Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

There is such a drawing in De Wesselow's book.

You may have missed this:

Not good enough. First, find evidence IN THE SHROUD'S PICTURE of such a divice. Second, please explain how such a divice can flatten the head to produce the lack of sufficient gap between the dorsal and ventral pictures. Third, provide evidence that such a divice was in fact used.

 

[Giordano]

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).

Trust me, I have never been one to "take the easy way out"!

Those are excellent credentials in terms of your intellectual skills, knowledge of math, and writing and I congratulate you. I suspect that you could have succeeded in a wide number of careers had you chosen. But from what you have written, I do not think you are an expert in radioisotope dating. You probably could gain a reasonable working knowledge of it, but I don't see that you have yet made that effort.

I state this to let you know that there are a lot of posters here who do research in science at advanced levels who do have more direct expertise, including at least one person whose research itself is radiocarbon dating, chemists, physicists, and people who use radiocarbon dating frequently in their research. I am not diminishing your own accomplishments- only suggesting that if your views contradict those of virtually all of these experts, you might want to do some additional relevant studying and see why the apparent contradictions and who is indeed correct.

Finally, I would emphasize the need to look at the primary scientific literature and not just books that seek to summarize this work, often with an agenda. I would also urge you to when you cite a study to always include the journal, volume number and pages, or if a book, the date and publisher. Otherwise it can be very hard to look up. Thanks.

 

[Giordano]

But I have read the relevant learned text books.

Again, don't look at "textbooks" - look at the primary publications themselves. Textbooks are known to grossly simplify the real story, often distorting it, intentionally or not.

 

[Giordano]

The three laboratories (Zurich, Arizona and Oxford) used a technique called Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) which came out of a survey by New Scientist badly. It found the margin of error for 14c carbon dating to be one to three times greater than reported, and of 38 laboratories, only SEVEN were"satisfactory". IOW 80% labs failed in accuracy.

The Zurich results could conceivably have been arrived at because the scientists assessed "it looks right", having decided +1,000 was too much and -1,000 too few. (Halo effect = confirming your preconceptions.)

People who can easily shrug off historians such as Josephus, nonetheless eagerly embrace anything with the label "science", even if demonstrably defective.

Again- the "Zurich studies" to which you refer were not the studies in the later Nature paper. Why do you keep confusing the two!

Do you have a specific citation for the New Scientist article? The New Scientist is also not a typical place to publish mass spec data- is this a primary research article? Finally, if the error bars were even twice as wide as actually obtained by the Nature labs (i.e. that whatever lab(s) did the New Scientist results were comparable in skill as the 3 labs in the Nature study, and the reproducibility and agreement actually obtained by these Nature labs was all just somehow an accident at the p=< .05 level)- would even that have encompassed a 30 AD date?

 

[Vixen]

Well, I can't find these numbers anywhere. Perhaps you should try other sources.



Quick question: are you a Christian ?

Terribly sorry, but it won't be a quick answer. I am one of the very rare people who still goes to church on Sunday with Holy Communion most weeks. I am secretary of the local Lutheran Women of GB (part of the US ELCE Synod in Missouri). I was atheist for a large part of my life, but went back to the religion of my youth, actually having been baptised in the Finnish Lutheran Church and educated in Church of England schools. Why? I have always had a religious bent, Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan being my favourite book at school aged 11.

Spent my youth flirting with all sorts, Sufism, Bagavad Gita, Zen, Hermann Hesse, etc. I was even advanced in astrology.

Always loved singing, so get to do a lot of that, although some of Martin Luther's hymns are quite complex. Love Isaac Watts, Flyte, Bach, Melita, Rockingham, etc, etc.

Like everywhere else, most Finns these days are "agnostic" so the Finnish Church in London runs an agnostic service for those allergic to any mention of Christ. I am not sure I like the blandness. I cannot see the point of it.

When my father died 2013 I guess I began to ponder the religious issue and went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, which was historically fascinating and the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem, mindblowing.

So when you ask, "Are you a Christian?", it is not as simple a question as you might think. History, anthropology and the psychology of religion, as well as theology, are part of the interest. I wouldn't say I was dogmatic. I understand most views. I do have an aversion to Dawkins and Christopher Hitchin's views, though. Anyone can mock and be scathing & sarcastic. People jeering about the "Magic Jew" is so boring.

My mother is from an austere protestant background. What's good for her, is good for me.

Faith is all I have.

What else is there, really?

Jesu, bleibet meine freude ~ Bach Cantata 147

 

[Giordano]

They are the mainstream ones.

Nope- not mainstream at all. Books are seldom used as the source of actual experimental data. The actual data on which scientific conclusions are reached typically appear in peer-reviewed journals. Books are typically an individual's own conclusions, and usually do not present the actual data or discuss the important details as to how the data was obtained and the controls.

 

[Vixen]

Very true, and I by no means intended to disperage the field. I was merely commenting on the methodologies. Historical evidence would be documented evidence, far as I can tell (the boundaries get fuzzy)--for example, the fact that it didn't become known until around 700 years ago. Archaeological evidence would be evidence directly from the artifact that provides information about the artifact--such as the C14 dating.

Vixen, have you done ANY sampling? Ever? I ask because unless you have, you really can't critique sampling procedures. It may sound reasonable to you, but the vicisitudes of the process may render your objections moot. I experience that A LOT in my field, both in paleo/archaeo work and in environmental remediation. To properly critique a sampling procedure you need to be familiar with the lab methods, sample methods, and site conditions.

Also, what evidence would convince you that the shroud is not authentic?

I had to be au fait with sampling in psychology (BSc[Hons]) albeit via statistics, correlations, levels of significance, standard deviation, etc.

And of course, in the sciences at school - did Chemistry A level.

What evidence would convince me the shroud is not authentic?

Proper research. Vatican to hand over the cloth to scientists, artists and theologians, so it can be examined from every angle.

 

[Vixen]

He just copied Arlo Guthrie:

"They took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was..."

I don't want a pickle, I just wanna ride on my motor sickle.

 

[Giordano]

Many people imagine Jesus to be some Italian-looking guy with long white robes and wearing sandals.

Isaiah does prohecy the Messiah will appear deformed.

Did anyone in the New Testament happen to mention Jesus's incredibly long arms that differed from front to bak and wedge shaped head with no top?

Earlier you posted that perhaps Jesus was really 6'3', but you must know that is not the problem with the figure on the Shroud at all. It is not the height, but the proportions of the figure on the Shroud which are alien and not how people actually look; any of these unreal features on the Shroud would instantly attract attention and comment in a real person (assuming that they could live at all). Plus the fact that the image on the Shroud could not have come from a 3D body of any kind (for reasons repeatedly posted earlier in this thread).

 

[Vixen]

I see. Your studies, then, did not comprise human anatomy and physiology. The issue has nothing to do with any assertion of a "traditional" headband. The issue, as you would have seen had you read the thread (as it has been dealt with multiple times) is that the representation of the frontalis is but a few finger-widths separated from the representation of the occipitus, leaving insufficient room for a human clavarium.

Try this: put the thumb of one hand on your own mental process. Spread your had up across your face, and mark where the tip of your little finger reaches. Next, put the thumb of one hand on the back of your neck, even with your jawbone. Spread your hand up and mark where, on the back of your head, the tip of your little finger falls. Now put the thumb of one hand on the spot you marked on the forehead, and reach to the spot you marked on the back of your head. In a normal human skull, that distance will be nearly the same as the other two distances. Now repeat the process with your chin on your chest. If tucking in your chin changes the shape of your skull, I suggest you see a doctor.

The chin-on-chest-due-to-a-"traditional"-headband argument is nothing more than special pleading; it does not even address the actual problem of the absent calvarium.




I see. You intend to answer questions no one asked, so that you might avoid the questions that were, in fact, asked. No "easy way out", there, at all...



I cannot tell if this is carelessness, or equivocation. There is no "natural phenomenon" that "causes" a dead body to form a flat imprint on a "wound" sheet--there was one mattress cover on which it was claimed that this was "caused" to happen. Interesting that is appears to be so rare.



The linen cloths (do note the plural) were ὀθόνιον, "strips" (S/G3608) that were said to have been δέω "wound" (S/G1210) around the body.

The CIQ fits neither of those descriptions.

I had to pass a module physiology of the brain, but I admit defeat. I defer to your superior knowledge of a normal human body.

 

[Vixen]

That article is behind a paywall, and Josephus is irrelevant to the shroud

Take the paywall up with New Scientist; it's not my fault.

Jospehus is relevant as he gives an independent, respected, historian's non-vested account of the existence of Jesus.

 

[Giordano]

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.

Just a few pages ago you were stating that relying on scientists whose expertise is radioisotope testing to do radioisotope dating, together with having a textile expert and several Church curators at the very site of the Shroud sampling, was somehow flawed because they didn't have an archeologist there at the time as well. But now you are comfortable citing a book by a History of Art person, who wasn't there at the time and has done no radioisotope dating himself, as evidence that the above experts were wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Terribly sorry, but it won't be a quick answer.

"Yes" will do.

Not that this fact somehow changes the evidence, but it might, if you stop to think about it, affect your conclusions. So here's a question: what would an emotionless computer conclude from all this ?

STOP.

Think about it:
- No mention of the Shroud prior to the 14th century.
- Impossible proportions of the body
- Front and back do not match
- Incorrect appearance for the ethnic origin
- Incorrect representation of wounds and blood flow
- No distortion as would be expected
- Fading image
- Traces of paint
- No traces of blood
- Does not fit the biblical description
- Incorrect composition, weave and shape for the customs of the time
- C14 dating places the Shroud's creation around the time of its first mention
- Historical claims of a bishop speaking to the Shroud's maker

Again: forget about faith or what you'd like. What would an emotionless computer conclude ?

The answer is really easy; unless you can somehow counter the entire list above, and bring forth solid evidence in addition to that, the Shroud _must be_ medieval.

 

[Dinwar]

Just a few pages ago you were stating that relying on scientists whose expertise is radioisotope testing to do radioisotope dating, together with having a textile expert and several Church curators at the very site of the Shroud sampling, was somehow flawed because they didn't have an archeologist there at the time as well.

Really? REALLY?! THIS nonsense again!?

I can see no value added by having an archaeologist doing the sampling. None. It would not affect the C14 data AT ALL, nor would an archaeologist be more knowledgeable about where to sample than the curators and textile experts. To demand one be present is to demonstrate a complete and utter lack of anything resembling understanding of sampling procedures, and renders any criticisms offered irrelevant--they have no more chance of being correct than random chance.

 

[John Jones]

Take the paywall up with New Scientist; it's not my fault.

Jospehus is relevant as he gives an independent, respected, historian's non-vested account of the existence of Jesus.

I didn't blame you. I'm just telling you that I can't evaluate your claims because of the paywall, and I'm not willing to take your word for it given your refusal to read this thread.

 

[Loss Leader]

John 20 6-7 certainly does refer to the existence of a shroud.

And then all of christianity fails to mention it again for 1200 years? Even as they're attempting to win converts among the pagans?

So yes, Jews observe the 617 laws of Leviticus, but Jesus and his disciples broke away from some of them, perferring to believe it is grace, not law that makes one holy.

613 and distributed through all five books, but whatever.

Some Jewish scholars speculate that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. If so, he could have got his European looks from there.

So, Jesus' image a a tall, Italian-looking guy is explained by him not being divine, while at the same time his disappearance from the tomb is explained by him being divine?

Your just making up stories. Provide some actual evidence of the age of the shroud.

 

[jimbob]

If the ¹⁴C dating was wrong, it was a remarkable coincidence to end up dating it to the period when other evidence suggests the shroud was made.

If the shroud was a forgery, then presumably the forger would want to profit in some way (possibly including spiritual benefit). You would expect the shroud to turn up soon after the forger was happy that it looked OK. We know it existed in 1390, it might have been in circulation in the 1350's.

You have two options.

1) The shroud is older than the 13th-14th Century and some unexplained process (magic associated with the resurrection perhaps) managed to alter the Carbon isotope balance to a date that just happened to fit with the best guess for its age, and no younger (if the ¹⁴C dating showed it to be 400-years old, then that would be a case to wonder if something special was going on).

or

2) The shroud, which is anatomically incorrect, made with a medieval style of weave, and which is first mentioned in the medieval period, actually dates to that time, which is what the ¹⁴C dating shows. A period when lots of relics were being made.

 

[Belz...]

Some Jewish scholars speculate that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. If so, he could have got his European looks from there.

He doesn't look European. He looks like a European painting. The proportions are wrong, Vixen. That image isn't that of an actual human body.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/Sudarium

Anything?

Monza,

- Sorry. I've been busy...

- I think that the closest I can get to direct evidence of the age of the shroud has to do with the Sudarium of Oviedo. (I think that the rest of my evidence is indirect, or circumstantial -- but, there's plenty of it.)
- The Sudarium appears to be covering the same face as does the shroud -- and, it is clearly much older than 700 years.
- Try http://www.sitelevel.com/query?crid=5b7907994c2a69a2&query=sudarium&B1=Search. There you'll find numerous links discussing the Sudarium's apparent match with the shroud.
- If you want, I'll try to pick out my favorite.

- You probably know all about the Sudarium already, so I should probably just ask whether or not you think that the two match -- if not, why not, and if so, how do you explain the match?

- Thanks, again.

 

[Belz...]

Monza,

- Sorry. I've been busy...

Too busy to present direct evidence for a 2000 year age for the Shroud ?