Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Dinwar]

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...

You have yet to demonstrate how this would be the case. You merely assert this as if it were self-evident. This line of "reasoning" also ignores that if any one of the other lines of evidence is correct, the odds remain zero. After all, it would not be impossible for an old cloth to be found and painted. Proving the shroud is 2ka is the FORST step, not the only one.

As for evidence for authenticity, your complete failure to provide any demonstrates that there is none. YOU have convinced me that there is no evidence.

 

[Craig4]

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

If there is, you haven't presented any.

 

[Craig4]

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...

No, if the carbon dating is wrong then it suggests no date.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay there's the thing.

There's no context in which the Shroud being the genuine burial shroud of Jesus imbued with his image via... reasons really works.

- There is no evidence that the shroud is genuine.
- There is overwhelming evidence that it is not.
- The canonical Bible does not mention the shroud, an image upon it, nor any reason why if one were to come across a piece of cloud with the image of a bearded man on it the reasonable assumption would be "Death Shroud of Jesus." It's a holy relic that the holy book forgot to mention.
- Without invoking magic there is no way for the image of a dead person to make it onto a piece of cloth.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay there's the thing.

There's no context in which the Shroud being the genuine burial shroud of Jesus imbued with his image via... reasons really works.

- There is no evidence that the shroud is genuine.
- There is overwhelming evidence that it is not.
- The canonical Bible does not mention the shroud, an image upon it, nor any reason why if one were to come across a piece of cloud with the image of a bearded man on it the reasonable assumption would be "Death Shroud of Jesus." It's a holy relic that the holy book forgot to mention.
- Without invoking magic there is no way for the image of a dead person to make it onto a piece of cloth.

 

[Loss Leader]

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

Sigh. No. There is no evidence that I know of that makes the shroud more likely to be authentic than not. In fact, all of the evidence I know of that indicated one era over another marks the shroud as medieval.

This includes: the type of weaving; the match with the paints of the middle-ages; the historical record of the shroud; the known manner in which christianity was practiced in the middle ages; and the scientific comparison between carbon isotopes in the shroud.

 

[Degeneve]

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

So far, I did not find any evidence for the authenticity and not even for the 2000 years old shroud theory.

I will of course be delighted to read any such evidence for authenticity you might shown us.

 

[Susheel]

The canonical Bible does not mention the shroud, an image upon it, nor any reason why if one were to come across a piece of cloud with the image of a bearded man on it the reasonable assumption would be "Death Shroud of Jesus.".

If I am not mistaken, there is no mention of the CIQ even in non-canonical/apocryphal versions of the Bible so far discovered.

Also, Jabba's insistence of us accepting the merest possibility that the C14 dating is flawed is not based on any concrete evidence he possesses, but on an unfounded assumtion spun with the imaginary yarn drawn from his faith.

He will pounce on the merest hint of an acceptance of this assumption to create a spurious narrative that he can use to gain credence among other believers as one who "bravely faught the good fight against heathens and won."

 

[Mashuna]

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

Personally, I hadn't given the shroud much though at all prior to this thread. I can now confidently state that the evidence you've supplied has made me practically certain that the shroud is a medieval fake.

 

[Dinwar]

If I am not mistaken, there is no mention of the CIQ even in non-canonical/apocryphal versions of the Bible so far discovered.

As I have said before, there is a mention of a burial shroud in the Bible. It distinctly mentions a separate cloth around the head--one that was apart from the rest of the shroud when the tomb was discovered.

I will say it again: If Jabba succeeds in proving the shroud authentic, he will definitively disprove the gospels. His choices are to accept his holy book, or his holy relic. To accept one is to reject the other.

 

[ferd burfle]

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.

Very much agree; it's like a boxer's rope-a-dope strategy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, is there another shroud believer who could come talk to us?

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba, is there another shroud believer who could come talk to us?

I personally knew one of the most famous scientific shroud believers, Dr. Frederick Zugibe. Unfortunately for Jabba, he's dead. At least, however, there's evidence he existed.

 

[John Jones]

As I have said before, there is a mention of a burial shroud in the Bible. It distinctly mentions a separate cloth around the head--one that was apart from the rest of the shroud when the tomb was discovered.

I will say it again: If Jabba succeeds in proving the shroud authentic, he will definitively disprove the gospels. His choices are to accept his holy book, or his holy relic. To accept one is to reject the other.

He's got an purported rebuttal to that, but it has twice as many flaws. Both the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin are claimed by some sidonologists to have covered the same face at different times.

The evidence behind those claims is dubious, to put it generously.


Jabba, evidence of a 2000 year old shroud would be appropriate right about now.

 

[John Jones]

Very much agree; it's like a boxer's rope-a-dope strategy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope

Also known as the rope-bender's tactic.

 

[Agatha]

I personally knew one of the most famous scientific shroud believers, Dr. Frederick Zugibe. Unfortunately for Jabba, he's dead. At least, however, there's evidence he existed.

Hold on, surely by applying Bayes' Theorem we can confidently assert that Dr. Zugibe is in fact immortal? So he can't be dead, and we can wait for him to pop in here and support Jabba's ideas.

. Both the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin are claimed by some sidonologists to have covered the same face at different times.

The evidence behind those claims is dubious, to put it generously.


Jabba, evidence of a 2000 year old shroud would be appropriate right about now.

Perhaps someone popped the Sudarium over a chap's face in approximately 600CE, then in about 1290CE cloned the person from the blood (he had an odd, chisel-shaped head as part of the cloning process) and used him to create the Shroud? There are a couple of flaws in this theory, but I'm sure with a little work we can overcome them.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?

I personally knew one of the most famous scientific shroud believers, Dr. Frederick Zugibe. Unfortunately for Jabba, he's dead. At least, however, there's evidence he existed.

LL,
- Did you ever talk to him about it?

 

[Loss Leader]

Hold on, surely by applying Bayes' Theorem we can confidently assert that Dr. Zugibe is in fact immortal? So he can't be dead, and we can wait for him to pop in here and support Jabba's ideas.

Well, he has lots and lots of relatives where I live. His son-in-law is still around. At one point Dr. Zugibe actually crucified him and then lowered him onto a sheet to prove something or other. You really have to love your wife to let her father tie you to a cross in his garage.

LL,
- Did you ever talk to him about it?

Perhaps I did. However this is irrelevant to the question of whether the shroud is 2000 years old. As I remember, you claimed to have evidence of that. So far, all you've done is snipe at scientific and historical evidence that the shroud dates to the middle ages. Please provide evidence that it is 2000 years old.

 

[John Jones]

LL,
- Did you ever talk to him about it?

Jabba,
- Did you ever present evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

We asked you first.

 

[Slowvehicle]

LL,
- Did you ever talk to him about it?

*sigh*

Mr. Savage:

Please be so kind as to present the actual, empirical, non-anecdotal, non-apologetic, objective practical evidence of which you are aware that indicates that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.