• 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.
wollery said:
So, just for the sake of clarity, you are basing your assessment of the C14 dating on an Art Historian's paraphrasing of a reporters half-page summary of a non peer reviewed oral presentation on problems with contamination in very young samples that doesn't implicate the labs involved in the SoT testing.

And you're happy with that?
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
Vixen said:
It was more to do with a lack of argument. 1988 was a long time ago. The Vatican should have enabled further state of the art testing. That is suspicious.
Click to expand...

What's suspicious about it ? The Christians don't want to further erode faith in a lucrative relic. Nothing more than that.
 
Vixen said:
1. I read De Wesselow's paraphrasing of its content.

2. I doubt it.
Click to expand...

It is becoming increasingly clear that although you claim to have read many scholarly books on the topic, in reality you have read only one , that being de Wesselow. Well, you may cease with that. de Wesselow is so full of it that even fundy catholics and christians denounce him because his book didn't even get out of chapter 1 without telling great honking lies.
 
abaddon said:
It is becoming increasingly clear that although you claim to have read many scholarly books on the topic, in reality you have read only one , that being de Wesselow. Well, you may cease with that. de Wesselow is so full of it that even fundy catholics and christians denounce him because his book didn't even get out of chapter 1 without telling great honking lies.
Click to expand...


I think Vixen was trying to assert that de Wesselow was both mainstream and scholarly, though mainstream science doesn't support his (or Vixen's, or Jabba's) claims.
 
John Jones said:
I think Vixen was trying to assert that de Wesselow was both mainstream and scholarly, though mainstream science doesn't support his (or Vixen's, or Jabba's) claims.
Click to expand...

I think this is an attempt to contrive a controversy where one doesn't exist - aka taking a contrary position mainly for the giggles, rather than any scientific or scholarly intent.
 
Jabba said:
Monza,

- I agree with most of what you said. I'm just more convinced of the match than are you.

- The 700 AD carbon dating of the SoO, in concert with the first reporting of its existence, is evidence against a first century date, and tilts the scale away from a first century conclusion. I would say, however, that -- as evidence against the carbon dating of the SoT -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion. So, the overall effect of matching the two linens would be to move the scale towards a first century conclusion.

- If you can accept that reasoning, I suggest that we scrutinize the argument for a match between the two linens.
Click to expand...

This a Shroud of Turin thread. The Sudarium of Oviedo is largely irrelevant, it simply provides you with a means to avoid the pertinent question: where is your evidence for a 2ka age of the CIQ? You promised to present it in your very next post, and have continued to promise to do so this past 3 years. So far, plenty of posts yet no evidence. Why is that, jabba?
 
Mojo said:
What would that have shown you about its authenticity?
Click to expand...

I like to see things with my own eyes. Always in museums and art galleries.

When I visited Bethlehem, I was amazed by the level of near hysteria at Jesus' supposed birthplace.

It would have been nice to visit to see the Turin cathedral.

There is no rule that says you have to "believe" in it.
 
John Jones said:
I think Vixen was trying to assert that de Wesselow was both mainstream and scholarly, though mainstream science doesn't support his (or Vixen's, or Jabba's) claims.
Click to expand...

I think it is more a case of reading a book and eating the baloney therein wholesale with an entirely uncritical mind.
 
Kid Eager said:
I agree that it is suspicious, but not in the way you suggest.

If the Vatican truly thought that the initial test results were erroneous, they'd be onto retesting in a flash. Instead, they are rejecting any further testing, which allows for ongoing speculation and casting of doubt on those results.

Any newer testing that produces results anywhere near the original results will put a stake through the heart of the SOT, and no amount pseudo scientific apologetics would be able to redeem the conclusion.
Click to expand...

They must surely have tested it privately.
 
wollery said:
So, just for the sake of clarity, you are basing your assessment of the C14 dating on an Art Historian's paraphrasing of a reporters half-page summary of a non peer reviewed oral presentation on problems with contamination in very young samples that doesn't implicate the labs involved in the SoT testing.

And you're happy with that?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the carbon dating is just one chapter of the book. The story of the provenance and its description is of more interest to De Wesselow.
 
abaddon said:
It is becoming increasingly clear that although you claim to have read many scholarly books on the topic, in reality you have read only one , that being de Wesselow. Well, you may cease with that. de Wesselow is so full of it that even fundy catholics and christians denounce him because his book didn't even get out of chapter 1 without telling great honking lies.
Click to expand...

I read the other main stream one, The Turin Shroud 1978 Ian Wilson, suitably sceptical.
 
abaddon said:
I think it is more a case of reading a book and eating the baloney therein wholesale with an entirely uncritical mind.
Click to expand...

I'm very critical of it. However, I admire De Wesselow's thoroughness and his courage to stick his neck out.

It is hard to find good original thinking. You don't have to agree with a work to enjoy it.
 
Monza said:
* A man asks a woman, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt if he paid you one million dollars?"
"You bet I would!", she exclaims.
"How about sleeping with me for twenty bucks?"
"Ew", she sneers. "Of course not. What do you think I am?"
The guy smiles, "Well, we've already established that. Now we are just haggling about the price."
Click to expand...



"I'm sorry, sir. The hotel has no more rooms tonight."
- "Would you have a room if were for the President?"
"Of course, we would."
- "Well, he's not coming. Give me his."


Vixen said:
Some good advice from the late Doris Lessing: if a book bores you, put it aside.
Click to expand...


... and then don't comment on it as if you know what you're talking about.
 
abaddon said:
Really? How do you know or suspect this? What evidence can you present that such covert testing might have occurred? What were the results? Who hid them and why? How did you get them?
Click to expand...

Just a hunch. Say the Turin Shroud belonged to you. You would be curious to test its authenticity. You might want to do it privately to satisfy yourself. It's yours to do what you like.

If authentic you would be inviting world scientists to see for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Vixen seemed to have breathed a little life in this thread but, alas, her contribution is becoming more Jabba-esque with each posting. More's the pity.
 
Loss Leader said:
"I'm sorry, sir. The hotel has no more rooms tonight."
- "Would you have a room if were for the President?"
"Of course, we would."
- "Well, he's not coming. Give me his."





... and then don't comment on it as if you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


I didn't comment on this paper except to list one of De Wesselow's objections re carbon dating, as requested by a poster.
 
Garrette said:
Not quite. de Wesselow basically says the resurrection did not happen; that the image formed and the image itself was what gave rise to the resurrection story and the meteoric rise of Christianity.

His biblical analysis is as flawed as his art and science analyses.
Click to expand...

I remember it now, his thesis was that Mary was showing the shroud around and that gave rise to the Resurrection story.
 
Garrette said:
Truly an intriguing response to the questions regarding de Wesselow's error about the Zurich dating and about the head having no depth and about all the other things showing that the image cannot represent an actual body.

Are you, perchance, a scholar from the school of Truly Effective Debate?
Click to expand...

Ignore some facts, bafflegab the rest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom