Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[John Jones]

Well, at least he's being honest.

The word 'honest' in this case being a euphemism for 'untrustworthy'.

 

[Craig B]

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

Don't be silly. That's not how it happened. The words "seeped" out of a trilingual death certificate attached to the shroud by low ranking bureaucrats to facilitate the recovery of Jesus' body by his relatives. Of course.

The historian and researcher at the secret Vatican archive said she has found the words "Jesus Nazarene" on the shroud, proving it was the linen cloth which was wrapped around Christ's body ...

She suggested that it was written by low-ranking Roman officials or mortuary clerks on a scroll or piece of papyrus to identify Christ's corpse. Such a document would have enabled the relatives of a dead person to retrieve a body from a communal morgue, she suggested.
It would have been attached to the corpse with a flour-based glue and the ink could have seeped through into the cloth below, leaving a faint imprint ...
The text also mentions that the man who was wrapped in the shroud had been condemned to death, she believes. The hidden text was in effect the "burial certificate" for Jesus Christ, Dr Frale said.
"I tried to be objective and leave religious issues aside," she said. "What I studied was an ancient document that certifies the execution of a man, in a specific time and place."
But other experts were sceptical. "People work on grainy photos and think they see things," said Antonio Lombatti, a church historian who has written books about the shroud. "It's all the result of imagination and computer software."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-death-certificate-found-on-Turin-Shroud.html

 

[SezMe]

Don't be silly. That's not how it happened. The words "seeped" out of a trilingual death certificate attached to the shroud by low ranking bureaucrats to facilitate the recovery of Jesus' body by his relatives. Of course. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-death-certificate-found-on-Turin-Shroud.html

Problem is, it was the short-form death certificate. Until we have the long form, we'll have to assume he died in Kenya.

 

[Peter i]

Problem is, it was the short-form death certificate. Until we have the long form, we'll have to assume he died in Kenya.

You made me to spill tea in my keyboard!

 

[Jabba]

Ultimate Conclusion/Evidence/Imprint

- My ultimate goal here is not to show that the shroud is 2000 years old.
- My ultimate goal here is to show that the shroud is probably the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus. That the shroud is 2000 years old is only "presumptive" evidence that the shroud is the burial shroud of Jesus.

- Note that I do not hope to prove such a thing, but only to show that the scale tips -- substantially -- in that direction.

- I don't remember ever seeing the following description as to how a scientist validly supports an opinion/conclusion that is based upon numerous bits of evidence, but sure seems to me how it, at least often, works.
- The ultimate conclusion is built upon intermediate conclusions -- perhaps layers of intermediate conclusions -- ultimately, resting upon a foundation of alleged evidence.
- So, when you ask me for my alleged evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, or that it's the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus, I need to first show how the evidence relates to the ultimate conclusion -- the capstone of my pyramid. I need to present the intermediate stones/steps/conclusions that lead back down to the alleged evidence.

- In my last post, I said that my next post would be "specific" -- meaning that I would present specific, alleged, evidence. The specific, alleged, evidence can be found at http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm, and argues that the shroud cannot be a painting.
- How this fits into my allegedly logical pyramid is found at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189. This is still a work in the very beginning of progress.

 

[Sideroxylon]

- I wish that the cloth is e burial shroud of Jesus
- I will cherry pick and shoehorn anything that has any semblance of support for this wish.

 

[John Jones]

- My ultimate goal here is not to show that the shroud is 2000 years old.
- My ultimate goal here is to show that the shroud is probably the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus. That the shroud is 2000 years old is only "presumptive" evidence that the shroud is the burial shroud of Jesus.

[...]

After 4 days of silence, this is all you have? You said you were going to provide evidence of the ciq's age. You have presented nothing of the kind.


If the CIQ is authentic, it would have to be 2000 years old. If you can't provide evidence of this, then your argument is dead in the water.

After 2.5 years of providing nothing but logical fallacies and lies misrepresentations, I think even you realize you have no case to make.

 

[Sideroxylon]

If you have reached a conclusion on a subject would you not already have all of your evidential ducks lined up? If you reach a position through intellectual honesty you need only present to others the evidence that convinced you. I cannot see how you can be honest with yourself and hold your position on he cloth without being able to readily present a solid argument for such important elements as the cloth being 2000 years old.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- My ultimate goal here is not to show that the shroud is 2000 years old.
- My ultimate goal here is to show that the shroud is probably the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage:

Others will ninja me on this one, I am sure, but it is worth every poster involved making a good-faith effort to explain to you the fundamental deficiency with this approach.

To put it bluntly, UNLESS the CIQ is, were fact, 2000 years old, and could be demonstrated so to be, It COULD NOT BE the mythical cloth believers claim it to be. No level of perfection of image could overcome the fact that the linen is manifestly medieval.

That the shroud is 2000 years old is only "presumptive" evidence that the shroud is the burial shroud of Jesus.

No, not at all.

First, your grammar is dishonest. The CIQ is NOT 200- years old, but ~780.

Second, even if the anatomically laughable, posturally impossible, scripturally and historically inaccurate, flat image of a rounded object were demonstrated to have been rendered on the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of 2000-year-old linen,it would still be an anatomically laughable, posturally impossible, scripturally and historically inaccurate, flat image of a rounded object were demonstrated to have been rendered on the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of 2000-year-old linen.

- Note that I do not hope to prove such a thing, but only to show that the scale tips -- substantially -- in that direction.

The only way to "tip" that scale is to demonstrate that the linen is 200 years old. You continue to blithely ignore the point that, even if your accusations of stupidity, incompetence, venality, collusion, and outright dishonesty on the part of those involved in the ¹⁴C dating were true in their entireties, you would STILL have to demonstrate that the linen was, in fact, old enough to be the mythical object believers hope it to be.

- I don't remember ever seeing the following description as to how a scientist validly supports an opinion/conclusion that is based upon numerous bits of evidence, but sure seems to me how it, at least often, works.
- The ultimate conclusion is built upon intermediate conclusions -- perhaps layers of intermediate conclusions -- ultimately, resting upon a foundation of alleged evidence.
- So, when you ask me for my alleged evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, or that it's the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus, I need to first show how the evidence relates to the ultimate conclusion -- the capstone of my pyramid. I need to present the intermediate stones/steps/conclusions that lead back down to the alleged evidence.

No, not at all. Unless and until the CIQ were demonstrated to be of sufficient antiquity, it cannot be considered, even possibly, to be the mythical artifact believers hope it to be--despite all the artistic, scriptural, and historical evidence to the contrary.

- In my last post, I said that my next post would be "specific"

Good thing we restrained our expectations, then, right?

-- meaning that I would present specific, alleged, evidence. The specific, alleged, evidence can be found at http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm, and argues that the shroud cannot be a painting.
- How this fits into my allegedly logical pyramid is found at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189. This is still a work in the very beginning of progress.

You are misusing the term, "alleged".

Instead of reading, and rebutting, a source you have not read (as I did with the H & A stuff), I respectfully ask that you present, in your own words, the 5-10 points raised by Piczek you find particularly telling.

You have, in fact, read the Piczek materials, right?

Right?

I eagerly await your identification and explanation of what you consider to be the primary points.

ETA:

Isn't Pickzek the author of the "zero-gravity", "resurrection energy", "image-formed-in-midair" video?

Have you no intellectual standards at all?

 

[Loss Leader]

- In my last post, I said that my next post would be "specific" -- meaning that I would present specific, alleged, evidence. The specific, alleged, evidence can be found at http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm, and argues that the shroud cannot be a painting.
- How this fits into my allegedly logical pyramid is found at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189. This is still a work in the very beginning of progress.

It occurs to me, Jabba, that your reasoning here shows exactly the same deficits as your reasoning in the immortality thread.

You believe that the opposite of one single fact is one other single fact. It's not and never will be. The opposite of one single fact is absolutely everything but that single fact.

The opposite of us each living for just a short time is not that we are immortal. The opposite of the shroud being a 750 year-old painting is not that it was the burial shroud of Jesus.

If you want to establish that fact, every single step must be logically connected to every other step. So what does it prove that the shroud was not painted? Nothing except that the shroud was not painted. What might it prove that the carbon dating was wrong? Nothing except that the carbon dating was wrong.

If you want to establish that the shroud is authentic, you must provide positive evidence that it is authentic. People here have asked you to start with positive evidence that the thing is 2000 years old. You said you would. You took several days off. Then, you came back and failed to address that point.

Please shore up the logically necessary proposition that the cloth is 2000 years old.

 

[Dinwar]

Yeah, totally NOT how science works. If you want to badly mutilate the process, it works like this: everyone agrees on certain principles, at least in the given context (ie, we need not discuss where c comes from when discussing sedimentology, for example; it is accepted as given). We then formulate hypotheses that, at minimum, must not contradict those givens. We then propose and run tests of those hypotheses. Those data then either support or refute the conclusions, or are ambiguous.

It would be trivial to bog science down worse than this thread--all you would have to do is demand that every datum be verified for every statement. In theory, you can; we have the literature to do 99% of it (WWII was hard on science). But no one bothers, because, to put it bluntly, everyone doing science accepts that knowing this information is the cost of entry into the discussion. We simply don't waste time on the stuff we have already established. We focus on the data that are most useful in answering our questions.

Your pet hypothesis is that the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ. Fine. AT MINIMUM you must establish it to be ~2ka. Failure to do that invalidates EVERYTHING that comes after it.

Note, again, that this is the easiest of the issues you must overcome. The rest are much harder. And you can't even address this one, much less actually present your evidence.

 

[carlitos]

Come on, he can't even answer a yes / no question as to whether he read a paper or not. How's he going to be the first man in history to prove this rag in 2000 years old? You gotta crawl before you can limp.

 

[John Jones]

This bears repeating:

Jabba, if you can't demonstrate that the shroud is ~2000 years old, nothing else matters.

Please stop wasting time on irrelevancies.

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, just no. The cloth has to be 2000ish years old to even be a candidate to be the burial shroud you're hoping for. If it is not, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter how the image got on the fabric. It doesn't matter what or whose blood is on it. The only evidence for the date of the cloth is the carbon dating and you have done no damage to the results of those tests.

 

[tsig]

Jabba, just no. The cloth has to be 2000ish years old to even be a candidate to be the burial shroud you're hoping for. If it is not, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter how the image got on the fabric. It doesn't matter what or whose blood is on it. The only evidence for the date of the cloth is the carbon dating and you have done no damage to the results of those tests.

Since Jesus is present everywhere whenever someone creates a shroud He infuses his presence in it thus it becomes a true shroud.

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, is you last post an admission that you cannot, in spite of your promise to do so, prove the CIQ is 2000 years old? What else could there be to discuss besides that?

 

[Mojo]

So, when you ask me for my alleged evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, or that it's the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus, I need to first show how the evidence relates to the ultimate conclusion -- the capstone of my pyramid.

We know how the evidence "relates to" your desired conclusion: it completely fails to support it.

 

[Peter i]

- My ultimate goal here is not to show that the shroud is 2000 years old.
- My ultimate goal here is to show that the shroud is probably the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus. That the shroud is 2000 years old is only "presumptive" evidence that the shroud is the burial shroud of Jesus.
.....

Your hypothesis is: "This rag is the burial cloth of Jeebus"

This implies, that it has to be 2000 years old.

If it can be shown, that it is not 2000 years old, your hypothesis is falsified.


C14 clearly shows, that it is not 2000 years old, your hypothesis is falsified.



You can now either show the rest of the world in general and the scientific community in particular, that C14 tests have no use, or you can accept that The Rag Of Turin is not, and never has been the burial shroud of anyone living 2000 years ago.
In which case it does not matter, who you claim to have been wrapped in it.


But you have been told this a zillion times already.

Why do you want to be "scientific" and "prove" anything?
You fail each and every time.

"I am a believer, my faith is central and I ignore anything but my faith" would be much easier for all involved, and would spare you defeat after defeat.

 

[Mashuna]

- So, when you ask me for my alleged evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, or that it's the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus, I need to first show how the evidence relates to the ultimate conclusion -- the capstone of my pyramid. I need to present the intermediate stones/steps/conclusions that lead back down to the alleged evidence.

Just as general advice, please don't ever take up building as a hobby.

 

[Jabba]

Painting?

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage:

Others will ninja me on this one, I am sure, but it is worth every poster involved making a good-faith effort to explain to you the fundamental deficiency with this approach.

To put it bluntly, UNLESS the CIQ is, were fact, 2000 years old, and could be demonstrated so to be, It COULD NOT BE the mythical cloth believers claim it to be. No level of perfection of image could overcome the fact that the linen is manifestly medieval.



No, not at all.

First, your grammar is dishonest. The CIQ is NOT 200- years old, but ~780.

Second, even if the anatomically laughable, posturally impossible, scripturally and historically inaccurate, flat image of a rounded object were demonstrated to have been rendered on the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of 2000-year-old linen,it would still be an anatomically laughable, posturally impossible, scripturally and historically inaccurate, flat image of a rounded object were demonstrated to have been rendered on the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of 2000-year-old linen.



The only way to "tip" that scale is to demonstrate that the linen is 200 years old. You continue to blithely ignore the point that, even if your accusations of stupidity, incompetence, venality, collusion, and outright dishonesty on the part of those involved in the ¹⁴C dating were true in their entireties, you would STILL have to demonstrate that the linen was, in fact, old enough to be the mythical object believers hope it to be.



No, not at all. Unless and until the CIQ were demonstrated to be of sufficient antiquity, it cannot be considered, even possibly, to be the mythical artifact believers hope it to be--despite all the artistic, scriptural, and historical evidence to the contrary.



Good thing we restrained our expectations, then, right?



You are misusing the term, "alleged".

Instead of reading, and rebutting, a source you have not read (as I did with the H & A stuff), I respectfully ask that you present, in your own words, the 5-10 points raised by Piczek you find particularly telling.

You have, in fact, read the Piczek materials, right? Right? I eagerly await your identification and explanation of what you consider to be the primary points.
ETA:

Isn't Pickzek the author of the "zero-gravity", "resurrection energy", "image-formed-in-midair" video?

Have you no intellectual standards at all?

Slowvehicle,
- I have read, and reviewed, her article.
- The following quote summarizes her, and my, considerations: "The study of the support, ground, the paint mediums and their related techniques and decay, handedness, style, directionality, light focus, art anatomy and geometrical perspective and experimental art all exclude that the object called "the Shroud of Turin" could be a painting."