Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[jimbob]

How about this as a potential cause:

The shroud originally was woven with a 1st-century weaving style in the first century, and was wrapped round a body but when the resurrection occurred, (in the first century) there was a massive surge of neutrons that only affected the carbon isotopes and not any others, so that the ¹⁴C level was elevated, and this has made it seem 1300-years newer than it was. For some reason, no other isotopes were affected. At the same time, another side effect altered the weaving style of the shroud to make it seem 1300-years newer than it was. In addition, the event behaved differently for the head compared to the body, giving it a shape that is not consistent with a real human.

It is just coincidence that this shroud turned up about 1300-years later than when it was used to wrap the body. It is also coincidence that some medieval people thought it was a fake and named the suspect at the time.

The image on the shroud took over a century to form, which is why it is not mentioned in the gospels, but it was still kept as a sacred object, which was proved when the image appeared in a medieval forger's workshop.

I think that deals with most objections. Or have I missed any?

I had missed that people have replicated the image using 12th Century techniques.

When I was a kid I read about "the mystery of the shroud" but didn't look into it. Now that I have, the only mystery is why anyone thinks there is any question about its origin.

 

[Rincewind]

Jabba, once again your notion that the C14 dating is the only evidence that the skeptics have of the shroud's inauthenticity despite the number of posts across atleast three threads, in one of which you were given free rein to post your unsubstantiated assumtions evidence reeks of dishonesty on your part.

Though, I have implied this in previous posts, I will come out and declare it here

I call shennanigans.

Your attempts here follow the standard operating procedure of woo-peddlers to keep repeating previously countered arguments in the hope that we will get tired, pack up and leave. Your posting strategy is evidence of this.

Perhaps you intend to be declared as a "hero of the faith" in your circle of friends by "standing up bravely against the naysayers" and winning the debate by having the last word. It's like that argument Dracula and Van Helsing has in Dracula: Dead and Loving It. I wish I had a gif for that.

I'm reminded of a more recent scene - Sheldon and Stewart are debating, and when Stewart says he has to go home, Sheldon says "Then I win".

Stewart replies, "No, I have to go home", and Sheldon repeats, "Then I win".

Anyway - doesn't Jabba's big book order him not to tell lies?

Or is lying for Jesus OK, when you're taking on the evil ones in their den? And generating magic Brownie points for doing so?

 

[Mojo]

I had missed that people have replicated the image using 12th Century techniques.

And, before Jabba objects that they didn't replicate it exactly, the medieval forgers were not trying to replicate anything exactly either, they were just producing an image. There is a difference between producing an original image and exactly replicating that image; the former is quite easy as any image will do, while the latter is almost impossible.

 

[Belz...]

- Not that such would mean that 2000 years old is more probable than not 2000 years old -- but, if I could show that the carbon dating is highly suspect, the probability that the shroud is 2000 yrs old would shift dramatically towards the positive.

No, that is completely, 143% wrong.

Please present evidence for a 2000 year age for Shroud now.

 

[Craig B]

How about this as a potential cause:

The shroud originally was woven with a 1st-century weaving style in the first century, and was wrapped round a body but when the resurrection occurred, (in the first century) there was a massive surge of neutrons that only affected the carbon isotopes and not any others, so that the ¹⁴C level was elevated, and this has made it seem 1300-years newer than it was.

Does that mean that if the object has been discovered and C14 tested by visiting technologically-advanced aliens in AD 100, they would have obtained the result that the flax plants from which it was manufactured were to grow more than a thousand years in the future?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba I don't say this often but it would honestly be better, would make your argument stronger, and would be more honest and noble if you were to just go "I want the Shroud to be real and I don't care what the evidence is."

I almost never, ever say this but at this point blind belief would be preferable to the hoops you are jumping through for your apologetics.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba I don't say this often but it would honestly be better, would make your argument stronger, and would be more honest and noble if you were to just go "I want the Shroud to be real and I don't care what the evidence is."

I almost never, ever say this but at this point blind belief would be preferable to the hoops you are jumping through for your apologetics.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/BinaryQuestion

No, you're wrong. If the carbon dating is assumed to be wrong, it says absolutely nothing about the age being 2000 years old.

Here's a way to look at it: let's say that I believed the shroud was actually the image of Alfred the Great, who died in 899 AD. It certainly bears a strong resemblance to other depictions of him. If the carbon dating is in doubt, does this greatly improve the weight of evidence that the shroud is actually from the late 9th century? Or does it add nothing to my theory of the Shroud of Alfred?

Monza,
- No, you're wrong. Simply showing that the carbon dating was wrong would increase the probability that the image was of Alfred the Great. Not by a whole lot...

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?

Jabba I don't say this often but it would honestly be better, would make your argument stronger, and would be more honest and noble if you were to just go "I want the Shroud to be real and I don't care what the evidence is."

I almost never, ever say this but at this point blind belief would be preferable to the hoops you are jumping through for your apologetics.

Joe,
- Do you think that there is some evidence for authenticity?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Monza,
- No, you're wrong. Simply showing that the carbon dating was wrong would increase the probability that the image was of Alfred the Great. Not by a whole lot...

Why? Given reasons for your claims.

 

[Mojo]

- Do you think that there is some evidence for authenticity?

Jabba,
- Why not try presenting some?
- Start with your evidence that it is about 2000 years old.

 

[zooterkin]

Joe,
- Do you think that there is some evidence for authenticity?

If there is, I'd expect a devotee like yourself to be aware of it, yet you have produced none.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba,
- Note that "evidence for authenticity" would be something that would be so if the shroud was authentic but not if it wasn't.
- So, for example, the presence of blood on the cloth is not evidence for authenticity because blood could have got onto the cloth at any time since its manufacture, and would have been readily available to medieval forgers.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba why do you insist upon repeatedly requesting that other people, people who disagree with you, provide you evidence to support your claims?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Monza,
- Interesting idea, but that's not the way it works -- and, I'll assume that you're just pulling my leg...
- Not that such would mean that 2000 years old is more probable than not 2000 years old -- but, if I could show that the carbon dating is highly suspect, the probability that the shroud is 2000 yrs old would shift dramatically towards the positive.

In a way you are right. With the C14 date held as valid, the probability that the shroud is 2000 years old is a virtual zero. With no C14 date, 2000 years is more than zero, which mathematically is a huge increase.

However, you fail to invalidate the C14 dating, so....

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Joe,
- Do you think that there is some evidence for authenticity?

No.

 

[John Jones]

Joe,
- Do you think that there is some evidence for authenticity?

None that you've shown.

 

[Mojo]

In a way you are right. With the C14 date held as valid, the probability that the shroud is 2000 years old is a virtual zero. With no C14 date, 2000 years is more than zero, which mathematically is a huge increase.

And invalidating the carbon dating wouldn't make 2000 years any more likely than 200, 1200, or even 700 years. All it would say is that the carbon dating doesn't tell us anything.

 

[John Jones]

So back on track: Jabba, present evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[jimbob]

Does that mean that if the object has been discovered and C14 tested by visiting technologically-advanced aliens in AD 100, they would have obtained the result that the flax plants from which it was manufactured were to grow more than a thousand years in the future?

No, it would look as though it had been near a source of "special neutrons" that were attracted to carbon nuclei only. I suppose it is possible that other nuclei with far shorter half-lives might also have been affected, so the shroud was probably highly radioactive; there is pictorial evidence for this it explains the depictions of glowing halos.


I suppose some people might say that this is due to cultural influences but I prefer my idea. It also explains why so many of the apostles didn't have children (I can't be bothered to check how many were supposed to have children but it is undoubtedly true).