• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

Jabba said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
Which in no way changes your refusal to provide the evidence you claim to have that proves the authenticity of the shroud. To remind you (as you seem to be rather forgetful :rolleyes:) you need to address:
Historical.
Primarily the abject lack of any evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with some forty other such burial shrouds). In addition there's the complete lack of reference to any miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings and the the distinct changes in the shroud, e.g. fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological.
The image on the cloth does not, despite the squirming of shroudies, in any way resemble a true image of a human body. Likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms just aren't long enough).

Textile.
The weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from the first century Mid East, but matches medieval Europe well. There is no example of the complex herringbone twill weave that has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testamentary.
The d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was known to be a fake not many year later.

Artistic.
The face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility.
Contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval techniques.

Analytic.
Detailed examination, by microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin. Further the cloth was subjected to an extraordinarily comprehensive radiocarbon dating that produced an age value in accordance with the other evidence.

Cultural.
The shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices (including the only extant sample of such cloths) nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts. Further Jewish practices and beliefs are against the preservation of an unclean cloth of this type.
 
catsmate said:
...
Textile.
The weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from the first century Mid East, but matches medieval Europe well. There is no example of the complex herringbone twill weave that has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.
...
Click to expand...

This one strikes me as particularly devastating for some reason.

Rather than Jabba pulling the puppet strings for a while. I suggest we go on the offensive here.

What about it Mr. Jabba, how do you explain away the weave pattern?
 
The Sparrow said:
This one strikes me as particularly devastating for some reason.

Rather than Jabba pulling the puppet strings for a while. I suggest we go on the offensive here.

What about it Mr. Jabba, how do you explain away the weave pattern?
Click to expand...

McCrone was hard to work with! The 14C labs were all in collusion! Blood! [/Jabba]
 
The Sparrow said:
This one strikes me as particularly devastating for some reason.

Rather than Jabba pulling the puppet strings for a while. I suggest we go on the offensive here.

What about it Mr. Jabba, how do you explain away the weave pattern?
Click to expand...

At one point we asked Jabba to forget carbon dating, forget the weave, forget every point against authenticity and present any evidence he has in favor of authenticity. The "best evidence" he could offer up was "it can't be duplicated" which was very quickly shown to be both false and irrelevant.

So: in the absence of any evidence of any evidence in favor of authenticity, why should anyone seriously consider that hypothesis? It is astonishing that anyone could cling to such a belief.
 
jond said:
The "best evidence" he could offer up was "it can't be duplicated" which was very quickly shown to be both false and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

As well as not evidence in favor of the shroud being authentic but, at best, reasons not to believe the medieval origin. He still can't think past the false dilemma, "If not medieval then Jesus."
 
Random cloth question: What is the likelihood that someone would be buried with one big sheet? My understanding is that, doing it the old-fashioned way, weaving a cloth requires a loom as wide as the sheet, and thread the same length. It doesn't seem like big sheets would be common at all, much less tossed into a tomb.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Random cloth question: What is the likelihood that someone would be buried with one big sheet? My understanding is that, doing it the old-fashioned way, weaving a cloth requires a loom as wide as the sheet, and thread the same length. It doesn't seem like big sheets would be common at all, much less tossed into a tomb.
Click to expand...

Of course. In fact, that is exactly what the bible says. He was wrapped in sheetS (plural) with one wrapped around his head.

That's why the shroud is actually un-biblical.
 
pgwenthold said:
Of course. In fact, that is exactly what the bible says. He was wrapped in sheetS (plural) with one wrapped around his head.

That's why the shroud is actually un-biblical.
Click to expand...
And doesn't match Jewish burial customs.
 
- If I could show that
1) the stains on the shroud are, real human blood, and that
2) real human blood stains of the characteristics of these particular stains are much more likely on an authentic shroud than on a non-authentic shroud,
- would anyone here agree that I have provided some circumstantial evidence in favor of authenticity?
 
Jabba said:
- If I could show that
1) the stains on the shroud are, real human blood, and that
2) real human blood stains of the characteristics of these particular stains are much more likely on an authentic shroud than on a non-authentic shroud,
- would anyone here agree that I have provided some circumstantial evidence in favor of authenticity?
Click to expand...

Circumstantial evidence is for the courts. No amount of it can win over one piece of scientific evidence, of which you have none.
 
Jabba said:
- If I could show that
1) the stains on the shroud are, real human blood, and that
2) real human blood stains of the characteristics of these particular stains are much more likely on an authentic shroud than on a non-authentic shroud,
- would anyone here agree that I have provided some circumstantial evidence in favor of authenticity?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Jabba said:
- If I could show that
1) the stains on the shroud are, real human blood, and that
2) real human blood stains of the characteristics of these particular stains are much more likely on an authentic shroud than on a non-authentic shroud,
- would anyone here agree that I have provided some circumstantial evidence in favor of authenticity?
Click to expand...

:notm
 
Jabba said:
- If I could show that
1) the stains on the shroud are, real human blood, and that
2) real human blood stains of the characteristics of these particular stains are much more likely on an authentic shroud than on a non-authentic shroud,
- would anyone here agree that I have provided some circumstantial evidence in favor of authenticity?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point - blood stains on the shroud are much more likely to be NON-authentic, due to the burial customs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom