Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[John Jones]

Dinwar,
- At this point, I'm trying to address (what I think is) your claim that my approach to the shroud issue is logically backwards -- i.e., that I start with a theory that I want to believe, and then look for evidence to support that theory.
- Before I go any further -- in doing this, am I properly understanding one of your claims?

No. You start with your desired conclusion as a premise. That's circular reasoning. I know you have been told this a dozen times.

 

[Dinwar]

- At this point, I'm trying to address...

This part is a demonstrable lie.

If you're having trouble understanding my statements, please point to specific issues you have with them.

I don't have a deep understanding of Catholicism so there may be more objective (npi ) truth to this than I know, but don't try to tell this to any serious Protestant. A core outcome of the Reformation from the Protestant point of view was that they no longer needed the priest to act as their intercessor with God. Direct dialing; no need for an operator.

Perhaps "potential personal relationship" is a better way to put it. Catholic doctrine is, as I understand it, that Revelation stopped more or less after, well, the book, and that the task of priests is to interpret what was revealed. It's not that priests are better than anyone else (ANYONE can perform, say, a baptism if the situation requires or warrants it), it's just that they are better-trained. There's some uncertainty as to this, however, thanks to Vatican II. The issue with the eucharist is a major inconsistency in this, for example--I know of no doctrine that says any non-priest can sanctify the host, and the issues the Medieval monasteries had with a lack of priests (most monks did not take holy orders, and many were actually married) seems to support the idea that priests alone can perform that cerimony.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dinwar,
- At this point, I'm trying to address (what I think is) your claim that my approach to the shroud issue is logically backwards -- i.e., that I start with a theory that I want to believe, and then look for evidence to support that theory.
- Before I go any further -- in doing this, am I properly understanding one of your claims?

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

This is, to put it simply, absurd.

You are CLEARLY starting with your desire for the CIQ to be authentic. You have said so yourself, in so many words.

You are CLEARLY cherry-picking data, hoping to glean a few tiny glimmers of support for your wish that the CIQ might (possibly) be said to (perhaps) be "authentic", while ignoring the actual evidence.

Why not simply drop this derail, and present any evidence you have that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?

THEN you can deal with the anatomical absurdities, the postural impossibilities, the scriptural contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and all the rest...but you have not yet even begun to start to seem to be ready to prepare to address the fact that the CIQ is ~780 years old.

What evidence for the CIQ being ~2000 years old is there?

 

[jimbob]

Dinwar,
- At this point, I'm trying to address (what I think is) your claim that my approach to the shroud issue is logically backwards -- i.e., that I start with a theory that I want to believe, and then look for evidence to support that theory.
- Before I go any further -- in doing this, am I properly understanding one of your claims?

I think it is subtly different.

You start with the idea that the shroud is real, then have ideas as to why the evidence doesn't fit.

I haven't seen any about the actual shape of the head though, which would be rather problematic, even if the shroud was 2000 years old.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Is it 23 (twenty three) years that Jabba has been studying the TTC?

And three years here and still no appreciation of how debates proceed. Effective debates, that is, not "effective debates (TM)."

 

[Giordano]

I don't have a deep understanding of Catholicism so there may be more objective (npi ) truth to this than I know, but don't try to tell this to any serious Protestant. A core outcome of the Reformation from the Protestant point of view was that they no longer needed the priest to act as their intercessor with God. Direct dialing; no need for an operator.

I appear to have been placed "on hold" for a long time. The harp music in my receiver is driving me nuts! But at least they provide a periodic recorded message that "Your call is important to us, but all angels are temporarily busy." So I know that I am still connected.

 

[Craig4]

Dinwar,
- At this point, I'm trying to address (what I think is) your claim that my approach to the shroud issue is logically backwards -- i.e., that I start with a theory that I want to believe, and then look for evidence to support that theory.
- Before I go any further -- in doing this, am I properly understanding one of your claims?

Stop hiding behind process and side issues. There's nothing for you, no concepts of effective debate, no lists of arguments, no defining of issues. No issue besides the date of the cloth has importance.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dinwar,
- At this point, I'm trying to address (what I think is) your claim that my approach to the shroud issue is logically backwards -- i.e., that I start with a theory that I want to believe, and then look for evidence to support that theory.
- Before I go any further -- in doing this, am I properly understanding one of your claims?

You are just avoiding the issue. It doesn't matter much that any of us think about your approach, and that is certainly not a subject of this discussion.

What matters is evidence. Or lacking that, logical arguments, that is arguments that support your hypothesis.

Let me help you a little:

"The fellow who just can in the door has a wet coat, so it is raining outside." ..... This is a logically valid argument, although not proof; he may have gotten wet in some other way, or the rain may have stopped now.

"The fellow who just came in the door has a wet coat, so the trains are not running." .... This is not a logically valid argument: While a lack of train service might have forced him to walk in the rain, there are so many other things that needed to be true for that to cause him to have a wet coat, that you cannot make the connection. He could even have gotten wet on the way from the station.

Now, what you need to do is either:

1) Give up, admit you have no real reason to think the shroud is authentic, and stop aguing it.

2) Find some arguments that point logically to:
2.1) The shroud must be ~ 2,000 years old.
2.2) The shroud is a genuine burial shroud from the middle East.
2.3) The shroud is likely to be that of Jesus Christ.

Several or even any one of these could at least form the basis for a sensible discussion.

Anything else is a waste of time, and you must realize that people are only here to basically laugh at you.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?

...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence...

And strong evidence that it isn't.

Mojo,

- We disagree about the cumulative evidence...
- I think that the strongest evidence supports the shroud being 2000 years old.

- I haven't been able to argue my case very well for numerous reasons -- that I have often explained in the past -- but, no one here takes my excuses seriously...
- To reiterate what is probably my biggest excuse: since the day before yesterday at 11:44 EST, 23 different participants of our thread have objected to, or asked questions about, what I have posted. Many of those participants, multiple times -- and many of those times with multiple questions and/or objections. I urge to respond to every different question and objection -- but responding to one tends to produce multiple new posts, many with new questions and/or objections, or significant variations on past questions and/or objections.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip for focus>
Anything else is a waste of time, and you must realize that people are only here to basically laugh at you.

Hans

Forgive me, but I am not here to "laugh" at Jabba.

I have hopes (I really do) of getting through to him--or, at least, of modeling an interchange of ideas based upon evidence.

...and "those prisms make lovely colors...it's like living in a rainbow..."

 

[Craig4]

Mojo,

- We disagree about the cumulative evidence...
- I think that the strongest evidence supports the shroud being 2000 years old.

- I haven't been able to argue my case very well for numerous reasons -- that I have often explained in the past -- but, no one here takes my excuses seriously...
- To reiterate what is probably my biggest excuse: since the day before yesterday at 11:44 EST, 23 different participants of our thread have objected to, or asked questions about, what I have posted. Many of those participants, multiple times -- and many of those times with multiple questions and/or objections. I urge to respond to every different question and objection -- but responding to one tends to produce multiple new posts, many with new questions and/or objections, or significant variations on past questions and/or objections.

If you think there is strong evidence, produce it.

 

[Jabba]

Discussion Format

This part is a demonstrable lie.

If you're having trouble understanding my statements, please point to specific issues you have with them...

- No. I want to understand what you're saying before I try to respond to it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mojo,

- We disagree about the cumulative evidence...
- I think that the strongest evidence supports the shroud being 2000 years old.

Dear Mr. Savage:

Just a thought, but might you deign to present this "strongest evidence"?

Other than your perfervid hope that the CIQ be demonstrated to be "authentic", what. specifically, indicates to you that is is ~2000 years old?

What about it exclusively indicates a 1^st Century CE provenance?

- I haven't been able to argue my case very well for numerous reasons -- that I have often explained in the past -- but, no one here takes my excuses seriously...

Your excuses are not the issue. Your propensity for huckleberrying is not the issue.

The issue is that you have yet to produce a single scintilla of actual evidence that the CIQ is anythin other than ~780 years old.

- To reiterate what is probably my biggest excuse: since the day before yesterday at 11:44 EST, 23 different participants of our thread have objected to, or asked questions about, what I have posted. Many of those participants, multiple times -- and many of those times with multiple questions and/or objections. I urge to respond to every different question and objection -- but responding to one tends to produce multiple new posts, many with new questions and/or objections, or significant variations on past questions and/or objections.

Instead of "responding" to side issues, why not simply produce your concrete, physical, practical, empirical, non-anecdotal evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old?

 

[jond]

- I think that the strongest evidence supports the shroud being 2000 years old.

There is not a single piece of evidence that supports the shroud being 2000 years old. Not one. If you had one, you'd have presented it.

On the other hand there are many pieces of evidence aside from the carbon dating that indicate that the shroud is not 2000 years old. You are, simply, wrong. All your attempts at connecting your "circumstantial evidence" are simply desperate attempts to try justify your irrational belief in the shroud being "authentic."

 

[Dinwar]

- I think that the strongest evidence supports the shroud being 2000 years old.

Given your complete lack of understanding of....well, any of the evidence in this debate, your opinion is meaningless. It's arbitrary.

- I haven't been able to argue my case very well for numerous reasons -- that I have often explained in the past -- but, no one here takes my excuses seriously...

My son, who is not yet two, has made more convincing and coherent arguments than you.

- To reiterate what is probably my biggest excuse: since the day before yesterday at 11:44 EST, 23 different participants of our thread have objected to, or asked questions about, what I have posted.

Welcome to discussion forums. If you'd look at CONTENT, rather than numbers, you'd see that they all say the same thing.

Not that it matters. It's been YEARS, Jabba. If you picked one, and ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUES, we'd all be happy to discuss them. You won't.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- No. I want to understand what you're saying before I try to respond to it.

Dear Mr. Savage:

What is there to "understand"? You, yourself, have admitted that your "investigations" are driven by your need for the CIQ to be "authentic".

You are, in fact, as demonstrated by practice and preachment, going about it backwards (assuming your consequent).

Now, about that evidence...?


ETA: in the last hour, you have posted three times. Any one of those posts could have included your evidence that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old. Not one of them contains any such thing. I wonder why that is so...

 

[Jabba]

Discussion Format

- I'm playing tennis against 23 opponents, each with a bucket of balls.

 

[John Jones]

Mojo,

- We disagree about the cumulative evidence...
- I think that the strongest evidence supports the shroud being 2000 years old.

Then why haven't you presented it in 3 years?

What is the evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old?

 

[Tinyal]

Well, since neither Jabba nor anyone else has any evidence for a 2000 yr old shroud, have we considered that instead he's decided to create a 2000 year old thread?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I'm playing tennis against 23 opponents, each with a bucket of balls.

Dear Mr. Savage:

This is, as I have said before, simply not true. You are "playing against" the evidence. Reality is your only opponent.

ETA: four posts, this morning, without a single bit of substantive evidence.