- My first understanding of where we are with a particular sub-issue is in regard to the question of there being blood on the shroud. It appears to me that most of us think that there probably is blood on the shroud -- the real question is how it got there.
No. Most people are waiting for evidence of blood to be produced, but they are not that bothered because blood has been freely available for all the 800 intervening years since the cloth was manufactured.
What we'd actually like is for you to present the "plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old", or else accept that it is only 800 years old, and therefore cannot be a 1st century burial shroud.
You are moving the focus from the very important point, that anything but the insistence of the believers, point to the piece of cloth being far too young to ever having been in contact with Jesus.
Avoiding and ignoring something does not make it go away.
(Except in the case of friends and lovers.....)
You're trying to put words in others peoples' mouth again like you've tried so many times in the past. I don't recall anyone but Jabba saying that there was 'probably' blood on the shroud.
The real question is: What evidence do you have that the shroud is 2,000 years old? Yesterday, you said there was plenty. Where is it?
No. Most people are waiting for evidence of blood to be produced, but they are not that bothered because blood has been freely available for all the 800 intervening years since the cloth was manufactured.
What we'd actually like is for you to present the "plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old", or else accept that it is only 800 years old, and therefore cannot be a 1st century burial shroud.
You're trying to put words in others peoples' mouth again like you've tried so many times in the past. I don't recall anyone but Jabba saying that there was 'probably' blood on the shroud.
The real question is: What evidence do you have that the shroud is 2,000 years old? Yesterday, you said there was plenty. Where is it?
No. What I want you to do is what the second paragraph says.
What we'd actually like is for you to present the "plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old", or else accept that it is only 800 years old, and therefore cannot be a 1st century burial shroud.
- So, at this point, I'm going to start summarizing our understanding of the evidence.
- I'll do this over on my blog. I'll provide my understanding of 'where we are' regarding each sub-issue -- and, If any of you wish to add your summaries, I'll provide them as well. I would suggest that you add them yourself, but so far, I think that (or my suggestion that you do that) would actually be against the rules...
- Keep in mind that this is all experimental, and will surely require remodeling. Non-sarcastic suggestions for improvement are seriously encouraged.
- My first understanding of where we are with a particular sub-issue is in regard to the question of there being blood on the shroud. It appears to me that most of us think that there probably is blood on the shroud -- the real question is how it got there.
Highlight- I doubt it. Not that it would matter for purposes of defining the true facts, but if you are certain of your statement you could poll the people here to find out their actual views.
But as mentioned, if you want to move on to other questions, then please answer the yes/no question that has been repeatedly asked of you and to which you must already have the answer: did you actually read the entire H and A paper yourself, or were you simply taking the word of the pro-Shroud people who paraphrased it? It would take you a second: just copy one of the words below:
If it was Jesus's blood, wouldn't it be great to do PCR on it to establish the source of the Y chromosome? The X chromosome would also be interesting when compared to current day Middle-Eastern lineages (didn't Mary have other children, or at least cousins)?
As far as I know, one could do that kind of PCR right now (they have completely PCR'd and sequenced Neanderthal DNA from much, much older bones). All it would take would be permission from the Shroud's caretakers and a small snip. Taught about obtaining convincing evidence! But perhaps the caretakers themselves are not strongly convinced that this is really Jesus blood.
Start by going through this entire thread and its predecessor, and note every argument and counter-argument that's already been made. List them under category headings, rather than in the order that they're made.
- From http://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm. 1997
Upon examining the chest, the pathologist notes a large blood stain over the right pectoral area Close examination shows a variance in intensity of the stain consistent with the presence of two types of fluid, one comprised of blood, and the other resembling water. There is distinct evidence of a gravitational effect on this stain with the blood flowing downward and without spatter of other evidence of the projectile activity which would be expected from blood issuing from a functional arterial source. This wound has all the characteristics of a postmortem type flow of blood from a body cavity or from an organ such as the heart. At the upper plane of the wound is an ovoid skin defect which is characteristic of a penetrating track produced by a sharp puncturing instrument.
There seems to be an increase in the anteroposterior diameter of the chest due to bilateral expansion.
The abdomen is flat, and the right and left arms are crossed over the mid and lower abdomen. The genitalia cannot be identified.
By examination of the arms, forearms, wrists, and hands, the pathologist notes that the left hand overlies the right wrist On the left wrist area is a distinct puncture-type injury which has two projecting rivulets derived from a central source and separated by about a 10 degree angle. As it appears in the image, the rivulets extend in a horizontal direction. The pathologist realizes that this blood flow could not have happened with the arms in the position as he sees them during his examination, and he must reconstruct the position of the arms in such a way as to place them where they would have to be to account for gravity in the direction of the blood flow. His calculations to that effect would indicate that the arms would have to be outstretched upward at about a 65 degree angle with the horizontal. The pathologist observes that there are blood flows which extend in a direction from wrists toward elbows on the right and left forearms. These flows can be readily accounted for my the position of the arms which he has just determined.
Slowvehicle,
- There has been a lot written about the flow, shape and general nature of the different ‘blood stains.’ I know you don’t trust my judgment, but in my judgment, the characteristics that at first seem inappropriate/unexpected have all been adequately explained. And, being at first so unexpected, this stuff only adds to the evidence for authenticity.
- And then, the alleged artist has been so careful and accurate otherwise, why would he falter here?
- If you still think that these unexpected characteristics are ‘show stoppers,’ let me know and I’ll see what other examples and explanations I can find.
I will deal with the multiple problems in the spoilered section, above, in a subsequent post.
I wanted to deal with this individually, as it is a demonstration of your habit of assuming the consequent.
In short, the artist was, in fact, not "so careful and accurate otherwise".
To wit:
1. The image on the CIQ is anatomically ludicrous. No amount of special pleading ("...wull, that must be what happens to arms when you crucify someone...") can account for the disparity in bone length between the arm of the image, to name but one of the anatomical problems.
2. The image on the CIQ is posturally impossible. No amount of special pleading ("...wull, that must be how a body draws up after you crucify it...") can account for the fact that the image depicts a pose that cannot be duplicated by a normal human body on a flat surface (did you , in fact, ever get on the floor answ assume the "Shroud SlouchTM"?).
3. The image on the CIQ is proportionally ludicrous. No amount of special pleading ("...wull, the burst of resurrection energy must have suspended the body between the top and bottom of the sheet...") can account for the fact that the head comes to a wedge-shaped point, with no room for the top of an actual head between the front image and the back image.
4. The image on the CIQ is mechanically impossible. No amount of special pleading (...wull, look at the photonegativity! That must mean it's real...") can account for the fact that the image presents as a flat image of a round object on a flat surface, showing not a single bit of evidence of the CIQ having been draped (much less wound around) an actual human body.
5. The image on the CIQ is scripturally indefensible. No amount of special pleading ("...wull, maybe ὀθόνιον doesn't mean what you think it means...maybe to the faithful it can mean 'tablecloth', or sheet'...you don't know...") can address the fact that the image on the CIQ does not conform to the scriptural accounts, nor to 1st Century CE Jewish funerary practices.
Given those 5 areas in which the artist's zeal overcame their abilities, it seems a bit odd to speak of the image on the CIQ as being "...careful and accurate...".
And, of course, none of that even begins to address the fact that the image is rendered, faults and all, on a piece of 750-year-old linen.
<snip>
- My first understanding of where we are with a particular sub-issue is in regard to the question of there being blood on the shroud. It appears to me that most of us think that there probably is blood on the shroud -- the real question is how it got there.
In the most "non-sarcastic" way possible, I need to point out that this is, simply, either dishonest or delusional. Be so kind as to provide a link to even one poster (much less a majority of posters) who thinks, with you, that there "probably is blood" on the CIQ.
If you cannot do that, you should retract this statement.
(Of course, I'm still waiting for your other retractions...)
I eagerly await your practical, empirical, non-anecdotal, objective evidence for this. Do be sure and show your work as to how you arrived at the figure of "about 90%"...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
