Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Jabba]

Painting?/Imprint/Dead Body/Top of Head

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/

Hugh,
- What was your final assessment of the "chisel" effect? I didn't really understand your second and third comments.

 

[Craig4]

Hugh,
- What was your final assessment of the "chisel" effect? I didn't really understand your second and third comments.

What difference does it make when the cloth is only from the 13th century?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,
- What was your final assessment of the "chisel" effect? I didn't really understand your second and third comments.

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

What has this to do with the age of the CIQ?

 

[John Jones]

What difference does it make when the cloth is only from the 13th century?

I can't speak for Hugh, but his assessment of the age of the CIQ is about 700 years.

Do you have evidence showing that its 2000 years old?

 

[Belz...]

Hugh,
- What was your final assessment of the "chisel" effect? I didn't really understand your second and third comments.

Evidence for the age of the Shroud, please.

 

[Loss Leader]

Hugh,
- What was your final assessment of the "chisel" effect? I didn't really understand your second and third comments.

Jabba, you promised to address the age of the shroud. Please do so.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Has anyone asked Jabba for evidence the Shroud is 2,000 years old?

 

[Peter i]

Has anyone asked Jabba for evidence the Shroud is 2,000 years old?

I don't know.

But we really should.
It would be sad if he wasted his time on a doomed idea!

 

[Sideroxylon]

There is no evidence that the cloth is 2000 years old .

 

[grmcdorman]

[delurk]By the way, has Jabba produced evidence for a 2,000 year old cloth yet?[/delurk]

 

[SezMe]

Jabba, I hesitate to pull this thread off into side topics, but what is the evidence that supports a 2000 year old cloth?

 

[Monza]

Jabba, I hesitate to pull this thread off into side topics, but what is the evidence that supports a 2000 year old cloth?

Hey, that's an interesting question. I would like to see this evidence too.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba, I hesitate to pull this thread off into side topics, but what is the evidence that supports a 2000 year old cloth?

You know, I just thought of that question too! Jabba: what is the evidence of the S of T being 2000 years old? That would seem to me to be crucial to establish first before we discuss anything else.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?

- I should try again to explain my logic re my current conclusion about the shroud -- my conclusion being that the shroud is probably authentic (and therefore, about 2000 years old).
- For now (it might change), that's my "ultimate conclusion." I came to that conclusion based upon "intermediate conclusions" (however much Dinwar disputes my wording).
- I do need to revise my list of "intermediate conclusions" however, as the first two on my original list are not at the same level/layer as the others on that list -- they support what is now #1. As I scour my head for my reasons for thinking that the shroud really is 2000 years old, the current list will surely change.

1. The image on the shroud is an imprint of a dead body.
--- The shroud is not a painting.
--- The stains are real blood.
2. The details are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.
3. The stains on the shroud depict the injuries that the Gospels report.
4. Even today, no scientist or artist can fully replicate the shroud.
5. There is nothing like it in all of ancient art.
6. The carbon dating (of the 14th century) is suspect.
7. 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.
--- The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud, and the Sudarium has a documented history going back to at least700 AD.
8. If it was done by an artist, the artist would have been a genius beyond Da Vinci.

- Anyway, my contention is that if my intermediate conclusions listed so far are correct, the shroud probably IS 2000 years old -- and, surely I'll remember more supportive intermediate conclusions as I scour my head and previous writings.
- Whatever, the actual "evidence" is at the bottom of the pyramid, and I'm trying to work my way down to it -- and report it. That's what I've been doing re the links I've provided so far -- and, you'll see that I've provided lots of links over the past three years. You guys just think that you've refuted them all. But, I disagree -- you have refuted some of them, but mostly you've presented arguments against them, and I just haven't had time to present what would be my retorts.


- I have more reasons (intermediate conclusions) for believing that a real dead body is involved, but these other reasons -- like the first two -- are at a different level/layer than the other reasons on this list.

 

[John Jones]

- I should try again to explain my logic re my current conclusion about the shroud -- my conclusion being that the shroud is probably authentic (and therefore, about 2000 years old).

[...].

Stop right there. That is not logic.

If you don't have evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old (and you apparently don't), then none of this other palaver matters.

 

[jimbob]

- I should try again to explain my logic re my current conclusion about the shroud -- my conclusion being that the shroud is probably authentic (and therefore, about 2000 years old).
- For now (it might change), that's my "ultimate conclusion." I came to that conclusion based upon "intermediate conclusions" (however much Dinwar disputes my wording).
- I do need to revise my list of "intermediate conclusions" however, as the first two on my original list are not at the same level/layer as the others on that list -- they support what is now #1. As I scour my head for my reasons for thinking that the shroud really is 2000 years old, the current list will surely change.

1. The image on the shroud is an imprint of a dead body.
--- The shroud is not a painting.
--- The stains are real blood.
2. The details are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.
3. The stains on the shroud depict the injuries that the Gospels report.
4. Even today, no scientist or artist can fully replicate the shroud.
5. There is nothing like it in all of ancient art.
6. The carbon dating (of the 14th century) is suspect.
7. 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.
--- The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud, and the Sudarium has a documented history going back to at least700 AD.
8. If it was done by an artist, the artist would have been a genius beyond Da Vinci.

- Anyway, my contention is that if my intermediate conclusions listed so far are correct, the shroud probably IS 2000 years old -- and, surely I'll remember more supportive intermediate conclusions as I scour my head and previous writings.
- Whatever, the actual "evidence" is at the bottom of the pyramid, and I'm trying to work my way down to it -- and report it. That's what I've been doing re the links I've provided so far -- and, you'll see that I've provided lots of links over the past three years. You guys just think that you've refuted them all. But, I disagree -- you have refuted some of them, but mostly you've presented arguments against them, and I just haven't had time to present what would be my retorts.


- I have more reasons (intermediate conclusions) for believing that a real dead body is involved, but these other reasons -- like the first two -- are at a different level/layer than the other reasons on this list.

What about the carbon dating showing that the shroud is only 800-years old?

Why would a deity fake that evidence?

 

[jond]

- I should try again to explain my logic re my current conclusion about the shroud -- my conclusion being that the shroud is probably authentic (and therefore, about 2000 years old).
- For now (it might change), that's my "ultimate conclusion." I came to that conclusion based upon "intermediate conclusions" (however much Dinwar disputes my wording).
- I do need to revise my list of "intermediate conclusions" however, as the first two on my original list are not at the same level/layer as the others on that list -- they support what is now #1. As I scour my head for my reasons for thinking that the shroud really is 2000 years old, the current list will surely change.

1. The image on the shroud is an imprint of a dead body.
--- The shroud is not a painting.
--- The stains are real blood.
2. The details are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.
3. The stains on the shroud depict the injuries that the Gospels report.
4. Even today, no scientist or artist can fully replicate the shroud.
5. There is nothing like it in all of ancient art.
6. The carbon dating (of the 14th century) is suspect.
7. 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.
--- The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud, and the Sudarium has a documented history going back to at least700 AD.
8. If it was done by an artist, the artist would have been a genius beyond Da Vinci.

- Anyway, my contention is that if my intermediate conclusions listed so far are correct, the shroud probably IS 2000 years old -- and, surely I'll remember more supportive intermediate conclusions as I scour my head and previous writings.
- Whatever, the actual "evidence" is at the bottom of the pyramid, and I'm trying to work my way down to it -- and report it. That's what I've been doing re the links I've provided so far -- and, you'll see that I've provided lots of links over the past three years. You guys just think that you've refuted them all. But, I disagree -- you have refuted some of them, but mostly you've presented arguments against them, and I just haven't had time to present what would be my retorts.


- I have more reasons (intermediate conclusions) for believing that a real dead body is involved, but these other reasons -- like the first two -- are at a different level/layer than the other reasons on this list.

NONE of that indicates that the age of the shroud is 2000 years old. Not one single piece, nor all the pieces combined. The only thing that would indicate it being 2000 years old is your desperate desire for it to be so.

 

[pgwenthold]

As I scour my head for my reasons for thinking that the shroud really is 2000 years old, the current list will surely change.

1. The image on the shroud is an imprint of a dead body.
--- The shroud is not a painting.
--- The stains are real blood.

If true, neither require nor imply that it is 2000 years old

2. The details are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.

Even if true, does not require nor imply that it is 2000 years old

3. The stains on the shroud depict the injuries that the Gospels report.

Even if true, does not require nor imply that it is 2000 years old

4. Even today, no scientist or artist can fully replicate the shroud.

Even if true, does not require nor imply that it is 2000 years old. But it is a red herring, because to "fully replicate the shroud," assuming it is a painting, would require allowing 700 years of aging to occur. The question is, can a scientist or artist replicate what the shroud was in 1400? You can't say that, because we don't actually know what the shroud looked like in the year 1400.

5. There is nothing like it in all of ancient art.

Even if true, does not require nor imply that it is 2000 years old

6. The carbon dating (of the 14th century) is suspect.

Even if true, does not require nor imply that it is 2000 years old

7. 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.

No

--- The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud, and the Sudarium has a documented history going back to at least700 AD.

Even if true, does not require nor imply that it is 2000 years old. The shroud could be made after the Sudarium

8. If it was done by an artist, the artist would have been a genius beyond Da Vinci.

See the response to 4. We don't know what it would take to replicate the shroud, because we don't know what it looked like in its original state.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I should try again to explain my logic re my current conclusion about the shroud -- my conclusion being that the shroud is probably authentic (and therefore, about 2000 years old).<snip>

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

As I am sure others will tell you, this is precisely backwards.

Unless the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old, it (to put it simply) cannot be authentic. Unless the CIQ can be demonstrated to be 2000 years old, you are left with the fact that the anatomically ridiculous, figurally amateurish, posturally impossible, physically inaccurate, historically and scripturally ungrounded representation was rendered onto the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of ~780-year-old linen.

You cannot finesse the age by concluding, against all evidence, that the CIQ must be the True Shroud^TM just because you are so sincere in your need for it to be.

Reality supports none of your assumed conclusions.

Are you, then, conceding that there is, in fact, no evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[Pixel42]

6. The carbon dating (of the 14th century) is suspect.

No, it really isn't. Not even a teeny tiny bit. No matter how hard you wish it were.