• 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.

Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

bobdroege7 said:
Quite the Gish gallup you got there Cat, all debunked of course.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Still spraying nonsense and lies.

You have debunked nothing, as is really obvious from this thread. You don't understand the stats, you have no basis for doubting the radiocarbon dating. You have failed to show examples of the fabric in the first century. You have refused to even address the historical evidence.
And so on.

There is no evidence the cloth is pre-medieval.
 
Darat said:
I'm still waiting to find out what the Bible says about the many foreskins of Jesus that became relics.
Click to expand...
Nope, the Bible says what happened to the real foreskin, the authors of the bible would have to time travel to find that out.

You will wait a long time.

Not going to recommend reading the bible land other christian texts, but...
 
bobdroege7 said:
Nope, the Bible says what happened to the real foreskin, the authors of the bible would have to time travel to find that out.

You will wait a long time.

Not going to recommend reading the bible land other christian texts, but...
Click to expand...
Then by all means tell me what the bible said about Jesus’s singular foreskin, it seems strange that you can’t give me something like book, chapter and verse, like for example Luke 2:21. Or is it another claim you can’t provide evidence for?
 
catsmate said:
Sigh. Still spraying nonsense and lies.

You have debunked nothing, as is really obvious from this thread. You don't understand the stats, you have no basis for doubting the radiocarbon dating. You have failed to show examples of the fabric in the first century. You have refused to even address the historical evidence.
And so on.

There is no evidence the cloth is pre-medieval.
Click to expand...
Yeah Right.

I have and you know it, you just refuse to accept it.

The stats first and foremost debunk the dating, because carbon-14 dating samples must be homogenous, and the chi^2 test shows the shroud samples are not. But the three other control samples do show homogeneity, therefore showing the reliability of carbon dating, and showing there was a problem with the sampling.

Jeez, if those doing the sampling were sure it wasn't from a repaired or patched area, why did they cut part of the sample off because it looked like it was part of a patch???????????????????????????????
 
Darat said:
Then by all means tell me what the bible said about Jesus’s singular foreskin, it seems strange that you can’t give me something like book, chapter and verse, like for example Luke 2:21. Or is it another claim you can’t provide evidence for?
Click to expand...
Must be that I am too lazy to look things up for you.

But

en.wikipedia.org

Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

You know, sometimes there are stupid questions, this is one.

"And can you let me know where in the bible I can find out what happened to Jesus’s many foreskins?"

You think Jesus had multiple foreskins?
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yeah Right.

I have and you know it, you just refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...
No.
bobdroege7 said:
The stats first and foremost debunk the dating, because carbon-14 dating samples must be homogenous, and the chi^2 test shows the shroud samples are not. But the three other control samples do show homogeneity, therefore showing the reliability of carbon dating, and showing there was a problem with the sampling.
Click to expand...
This is just gibberish.
bobdroege7 said:
Jeez, if those doing the sampling were sure it wasn't from a repaired or patched area, why did they cut part of the sample off because it looked like it was part of a patch???????????????????????????????
Click to expand...
Again this is nonsense. The experts studied the sample area and were satisfied there was no patching.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Must be that I am too lazy to look things up for you.

But

en.wikipedia.org

Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

You know, sometimes there are stupid questions, this is one.

"And can you let me know where in the bible I can find out what happened to Jesus’s many foreskins?"

You think Jesus had multiple foreskins?
Click to expand...
Your claim was that the bible said what happened to Jesus’s foreskin, again please could you provide the book, chapter and verse. Surely you know where it can be found in the Bible since you said it was in the Bible?
 
bobdroege7 said:
The stats first and foremost debunk the dating, because carbon-14 dating samples must be homogenous, and the chi^2 test shows the shroud samples are not. But the three other control samples do show homogeneity, therefore showing the reliability of carbon dating, and showing there was a problem with the sampling.
Click to expand...

"Must be homogenous" - really? You don't know much about carbon 14 tests it seems. There is no "must". Also the results in all three case3s still show the shroud to be less than 1/2 the age it should be if it was from the time of Jesus. The outlier result is within two standard deviations from the other two results which are within one standard deviation. I just utterly fail to see that as a reason to throw out all three results.
 
Darat said:
Your claim was that the bible said what happened to Jesus’s foreskin, again please could you provide the book, chapter and verse. Surely you know where it can be found in the Bible since you said it was in the Bible?
Click to expand...
Remember you're talking to a man who first claimed because it agreed with the qu'ran's claim that Jesus was replaced by abody double on the cross, that made the shroud a real artifact.

B

Post in thread 'Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"'

JayUtah said:
And what is your evidence that that happened? Why would he want to do that?
Click to expand...

Because it shows that the man in the shroud survived the crucifixion, see the Quran, which means that Christ did not die for our sins, and what follows from that is that Christianity a total fraud.

An archbishop would possibly want to avoid that if at all possible.

Were there any other questions?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I can't stop laughing at the "So there bitches" look on the face of the guy on the left. It never fails to crack me up.
Click to expand...
That's Edward (aka 'ET' or 'Teddy') Hall, a major figure in the post-WW2 archaeological community and the man who debunked (finally) the Piltdown Man hoax (coincidentally on this day in 1953).
An interesting man, worked extensively on designing wheelchairs, operated landing craft in WW2, horologist, and more.

en.wikipedia.org

Edward Hall (archaeological scientist) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

www.theguardian.com

Obituary: Professor ET

Scientist who exposed the Piltdown Man fraud and dated the Turin Shroud as a medieval fake.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The other two are Drs. Michael Tite and Robert Hedges.
 
Pacal said:
"Must be homogenous" - really? You don't know much about carbon 14 tests it seems. There is no "must". Also the results in all three case3s still show the shroud to be less than 1/2 the age it should be if it was from the time of Jesus. The outlier result is within two standard deviations from the other two results which are within one standard deviation. I
just utterly fail to see that as a reason to throw out all three results.
Click to expand...
Because they don't give the right result.

And that's a serious answer, if the results had said it was 2000 years old give or take bobdroege7 would accept that result and would be arguing against the same argument being used to say that result was incorrect. It's the facts that are wrong!
 
Darat said:
Your claim was that the bible said what happened to Jesus’s foreskin, again please could you provide the book, chapter and verse. Surely you know where it can be found in the Bible since you said it was in the Bible?
Click to expand...
Seeing as there are only two books that deal with any aspect of Jesus' infancy (Matthew and Luke) it really shouldn't be that hard. Unless of course the verse in question doesn't exist...
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Seeing as there are only two books that deal with any aspect of Jesus' infancy (Matthew and Luke) it really shouldn't be that hard. Unless of course the verse in question doesn't exist...
Click to expand...
He said "Nope, those are fakes, the bible tells what happened to the real one.", which is totally correct. There was no real one, so the Bible says nothing about what happened to it - one of the few examples given where it 'tells' the truth. It doesn't say that Jesus was a space alien or a time traveler from the future either, so props for that (two more theories we don't have to debunk).

The Bible does say that Jesus was circumcised though, which is a pretty good bet for any Jewish male of the time. Presumably it would have been disposed of in the traditional manner - not preserved in an ointment, displayed as multiple relics for centuries or became the rings of Saturn.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
He said "Nope, those are fakes, the bible tells what happened to the real one.", which is totally correct. There was no real one, so the Bible says nothing about what happened to it - one of the few examples given where it 'tells' the truth. It doesn't say that Jesus was a space alien or a time traveler from the future either, so props for that (two more theories we don't have to debunk).

The Bible does say that Jesus was circumcised though, which is a pretty good bet for any Jewish male of the time. Presumably it would have been disposed of in the traditional manner - not preserved in an ointment, displayed as multiple relics for centuries or became the rings of Saturn.
Click to expand...
Like burial wrappings.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Seeing as there are only two books that deal with any aspect of Jesus' infancy (Matthew and Luke) it really shouldn't be that hard. Unless of course the verse in question doesn't exist...
Click to expand...
That can't be the case,

bobdroege7 said:

bobdroege7 said:
Nope, those are fakes, the bible tells what happened to the real one.
Click to expand...

Now this isn't a claim that relies on complicated statistics, unknown nuclear physics or anything difficult; all they need to do is to give us book, chapter and verse, I am sure many of us will even have a copy of a Bible in our homes to check against (or can use the many online versions). It really should have been a claim that was substantiated with a single line of text.

Of course if it turns out the Bible doesn't in fact tell us what happened to the real one all it would take is a quick "Sorry I was wrong" and the claim can be dropped.
 
Now @bobdroege7, since you've graced the thread with your presence:
1. What exactly in the "Hymn of the Pearl" shows the existence of a shroud?
2. Have you asked the University of California about your claimed secret radiocarbon test? Where, when and by whom was it carried out?
3. Will you be addressing the size of the sample,, of the supposed shroud, available for that secret radiocarbon test?
4. Will you be showing us evidence that textile of a pattern similar to that of the Lirey cloth existed in the first century?
5. And what about the undocumented fire that caused the damage to the cloth that, you claim, appears on the purported image in the Pray Codex? Where and when did it occur?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom