Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- I think that the strongest evidence supports the shroud being 2000 years old.
Click to expand...

All anyone wants here is for you to simply present that evidence.

Though in the past two weeks or so, you Jabba have posted (1) an article that says it is not possible for a human body to create the chisel-head feature and (2) a reference that the shroud is directly linked to another object that is dated to only 700 AD. So your own evidence argues against authenticity. Your evidence says the image cannot have been formed by being wrapped around a body and the shroud itself is not from the first century.
 
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove moderated content


Jabba, that simple question is this: What evidence supports a 2000 year old shroud? You have not been able to answer that question in 3 years.

If the CIQ is not 2000 years old, then none of the rest of your faulty thinking matters.

Address this single issue: What is the evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

Spare us any litany of misery.

You either have evidence of a 2000 year old CIQ, or you don't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jond said:
The thing is, each ball in those buckets is a piece of evidence against authenticity. Meanwhile, you haven't got a single ball. Looks like you've lost, quite badly.

ETA: hey, look! We've gone from baseball to tennis. What's next? Hockey, I hope!
Click to expand...
It would be a natural progression seeing as how Jabba's argument has been pucked from the start.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm playing tennis against 23 opponents, each with a bucket of balls.
Click to expand...

And yet you only need to hit a winner against one of them to make us all take notice! I have just been reading rather than posting in here again lately but this post make me laugh, It felt a bit like you just want to plead us all in to agreeing with you somehow!?

Really Jabba, there are forums out there you could find where its users need absolutely no convincing that the shroud is authentic, they already (like you apparently) have presupposed the authenticity of the shroud, no evidence is needed and evidence that shows it is fake wil be casually ignored or refuted with more hand waving/assertion/pleading/god works in mysterious ways etc etc.

Much like Slowvehicle I would genuinely like to understand your thought processes and try and understand why you are determined to ignore the evidence that is available and assert that the shroud is authentic.

I think your problem may be that you don't understand what credible evidence actually looks like? It seems like you would take the statement of 'the sun looked pretty and red last night' as evidence to support the conclusion 'today will be a good day for me'. Does this seem like a good argument to you?
 
2000 Yrs?/Evidence?

- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.
 
Jabba said:
- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.
Click to expand...

The fact that you don't know after so long researching this thing says it all.

How about some testimony of its existence from before the date we think it appeared in ? Or how about some analysis of the physiological features of the image to show that it could have been a real man ? Or how about a different dating method that gives a much older date ? Anything.

But you won't.
 
Jabba said:
- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.
Click to expand...

Well, if the C14 dating had indicated it was 2000 years old, that would be acceptable. If you could show that the weave of the cloth matched that used 2000 years ago AND was inconsistent with things used at other times. These would be a good start for me. These are things that would be hard to explain unless the cloth is 2000 years old.

Now, since neither of these things I list above are true, it really doesn't help you.

But why should we bother? Why don't YOU give us some examples of what YOU consider acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old? YOU are the one who claims that there is such, so let's hear it.

I know you listed a bunch of things last week or so, which I addressed point-by-point indicating that none of it actually requires the cloth to be 2000 years old.

It's really silly to ask us what we would accept as evidence for a 2000 year old cloth, because we don't don't know of anything that is evidence for it being 2000 years old. If we knew there was acceptable evidence for a 2000 year old cloth, we would be considering the possibility. And we wouldn't have to ask you to provide some.
 
Belz... said:
The fact that you don't know after so long researching this thing says it all.

How about some testimony of its existence from before the date we think it appeared in ? Or how about some analysis of the physiological features of the image to show that it could have been a real man ? Or how about a different dating method that gives a much older date ? Anything.

But you won't.
Click to expand...

That's because he can't. As I note in my response, we don't know of any acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old. Unless he's been hiding something back, it just doesn't exist. Of course he can't provide it.
 
Jabba said:
- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
The fact that you don't know after so long researching this thing says it all.
Click to expand...
Seconded.

That said, any evidence you provide has to fit the following criteria:

1) It must be new. ALL evidence you have presented in this thread have been thoroughly addressed, and to present them again is dishonest.
2) It must directly relate to the age of the shroud. It can't relate to ANY other aspect of the shroud, including the image.
3) It must be independently verifiable. Meaning, it cannot rely solely on your opinion.
4) It must fit with established scientific sampling procedures. The C14 data did. The organic chemistry analysis (giving it the best description possible) did not.

Anything that fit those four criteria would at least be worth looking at. Anything that fails any of these is not.

An example of something that would count would be an inventory of relics in a church that is known to not be forged (dated properly) and which lists the shroud on the items, and which dates from the first century AD. Alternatively, stable isotopic dating presenting a 1st century AD date would be worth discussing. Stuff like that.
 
Dinwar said:
Seconded.

That said, any evidence you provide has to fit the following criteria:

1) It must be new. ALL evidence you have presented in this thread have been thoroughly addressed, and to present them again is dishonest.
2) It must directly relate to the age of the shroud. It can't relate to ANY other aspect of the shroud, including the image.
3) It must be independently verifiable. Meaning, it cannot rely solely on your opinion.
4) It must fit with established scientific sampling procedures. The C14 data did. The organic chemistry analysis (giving it the best description possible) did not.

Anything that fit those four criteria would at least be worth looking at. Anything that fails any of these is not.

An example of something that would count would be an inventory of relics in a church that is known to not be forged (dated properly) and which lists the shroud on the items, and which dates from the first century AD. Alternatively, stable isotopic dating presenting a 1st century AD date would be worth discussing. Stuff like that.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with Dinwar's response. I think it sets exactly the right standard for Jabba to meet going foward.
 
Jabba said:
- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.
Click to expand...

Jabba: Dinwar's answer is a very good place for you to start. I'll also add that I would like you to address a fundamental issue with your assertions. For instance: do you understand that even if it were proven that there was blood on the shroud, that says nothing about the date? Do you understand that even if it were proven that the cloth was wrapped in a "real live dead person", that says nothing about the date?
 
Loss Leader said:
What evidence would convince you that the shroud is not authentic? Are you even capable of entertaining the idea?
Click to expand...

One can postulate various magic effects that might alter the Carbon-14 date (the often mentioned Noodly Appendage plays around with isotope ratios, I believe) but an image that can't be of a person means that even if it was 2000 years old it wasn't an image of a person.
ETA:
No more than the image on the right could be of a person.
thum_1558acb3ac05b3.jpg


Thanks, Darat
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of evidence around, it's just that it doesn't support your assertions. This leads us to believe that your assertions are wrong, but for some reason it leads you to believe that the evidence is wrong.
 
Jabba said:
- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.
Click to expand...


The type of evidence that cause most people to believe the shroud is from the 14th century is exactly the same type of evidence that would be acceptable to support a first century (or any other) date. For example, the known provenance of the shroud goes to about the 14th century. The radiocarbon dating of the shroud indicates its manufacture to the 14th century. The type of weave and the size of the loom are consistent with linens made in the 14th century. So anything like this that points to a first century origin would be welcomed for discussion.
 
Likely, you will fall back to your 23 tennis balls. However, everyone is asking the very same question.

What evidence do you have that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

Years later, we still await it.
 
Hold on, you guys.

You guys, hold on.

I mean, guys. Guys.

Hold on. What if--what if--just bear with me here, guys.

No, seriously. I have an idea. What if--ready?

Ok. Here it is. Here's my idea.

What if...

You guys, what if Jesus's crucifixion death mask went forward in time to be miraculously imprinted on a bolt of cloth in 14th-century Turin?

I mean, you guys! You guys, wait!

I mean, the shroud could be authentically an image of Jesus and legitimately from the 14th century!

You're welcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom