Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Agatha]

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

Dead bodies and blood were easily obtainable in the 12th/13th centuries, so even if your assertion is true, that tells you nothing about the age of the cloth.

2. The details are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.

People in the 12th/13th century could read the accounts in the gospels, so even if this assertion is true, that tells you nothing about the age of the cloth.

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

People in the 12th/13th century could read the accounts in the gospels, so even if this assertion is true, that tells you nothing about the age of the cloth.

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

Any reproduction would have to be identical to the shroud as it appeared at the time it was made. Do you know what it looked like at the time it was made, in order to assert this? Even if your assertion is correct, that tells you nothing about the age of the cloth.

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

Something being unique does not in itself tell you anything about its age, so this assertion, even if true tells you nothing about the age of the cloth.

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

In what way? Nothing you have presented has cast any doubt on the carbon dating process or the results.

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.

The Sudarium of Oviedo has been carbon-dated to approx 700CE, which precludes it from being 2000 year old in any case. Even if your assertion of 'important clues' is correct, you haven't posted any of these clues here, so until you do we cannot judge whether this assertion has any value.

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

Geniuses exist at all times and in all walks of life, so this assertion, even if true, tells you nothing about the age of the cloth.

Jabba, none of these 'intermediate conclusions' should lead anyone to think that the cloth is 2000 years old. None of them either confirms or denies any particular date.

You haven't suggested anything to support your idea of the carbon dating being suspect, and even if you ever do, the opposite of "12th/13th century" is not "1st century".

 

[Giordano]

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

I wish to bring this to Jabba's attention yet again, because it is so essential to his argument. Jabba, you appear unable or unwilling to present any evidence in this regard. If you have any, now would be a good time to post it.

By the way- this was brought up here and in your other blog multiple times- there is little or no point in simply reposting any of your views that have be repeatedly refuted already without addressing the reasons for the refutation. Everyone here has read, and can reread the originals at anytime if they wish. Similarly, just repeating your views, even if you assign arbitrary probabilities to them ('I believe that the S of T is 90% likely to be the burial cloth of...") does not make them more true.

Regards!

 

[Belz...]

- I should try again to explain my logic re my current conclusion about the shroud

No, you should provide evidence for the age of the Shroud that you champion. Do this and nothing else. No more delay. DO IT NOW.

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

JABBA:

Do you believe that it's possible that a dead body of a guy with a beard could have been wrapped in the shroud 700 years ago?

 

[jimbob]

Jabba, have you considered the first line of your signature?

 

[Giordano]

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

Well, I think that Da Vinci would have gotten the proportions right if he was trying to create an accurate representation of a cloth from a dead body. Heck, my sister (an amateur artist) would have done so. The creator of the S of T- not so much.

Of course great artists sometimes intentionally distort perspective for visual impact. Which would be a definitive indication of such a distorted work being a painting, not an actual burial cloth...

 

[Mojo]

- 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).

You are trying to assume your desired conclusion as part of your premises again. Naughty.

 

[Mojo]

JABBA:

Do you believe that it's possible that a dead body of a guy with a beard could have been wrapped in the shroud 700 years ago?

Jabba thinks he can prove immortality. If people are immortal, then there will never have been any dead bodies, so it would have been impossible to wrap one in a shroud 700 years ago.

 

[Craig4]

The carbon dating is not suspect. This is well proven technology. There were three samples sent to three labs all of which came to similar conclusions. There are some silly little made up objections but the don't amount to anything. The samples were all cleaned to remove contaniments. The control samples all tested accurately. The objection to the carbon dating is merely wishful thinking. No one said at the time of taking the sample that it came from a patch. The patch nonsense only comes up after the cloth was dated to the 13th century.

 

[Dinwar]

The carbon dating is not suspect. This is well proven technology. There were three samples sent to three labs all of which came to similar conclusions. There are some silly little made up objections but the don't amount to anything. The samples were all cleaned to remove contaniments. The control samples all tested accurately. The objection to the carbon dating is merely wishful thinking. No one said at the time of taking the sample that it came from a patch. The patch nonsense only comes up after the cloth was dated to the 13th century.

The C14 sample was the best-controlled sample ever taken, with several orders of magnitude greater control (duplication of samples) than is used for any other sampling (typical levels are to duplicate 1 in 10 samples, where as this was 1 sample with 2 duplicates). And the ONLY method of making a patch A) wasn't detected, as it necessarily would be; and B) would have made that area the best place to take the sample, as it would have been a representitive composite of the shroud.

Jabba is simply flat-out lying when he says there is any doubt about the C14 dating. There isn't any. Period.

People in the 12th/13th century could read the accounts in the gospels,

More than that, they were engaging in the activity. Some monks went a bit bonkers and engaged in self-flagulation and/or were whipped by others (I'll leave aside the question of BDSM in the Middle Ages....), and some went so far as to crucify themselves for a while (it took days to die on a cross, not hours, so you can crucify yourself for a day and generally survive). So the artist could literally have a model to work off of!

 

[Sideroxylon]

If you believe the cloth is the shroud of Jesus then anything that shows it cannot be becomes suspect or controversial.

 

[MRC_Hans]

1. The image on the shroud is an imprint of a dead body.

There is no evidence for that. Even if it is correct, it says nothing about the authenticy, since dead bodies are always available.

--- The shroud is not a painting.

You cannot make this conclusion. The shroud may not be a certain type of painting, but 'painting' can be a wide range of techniques.

--- The stains are real blood.

There is no proof of that, and even if true, it proves nothing of the origin of the shroud, since blood is always available.

2. The details are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.
3. The stains on the shroud depict the injuries that the Gospels report.

Those details were also available to fakers. Obviously fakers would strive to make their fakery consistent with gospel.

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

Part of the properties of the shroud is an age of at least 700 years. Obviously that is hard to replicate.

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

So what?

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

No, it is not. It may be less precise than usual, due to various factors, but nothing can explain the C14 should be 1300 years off.

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.

So what?

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

Complete nonsense. Even a mediocre artist could make the crude image on the shroud. Heck, I could do it.

Hans

 

[Craig4]

Sorry Jabba, your cloth just isn't what you need it to be and there's nothing you can do to change that. It did not wrap any dead body in the 1st century CE and no tortured logic can alter that fact. Maybe you should just take your failure here as an object lesson of the dangers of mixing reason and faith.

 

[jimbob]

After more than 12,000 posts in two threads, is there anything missing from the following:

The shape of the head is not consistent with a human, and not consistent with the markings from the body.

There is no clear history of he shroud before the 14th century, and its linen dates from that time, or maybe a century before.

It is possible to recreate a similar image using techniques available in the 13h and 14th Centuries,

But despite it dating to the time when it was discovered in the 14th Century, it is somehow 2000 years old?

 

[theprestige]

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

First, European art from ca. 800 AD is not commonly considered ancient art. Medieval, I think, is the term you are looking for.

Second, the middle ages in Europe were a period that saw a lot of different things being tried, for a lot of different reasons. Saying this shroud is unique in its details doesn't make it mysterious. Some bored crypt-keeper could have done it for a laugh*.

Third, you're begging the question anyway. There's no evidence that it's ancient, so comparing it to ancient art is counter-productive.

Fourth, if there's nothing like it in ancient art, this is evidence that it's not ancient art.













In my youth, I thought it would be a good idea to give my girlfriend a rabbit pelt. It was a novelty item, already dressed and cured and whatnot. Like a bearskin rug, only rabbit-sized. And without the head.

But I didn't give her the pelt per se. I trimmed the edges until I was left with a rectangular strip of rabbit fur. Then I went to the local hobby shop and bought one of those life-size model skulls, like you might use as a teaching aid or... just for fun? I guess?

I also bought a nice pair of life-size porcelain eyeballs from the doll-making counter in the arts and crafts area. I painted the skull in garish colors, mounted the eyeballs in the skull's eye sockets, and glued the rabbit pelt to the top like a mohawk. That was the gift I gave her.

I am reasonably confident that when scientists dig it out of a landfill ~700 years from now, they will say that there is nothing else like it in all of late 20th century art. But hopefully they won't assume its uniqueness means it was actually produced some time in the 1700s.

 

[Giordano]

First, European art from ca. 800 AD is not commonly considered ancient art. Medieval, I think, is the term you are looking for.

Second, the middle ages in Europe were a period that saw a lot of different things being tried, for a lot of different reasons. Saying this shroud is unique in its details doesn't make it mysterious. Some bored crypt-keeper could have done it for a laugh*.

Third, you're begging the question anyway. There's no evidence that it's ancient, so comparing it to ancient art is counter-productive.

Fourth, if there's nothing like it in ancient art, this is evidence that it's not ancient art.




In my youth, I thought it would be a good idea to give my girlfriend a rabbit pelt. It was a novelty item, already dressed and cured and whatnot. Like a bearskin rug, only rabbit-sized. And without the head.

But I didn't give her the pelt per se. I trimmed the edges until I was left with a rectangular strip of rabbit fur. Then I went to the local hobby shop and bought one of those life-size model skulls, like you might use as a teaching aid or... just for fun? I guess?

I also bought a nice pair of life-size porcelain eyeballs from the doll-making counter in the arts and crafts area. I painted the skull in garish colors, mounted the eyeballs in the skull's eye sockets, and glued the rabbit pelt to the top like a mohawk. That was the gift I gave her.

I am reasonably confident that when scientists dig it out of a landfill ~700 years from now, they will say that there is nothing else like it in all of late 20th century art. But hopefully they won't assume its uniqueness means it was actually produced some time in the 1700s.

Did she appreciate your thoughtfulness?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is it just me that thinks that the Sudarium of Oviedo looks more like a picture of Groot than it does a picture of Jesus?

 

[John Jones]

Jabba wrote:

--- 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.

Nonsense. There is no image on the Sudarium that matches the shroud of Turn, and 700 AD is not 1st century AD. This is another example of your disingenuous desperation.

 

[Giordano]

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

I know that you have seen this in this very thread:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ke-dates-Christs-lifetime-say-scientists.html

 

[theprestige]

Did she appreciate your thoughtfulness?

She did, actually.

Also, I see that I got the age of the shroud wrong. I should have referred to Renaissance art, not Medieval art. Still didn't get it as wrong as Jabba did though.