Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

Wollery,
- I will get to that after I figure that we've presented all the significant evidence re the existence of blood on the Shroud. If I had a helper on my side, He/she could be dealing with your question. Individually, I'm strapped trying to present the pro side for blood and for my format. I should probably drop the latter for now.

Mr. Savage:

What you are missing is that it would not matter if the CIQ could be demonstrated to be saturated in human blood; you would still have to demonstrate that the "blood" was 2000 years old, and still have to address the issue that the saturated cloth has been demonstrated to be 780 years old.

The "pro" side of "blood" is immaterial unless and until you deal with the ¹⁴C dating, at some level beyond the fact that you, personally, don't like the results.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- That's what I was referring to when I said my approach was "cooperative."

- If you wish to continue debating my suggested debate format, we should probably go back to that thread -- though, I can't remember where it is off hand...
- But, wherever we discuss it, it will take up time that is probably better spent discussing blood.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Instead of this arrant, errant nonsense, why not simply present your evidence (objective, practical, empirical, non-anecdotal, evidence) that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

(Conversely, you could, in fact, address any one of the myriad other objections that have been raised to your claims about the CIQ.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The former, but it will take a while to get to your specific points.

You keep saying that...

 

[Steve]

You keep saying that...

Well, it has take quite a while so far.

 

[Craig4]

So this Jesus guy was the only living creature that had blood inside his body?

 

[Stee]

So this Jesus guy was the only living creature that had blood inside his body?

I thought everybody knew this!? Come along now Craig!

Honestly though I do not understand the need for all this procrastination Jabba, if you have some evidence that the shroud is in fact what you say it is then why not just present it?

 

[Giordano]

I think that we all know that Jabba:

1. Will never get to presenting any real evidence.
2. Doesn't read or understand, but only copy-pastes any pro-Shroud hear-say "evidence" that he has cherry picked to support his beliefs.
3. Believes that the Shroud is authentic no matter what real evidence against it is provided to him. He will maintain the authenticity of the Shroud if Christ himself denied it and said that he actually preferred corduroy.
4. Despite repeated attempts to educate him, does not understand what is evidence and what is not evidence.
5. Believes that a glacial slow point by point organization of the discussion would somehow overcome the blatant straightforward evidence against authenticity and that this form of "discussion" would somehow convince the skeptics, despite Jabba being given an opportunity to create such a discussion and, in fact, abandoning it.
6. Simply ignores inconvenient truths by never addressing them, and then repeatedly undergoes a fringe reset (perhaps due to memory problems?) that ignores all the previous rebuttals and starts the whole thread over again.

I think that I've participated in enough of these reiterations for now.

 

[Craig4]

Craig,
- You can use the standard system everywhere else in this forum. Here, I'm trying to insert a different, developmental, experimental, cooperative system.
- Probably, the basic idea in my attempted system is that everything has to be extremely slowed down -- such issues as the shroud are extremely complicated, exponential, and cannot be effectively rushed.
- It turns out that I (still) think that the stains are blood -- and further, that if they are blood, that the likelihood that the shroud is authentic -- and, 2000 years old -- is significantly increased. To effectively support -- or just evaluate -- these beliefs requires a kind of microscopic look, which is time-consuming and tedious.
- Maybe, this analogy will work. It's like what you guys are calling "evidence" are only the tips of little pyramids -- the tips require underpinning.

- So now, I'll try to go back and develop the underpinning of my belief that the stains are blood.

No, this is just you hiding behind a process to avoid the fact that there is no evidence to support your belief.

 

[The Don]

Wollery,
- I will get to that after I figure that we've presented all the significant evidence re the existence of blood on the Shroud. If I had a helper on my side, He/she could be dealing with your question. Individually, I'm strapped trying to present the pro side for blood and for my format. I should probably drop the latter for now.

Presumably the biggest single hurdle is the lack of evidence.

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, you are left with only two options. You can either say that the CIQ is a fraud and its provenance is unsupported or you can say you attach great spiritual meaning to it that transcends evidence. No other courses exist. If you go with the former, you simply walk away. If you go with the later, your cloth can be your security blanket but there is no defense of it to be offered. The middle ground you are attempting to traverse will leave you with nothing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- If anyone is interested, the very beginning of my attempt to map can be found at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189. I'm sure it will give you a good laugh.

I note that you didn't take on-board my entirely non-sarcastic suggestion that you go right back to the beginning of these threads and catalogue all the information that's already been presented. That will actually help you. No more having to "dig up sources" on your part, as you'll already have the sources you need to hand. This will be infinitely more helpful than any number of entries reading "[poster x] thinks blood is possible".

If you want to dedicate your time to any kind of cataloguing, this is what you should be doing - cataloguing all the sources and facts to hand, and this thread and its predecessor are a huge resource which will enable you to do so. Possibly the best resource on the whole internet.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But, wherever we discuss it, it will take up time that is probably better spent discussing blood.

OK, Jabba, I'll discuss blod with you. For the sake of discussion, I'll concede that the shroud contains spots of blood. No, you can't cite me elsewhere for that; the concession is made to get over a dead spot.

So, assuming there is blood, what then?

Hans

 

[Pixel42]

No rational person who has followed these threads since they started and understood at least the gist of the arguments presented could fail to conclude that

a) no convincing case can be made that the Shroud is authentic

b) a very convincing case can be made that the Shroud is a medieval artifact

Unless someone invents a time machine there is really nothing more that can be said. Every shred of evidence available has been discussed and analysed, every reasonable argument (and a fair number of unreasonable ones) has been made.

I know it's difficult to leave wilful ignorance unchallenged, but I don't see what's to be gained by patiently debunking the same discredited arguments over and over again just because they are posted over and over again. As long as Jabba continues to get responses he will continue to think that what he's doing is a worthwhile use of his time. We all know it isn't.

 

[SezMe]

- Probably, the basic idea in my attempted system is that everything has to be extremely slowed down -- such issues as the shroud are extremely complicated, exponential, and cannot be effectively rushed.

I completely agree with Pixel42. But, to continue this fascinating discussion, I'd like to ask about the highlighted word.

"Exponential" is a well-defined mathematical concept. But I am sure Jabba is not using it in that context so I looked to see if there is an accepted, non-mathematical usage that might be applicable - and there is. It means "very rapid" which is the exact opposite of the next five words after my highlight.

If you're lucky, Jabba, in all your digging you'll unearth a dictionary.

 

[Giordano]

No rational person who has followed these threads since they started and understood at least the gist of the arguments presented could fail to conclude that

a) no convincing case can be made that the Shroud is authentic

b) a very convincing case can be made that the Shroud is a medieval artifact

Unless someone invents a time machine there is really nothing more that can be said. Every shred of evidence available has been discussed and analysed, every reasonable argument (and a fair number of unreasonable ones) has been made.

I know it's difficult to leave wilful ignorance unchallenged, but I don't see what's to be gained by patiently debunking the same discredited arguments over and over again just because they are posted over and over again. As long as Jabba continues to get responses he will continue to think that what he's doing is a worthwhile use of his time. We all know it isn't.

I absolutely agree. And I feel even less desire to participate since Jabba has decided to control the debate by taking odd bits and pieces of this thread, often distorted by his own interpretations, to his own website.

 

[tsig]

It's worth reminding Jabba that proving the shroud is 2,000 years old is the easiest hurdle to clear in his chosen task (he fails miserably at it, but it remaiins the easiest).

Once he establishes age, he must establish that it was, in fact, used to cover a person.

And that that person was dead.

And that that person was crucified.

And that that person was crucified in Judea.

And that that person rose from the dead (as opposed to the numerous folks who were put to death during the uprisings of that region in that era).

And htat that person is divine (as opposed to non-divine folks who allegedly rose from the dead, in the Bible and elsewhere).

Bear in mind that regardless of any of the above, it is IMPOSSIBLE to use the shroud as evidence for Christian faith of any flavor. The shroud directly contradicts what little is stated about the resurection. It's either/or--either the shroud is the burial cloth of God, or Christianity is true. If one is valid, the other isn't.

How can you dismiss the shroud until you have studied all the materiel showing authenticity, there are many sophisticated ones that casual deniers refuse to look at, you have to put yourself in Jabba's viewpoint if you hope to refute it and not look like a rube.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I will get to that after I figure that we've presented all the significant evidence re the existence of blood on the Shroud. If I had a helper on my side, He/she could be dealing with your question. Individually, I'm strapped trying to present the pro side for blood and for my format. I should probably drop the latter for now.

How is any of this effective or cooperative? You've asked people over and over for input on your system of debate and for help constructing your map. People have said, over and over, that the carbon dating is the most important issue. You respond by refusing to talk about that issue while making statements about blood which you refuse to support.

You are the person who is being uncooperative. If you want to talk about blood, the question is, "What evidence is there that the substance tested was blood and not pigment?" If you want to actually talk about the authenticity of the shroud, the question is, "How do you respond to the scientific evidence of the cloth's age?"

Failing to answer either is simply not engaging in debate. It's cheating ... on a system you personally invented. Stick to your own word and actually engage upon the topic - any topic.

 

[zooterkin]

Unless someone invents a time machine there is really nothing more that can be said. Every shred of evidence available has been discussed and analysed, every reasonable argument (and a fair number of unreasonable ones) has been made.

So, what you're saying is that the shroud was put in a time machine shortly after the imprint of Christ was made on it, and transported 1400 years into the future...

 

[Giordano]

So, what you're saying is that the shroud was put in a time machine shortly after the imprint of Christ was made on it, and transported 1400 years into the future...

Can you completely rule out that there is some possibility that such a thing explains the data? Of course, if anyone at anytime invents a time machine, they could do such a thing. I myself am 90% certain that it happened (or will happen depending on the correct tense to discuss time machine issues).

 

[Belz...]

Jabba, you avoided Slow's question, here, so I will post it again:

How would the presence of blood, on a piece of cloth that was displayed to the public for veneration, indicate, or even suggest a date for the manufacture of the cloth?