SezMe
post-pre-born
Jabba,
Do you have evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?
Do you have evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
Of course, you are absolutely correct. I was falling into Jabba-logic in my attempt to make a point.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
But if that were the case, it increases the potential dates that are not 2000 years old.
The only evidence that really matters are those that point toward something. There is evidence that points toward an age of 700 years. Is there any evidence that points toward 2000 years?
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Why are you asking him? YOU are the one who claims that the shroud is 2000 years old, so presumably YOU think there is some evidence for it. So why don't you tell us what that is?
Clearly, those participating in this discussion are unaware of any evidence for it, which is why they keep asking you for it. Why are you asking JoeBentley?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
NVM
Last edited:
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
If you can't or won't present evidence could you point us to someone who could?
Susheel
Illuminator
His evidence is his strong belief that the C14 dating was flawed.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
I had a blanket I was attatched to as a child. Like Linus from peanuts.
Rincewind
Philosopher
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
That was cruel of your parents...
You're here all week?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Is that evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old? Not hardly.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Each time you make this claim by bald assertion. Why does it? Make the argument. For bonus points in honesty address the relevant arguments made by others.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
2000 Yrs?/Evidence?
- There is all sorts of evidence. Just look at http://shroud.com/, or http://shroudstory.com/, or even at all the links that I've posted right here over the last three years -- beginning at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226761.
Monza,
- There is all sorts of evidence. Just look at http://shroud.com/, or http://shroudstory.com/, or even at all the links that I've posted right here over the last three years -- beginning at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226761.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
You are the one who believes the cloth is the shroud of Jesus. You have held an interest in the subject for years. You said you have evidence. You distill the points from those links and argue the case in your own words.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
None of that is direct evidence of a 2000 year old shroud no matter how badly you wish it was. Frankly, I don't believe your sources any more than I believe you, and for the same reasons - lack of decent evidence and critical thinking skills.
The evidence from different sources converges on a shroud of medieval origins.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Dear Mr. Savage:
I wonder why it is that you do not marshal what you are wanting to call "all sorts of evidence", and present it...
I encourage you to pick what you consider to be the three best pieces of evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old, and defend them here.
Do be mindful of the fact that, as has been pointed out to you, your dissatisfaction with the 14C date is not evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. It is not even evidence that the CIQ is NOT ~780 years old. It is, at best, evidence that you, personally, are dissatisfied with the date.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Whilst the carbon dating, around which there is a lot of controversy, could show the shroud to be a fake, OTOH it is possible it is not.
I read The Sign by Thomas de Wesselow, a self-affirmed agnostic, with rising incredulity. He left open the option that maybe what was seen in the empty tomb was actually this shroud, which was how Mary, Peter and John were able to go around the Levant proclaiming Christ had risen, a symbolic interpretation, if you like, rather than the Christian literal one.
I read The Sign by Thomas de Wesselow, a self-affirmed agnostic, with rising incredulity. He left open the option that maybe what was seen in the empty tomb was actually this shroud, which was how Mary, Peter and John were able to go around the Levant proclaiming Christ had risen, a symbolic interpretation, if you like, rather than the Christian literal one.
Last edited:
- Status