I don't know but I have a genuine shard of pottery from the Sinai peninsula with the following scratched on it
ﬡﬥﬠﬠ בג
I think this proves the Israelites were wandering around the desert in 1500 BC.
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
I don't know but I have a genuine shard of pottery from the Sinai peninsula with the following scratched on it
ﬡﬥﬠﬠ בג
I think this proves the Israelites were wandering around the desert in 1500 BC.
anduin
Critical Thinker
Top of the head
I'm delurking to add my opinion that Jabba has not presented a scintilla of evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
I'd like to go back to the anatomical arguments. I have to admit a fascination with the Shroud that dates back more than 25 years, back when I was a strong believer.
I remember watching several documentaries on the Shroud when I was a teenager, and even then I had to concede that the Shroud simply did not depict a real person as it was evident to me that there was something wrong with the image. I remember trying to adopt a pose that would reproduce the image, and finding it impossible, the arms are too long. Moreover, the missing top of the head means that the image CANNOT be formed by a cloth covering a 3D body.
If one ignores absolutely everything else, then this is the killer argument against the Shroud being anything other than a forgery. I have not read a single convincing answer from Jabba explaining the top of the head.
I'm delurking to add my opinion that Jabba has not presented a scintilla of evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
I'd like to go back to the anatomical arguments. I have to admit a fascination with the Shroud that dates back more than 25 years, back when I was a strong believer.
I remember watching several documentaries on the Shroud when I was a teenager, and even then I had to concede that the Shroud simply did not depict a real person as it was evident to me that there was something wrong with the image. I remember trying to adopt a pose that would reproduce the image, and finding it impossible, the arms are too long. Moreover, the missing top of the head means that the image CANNOT be formed by a cloth covering a 3D body.
If one ignores absolutely everything else, then this is the killer argument against the Shroud being anything other than a forgery. I have not read a single convincing answer from Jabba explaining the top of the head.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Jesse had a receding hairline?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Naw, just a chisel-shaped head...
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Jesus was a cone head?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
CHISEL-head. Different species.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
From a certain perspective...
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
For your argument to be logical, it'd have to use logic. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all of your premises are true (they're not, but let's say they are). What you'd need to do, for this to be a logical argument, is to outline why those premises being true lead to the conclusion that the Shroud is the burial shroud of Christ, and can be nothing but the burial shroud of Christ. You have not done so and, even if your premises are true, your conclusion still doesn't follow from them.
Susheel
Illuminator
I have the feeling that Jabba thought that his premise was absolutely unassailable when it was in his mind. However, he just hasn't come to terms with, or willing to admit, how flawed it is in actual articulation.
The media coverage of the shroud "veneration" over the weekend was disappointing. Almost every story mentioned that scientists "have no idea" or "disagree" as to how the image got on the shroud. As if that matters.
It's pretty common in science reporting. Abiogenesis suffers the same problem. The issue isn't that we have no idea; it's that we have several ideas, no way (currently) to differentiate between them, and we're working on it. We know the spectrum of possibilities that the explanation must fit within, but which specific one is still up in the air.
Your evidence is laughable when it doesn't directly refute your conclusion. Anecdotes would be a step UP from what you've provided--a major one. Add to that your rather nasty habit of accusing those who find evidence against your argument of incompetance or fraud (the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from your statements about the radiocarbon dating), rather than actually addressing the evidence, and your case is pretty clearly one of someone who is scrambling to support a conclusion they reached prior to examining the evidence, and which they continue to hold in spite of overwhelming evidence.Jabba said:
Rincewind
Philosopher
Maybe that's because in his imagination it isn't flawed, and he's afraid to come out of there?
That's my impression - it's all the rest of us who are out of step...
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
My impression is that it's very, very important for Jabba that this be true. I just don't understand why. If you believe in things like walking on water, turning water to wine, producing endless bread, being physically tortured to cleanse everyone else's sins and rising from the dead, I have no idea what believing in a particular piece of cloth might do.
The basis of Christianity (that Jesus was the son of God who restructured the covenant) can't be proven under any circumstance. Even the historical existence of Jesus and the documented accuracy of his miracles wouldn't prove divinity. One either believes as a matter of faith or one does not.
If one believes, then the shroud should be irrelevant. If one does not, then the shroud should be irrelevant.
Does Bob own a brown horse? Well, Bob owns a riding crop. But people can and do own riding crops without owning horses and people can and do own horses without having riding crops. And, in any case, even if the riding crop tells you Bob owns a horse, it cannot tell you that he owns a brown horse.
The existence of the shroud is neither necessary nor sufficient evidence of the divinity of Jesus. It's irrelevant.
Actually, as I've said before, it's not entirely irrelevant. If the shroud is not authentic (meaning a burial cloth from the right time period and geography, and that whoever was burried in it spectacularly rose from the dead), it means nothing to Christianity. If it IS authentic, it DISPROVES Christianity. The shroud directly and irrefutably contradicts the Biblical accounts of the resurection, meaning that if the shroud is what its proponents claim the Bible is therefore wrong. When the resurection is called into question, it calls everything in the New Testament into question--and therefore the whole of the book--and therefore eliminates wholesale the foundations for Christianity.
If the shroud is what Jabba says it is, Christianity is false. So at best, he's cutting the ground out from under his own belief system!
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
2000 Yrs?/logic
- Nobody understands me!
- Try this.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that the shroud is an imprint of a real live, dead body is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that the shroud is 2000 years old -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that the shroud is an imprint of a real live dead body...
- If that passes muster with you, I'll go on and try to further explain what I'm trying to do here.
Hugh,
- Nobody understands me!
- Try this.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that the shroud is an imprint of a real live, dead body is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that the shroud is 2000 years old -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that the shroud is an imprint of a real live dead body...
- If that passes muster with you, I'll go on and try to further explain what I'm trying to do here.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Hugh,
- Nobody understands me!
- Try this.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that the shroud is an imprint of a real live, dead body is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that the shroud is 2000 years old -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that the shroud is an imprint of a real live dead body...
- If that passes muster with you, I'll go on and try to further explain what I'm trying to do here.
We understand you perfectly - you are just wrong and your argument is a shambles.
You don't even have circumstantial evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old, and even if it were, you don't have anything connecting it with Jesus.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Sorry, but this is an open forum, you cannot restrict the conversation to someone in particular.
- Nobody understands me!
Well, you got that one right!
Well, you got that one right, too!
Ahhh, no. But two out of three ain't half bad.
- You have no circumstantial evidence.
Explain why "Imprint of dead body" indicates "2000 years old", even as circumstantial evidence.
No, it is called a 'hypothesis'.
Hans
Hugh,
- Nobody understands me!
- Try this.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that the shroud is an imprint of a real live, dead body is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that the shroud is 2000 years old -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that the shroud is an imprint of a real live dead body...
- If that passes muster with you, I'll go on and try to further explain what I'm trying to do here.
Jabba, we understand your argument, we just consider it to be fatally flawed and illogical.
Try this, Jabba.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that my cat Loki is the reincarnation of my deceased cat Serena
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that Loki understands the word 'supper' is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that Loki is the reincarnation of Serena -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that Loki understands the word 'supper'...
Would you see any of this as a sensible argument that a big fat white male cat who is deaf in one ear is really the reincarnation of a dainty little black female cat who was blind but had perfect hearing - even without bothering to show that reincarnation of cats is possible?
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Hugh,
- Nobody understands me!
Good Morning, Mr. Savage.
Your problem is that you are, in fact, posting to an audience of intelligent, well-informed, widely-read individuals with a vast array of professional, personal, and educational experience, most if not all of who understand exactly what you are trying to get away with, and have explained in exhaustive detail why it does not hold water.
Try THIS: as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, NOT ONE of your bits of "circumstantial evidence" addresses the age of the CIQ in any way.
You are, and have been all along, trying to shake the dog at the stick.
And you have yet to explain, in any meaningful way, why you think that there stopped being "real live, dead" bodies, 2000 years ago. You know we still have those, right?
Mr. Savage, it is clear what you are trying to do here; what you have been trying to do here all along.
You start out with the decision that the CIQ must be The True ShroudTM©®. Because you make that assumption, you feel justified in using that assumption to "shore up" your evidence.
You should know by now that that is not how it works.
Rincewind
Philosopher
I agree - it's certainly not worth the effort that Jabba has invested.
If I may paraphrase a certain Hitchhiker's Guide?
"When you've believed a whole lot of impossible thinks before breakfast, here's a piece of cloth I'd also like you to believe in..."
Oh - my brother Bob owns zero horses; and also zero riding crops, so that probably proves your point!
- Status