Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- My ultimate conclusion -- that the shroud is 2000 years old -- is based upon intermediate conclusions.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Your dedication to your assumed consequent (do you have any understanding of that phrase, at all?) has you depending upon false dichotomy and the necessity of the excluded middle.

Follow:

- That the shroud was not painted is one of those intermediate conclusions.

First, your "intermediate conclusion" does not speak to the age of the CIQ at all. Even if (and ONLY if) the anatomically ludicrous, posturally impossible, scripturally inaccurate, byzantine-styled projection of the image of a three-dimensional object, without distortion, upon the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of a section of 780-year-old linen were proven not to be a painting, IT WOULD STILL BE an anatomically ludicrous, posturally impossible, scripturally inaccurate, byzantine-styled projection of the image of a three-dimensional object, without distortion, upon the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of a section of 780-year-old linen. The genesis of the mark-making has nothing, nothing at all, to do with the age of the CIQ.

- If the shroud was not painted, I conclude

...without a scintilla, nor the least skerrick, of supporting evidence...

...that a real, dead, body produced the image via some kind of imprint.

This is a false dichotomy. It is the SAME false dichotomy in which you mired the "Immortality" thread. No matter how firmly you choose to believe that the cloth is EITHER a painting, OR "some kind of imprint", blithely ignoring all of the rest of reality.

Not only that, If the anatomically ludicrous, posturally impossible, scripturally inaccurate, byzantine-styled projection of the image of a three-dimensional object, without distortion, upon the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of a section of 780-year-old linen could, in fact, be demonstrated to be "some kind of imprint" of a "real body", (now, pay attention) that still says nothing, nothing AT ALL about the age of the cloth. "Real, dead bodies" were, in fact, available 780 years ago (although no "real, dead [HUMAN] body" would have the chisel-shaped head, the abnormally long arm bones, the cartoon hands, or any of the other anatomical peccadilloes of the image on the CIQ).

- From other evidence,...

...will you be providing this "other evidence", or is it more material you will have to go find?

...have you read this "other evidence", or is it more titles and first parargaphs, beyond which you did not read?

...I also believe that the wounds and the posture are, in fact, appropriate for the biblical Jesus, and also amazingly well-defined.

"Believe" is precisely the correct term for the manner in which your assumed consequent drives your interpretation (to say nothing of your cherry-picking) of the kinds of things it pleases you to call "evidence". You seem to have, for instance, overlooked the fact that one of your "evidences" that the image (&tc.) on the CIQ is not a painting is the lack of gesso; while one of your own sources has it that the CaCO₃ on the CIQ is ubiquitous; yet you still claim that Piczek has demonstrated to your satisfaction that the image (&ct.) "cannot be a painting".

- From the above, and other evidence,...

...I hope you plan to present this "evidence"...

my best guess is that the carbon dating is wrong.

No, not at all. Your perfervid hope is that the ¹⁴C dating is wrong.

Your assumed consequent forces you to cling to the desperate wish that the ¹⁴C dating were wrong.

Your accusations of stupidity, incompetence, negligence, duplicity, complicity, and outright fraud do not address the fact that three different labs, using three independent protocols, dated the linen as manifestly medieval in what has been called the most scrutinized bit of ¹⁴C dating ever.

Your unsupported need for authenticity does not address the ¹⁴C dating; nor does it indicate in any way that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

- ¹If all of the above is true, ²the body that produced the imprint must have been ³Jesus, and the ⁴shroud must be about ⁵2000 years old...

Five unsupported assumptions, adopted, not because of evidence, but because of your assumed consequent. Not one of the five is based upon any kind of evidence.

- At this point, I'm just trying to put together my reasons for believing that the shroud was not painted...

See above. Even IF the posturally impossible, scripturally inaccurate, byzantine-styled projection of the image of a three-dimensional object, without distortion, upon the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of a section of 780-year-old linen could, in fact, be demonstrated, conclusively, NOT to be a painting, that still would not, in any way, address the age of the CIQ.

This has been pointed oout to you before, but it is worth repeating. Evidence that the CIQ was not, in fact, 780 years old WOULD NOT BE evidence that the CIQ was, in fact, 2000 years old. You really must learn to divest yourself of your dependence upon false dichotomy.

Do you, in fact, have any evidence at all that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Even assuming all of Jabba's ideas (which run counter to all the facts) were somehow valid, wouldn't the conclusion based on the carbon dating be either:
1. The Bible and history has it wrong, and Jesus lived in the Middle Ages, or
2. A second mystical person, not Jesus, in the Middle Ages was buried in the Shroud of Turin and left the "magical" imprints? Mohammed perhaps? An obscure buddhist monk? One of the great Jewish scholars? Clyde the court magician?

inorite?

 

[Sideroxylon]

- At this point, I'm just trying to put together my reasons for believing that the shroud was not painted...

How do you justify to yourself starting with a conclusion and then seeking evidence to support that conclusion? This is not the way to the truth of any matter but a means to back up wishful thinking.

The human understanding is no dry light, but receives infusion from the will and affections; whence proceeds sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from supersition; the light of experience, from arrogrance and pride; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding.​

Francis Bacon

 

[Slowvehicle]

How do you justify to yourself starting with a conclusion and then seeking evidence to support that conclusion? This is not the way to the truth of any matter but a means to back up wishful thinking.

The human understanding is no dry light, but receives infusion from the will and affections; whence proceeds sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from supersition; the light of experience, from arrogrance and pride; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding.​

Francis Bacon

Frankie says, "Listen up, y'all!"

 

[jond]

Even assuming all of Jabba's ideas (which run counter to all the facts) were somehow valid, wouldn't the conclusion based on the carbon dating be either:
1. The Bible and history has it wrong, and Jesus lived in the Middle Ages, or
2. A second mystical person, not Jesus, in the Middle Ages was buried in the Shroud of Turin and left the "magical" imprints? Mohammed perhaps? An obscure buddhist monk? One of the great Jewish scholars? Clyde the court magician?

Jacques De Molay. Really, there's some nuttery about it.

 

[Dinwar]

How do you justify to yourself starting with a conclusion and then seeking evidence to support that conclusion? This is not the way to the truth of any matter but a means to back up wishful thinking.

To be fair, that's not true. NO ONE starts by gathering the facts in a vaccuum and drawing conclusions based solely on those facts. What actually happens is that we have a pretty good idea of what to expect going in. This helps us focus our research--otherwise, we'd waste time on things like how many threads the shroud has (after all, that's a fact, right?). (No, not a real example--but examples I've seen in stratigraphy, particularly among splitters, come close!)

An honest researcher looks for data for AND AGAINST what they think is true. They look for data to support their conclusions, for the obvious reasons; but they also look for data refuting them, and for refutations of those refutations. Darwin's book "On the Origin of the Species" is a fantastic example of someone doing this.

In contrast, a dishonest person will look only for the data supporting their pet hypothesis. They will ignore data that tends to refute it. THAT is where the problem really lies.

Bias can be dangerous, but the best scientists are able to harnes the power of their own biases and use them to enhance their research. We all have them; it's only a question of mitigating them, deliberately using them, or being swallowed whole by them. Jabba chose the latter path, it seems.

 

[hugh farey]

Slowvehicle,
- My ultimate conclusion -- that the shroud is 2000 years old -- is based upon intermediate conclusions.
- That the shroud was not painted is one of those intermediate conclusions.
- If the shroud was not painted, I conclude that a real, dead, body produced the image via some kind of imprint.
- From other evidence, I also believe that the wounds and the posture are, in fact, appropriate for the biblical Jesus, and also amazingly well-defined.
- From the above, and other evidence, my best guess is that the carbon dating is wrong.
- If all of the above is true, the body that produced the imprint must have been Jesus, and the shroud must be about 2000 years old...

- At this point, I'm just trying to put together my reasons for believing that the shroud was not painted...

Hi Jabba!
Just popping by...
You are correct that if you can demonstrate that the Shroud is a natural formation from a dead body, then there's a fair inference that the dead body was Jesus. Sadly, the radiocarbon evidence is not thereby discredited, so it would appear that the fair inference would be incorrect, and a better conclusion would be that body producing the natural formation was as medieval as the image. It may be that the wounds and posture are sufficiently commensurate with the biblical description of Christ's suffering and death to enable us to conclude that the image was either made by Christ himself, or by somebody else who either suffered, or was made to look as if he had suffered, similar distress. Since the radiocarbon evidence is not discredited by this observation, if seems that the second option would be more likely. Neither of these first two points ("a dead body made the image", and "the image looks like Jesus") are sufficient to discredit the radiocarbon date, so I would not have too much faith in your "best guess" if that is all that supports it. Finally, even if a dead body made the image, and the image looks like Jesus, and the radiocarbon dating is wrong, there are still a number of options available other than that the shroud is authentic. I think the inference that it was would be fair, but to claim that it was proved ("it must be Jesus" and "it must be 2000 years old") is unjustified on these grounds alone.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?

Obviously, but they should all relate to the ultimate conclusion...

- And they do.

 

[Dinwar]

- And they do.

Not in any way intelligible to anyone other than yourself, and you have not condiscended to provide the relationship between these and the conclusion to the rest of us. So even assuming that we thought you had any credibility left, we cannot accept this statement.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- And they do.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage.

Are you even bothering to read the posted responses?

Not one of your assertions indicates in any way that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

 

[Jabba]

2000?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Your dedication to your assumed consequent (do you have any understanding of that phrase, at all?) has you depending upon false dichotomy and the necessity of the excluded middle...

- No, it doesn't.
- Though, I might need to further explain my logic.
- This might help: If you believed that the image was not painted, wouldn't you suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body?

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?

- Is this an issue of "topicality"?

 

[Giordano]

Time for me to check out of this discussion again. And on my blackboard, I will write: "This time, I will remember that Jabba never addresses with facts, nor long remembers, any of the rebuttals to his arguments. This time, I will remember that Jabba never addresses with facts, nor long remembers, any of the rebuttals to his arguments. This time, I will remember that Jabba never addresses with facts, nor long remembers, any of the rebuttals to his arguments."

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hi Jabba!
Just popping by...
You are correct that if you can demonstrate that the Shroud is a natural formation from a dead body, then there's a fair inference that the dead body was Jesus.

No, not really.

A "fair inference" would have to take into account that Jesus, if he existed (as is claimed) and was crucified (as is claimed) might be the source of the anatomically ludicrous, posturally impossible, scripturally inaccurate, projection (without distortion) of the image of a three-dimensional object upon the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of the length of linen; if (and ONLY if) the linen and the supposed Jesus were, in fact, contemporary. Once cannot use the presumption of contemporaneity to overcome the results of the "most scrutinzied bit of ¹⁴C dating ever," not, at least, if one wants to aspire to intellectual honesty and procedural rigor.

Sadly, the radiocarbon evidence is not thereby discredited, so it would appear that the fair inference would be incorrect, and a better conclusion would be that body producing the natural formation was as medieval as the image.

Not just "incorrect", but "not a 'fair' inference".

It may be that the wounds and posture are sufficiently commensurate with the biblical description of Christ's suffering and death to enable us to conclude that the image was either made by Christ himself, or by somebody else who either suffered, or was made to look as if he had suffered, similar distress.

...or by someone unfamiliar with the actual scriptural account, and/or the funerary practices of the 1st Century CE...

Since the radiocarbon evidence is not discredited by this observation, if seems that the second option would be more likely. Neither of these first two points ("a dead body made the image", and "the image looks like Jesus")

Again, the image does not "look like Jesus"; if anything, the image looks like a medieval, byzantine-influenced representation of a European idea of what Jesus looked like. As with the American Evangelical images of "gentle white guy, meek and mild"*, this ignores the reality of who and what Jesus would have been, and looked like, if, in fact, he existed.

*more particularly "gentile"white guy, &ct.

...are sufficient to discredit the radiocarbon date, so I would not have too much faith in your "best guess" if that is all that supports it. Finally, even if a dead body made the image, and the image looks like Jesus, and the radiocarbon dating is wrong, there are still a number of options available other than that the shroud is authentic. I think the inference that it was would be fair, but to claim that it was proved ("it must be Jesus" and "it must be 2000 years old") is unjustified on these grounds alone.

I continue to disagree with your claim that "it's Jesus" is a "fair inference" given the nature of the image...and the age of the linen.

 

[Loss Leader]

- From the above, and other evidence, my best guess is that the carbon dating is wrong.

You just assumed your consequent. "The carbon dating is wrong because this really looks like Jesus." In fact, you have to prove both things independently: 1) This looks like Jesus; 2) This is from the time of Jesus. All you said was that you were disregarding some evidence based on your hope that other evidence is true.

- This might help: If you believed that the image was not painted, wouldn't you suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body?

No.

The image was painted with animal blood.

The image was painted with human blood.

A person volunteered to smear himself with blood of some type and lie down on a sheet.

Some dead person somewhere in the middle ages was mocked up to with Jesus' wounds and rolled up in a sheet.

Some dead person at some time in history was mocked up and rolled in a sheet.

Another individual who was crucified during Roman times was rolled up in the sheet for the purpose of fraud.

Another crucified individual was entombed in a shroud and later, through a series of misunderstandings or deliberate lies, that shroud was attributed to Jesus.

And the list goes on.

The opposite of "painted" is not "the burial shroud of Jesus." The opposite of "painted" is "anything other than painted."

 

[Mojo]

Can you explain how you get from this:

... if you can demonstrate that the Shroud is a natural formation from a dead body

...to this:

... then there's a fair inference that the dead body was Jesus.

...given all the billions of dead bodies that have existed?

ETA: Not to mention the age of the cloth...

 

[John Jones]

- And they do.

No they don't.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- No, it doesn't.
- Though, I might need to further explain my logic.
- This might help: If you believed that the image was not painted, wouldn't you suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body?

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage:

It would be difficult for you to more clearly demonstrate that you do not read my posts for content.

In your mind, the ONLY TWO OPTIONS are "painting" or "imprint of an actual dead body".

That is, IN FACT, the fallacy of the false dichotomy, and/or the excluded middle.
In fact, it is a textbook example. If, arguendo, the image is not a painting, what (in your mind) rules out its being an intaglio, or a press print, or a scorch print, or a rubbing, and so on (any of which would address the lack of distortion)?

Here is an exercise for the student: list the characteristics of the image I have posted, repeatedly, that make it clear that I do not "suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body", nor could, in any intellectually honest way, be said to have implied that such was even a possibility.

No. I do not "suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body". Had you read any of my posts about the image for comprehension, you would not think the question meaningful.

 

[John Jones]

- No, it doesn't.
- Though, I might need to further explain my logic.
- This might help: If you believed that the image was not painted, wouldn't you suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body?

You haven't used any valid logic in 2+ years of this thread

No, because dead bodies don't look like that, and shrouds wrapped around on dead bodies wouldn't look like the image on the CIQ.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Is this an issue of "topicality"?

No. It is an issue of the fact that you have yet to produce a single sniff of evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

Not one bit of evidence.