence of real blood proves the shroud authentic -- but, I do think that it is a bit of crucial evidence and a big piece of the puzzle.

 

[Mashuna]

Ward,

- It seems to me that it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood. I need to review the rules some more so as to know how I should present what I see as evidence, but the following link ought to get us started. http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
- Not to say that the presence of real blood proves the shroud authentic -- but, I do think that it is a bit of crucial evidence and a big piece of the puzzle.

I think that blood counts against the theory that the shroud is authentic. If you'd discovered wine stains that turned into blood when tasted, then that would be compelling evidence.