- 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).
This is exactly backwards. You're starting with the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old (i.e. "authentic" = 2000 years old) and then using that as evidence of the shroud's age. That is woefully poor thinking. Actual logic would be to present evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, and then use that as a reason to believe its authenticity.
1. The image on the shroud is an imprint of a dead body.
--- The shroud is not a painting.
--- The stains are real blood.
The image is most likely not an imprint of a body due to the poor proportions, the lack of space at the top of the head, and the lack of wrapping distortion.
There has been
no test that has proven positive for blood. At best, some tests have been consistent with blood and other potential sources. There has been a test that is positive for pigment.
Regardless, none of this says anything about the age of the shroud.
2. The details are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.
There are a plethora of works of art that are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.
Regardless, it doesn't say anything about the age of the shroud.
3. The stains on the shroud depict the injuries that the Gospels report.
There are a plethora of works of art that depict the injuries that the Gospels report. Also, the injuries on the shroud are not entirely consistent with the Gospels (hand vs. wrist).
Regardless, it doesn't say anything about the age of the shroud.
4. Even today, no scientist or artist can fully replicate the shroud.
Not true. There have been several people that have been able to make similar images.
Regardless, it doesn't say anything about the age of the shroud.
5. There is nothing like it in all of ancient art.
Maybe true.
Regardless, it doesn't say anything about the age of the shroud.
6. The carbon dating (of the 14th century) is suspect.
Not at all. There were three independent tests that all came to the same conclusion. Even if we can assume all three were wrong, an error in the concluded age cannot give a positive result for another age. It also doesn't mean that the shroud
cannot be ~700 years old.
Regardless, it doesn't say anything about the age of the shroud.
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.
Doesn't the fact that the carbon dating concludes the same age as the known provenance tell you something? The SoO is hardly a "perfect match". And it hasn't been around "at least" since 700 AD; it was radiocarbon dated
to 700 AD.
Regardless, it doesn't say anything about the age of the shroud.
8. If it was done by an artist, the artist would have been a genius beyond Da Vinci.
That's debatable. Though even if true, geniuses are not confined to a specific time in history.
Regardless, it doesn't say anything about the age of the shroud.
- 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.
None, absolutely
none, of the points you raised address the age of the shroud. If all of the above were true, we are not one step closer to knowing the age of the shroud. The only item above that peripherally relates to age actually is counter to your argument. You reference another artifact that also didn't exist in the first century. This "intermediate conclusion" goes against your preconceived conclusion.
- 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.
You don't start with a conclusion and then work your way down to the evidence. The evidence should lead you to a conclusion. Evidence is where you are supposed to
start, not finish.
Before mentioning your history of posting links, you should go back and review some of them. The one you provided earlier today actually stated the exact opposite of what you were arguing. And it isn't the first time.
To conclude, forget all this and just please present evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
