Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
Leon Festinger
 
The interesting thing to me is that Jews are not excited at all by religious relics. We have no tradition of venerating relics as it basically contradicts the commandment against graven images. To my knowledge, this has been true since long before the Common Era.

So, (assuming Jesus existed) the only people interested in him at the time of his death would have been unlikely to deify objects related to him. Relics (and statuary and images) were something the pagans imported when they converted.

Saving a guy's burial shroud does not strike me as something we would do.
 
Loss Leader said:
Saving a guy's burial shroud does not strike me as something we would do.
Click to expand...

Well, unless it really shows an inprint of the body of the buried person.

As a matter of fact I don't think it was the case, but this is a rather weak argument. Assuming that the whole story would be true, including the resurrection and the shroud showing the image of Jesus of Nazareth, I do not see why someone, even Jewish would not have kept the shroud. Maybe only to keep a evidence of what happened.

However, if this would have been the case, there would probable have been accounts of this fact, at least in the gospels.
 
Loss Leader said:
The interesting thing to me is that Jews are not excited at all by religious relics. We have no tradition of venerating relics as it basically contradicts the commandment against graven images. To my knowledge, this has been true since long before the Common Era.

So, (assuming Jesus existed) the only people interested in him at the time of his death would have been unlikely to deify objects related to him. Relics (and statuary and images) were something the pagans imported when they converted.

Saving a guy's burial shroud does not strike me as something we would do.
Click to expand...

The "Schmatta of Turin?" Schmatta basically means "rag" in Yiddish.

In any case, I would think that someone would have mentioned the "photograph" on the burial cloth at the time, if it had occurred. That would be pretty impressive and would have also presented a very convincing argument in favor of Jesus being divine (and more easily carried around than a burning bush).
 
Degeneve said:
As a matter of fact I don't think it was the case, but this is a rather weak argument.
Click to expand...


It's a very weak argument. It's nothing I would lead with. But, as long as Jabba is speculating in one direction, I thought it fair to speculate in the other.
 
At this point, I would probably go with "Jesus was real and his shroud exists, but the one in Turin is obviously not it, on account of it's far too young and also anatomically ridiculous. And also far too young. I will continue my search for the Real Burial Shroud of Jesus, which I am sure exists, and which is several hundred years older than the one in Turin. I will be sure to update you all here once I have found it."
 
theprestige said:
At this point, I would probably go with "Jesus was real and his shroud exists, but the one in Turin is obviously not it, on account of it's far too young and also anatomically ridiculous. And also far too young. I will continue my search for the Real Burial Shroud of Jesus, which I am sure exists, and which is several hundred years older than the one in Turin. I will be sure to update you all here once I have found it."
Click to expand...


Also, the one in Turin isn't old enough.
 
Jabba,

Wouldn't the shroud have to be at least as old as the corpse you claim it wrapped?

If it isn't at least ~2000 years old, you are wasting everyone's time with this blood, paint, and invisible repair nonsense.

Stop wasting our time and present evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. If you can't do that, nothing else matters.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
Jabba,

Wouldn't the shroud have to be at least as old as the corpse you claim it wrapped?

If it isn't at least ~2000 years old, you are wasting everyone's time with this blood, paint, and invisible repair nonsense.

Stop wasting our time and present evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. If you can't do that, nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

Well, since Jabba is so keen that an archeologist should have been present at the sample taking, I'll tell him what an archeologist would have said. The image on the cloth has to be more recent than the cloth itself. It's the law of superposition. If a deposit is on top of another deposit, the deposit on top has to be more recent than the deposit below. It's more complicated than all that when you're actually digging but in this case it's pretty straight forward. The image on the cloth cannot be older than the cloth. The image has a terminus post quem (date after which) of the 13th century.
 
Loss Leader said:
The interesting thing to me is that Jews are not excited at all by religious relics. We have no tradition of venerating relics as it basically contradicts the commandment against graven images. To my knowledge, this has been true since long before the Common Era.

So, (assuming Jesus existed) the only people interested in him at the time of his death would have been unlikely to deify objects related to him. Relics (and statuary and images) were something the pagans imported when they converted.

Saving a guy's burial shroud does not strike me as something we would do.
Click to expand...

Well, after you guys lost the Arc.... ;)

And yeah, it's pretty clear that the worship of saints and relics is due to either pagans (Romans) bringing their beliefs with them as they converted, or the church leaders altering the belief systems to become more appealing to pagans to encourage conversion (likely a combination of the two, in ways that preclude figuring out which was the most significant). I'm not sure Christianity changed much when it came into power in Europe; it seems more like established European cultures molded Christianity for their own uses.
 
Loss Leader said:
The interesting thing to me is that Jews are not excited at all by religious relics. We have no tradition of venerating relics as it basically contradicts the commandment against graven images. .
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church doesn't actually consider the graven image thing to be a commandment at all. In fact, they had to split up the "thou shalt not covet" commandment into two to make sure there were still ten.
 
Painting?/Imprint/Dead Body/Top of Head

Slowvehicle said:
...
Which does not, of course, address the issue. I realize you do not do practical demos, but try this:

Put your thumb on the mental process of your chin, and reach up across your face as far as possible with your open palm. Mark the place where the tip of your little finger reaches.

Now put your thumb level with your occipital process, at the back of your skull,and reach up with your palm. Again, mark where your little finger reaches.

Now put your thumb there, at the mark. Reach forward with your pal toward the mark on your forehead. If you are of human proportion, your little finger will reach to, or just past, the mark on your forehead. Human heads are generally as long as they are tall.

Now, follow: your rationalization would actually increase the apparent length of the skull--the front and back would be further apart than they are in an actual skull.

What is seen on the CIQ is that the representation of the front of the head is practically touching the representation of the back of the head--the head is depicted as coming to a chisel point.

That alone demonstrates that the image is not the projection of an actual human figure...
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,
- The following is a lot to read, but you appear to be a speed reader.
- http://shroudstory.com/2014/01/15/top-of-head-puzzle/
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- The following is a lot to read, but you appear to be a speed reader.
- http://shroudstory.com/2014/01/15/top-of-head-puzzle/
Click to expand...

...why not tell me what YOU think it says, so that I am not doing your research for you?

ETA: seriously?

How do you, personally believe that article resolves the issue of the chisel-shaped head?

Be specific.

THEN explain what that has to do with providing evidence for the age of the CIQ...
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- The following is a lot to read, but you appear to be a speed reader.
- http://shroudstory.com/2014/01/15/top-of-head-puzzle/
Click to expand...


Have you read this article? It basically agrees with Slowvehicle. The image is not consistent with the shroud being physically wrapped around a body. There is not enough room between the top of the front image and the top of the rear image. This article does not support your argument at all.

Here is the conclusion...
This discontinuity of the image at the crown of the head is an enigma which I suspect has yet to be addressed in a satisfactory way. At present I can see no way of explaining it, apart from my overly imaginative speculation above.
Click to expand...
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- The following is a lot to read, but you appear to be a speed reader.
- http://shroudstory.com/2014/01/15/top-of-head-puzzle/
Click to expand...
From your link:

This discontinuity of the image at the crown of the head is an enigma which I suspect has yet to be addressed in a satisfactory way. At present I can see no way of explaining it, apart from my overly imaginative speculation above. I wonder if anyone has looked deeply into this problem before and been able to come up with a better answer.
Click to expand...


Is this supposed to support authenticity or something?

How old is the CIQ?
 
Discussion Format/Permanent Record

- I'm currently spending most of my time trying to develop my summary of our discussion on my blog (http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189). It isn't easy. For what it's worth, I have to invent method as I go along.
- My primary goal is to present our debate in such a way that a rookie can quickly catch up with where we are and where we've been. I sure think that it can be made a lot easier than referring to the 12,308 replies of the 2 part thread itself (9,561+2747) -- but again, it isn't easy.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm currently spending most of my time trying to develop my summary of our discussion on my blog (http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189). It isn't easy. For what it's worth, I have to invent method as I go along.
Click to expand...

I think this summarizes all of your contributions so far. Congratulations.

My primary goal is to present our debate in such a way that a rookie can quickly catch up with where we are and where we've been.
Click to expand...

Should be easy: we're not getting anywhere because you refuse to debate rationally.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm currently spending most of my time trying to develop my summary of our discussion on my blog (http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189). It isn't easy. For what it's worth, I have to invent method as I go along.
- My primary goal is to present our debate in such a way that a rookie can quickly catch up with where we are and where we've been. I sure think that it can be made a lot easier than referring to the 12,308 replies of the 2 part thread itself (9,561+2747) -- but again, it isn't easy.
Click to expand...

Let me help:

10 Jabba repeats his statement of belief in the Authenticity of the shroud, but presents no evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old or connected to one Jesus Christ.

20 All of his positions are debunked.

30 REM No lurkers are convinced.

40 GOTO 10

That took me less than a minute.

Now present some evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
 
John Jones said:
Let me help:

10 Jabba repeats his statement of belief in the Authenticity of the shroud, but presents no evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old or connected to one Jesus Christ.

20 All of his positions are debunked.

30 REM No lurkers are convinced.

40 GOTO 10

That took me less than a minute.

Now present some evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
Click to expand...
You forgot 35: Jabba promises to provide evidence with next post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom