Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Sideroxylon]

- 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.

If you had arrived at belief the cloth in question was the actual burial shroud of Jesus through evidence you would not have to disappear in attempts to try and present evidence. Instead it looks like your are in a constant scramble to provide support however desparate for your wishful thinking. If you arrive at a position through intellectual honesty these sort of foundational questions can be fired from the hip.

 

[Nonpareil]

- 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.

Finally.

Someone start the clock.

 

[Craig4]

- 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.

I don't see any evidence for the date of the CIQ here. All I see are attempts at refuting the scientists who say it only dates to the 13th century.

7.2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’ I.E,
7.2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
7.2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
7.2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…
7.2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.

Perhaps you could explain where there is evidence for the age of the CIQ above. I'm not seeing any.

 

[Dinwar]

7.2.1 is unreasonable--a demand that we make something right now which took hundreds of years to fade to the current state.

7.2.2 is Argument from Incredulity, ie, "I wouldn't think to do it, so no one else would!"

7.2.3 is a flat-out lie. The shroud shows no head cloth. And even if it weren't a lie, it is hardly incredible that a forger would know of the resurrection story; it was rather widely known.

7.2.4 is a confession that all credible evidence points to it being Medieval.

All in all, not a good start. Still, I am curious as to what those clues you mention are.

 

[Peter i]

- 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. .....

- It is not about winning, it is about valid facts.

- Please do present some evidence, because nothing has been presented so far.

- No you have not!



But according to your normal SOP, you will now again start ignoring the age, and talk about something irrelevant instead of the annoying central problem.

 

[John Jones]

7.2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old[...]

How ironic. You make appeals to the discipline of science to support your case, but when science (i.e. ¹⁴C dating) contradicts your claims, you call scientists a bunch of incompetent liars.

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't see any evidence for the date of the CIQ here. All I see are attempts at refuting the scientists who say it only dates to the 13th century.

All in all, not a good start. Still, I am curious as to what those clues you mention are.

How ironic. You make appeals to the discipline of science to support your case, but when science (i.e. ¹⁴C dating) contradicts your claims, you call scientists a bunch of incompetent liars.

Ignore everything contained in those links. It is an attempt to derail the conversation again by dangling something unrelated in front of us and saying that it is evidence that the Shroud is two thousand years old.

Jabba, we are still waiting on your evidence.

 

[Dinwar]

Ignore everything contained in those links. It is an attempt to derail the conversation again by dangling something unrelated in front of us and saying that it is evidence that the Shroud is two thousand years old.

Jabba, we are still waiting on your evidence.

Those "clues" suggesting it's older would count as evidence that the Shroud is 2,000 years old. Or at least, would be a good place to start, as Jabba should be able to readily produce them.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Please present the Evidence you say you have, and that you say you have presented here in these threads, that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

Do notice that complaining that the ¹⁴C dating "must be" wrong is not evidence.

Explaining how much you hope for "authenticity" is not evidence.

I am eagerly awaiting your presentation.

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, when painting a floor, it's best to start at the side of the room away from the door and work toward the exit, lest you find yourself painted into a corner.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No word from Jabba today?

 

[John Jones]

He must be looking for actual evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

Such evidence is clearly vanishingly rare, since he's never presented any after all this time.

 

[Rincewind]

Has there been a spelling mistake on the thread title?

I see the word "Miracle" - surely that's not the way to spell "Mirage"?

 

[The Don]

I don't post on this thread very often but do dip into it on a regular basis. I find the thread immensely frustrating because it doesn't seem to go anywhere, although I have learned a lot more about the non-carbon dating evidence that the shroud is not genuine. That said, were it not for jabba's debating style and apparent unwillingness to address the argument, we could be where we are now after about 20 posts.

For me part of the frustration is that jabba is coming from a completely different starting point, he absolutely believes that the shroud is genuine which means that from his perspective he is demanding evidence which proves, beyond doubt (not even reasonable doubt) that the shroud is a fake. The tiniest scintilla of doubt he can throw on a piece of evidence means that the entire line of attack can be discarded.

Example 1: Carbon Dating. To most people the carbon dating evidence seems to be conclusive and, after all these years of analysis an challenging, uncontroversial. These people are willing to accept the offical result of "1260-1390 CE, with 95% confidence" as an indication that the Shroud is a medieval artifact. For someone who absolutely believes that the Shroud is genuine, this means that that scientifically there's a 5% chance that it's genuine (because in there mind "<> 1260-1390 CE " is the same as first century). Furthermore if contamination and/or repairs can throw any doubt at all on the dating - however minor the effect - then this again supports their view that the Shroud is genuine.

Example 2: The Image. To most people, when you explain that the image isn't consistent with a burial cloth wrapping a body then it's clear that the image must have been painted by somebody with some kind of pigment. To someone who is absolutely wedded to Shroud authenticity, the news that some of the compounds in the pigment may not be entirely incompatible with blood means that it must be blood, which supports their view that the image was created by the blood of Christ.

I've read through the most recent links provided by jabba and they seem to be consistent with the lines of reasoning outlined in the two examples. jabba (and other people who are immensely emotionally invested in the authenticity of the Shroud) will never be persuaded that it is not genuine but this thread is an object lesson about how to deal with a "difficult" poster without getting suspended. All parties, including jabba, have at least behaved with a minimum of courtesy which should not be remarkable but seemingly is.

 

[Mojo]

- I think that the following will capsulate my thinking as of Feb 2012.
<snip links>

Jabba, you joined the forum in Feb 2012. Your first post in part 1 of this thread was the following month. By going back to your "thinking as of Feb 2012" you are ignoring the whole of the discussion you have had here.

 

[Mojo]

I've just been reading this thread backwards. It is exactly the same as reading it forwards: every now and then Jabba repeats his initial arguments, and in between they are refuted by other posters.

 

[Mashuna]

Jabba, you joined the forum in Feb 2012. Your first post in part 1 of this thread was the following month. By going back to your "thinking as of Feb 2012" you are ignoring the whole of the discussion you have had here.

Well, at least he's being honest.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I've just been reading this thread backwards. It is exactly the same as reading it forwards: every now and then Jabba repeats his initial arguments, and in between they are refuted by other posters.

It's a palindrome? Cool

 

[tsig]

From the link:

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.

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.

It's well know that it was the custom for dead people to autograph their burial clothes.

 

[tsig]

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

The shroud, being a magic item, is self healing and they took the sample from one of the regrown parts.