Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Giordano]

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!

The 1988 protocol was agreed on by all participating, had blind controls (one of the labs actually ashed all samples to avoid anyone being able to tell the controls from the Shroud due to the visual appearance of the weave), and three labs independently had quite good matches in their datings. The appropriate scientific experts were involved at all stages, including Vatican scientists, and a great deal of effort was expended to be certain that the tested cloth was representative of the whole by all experts involved.

As to your last point: Think it through- was it the scientists who were and are unwilling to test even more of the cloth, or the religious order who owns it? Who do you think preferred to ideally test pieces from all over the cloth and who preferred to test an localized piece away from the image itself? If you have a (what you consider) sacred artifact, just how much of it do you think you are willing to chop up, deface, and burn for an isotopic dating? This is true of almost any precious object: "Good news Mr. Smith- you really did own an authentic diamond. Unfortunately we destroyed the entire stone to be certain that it was all truly diamond..."

Again, these factual points are all discussed in this very thread. It may seem lengthy, but it is very repetitive. I suspect that if you wish to make suitably informed comments, you can probably come up to speed on the thread in a day or two.

 

[Belz...]

- 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.

All the ones you've been arsed to provide. The fact that you cannot even understand your most basic mistakes makes it impossible for you to realise that, in fact, ALL of them have been refuted -- quite easily.

Now, please provide direct evidence for a 2000 year age for the Shroud at once.

 

[Loss Leader]

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

It's called a dog and pony show.

 

[jond]

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!

This has nothing to do with my post, and everything here has been addressed ad nasusem within this thread and it's predecessor. As has been pointed out an infinite number of times, even if the C14 date were to be thrown out (not there's any legitimate reason to, but just for the sake of argument) there is no reason to consider a date of 2000 years old without any evidence that supports such a date. There are many reasons why that date is very unlikely.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

Have you, yourself, looked at the representation of the body?

Have you, yourself, tried to assume the "Shroud Slouch^TM"?

Have you , yourself any experience with blood flow on or in capillary materials?

Does your won head lack a calvarium of human proportions between the occipitum and the frontalis?

...for starters...

 

[Slowvehicle]

- 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.

Dear Mr. Savage:

Since you patently cannot, as you bragged you could, present evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old, o ahead a present a single bit of "evidence" you have presented that "has not been refuted". I am interested to see if this is just more of your word games...

 

[HighRiser]

- 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.

You, sir, seem to have a deep misunderstanding of the refutations that have been presented to your arguments. You have seldom addressed a refutation with a counter-argument, have never made a convincing point, and have never presented a whit of evidence that supports a first-century provenance for the CiQ.

 

[Vixen]

Have you, yourself, looked at the representation of the body?

Have you, yourself, tried to assume the "Shroud Slouch^TM"?

Have you , yourself any experience with blood flow on or in capillary materials?

Does your won head lack a calvarium of human proportions between the occipitum and the frontalis?

...for starters...

When I read De Wesselow I wasn't sure about his revealed "secret of the resurrection". However, his historical and scientific analysis seemed persuasive ATT. Usually, ppl start off with the standard text The Turin Shroud which is highly sceptical, and provides a rational scientific explanation.

I read De Wesselow first and then the mainstream one (I vaguely recall reading it years ago).

Because we are a secular society then we assume we know it's a fake. De Wesselow being an agnostic Church of England (not an oxymoron!) did a good job in trying to understand the entire picture. Good illustrations and photos.

Why not borrow it from Kindle unlimited?

 

[Giordano]

- 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.

As mentioned, it is a very repetitive thread. No one insists that anyone comment here, but if a newcomer feels the need to make a comment at this late date, they should have invested a reasonable length of time in reviewing the discussion and/or at least provide as good a knowledge of the subject as the people already participating in the discussion. Adding something to the discussion is always greatly appreciated. Repeating something already done to death is not. Why should the long-term participants be responsible for putting in an extraordinary duplicative effort to bring a new comer up to speed, rather than the newcomer?

 

[Belz...]

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

Why ? To satisfy some perverse notion of 'balance' ?

 

[Slowvehicle]

When I read De Wesselow I wasn't sure about his revealed "secret of the resurrection". However, his historical and scientific analysis seemed persuasive ATT. Usually, ppl start off with the standard text The Turin Shroud which is highly sceptical, and provides a rational scientific explanation.

I read De Wesselow first and then the mainstream one (I vaguely recall reading it years ago).

Because we are a secular society then we assume we know it's a fake. De Wesselow being an agnostic Church of England (not an oxymoron!) did a good job in trying to understand the entire picture. Good illustrations and photos.

Why not borrow it from Kindle unlimited?

Have you, yourself, looked at the representation of the body?

Have you, yourself, tried to assume the "Shroud Slouch^TM"?

Have you , yourself any experience with blood flow on or in capillary materials?

Does your own head lack a calvarium of human proportions between the occipitum and the frontalis?

...for starters...

 

[HighRiser]

Why ? To satisfy some perverse notion of 'balance' ?

I don't think she quite realizes that this discussion is like Little Big Horn, as far as cavalry metaphors are concerned.

 

[Giordano]

In rereading some of my posts I realize that I should apologize for becoming too emotional. Again I welcome Vixen to the discussion and look forward to some new insights in this thread. But I still urge Vixen to read as much as possible already in this thread, even though it is very long. I am certain Vixen can offer useful new insights; a review of the thread will help ensure that these insights focus on the novel, rather than become too diluted with what might have been already extensively discussed. Sorry if I let my annoyance with the nature of the thread distort my enthusiasm and my interest in learning new things.

 

[John Jones]

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.

There were controls. This was pointed-out several times. Would you mind telling us your scientific credentials?

 

[John Jones]

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 it's not 2000 years old, nothing else matters. Jabba has spent 20+ years studying the CIQ, but he can't follow the threads he has started.

No cavalry is needed. Simply provide evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

 

[Aepervius]

- 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.

She was now by abbadon as a summary. But the problem is jumping in a 130000 post thread, and not even bothering reading what was before. And when told it was debunked before not bother trying to go FURTHER than a few pages back.

- 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.

No you are simply suffering the delusion that you had any good argument. It is a mere delusion. There is a good reason why practically nobody agrees that any of your argument was a good point to authenticity.

- And, she's on your side -- be a little friendly and see if you can actually support your claims against some friendly disagreement.

You are funny.

 

[John Jones]

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

Clueless Newbie worked back in the USENET days.

 

[Aepervius]

When I read De Wesselow I wasn't sure about his revealed "secret of the resurrection". However, his historical and scientific analysis seemed persuasive ATT. Usually, ppl start off with the standard text The Turin Shroud which is highly sceptical, and provides a rational scientific explanation.

I read De Wesselow first and then the mainstream one (I vaguely recall reading it years ago).

Because we are a secular society then we assume we know it's a fake. De Wesselow being an agnostic Church of England (not an oxymoron!) did a good job in trying to understand the entire picture. Good illustrations and photos.

Why not borrow it from Kindle unlimited?

Why do you keep asking us to read a book we already told you was debunked, and you refuse or ignore the simple question, like the one asked by slow vehicule ? Again, beside the 14C stats, which are pretty good compared to other artifact measurement which gets at bet only 1 measurement, there are plenty of indication of the nature of the shroud being medieval at best.

"Because we are a secular society then we assume we know it's a fake."

Not really. See the society framework by its law is secular, because we want freedom of religion etc... But the member of that society are massively religious. So the people, the one you pretend are secular, are massively more likely to know or wish it is an authentic shroud of the christ. In fact look at the crowd it draws.

Confusing the society framework with the people composing that society belief does not bode well for the discussion.

 

[John Jones]

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

His thoughts appear to be insubstantial except as a means for selling books to credulous people.

 

[Pacal]

When I read De Wesselow I wasn't sure about his revealed "secret of the resurrection". However, his historical and scientific analysis seemed persuasive ATT. Usually, ppl start off with the standard text The Turin Shroud which is highly sceptical, and provides a rational scientific explanation.

I read De Wesselow first and then the mainstream one (I vaguely recall reading it years ago).

Because we are a secular society then we assume we know it's a fake. De Wesselow being an agnostic Church of England (not an oxymoron!) did a good job in trying to understand the entire picture. Good illustrations and photos.

Why not borrow it from Kindle unlimited?

If your summary of Dr. Wesselow's views of the carbon14 tests are accurate and reflect the approach of the whole book than Dr. Wesselow is simply another Shroud Gawker and no one should read his apparent collection of special pleadings, distortions and nonsense.

As for the "authenticity" of the image. Well the simple fact is that the image looks like a painting in that it is undistorted. As mentioned by others this simple fact renders the authenticity of the image extremely dubious. I could also point out that the image of Jesus on the shroud is pretty close to the standard Gothic style of representing Jesus of the 13th and 14th centuries C.E. A Palestinian Jew of the 1st century C.E. would almost certainly not look like that. I could also go into how Central / Northern European the image on the shroud looks.

Regarding the Testimonia of Josephus concerning Jesus. Well the general consensus is that at the very least Josephus' writings have been tampered with at this spot in his writings. The debate centers on whether or not the entire passage is a pious interpolation fraud or a partial one. In other words was the passage inserted in its entirety or whether a passage about Jesus was modified in order to make Josephus' description of Jesus fit Church dogma better. This debate has not by any means been settled. Making things difficult is that none of the early Church Fathers even they quote Josephus and refer to him quotes or even alludes to this passage. In fact the first mention of the testimonia is the Church Historian Eusibius in the early 4th century C.E., during the reign of Constantine the Great. And Eusbibius' quote of the testimonia is different from the one we have. All of that is suspicious so some writers think the entire passage was a interpolation.

Further making the whole thing more difficult is that we have a Syriac version of Josephus, which does indeed have the testimonia only it is quite different from both Eusibius' and the version we have today. To keep it simple the Syriac version does not have the features friendly to Church dogma about Jesus that exist in the version we have today. I could also go into the Slavonic version but that would be tedious.

The point is Josephus' Testimonia is a highly problematic piece of evidence. Rather interestingly Josephus does refer too in a another passage to James "the brother of Christ". That passage seems to be less problematic.

And of course the shroud enthusiasts face the problem of Pierre D'Arcis Bishop of Troyes' letter, (dated 1389 C.E.), which contains the following passage concerning the shroud:

Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.

The convolutions that shroud enthusiasts go through to try to explain away this damning letter are compulsively funny.