Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[abaddon]

No, Jabba. It wouldn't increase the probability one bit. Stop arguing this: you simply are ignorant of how probabilities work. If you want to change that, take a course.

In the mean time, please present direct evidence for a 2000 year age of the Shroud now.

I am sure he will present it in his very next post. He said so three years ago and daily since. What possible reason have you to doubt? Surely, he couldn't be making stuff up. Heaven forfend.

 

[Loss Leader]

When sports substitutes enter a game is the score reset to zero-zero?

Wrestling?

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of some confusion on your part>
Whilst the shroud might be relatively modern, it would be difficult to fake the image of a crucified man.

...and the representational, byzantine-styled image on the CIQ makes this point very well.

The image is anatomically ridiculous.
-the representations of the arm bones are impossibly long, and asymmetrical, and do not match up on the front and the back images.
-the representation of the head is chisel-shaped, with no space between the frontalis and the occipitus for an actual calvarium.

The representation assumes a pose posturally impossible for a human body.

The representations of "blood flows" in the image do not demonstrate how fresh blood would act, or how blood seeping from a washed corpse would act; not do they represent the actual behavior of blood in a substance such as hair.

If the representation of the "blood flows" is taken to be intended to be taken as fresh blood from and unwashed corpse, then the representaion is comically historically inaccurate. If it is taken to be intended to be the representation of a washed and prepared corpse, it is physically inaccurate.

The representation shows no sign of the distortion that would occur if a two-dimensional sheet were wrapped around a three-dimensional figure, so the image is scripturally inaccurate. Further, the image dose not appear on "strips" of linen, compounding the scriptural inaccuracy.

The image appears on the surface of a sized and gessoed piece of manifestly medieval linen. Size and gesso are nowhere used in funerary preparations.

...and so on...

So, yes: producing an accurate image of a crucified man is difficult: and whoever wrought the CIQ clammed the job.

Whether that man is Jesus, whom *historians do accept existed, is yet another matter.

You left out the word "some" (right * here) in your blythe recruitment of historians. You really ought to get up to speed on the HJ/MJ threads.

Sadly, if a fake, the current Pope was recently gazing at it and touching the frame to no avail.

Depends on what you think Francis was hoping to "avail"--the CIQ is certainly a money-maker.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I will do in due course.

This has been said, in this thread, before.

De Wesselow presented both sides of the argument.

I will be fascinated to read his "both sides". Does he allege fraud? Incompetence? Collusion?

If the question has already been settled, why was the Pope seen on tv a few days ago revering it,

The miraculously-selected-and-appointed head of an organization dedicated to promoting superstitions? Seems obvious...(see the money-maker argument, above)

and more to the point, why is this thread still open?

Still waiting for evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. They were all pretty close.
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years old
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years old
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old
Reference.
Where you get this + or - 1,000 yrs is anyone's guess.

What control is it you desire? Three samples independantly analysed is in what way insufficient?

This isn't archaeology.

It is sufficiently precise. Or demonstrate that it is not.

Citation required.

Not this again. Read the thread. Done to death.

Artistic representation of crucifixion was not outlawed.

An artist would be well familiar with the biblical accounts. There is no reason that they could not have represented such.
The weave was unknown in antiquity, only appearing in the middle ages.

But it is stylised in the very style common to the middle ages. Byzantine style, I believe. Whatever, chisel shaped heads never existed, ever. The anatomic proportions are not just wrong, but impossible and the cloth itself does not conform to biblical accounts, so if you wish to claim the authenticity of the CIQ, you must perforce deny biblical accuracy.

Citation required.

Citation required.

Irrelevant.

Of course it was, there was a fire from which the tablecloth had to be salvaged. So what?

Did they? Citation required.

Yup. Because it will be held up as an example of how people can cling to their cherish crackpot beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary.


Tough. It's settled. Done. Over.

Now, what fascinates me is why so many cling to the discredited notion of the authenticity of the shroud. Even if they were to concede and accept it as fake, it would have no bearing upon their faith AT ALL.

I can only conceive of a few possibilities.
1. Their faith is so frail that the shroud being fake would destroy their faith. In that case, it is simple fear of the unknown that would lie before them.
2. It is essential to maintain the charade to bolster the faith of others. In that case, it is simply lying for jebus and a cynical exercise in hypocrisy.
3. They are so personally invested over many years that they cannot afford to confront the idea that it has been a waste of time and effort.
4. Something else of which I am unaware. Feel free.

In any event, the shroud being a fake has no hand act or part in anyone's faith. A christian should, in theory, not care a whit. In fact, according to the bible, it is a sin to invest so much in an artefact. This is one of the rare points of agreement between myself and the bible. Why become so invested in a piece of cloth that you neglect the directives of your faith?

All citations De Wesselow (he has an academic Bibliography at the back).

Of course you need a control. It's a fundamental requirement of empirical science. The control would need to have the same weave pattern. You have heard of the "halo effect". A bunch of hardnosed atheist scientists will have no greater satisfaction than declaring a "Holy relic" a fake. Bring in a control then inherent, even unconscious, bias decreases.

I think the interest in the shroud is that if genuine, it is an astonishing piece of material.

 

[Slowvehicle]

According to De Wesselow, the 1988 carbon dating exercise was defective. Three samples were sent to each of Arizona, Oxford and Zurich.

Zurich claimed one sample was1,000years too late and another 1,000 too early.

There was no control, as the distinctive linen weave was immediately recognisable.

Archeological scientists were excluded. As carbon dating is imprecise, contrary to general perception, archeologists consider historical context when estimating dates.

Evidence points to the shroud having been in existence long before 1260: the fact that the lignin in the fibres of the cloth has lost its vanillin, indicate it is over 1,300.

It is a crucified figure, crucifixion was outlawed in Christendom in C4.

Scourge marks show antiquities era - the use of a Roman flagrum - as well as the weave showing antiquity, not the Middle Ages.

If Middle Ages the art would be idealised, not the stark image we have.

Analysing art, takes it back at least to C6.

Lab samples were contaminated or chemically altered.

Similar thing happened with British Museum mummies: carbon dating found the cloth to be 1,000 younger than the body. Dr. Rosalie David knew this was wrong as the mummies had not been rewrapped.

Part of the shroud was scorched.

Bioplastic coating transferred bacteria and fungi to the cloth.

De Wesselow writes: "The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science".

It doesn't seem to me to be "settled" "the Shroud dates to C13".

Still haven't read the threads, eh?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nope. They were all pretty close.
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years old
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years old
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old
Reference.
Where you get this + or - 1,000 yrs is anyone's guess.

What control is it you desire? Three samples independantly analysed is in what way insufficient?

This isn't archaeology.

It is sufficiently precise. Or demonstrate that it is not.

Citation required.

Not this again. Read the thread. Done to death.

Artistic representation of crucifixion was not outlawed.

An artist would be well familiar with the biblical accounts. There is no reason that they could not have represented such.
The weave was unknown in antiquity, only appearing in the middle ages.

But it is stylised in the very style common to the middle ages. Byzantine style, I believe. Whatever, chisel shaped heads never existed, ever. The anatomic proportions are not just wrong, but impossible and the cloth itself does not conform to biblical accounts, so if you wish to claim the authenticity of the CIQ, you must perforce deny biblical accuracy.

Citation required.

Citation required.

Irrelevant.

Of course it was, there was a fire from which the tablecloth had to be salvaged. So what?

Did they? Citation required.

Yup. Because it will be held up as an example of how people can cling to their cherish crackpot beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary.


Tough. It's settled. Done. Over.

Now, what fascinates me is why so many cling to the discredited notion of the authenticity of the shroud. Even if they were to concede and accept it as fake, it would have no bearing upon their faith AT ALL.

I can only conceive of a few possibilities.
1. Their faith is so frail that the shroud being fake would destroy their faith. In that case, it is simple fear of the unknown that would lie before them.
2. It is essential to maintain the charade to bolster the faith of others. In that case, it is simply lying for jebus and a cynical exercise in hypocrisy.
3. They are so personally invested over many years that they cannot afford to confront the idea that it has been a waste of time and effort.
4. Something else of which I am unaware. Feel free.

In any event, the shroud being a fake has no hand act or part in anyone's faith. A christian should, in theory, not care a whit. In fact, according to the bible, it is a sin to invest so much in an artefact. This is one of the rare points of agreement between myself and the bible. Why become so invested in a piece of cloth that you neglect the directives of your faith?

Well done, Dread One! Shame Vixen will not simply read the threads, but insists on acting as if all of his routinely-dealt-with "facts" are de novo.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I was wondering if there was some specific name for a fringe reset engendered by a new person entering a thread without making an attempt to research the history of the thread. In sports, bringing in a fresh player is called a substitution. A substitution fringe reset? When sports substitutes enter a game is the score reset to zero-zero?

I think the term is "egoistic carelessness". Or "arrant, errant, arrogation". Or even, "wishful thinking".

 

[Slowvehicle]

If there isn't, there should be.

How about a substition. Nobody believes it, but it is a real thing.

<apologies, Sir Pratchett>

+1. So moved.

 

[Vixen]

*Sighs* One person agreed with him. That will give him the ammo for another 10 years of posts.

At this point it's just practice. It's like a martial arts master doing the exact same kick over and over.

I read back a few pages of the "debate", as urged by forum posters. Quite frankly, I was shocked at how horrid and rude ppl were to Jabba, bullying him to "provide proof the shroud is 2,000 years old now".

Really, even if he's the worst debater ever and the 26 ballsmen the best, it doesn't change the intrinsic fact of the matter.

I agree the shroud is likely nothing to do with Jesus.

However, I am bringing in the cavalry to help back up Jabba. <g>

 

[jond]

I read back a few pages of the "debate", as urged by forum posters. Quite frankly, I was shocked at how horrid and rude ppl were to Jabba, bullying him to "provide proof the shroud is 2,000 years old now".

Really, even if he's the worst debater ever and the 26 ballsmen the best, it doesn't change the intrinsic fact of the matter.

I agree the shroud is likely nothing to do with Jesus.

However, I am bringing in the cavalry to help back up Jabba. <g>

If you'd read back to the beginning you'd understand why everyone's patience is truly at an end over all this. If you understood the burden of proof you'd understand why everyone's patience is at an end.

Here's a question for you, Vixen: have you got any evidence that would indicate that the cloth is 2000 years old? If not, then why should anyone consider the authenticity argument to have any merit?

 

[Vixen]

...and the representational, byzantine-styled image on the CIQ makes this point very well.

The image is anatomically ridiculous.
-the representations of the arm bones are impossibly long, and asymmetrical, and do not match up on the front and the back images.
-the representation of the head is chisel-shaped, with no space between the frontalis and the occipitus for an actual calvarium.

The representation assumes a pose posturally impossible for a human body.

The representations of "blood flows" in the image do not demonstrate how fresh blood would act, or how blood seeping from a washed corpse would act; not do they represent the actual behavior of blood in a substance such as hair.

If the representation of the "blood flows" is taken to be intended to be taken as fresh blood from and unwashed corpse, then the representaion is comically historically inaccurate. If it is taken to be intended to be the representation of a washed and prepared corpse, it is physically inaccurate.

The representation shows no sign of the distortion that would occur if a two-dimensional sheet were wrapped around a three-dimensional figure, so the image is scripturally inaccurate. Further, the image dose not appear on "strips" of linen, compounding the scriptural inaccuracy.

The image appears on the surface of a sized and gessoed piece of manifestly medieval linen. Size and gesso are nowhere used in funerary preparations.

...and so on...

So, yes: producing an accurate image of a crucified man is difficult: and whoever wrought the CIQ clammed the job.



You left out the word "some" (right * here) in your blythe recruitment of historians. You really ought to get up to speed on the HJ/MJ threads.



Depends on what you think Francis was hoping to "avail"--the CIQ is certainly a money-maker.

Oh well, De Wessellow thinks the body imprint is incredibly authentic. <shrug>

 

[JoeMorgue]

I read back a few pages of the "debate", as urged by forum posters.

This trainwreck has been going on for a little longer than a few pages.

Quite frankly, I was shocked at how horrid and rude ppl were to Jabba, bullying him to "provide proof the shroud is 2,000 years old now".

We have been infinitely patient with Jabba.

 

[Vixen]

If you'd read back to the beginning you'd understand why everyone's patience is truly at an end over all this. If you understood the burden of proof you'd understand why everyone's patience is at an end.

Here's a question for you, Vixen: have you got any evidence that would indicate that the cloth is 2000 years old? If not, then why should anyone consider the authenticity argument to have any merit?

It was tested 1988. IIRC only once before. What is the problem in agreeing testing standards acceptable to all, with blind controls, as an ongoing research project? Sending off nine samples from one tiny area of the cloth, with no controls, is not satisfactory by any stretch of imagination. Bring in the archaeological scientists. Let the Vatican scientists have a bash.

Let's have transparency!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Let the Vatican scientists have a bash.

Yes and then we can have the Mob's accounts make sure all their money is clean.

 

[tsig]

There has been no spin or quarreling about the 14C date amongst those most familiar with the testing.

Why would it be difficult to fake the image of a crucified man?

Why fake it?

 

[HighRiser]

I read back a few pages of the "debate", as urged by forum posters. Quite frankly, I was shocked at how horrid and rude ppl were to Jabba, bullying him to "provide proof the shroud is 2,000 years old now".

Really, even if he's the worst debater ever and the 26 ballsmen the best, it doesn't change the intrinsic fact of the matter.

I agree the shroud is likely nothing to do with Jesus.

However, I am bringing in the cavalry to help back up Jabba. <g>

I think you should read from the beginning of the first part of the discussion, up to the point when Jabba dropped out of the "debate" the first time. It is a lot to read, but there's a lot of banter that can be skimmed over.

If you can defend (or even define) Jabba's argument for authenticity after developing an understanding of it, I'll be surprised

If you can't be bothered to do the work of catching up with a years-long discussion, please drop out of it.

 

[Giordano]

I read back a few pages of the "debate", as urged by forum posters. Quite frankly, I was shocked at how horrid and rude ppl were to Jabba, bullying him to "provide proof the shroud is 2,000 years old now".

Really, even if he's the worst debater ever and the 26 ballsmen the best, it doesn't change the intrinsic fact of the matter.

I agree the shroud is likely nothing to do with Jesus.

However, I am bringing in the cavalry to help back up Jabba. <g>

I think that you may want to read back more than just a few pages to better understand the debate. You might find it insightful. But informing yourself in this way before entering the thread might well limit your outrage and your confidence in your opinions- so don't feel obligated to make yourself familiar with even a significant fraction of the debate before playing cavalry. I understand that the American cavalry often didn't have a detailed knowledge of the situation either before they rode their white horses into the fray.

 

[Jabba]

Vixen's Questions.

- How can you all expect a newcomer to read the 13,000 posts she missed in order to find your proofs? Give Vixen some specific evidence refuting her arguments.
- You keep saying that you've refuted all of my arguments, but you haven't -- you've refuted some of my arguments, but only a few. Show her just where you have refuted them, other than those I've admitted to. She seems a lot quicker than me and can probably find some time to respond to some of your so-called refutations that I couldn't find time for.
- And, she's on your side -- be a little friendly and see if you can actually support your claims against some friendly disagreement.

 

[Belz...]

I read back a few pages of the "debate", as urged by forum posters. Quite frankly, I was shocked at how horrid and rude ppl were to Jabba, bullying him to "provide proof the shroud is 2,000 years old now".

Yes, of course. Nothing's more rude than requiring of someone to put up their evidence for their claims, after _YEARS_ of delay.

You have clearly no idea what this thread has been like all this time. Jabba simply dances around every issue, and as you can see, knows little about statistics.