• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loss Leader said:
Well, I slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

You do no one any favors posting your resume unless that resume includes the line, "Actual scientist who tested the shroud."

Even if we were to dismiss the hard scientific data, we still have a lot of history pointing to the shroud's origin including that fact that written records of it only begin in the middle ages, leaving some 1200 years unaccounted for. We know it turned up in a church in Turin, Italy, leaving its journey from Jerusalem unaccounted for. We know that Christian veneration of relics only began at most a few hundred years after the death of Jesus. We know that the pattern of weave of the cloth is a middle-age technique that did not exist a thousand years ago. We know that all material on the cloth is consistent with earth-based pigments of the middle ages and inconsistent with blood.

None of this changes because you once took a bunch of exams in college. None of it changes because I took the same exams in college, plus statistics exams in graduate school, plus a critical thinking exam to get into law school, plus whatever tests I took in law school, plus two bar exams from two separate states, plus I just took a buzzfeed quiz about my knowledge of "Back to the Future."

Fact be like facting, yo.
Click to expand...


The point being made is Susheel claimed people weren't prepared to do the "hard work" of looking at the threads. But I have made an effort to acquaint myself with the facts. Heck, I even downloaded some e-books at the time. If I had known the Shroud was recently on show, I would have been tempted to go see for myself.
 
Vixen said:
When you say "fake", it could still be C14 and authentic (but not Jesus).
Click to expand...

You mean it's a miracle with a different god ? How would it be authentic ?

The elongated Gothic style you mention could be typical of German art (and I was struck by the beauty of these at the Burrows Collection in Glasgow). Or it could be the actually figure really was six foot three inches tall.
Click to expand...

An amazing freak of nature who looks nothing like a normal human and somehow looks like a byzantine artwork. Yeah, sure.

Do you even understand the exhaustive post that catsmate made ?
 
Vixen said:
When you say "fake", it could still be C14 and authentic (but not Jesus).
Click to expand...
Given that it dated from the thirteenth century....

Vixen said:
Please substantiate this claim. It comes across as a bit personal. What do you mean?
Click to expand...
You accused the Zurich teams of have arrived at their results "because the scientists assessed "it looks right"" .
 
Dinwar said:
History is not the appropriate field. This is an archaeological question. Standard archaeological techniques were used, to get the most well-established result EVER.
Click to expand...
True. Though studying history should teach you about analysis of evidence and sources.

Dinwar said:
I haven't read through 500 posts; has there been any serious critique of the C14 dating?
Click to expand...
Nope. Lots of mud flung.
 
Monza said:
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.>
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Monza,
- Sounds good to me. I'll be back.
Click to expand...


Anything?
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: A "serious" study designed to sell books and never subjected to peer review. Further de Wesselow (whom I have read) relies on the long discredited Rogers claims to support his belief that the radiocarbon dating is erroneous.

I'm quite familiar with de Wesselow's claims regarding carbohydrate formation. Just as I'm familiar with why this disn't happen and wouldn't have altered the dating results.

Nor does his work in any way explain all the other problems evident with attributing a 1stC CE date to the cloth.

Finally de Wesselow having a history Ph.D. doesn't impress me that much; I have one myself. :)
Click to expand...

What area of history, Catsmate, if you don't mind my asking?

De Wesselow is a History of Art specialist. His book wasn't designed to just make money, as it has a reference for all his sources. It's his own original research. In history and the arts, a lot of the the skill involves interpretation, so it is inevitable conclusions will be open to dispute. That is not to say one is right and the other wrong.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I sat through abut 15+ accountancy exams, 10 psychology final exams, produced 15 lab reports over two years (ditto), two women's post colonial literature and personal development creative writing diplomas, two Institute of Linguists exams, a couple of Institute of Statisticians exams, the whole range of academic subjects at school (top in most of them, or near top).
Click to expand...
Ends thread. I, for one, am kinda overwhelmed by it all. There is no doubt from here on out that the Shroud is the Real Deal. Authentic.
 
carlitos said:
It's at the top of the page, helpfully labelled "search." For most searches, I'd advise that you choose the "google" option, as it finds the most stuff.

On the top right of any thread, you can also click "thread tools," and search just the one thread.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah it does work. On previous occasions of using "thread search" nothing happened. Thx!
 
catsmate said:
Given that it dated from the thirteenth century....


You accused the Zurich teams of have arrived at their results "because the scientists assessed "it looks right"" .
Click to expand...

I did not accuse them of deceit and fraud. What I actually said was if, out of three samples one was +1K and the other -1K, how do we know the result they settled on was not the result of the "halo effect" = confirmation of preconception. Why not pick the other two results?

That is not "an accusation of deceit". It is a relevant question.
 
Vixen said:
Catsmate, please please read Thomas de Wesselow for yourself. He is an art historian and attained his MA and PhD from the Courtauld Institute in London, he became as scholar at the British School in Rome, and a post-doctorate research scholarship at King's College Cambridge. He has analysed various Renaissance paintings.

This is not an appeal to authority. It indicates this is no Dan Brown type pontificator idly pondering on a series of, "what if?".

This is a serious study.
Click to expand...

...and yet (for instance) he appears to be willing to simply gloss over the fact that the representation of the front of the head abuts the representation of the back of the head, with no room provided for the top of the head; and the fact that the representation shows none of the distortion that would inevitable occurr if the CIQ had been "wrapped" arounf a 3-D object...
 
John Jones said:
Citation for your lay assessment of AMS please? The Vatican chose the method because it is the most sensitive (i.e. would require the least damage to the shroud). If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Vatican.

BTW, your Josephus veneration is irrelevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...


Here you go.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12316841.900-unexpected-errors-affect-dating-techniques.html



1. I do not "venerate" Josephus.

2. It is relevant as it directly relates to Ancient Jewish history as of the time of Christ.

3. Saying Josephus' reference to Jesus is similar to C.S. Forrester's Horatio
Hornblower is like comparing Dan Brown to the Torah. Disproportionate and contextually erroneous.
 
Vixen said:
I did not accuse them of deceit and fraud. What I actually said was if, out of three samples one was +1K and the other -1K, how do we know the result they settled on was not the result of the "halo effect" = confirmation of preconception. Why not pick the other two results?
Click to expand...

You have been corrected on this: there were no such results. Why do you continue to argue that there were ?
 
Vixen said:
De Wesselow deals with all this, complete with colour photos and diagrams. I realise you will be familiar with all of this.
Click to expand...

Interesting evasion.

Suppose you explain how de Wesselow deals with the fact that the representation has a wedge-shaped head. Or how he explains the amateurishly inaccurate "blood flows". Or the historical and scriptural inaccuracies? Is he in the "floating corpse in a burst of resurrection energy" camp?
 
Vixen said:
When I was in Israel recently, I met plenty of tall Semites, although most were a similar height to me (being quite tall myself).
Click to expand...


Because people 2000 years ago (during a foreign occupation) were getting the same nutritious diets then as now?

What you are doing is confabulating a possible story based on a couple snippets from the Bible, wishful thinking, and a gross misunderstanding of human history. Jesus was supposed to be deformed so being really tall fits that?

What you're not doing is confronting any evidence you don't like including: the fact that no biblical source mentions Jesus as exceptionally tall; the fact that the image on the shroud is closer to the popular (and racist) European image of Jesus in the middle ages; the fact that there is no written record showing the existence of a shroud for the first 1200 years of catholicism; the fact that Jews almost never did and almost never do keep anything having to do with death (finding the whole business unclean); the fact that conterfeiting relics was profitable business in the middle ages; etc.

Making up stories based on small second and third-hand snippets is better left to the producers of the Hangover movies, than to christian appologists.
 
Vixen said:
What area of history, Catsmate, if you don't mind my asking?

De Wesselow is a History of Art specialist. His book wasn't designed to just make money, as it has a reference for all his sources. It's his own original research. In history and the arts, a lot of the the skill involves interpretation, so it is inevitable conclusions will be open to dispute. That is not to say one is right and the other wrong.
Click to expand...
A man with a PhD in art history, just the expert I'd look for to critique a carbon dating test procedure. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom