Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,

- I never said -- even in essence -- that H&A's tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood. I only said that they "support" the presence of blood. I accept that those tests did not "rule out" paint.

- So far, it appears to me that H&A, and most other scientists studying their tests, figure that so many different tests yielding 'positive' results indicates that the presence of blood is highly probable.
- Would you agree that H&A imply that to be the case?

Trying to put words in others' mouths again?

How old is that shroud?

 

[Craig4]

Slowvehicle,

- I never said -- even in essence -- that H&A's tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood. I only said that they "support" the presence of blood. I accept that those tests did not "rule out" paint.

- So far, it appears to me that H&A, and most other scientists studying their tests, figure that so many different tests yielding 'positive' results indicates that the presence of blood is highly probable.
- Would you agree that H&A imply that to be the case?

Who cares? If the cloth isn't from around 30 CE it makes no difference what is on it.

 

[Nonpareil]

Slowvehicle,

- I never said -- even in essence -- that H&A's tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood. I only said that they "support" the presence of blood. I accept that those tests did not "rule out" paint.

- So far, it appears to me that H&A, and most other scientists studying their tests, figure that so many different tests yielding 'positive' results indicates that the presence of blood is highly probable.
- Would you agree that H&A imply that to be the case?

Where is your evidence that the Shroud is two thousand years old?

 

[Rincewind]

Where is your evidence that the Shroud is two thousand years old?

+1

The whole blood thing is irrelevant anyway - even if it is blood, how could you prove that the source is JC?

 

[SezMe]

This seems to be one of those rare circumstances where jumping on the bandwagon is an appropriate tactic. Hence, Jabba, please answer (not reply, actually answer) this question:

Where is your evidence that the Shroud is two thousand years old?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Jabba, it just occurred to me as an occasional follower of this thread that evidence for this cloth being 2000 years old might be key to any claims that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. Do we have reason to believe it is that old?

 

[John Jones]

*crickets chirping*

 

[carlitos]

Lots of questions remain, Jabba. Care to answer any of them?

Slowvehicle,

- I never said -- even in essence -- that H&A's tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood. I only said that they "support" the presence of blood. I accept that those tests did not "rule out" paint.

- So far, it appears to me that H&A, and most other scientists studying their tests, figure that so many different tests yielding 'positive' results indicates that the presence of blood is highly probable.
- Would you agree that H&A imply that to be the case?

What is Jabba's source for what "H&A" say? Enquiring minds want to know:

I predict that Jabba will ignore this post. He purportedly has 3 hours a day, but cannot answer a yes or no question. I leave you to your own conclusions.

(eta - i just typed 'yes' in 1/3 of a second.)

- 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.

Giordano,
- You're right. I was just quoting someone else about such documents. I'll see if I can locate what he was referring to.

- Now, I gotta go back and figure out why Heller and Adler were so sure that the porphyrin indicated blood.

2. Did you even read the article about porphyrins (not just "porphyrin")?

Did you read their actual paper? Not quotes of it, or paraphrasing, but the actual paper?

Did you read the actual article?

And, as others have asked, did you read the actual paper? Is that part of "everything that you have read?"

Just curious- for the third time, did you read the actual manuscript, not just second hand interpretations of it?

Dear Mr. Jabba,

If you can't answer a "yes or no" question in three hours a day, you really, really probably shouldn't be trying to fix the human condition via debate rules.

Yes or no - Did you read the Heller and Adler paper? Yes or No?

....... 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:

Yes
No

Given that you had the time to post this and yet failed to post a simple yes or no to my question, I will assume that you never read the actual H and A paper yourself. Given that you presented quotes alleged to be from this paper as evidence, doesn't it worry you that you appear to not have looked at their actual evidence or the actual statements in their publication?

.......Heller and Adler (hereafter H&A) concluded that it was actual blood material on the basis of [blah blah blah]

- From these two statements, it appears that H&A found precisely what should be found if the stains are blood, and McCrone Associates did not find what most likely would be found if the stains are paint.

- Also, the H&A papers claiming that the stains are blood were both peer-reviewed. As best I can remember, there has never been a peer-reviewed paper claiming that the stains are paint – am I missing something?

Did you read either of these papers yourself? From the nature of your quotes I don't think so.

Hi Jabba,

.....

Did you read the Heller and Adler paper?

 

[Monza]

I'm not sure if anyone else has asked this question yet.... but what is the evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old?

I don't really care about blood. It is a red (or dark brown) herring. For now, I don't even care about the C14 dating. What would really move this thread forward and be a great topic of discussion would be for someone who believes in the shroud's authenticity to present evidence that it is 2000 years old.

 

[Craig B]

Mr. Savage: what evidence do you have that indicates that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

We now have pretty good evidence that the Turin object in no way resembles authentic 2000 year old shrouds from that area, because such an artefact has turned up. https://nyackajco.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/burial-shroud-found-in-jerusalem/

 

[Dinwar]

From the link:

And instead of being a single sheet like the famous item in Turin, the Jerusalem shroud is made up of several sections, with a separate piece for head.

The Bible appears to have gotten that detail correct. Not that it verifies the Biblical story in any way; I've no doubt that the practice was widely-enough known to be an easy detail to add. What this does, however, is show that the shroud of Turin is even less likely to be authentic. It contradicts both Biblical evidence and actual artifacts. It shows the S of T to be a remarkably bad attempt.

The debate over the Turin Shroud will not go away. Last month a Vatican researcher said she had found the words ‘Jesus Nazarene’ on the shroud, proving it was the linen cloth which was wrapped around Christ’s body.

This one, I'm not sure how to take. It's pretty widely known that "Jesus" is the Hellenized version of the name Yeshua. So finding something like "Jesus Nazarene" on the S of T strikes me as akin to finding "13 BC" on a coin and using that to claim authenticity.

 

[Rincewind]

Hey Jabba - case closed!

 

[Rincewind]

From the link:

snipped to final paragraph:

This one, I'm not sure how to take. It's pretty widely known that "Jesus" is the Hellenized version of the name Yeshua. So finding something like "Jesus Nazarene" on the S of T strikes me as akin to finding "13 BC" on a coin and using that to claim authenticity.

But - surely they all spoke English back then, didn't they?

After all, if it's good enough for... etc, etc...

 

[Craig4]

We now have pretty good evidence that the Turin object in no way resembles authentic 2000 year old shrouds from that area, because such an artefact has turned up. https://nyackajco.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/burial-shroud-found-in-jerusalem/

From the article

It was made with a simple two-way weave – not the twill weave used on the Turin Shroud, which textile experts say was introduced more than 1,000 years after Christ lived

Now I see why Jabba wanted an archeologist involved. The textile experts involved weren't so much biased against authenticity, they just knew the weave was from much later than 30 CE. That's not being biased, that's knowing your stuff.

 

[Dinwar]

Hey Jabba - case closed!

It's not quite that simple. We have one burial shroud; there's nothing demanding that all such shrouds follow that pattern. How many people are burried in weird ways today, after all? Plus, the fact that Yeshua was allegedly burried AT ALL is proof that this would have been a unique situation--crucifixion victims were left to rot, as I understand it, as a warning. It was a public punishment, intended to show the cost of doing whatever it was the person did.

That said, while this data doesn't kill the authenticity argument, it certainly is a rather serious gut-shot with a fairly large caliber gun. It's not proof, but it's close enough to proof that telling them apart is non-trivial.

ETA: Unless someone can prove hte twill weave originated prior to 30 CE, and was available in Judea circa 30 CE, the weave is certainly VERY strong evidence against the authenticity argument. It COULD BE that someone created thise weave without it entering the archaeological record except for this one artifact, but that would require some evidence to support it.

 

[Rincewind]

It's not quite that simple. We have one burial shroud; there's nothing demanding that all such shrouds follow that pattern. How many people are burried in weird ways today, after all? Plus, the fact that Yeshua was allegedly burried AT ALL is proof that this would have been a unique situation--crucifixion victims were left to rot, as I understand it, as a warning. It was a public punishment, intended to show the cost of doing whatever it was the person did.

That said, while this data doesn't kill the authenticity argument, it certainly is a rather serious gut-shot with a fairly large caliber gun. It's not proof, but it's close enough to proof that telling them apart is non-trivial.

ETA: Unless someone can prove hte twill weave originated prior to 30 CE, and was available in Judea circa 30 CE, the weave is certainly VERY strong evidence against the authenticity argument. It COULD BE that someone created thise weave without it entering the archaeological record except for this one artifact, but that would require some evidence to support it.

Oh, I do realise this...

But thanks for posting the details - mind you, I should have been clearer with some smilies!

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?

- OK. You win.
- I'll do my best to present the significant evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
- Between the two parts of this thread, I have already presented a lot of that evidence. You guys claim that you have refuted all of it.

- I think that the following will capsulate my thinking as of Feb 2012.
http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43
http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=104

- My next post re the age of the shroud will be something specific.

 

[John Jones]

- OK. You win.
- I'll do my best to present the significant evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
- Between the two parts of this thread, I have already presented a lot of that evidence. You guys claim that you have refuted all of it.

- I think that the following will capsulate my thinking as of Feb 2012.
http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43
http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=104

- My next post re the age of the shroud will be something specific.

Make it your next post period, and spare us all this blood and invisible repair palaver.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- OK. You win.
- I'll do my best to present the significant evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
- Between the two parts of this thread, I have already presented a lot of that evidence. You guys claim that you have refuted all of it.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage.

Be so kind as to provide specific links to this, here in these two threads.

- I think that the following will capsulate my thinking as of Feb 2012.
http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43
http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=104

- My next post re the age of the shroud will be something specific.

I eagerly anticipate your evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

 

[Olowkow]

Authenticist: (clears throat) This theory, which belongs to me, is as follows... (more throat clearing) This is how it goes... (clears throat) The next thing that I am going to say is my theory. (clears throat) Ready?



All shrouds are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle; and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory that is mine and belongs to me and I own it and what it is, too.