Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

To play devil's advocate (no pun intended!) the row over the Turin shroud is complicated by the following issues:

1. Mixing "genres": Theology versus Science
2. Historical issues: there is a belief Jesus never existed hence ipso facto it's a fake
3. Faith: those who argue from the stance it is a religious miracle

1. We know such a person existed. He is mentioned by the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus, who can be seen to have been accurate in other respects. He confirms this person was crucified.

More recent history confirms the existence of a Roman governor general named Pontius Pilate, in that part of the world as of that time.

Reality runs contrary to your assertion. How odd that you would naïvely accept the forgery-laden self-serving "work" of Josephus as "evidence", wwhil still trying to cast aspersion on what has been called the "most-scrutinized bit of ¹⁴C dating ever".

The Horatio Hornblower novels mention George III of England. Do you, perforce, accept them as evidence that Horatio himself was a real, hisotircal person?

There are two whole threads on the HJ/MJ dance. You really ought to get yourself up to speed.

2. Notwithstanding the above, even if Jesus existed historically, that is not to say he had miraculous powers. Hence, runs the argument, the idea of his image preserved on a cloth, out of the many thousands crucified throughout the ages is absurd. OTOH even if the cloth only dates back to between 900AD and 1200AD, it could be argued to be an astonishing feat for that age to design a cloth that shows a reverse negative of a crucified man when X-Rayed. Why would the hospitalier knights of the crusade have bothered preserving it as a relic.

You are missing the facts of the very nature of the image, the inherent problems with which have been dealt with myriad times in this very thread.

3. Anyone who has visited the British Museum will know 2,000 is a mere five minutes in history when compared to Egyptology artefacts which date back over five thousand years, and even Roman mummies, the Romans consistent in their copying other cultures, including the ancient Greeks and Judeo-Christianity.

There was an Ice Age exhibition with artistic sculptures estimated to be up to 48K years old.

So, the resistance to the idea of the Turin Shroud being "the Face of Jesus" comes from those resistant to religious belief, those who scorn the idea of "miracles" anyway. However, it does not rule out the Turin Shroud could be genuine, especially the paucity of carbon dating tests run on it.

Which camp are you, and why?

You have utterly failed to demonstrate any "paucity" in the ¹⁴C dating performed by three independent laboratories.

Not to mention the problems with provenance.

And with the nature of the image itself.

And with silly little bits like historical (AND scriptural) inaccuracies...

I, personally, am in the "camp" of lookin at the actual evidence. Frankie the B says, "Listen up, Y'all."

 

[Susheel]

Vixen...I see your entire post as a waffle, much like Jabba's posts. Jabba began this this thread and an earlier one with the claim that he could provide concrete evidence that the CIQ is real. He was provided with ample opportunity to provide said evidence and people were even willing to grant him a great deal (much more than would be considered sensible in my opinion) of liberty to present his arguments. He failed utterly.

His argument ultimately is that the others here should take it on faith that the C14 dating is flawed and this automatically confirms the shroud not merely as a 1st century artefact, but more ecifically as the shroud of a mythical personage who just coincidentally possesses the features established for him during the 13th century.

Also both you and Jabba are ignoring the fact (pointed out time and again inthis and the preceding thread) that the C14 dating is only one in a whole bunch of other evidences for the shroud's inauthenticity. On the other hand, what is the evidence for a 1C provenance? None...zilch...nada...

Your post follows the very same logical (and I use this word in the broadest sense possible) train.

We have no issue with Jabba's personal acceptance of the shroud's authenticity based on mere faith. However, I see no need for anyone here to coddle him when he tries to push this as fact that must be accepted.

To oaraphrase something I heard some time ago:
Don't shove religion at me, and I wont shove science at you.

 

[Susheel]

And for sanity's sake Vixen, take the advice of the others and spare some time to go through the threads before you come to Jabba's defence. It will take time but in the end maybe any further posting by you will be more productive to the debate. Right now, all you are doing is reiterating Jabba's already countered arguments.

As for playing devil's advocate, I guessxkcd says it best.

 

[Susheel]

And for sanity's sake Vixen, take the advice of the others who suggested this earlier. Take the time to read through the two threads before you come to Jabba's aid. It will take a while, but it will be worth it if you really intend to learn something and be more productive than Jabba has been.

As for playing devil's advocate, I guess xkcd said it best.

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

Maybe the shroud was hand-knit by bunnies. Maybe it was delivered to the church at Turin by head bunny Peter "The Great" Cottontail.

Maybe we could make up stories all day. But there's no need to. We could look at the actual scientific and historical evidence and answer all of these questions without speculating.

 

[Vixen]

Reality runs contrary to your assertion. How odd that you would naïvely accept the forgery-laden self-serving "work" of Josephus as "evidence", wwhil still trying to cast aspersion on what has been called the "most-scrutinized bit of ¹⁴C dating ever".

The Horatio Hornblower novels mention George III of England. Do you, perforce, accept them as evidence that Horatio himself was a real, hisotircal person?

What? Josephus is considered by scholars to be a great source of historical information.

"Because of the paucity of other sources, Josephus' works are the most thorough histories of the period that we have. So long as we retain some skepticism, his writings provide the greatest insight into what happened to the Jewish people during that five hundred year period." From:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Josephus.html

There are two whole threads on the HJ/MJ dance. You really ought to get yourself up to speed.



You are missing the facts of the very nature of the image, the inherent problems with which have been dealt with myriad times in this very thread.



You have utterly failed to demonstrate any "paucity" in the ¹⁴C dating performed by three independent laboratories.

Not to mention the problems with provenance.

And with the nature of the image itself.

And with silly little bits like historical (AND scriptural) inaccuracies...

I, personally, am in the "camp" of lookin at the actual evidence. Frankie the B says, "Listen up, Y'all."

I have read The Sign, The shroud of Turin and the secret of the resurrection by Thos. de Wesselow, 2012. He deals in great detail and critically, the provenance and carbon dating. It is 348 pages long. Nota Bene this does not mean I agree or disagree. The book was half price and had an attractive cover. From there, I read the other standard text, which was good as far as it went, and also downloaded several ebooks, which were dreadful, a few pages of scam and plagiarism.

You have made various assumptions.

1. I know nothing about the topic.
2. Josephus is equivalent to Horatio Hornblower.
3. You are "more scientist than thou".
4. You cannot be a theologist and a scientist.
5. That cynicism is the same as scepticism.

I'll give you a summary in due course of the carbon dating issues as I see it.

 

[Jabba]

I have been a regular reader of this thread and its predecessors. So there's no point just linking to a thread of several hundred posts or a website. I simply asked for evidence that points toward a 2000 year old date.

It's not necessary to list everything supporting your assertion that the shroud is authentic. Let's just take it one step at a time. I won't ask you to do anything I am not willing to do. Personally, after reading these threads for the past few years and some independent reading, I believe the shroud dates to the 14th century.

So let's each post only one piece of evidence. Others can join as well. We can all then collectively comment, or each add another piece of evidence. The only caveat is that the evidence should point toward a date. Since you have "all sorts of evidence", it should be easy.

I'll go first.

Evidence toward a 14th century date:
The linen of the shroud was radiocarbon dated, and determined to have been made around 1260-1390 AD.

Evidence toward a 1st century date:
<Jabba, or anyone else, to add evidence here.>

Monza,
- Sounds good to me. I'll be back.

 

[Susheel]

What has this to do with the CIQ's provenance?

This is in response to Vixen's post.

 

[Susheel]

Is anyone else having trouble with their posts in this thread?

 

[Vixen]

Maybe the shroud was hand-knit by bunnies. Maybe it was delivered to the church at Turin by head bunny Peter "The Great" Cottontail.

Maybe we could make up stories all day. But there's no need to. We could look at the actual scientific and historical evidence and answer all of these questions without speculating.

Being flippant is a form of logical fallacy which is predicated on the idea that mocking something = that thing has no credibility.

However, historically, we know Catholics collected relics. Westminster Cathedral next to Victoria Station has the viewable rather grisly relics of John Southwell and a couple of cardinals. I have seen Thomas Beckett caskets - thankfully sans relics - in about five different places now (they pop up everywhere). Therefore, it is not so ludicrous for the early crusaders to retain a relic of Jesus' via his purported death shroud.

I agree it's more likely to be a medieval piece, designed to fit in with the times. However, rather than assuming it's a fake, I would rather get to the bottom of the matter.

 

[Mashuna]

I agree it's more likely to be a medieval piece, designed to fit in with the times. However, rather than assuming it's a fake, I would rather get to the bottom of the matter.

Rather than assuming anything, I would prefer to follow the evidence. Having done so, I can say that the shroud is a fake.

 

[Vixen]

Rather than assuming anything, I would prefer to follow the evidence. Having done so, I can say that the shroud is a fake.

Mashuna, how did you "follow the evidence", as opposed to, for example, simply going along with the majority view.

 

[Susheel]

Vixen...read the earlier posts if you are so keen to know this. Or, present your evidence of flawed C14 dating.

 

[abaddon]

Being flippant is a form of logical fallacy which is predicated on the idea that mocking something = that thing has no credibility.

However, historically, we know Catholics collected relics. Westminster Cathedral next to Victoria Station has the viewable rather grisly relics of John Southwell and a couple of cardinals. I have seen Thomas Beckett caskets - thankfully sans relics - in about five different places now (they pop up everywhere). Therefore, it is not so ludicrous for the early crusaders to retain a relic of Jesus' via his purported death shroud.

I agree it's more likely to be a medieval piece, designed to fit in with the times. However, rather than assuming it's a fake, I would rather get to the bottom of the matter.

We got to the bottom of the matter years ago. It's a medieval fake.

It is nobodies problem but yours if you will not read what has gone before.

 

[Susheel]

Monza,
- Sounds good to me. I'll be back.

WOW!...Just...WOW!!

 

[John Jones]

Mashuna, how did you "follow the evidence", as opposed to, for example, simply going along with the majority view.

That's a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

This discussion has been going on for 3 years. Please go back and read it, rather than making rash assumptions which can be very embarrassing for you down the road.

 

[Loss Leader]

Being flippant is a form of logical fallacy which is predicated on the idea that mocking something = that thing has no credibility.

However, historically, we know Catholics collected relics. Westminster Cathedral next to Victoria Station has the viewable rather grisly relics of John Southwell and a couple of cardinals. I have seen Thomas Beckett caskets - thankfully sans relics - in about five different places now (they pop up everywhere). Therefore, it is not so ludicrous for the early crusaders to retain a relic of Jesus' via his purported death shroud.

I agree it's more likely to be a medieval piece, designed to fit in with the times. However, rather than assuming it's a fake, I would rather get to the bottom of the matter.

Tellingly, John Southwell died in 1654, in the middle ages. Also, you appear to admit that relics of Thomas Becket (died, 1170) are fakes (as he can't have been buried in 5 different caskets).

Circumstantially, you admit that christians (Catholics mostly) tend to venerate relics. You place the earliest date at the Crusades, which began in 1095.

You're still about a thousand years short of the goal.

You present no evidence, even circumstantial, that Jews ever venerated relics. We didn't. And Jews would have been the only people interested in Jesus at the time of his death. Nor do you present any evidence that any relic at all from 2000 years ago is authentic.

So, your vague guess about how such a thing as a shroud from 2000 years ago might have been preserved is worthy of ridicule. It is a fantasy for which no evidence exists.

In fact, all the evidence we have - from three separate 14C tests that all agreed with each other to written records of the Shroud which only go back 780 years to the shroud's residence in Italy rather than Jerusalem to our knowledge of the christian practice of counterfeiting first century relics - demonstrates a medieval origin. If you know of any direct evidence that the thing is 2000 years old, I would be happy to hear it. Jabba has proven incapable of finding any.

I do not mock your story in order to show that such a theory has no credibility (which would be an ad hom. falacy). I mock it because it has been shown to have no credibility.

 

[Mashuna]

Mashuna, how did you "follow the evidence", as opposed to, for example, simply going along with the majority view.

In the usual way.

 

[Slowvehicle]

What? Josephus is considered by scholars to be a great source of historical information.

By some scholars, perhaps. You really need to learn more about the Testimonium before you appeal to it as "evidence".

"Because of the paucity of other sources, Josephus' works are the most thorough histories of the period that we have. So long as we retain some skepticism, his writings provide the greatest insight into what happened to the Jewish people during that five hundred year period." From:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Josephus.html

There are multiple threads dealing with Josephus and his supposed ilk. You really ought to get up to speed.

Not to mention, suppose argumentum (and ONLY argumentum), that the MJ in all his water-walkin', fish-sharin', fig-tree-cursin' glory could be proved to have existed. What, in your opinion, ties that figure to the CIQ? Be specific, your assertions will be (and likely already have been) contested.

I have read The Sign, The shroud of Turin and the secret of the resurrection by Thos. de Wesselow, 2012. He deals in great detail and critically, the provenance and carbon dating. It is 348 pages long. Nota Bene this does not mean I agree or disagree. The book was half price and had an attractive cover. From there, I read the other standard text, which was good as far as it went, and also downloaded several ebooks, which were dreadful, a few pages of scam and plagiarism.

Congratulations! Suppose you explain in what way de Wesselow finds fault with the ¹⁴C dating? Again, be specific, and be prepared to defend your assertions.

You have made various assumptions.

You may want to brush up on the definition of "assumptions"...

[*]I know nothing about the topic.

It is patently clear that you are either ignorant of, or willing to ignore, two monstrous and protracted threads. Consider, for example, that you appear to be glossing over the nature and characteristics of the image itself. Do consider getting up to speed...

[*]Josephus is equivalent to Horatio Hornblower.

Whoosh. Deal with analogy much? (FTR, in that analysis, C.S. Forrester is analogically equivalent to Josephus. Horatio, himself, is analogically equivalent to Joesphus' supposed reference to "the Christ".)

[*]You are "more scientist than thou".

I invite you to demonstrate where, in your opinion, this assumption occurs. Be specific. Or are you another of those that can read minds?

[*]You cannot be a theologist and a scientist.

I invite you to demonstrate where, in your opinion, this assumption occurs. Be specific. Or are you another of those that can read minds?

[*]That cynicism is the same as scepticism.

I invite you to demonstrate where, in your opinion, this assumption occurs. Be specific. Or are you another of those that can read minds?

I'll give you a summary in due course of the carbon dating issues as I see it.

Do yourself a favor. If, in fact, you do present such a summary, get up to speed and make sure that your points have not already been addressed, in this thread and its progenitor.

And do consider addressing what is actually posted, not what you wish had been.

 

[carlitos]

I have seen Thomas Beckett caskets - thankfully sans relics - in about five different places now (they pop up everywhere)

Gee, I wonder why that is.