Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They say that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing 10 times and expecting a different result.

I don't know who "they" are, but "they" are clearly wrong.

If I roll a 6-sided die 9 times and get a number between 1-5 each time am I insane for expecting a 6 at some point? If I've started a thread on a forum and I refresh the page 9 times without seeing any new posts, am I insane to refresh it a 10th time? If I walk down the street and see 9 white people am I insane if I expect to see someone who's not white?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Aye. And at least two different spears that poked Jesus, and they're even different models of spear. And enough skulls of some saints to make them some kind of anthro-hydra (now that's a furry genre waiting to happen) And even the Catholic Encyclopedia questions the authenticity of the at least thirty-something nails still venerated as the nails used to nail Jesus, because, you know, while it's still debated among theologians whether Jesus was crucified with 3 nails or with 4 nails, a whole thirty nails is out of the question. (And there's no telling how many more were sold to private persons across history.) And so on.

So, yeah, the same applies to any other type of relic. And it's quite unsurprising, really, that when a people were willing to buy any old bone or foreskin as holy, there were people willing to sell them as many bones and foreskins as they wanted.

I'm just mentioning the same applies to miraculous faces of Jesus on cloth too, because I'm under the impression that some people believe the shroud to be some unique thing, and hence totally not subject to the same problem. In reality, there are several such miraculously appeared faces of Jesus in the Vatican alone

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I don't know who "they" are, but "they" are clearly wrong.

If I roll a 6-sided die 9 times and get a number between 1-5 each time am I insane for expecting a 6 at some point? If I've started a thread on a forum and I refresh the page 9 times without seeing any new posts, am I insane to refresh it a 10th time? If I walk down the street and see 9 white people am I insane if I expect to see someone who's not white?

Well, more exactly "they" usually means "Benjamin Franklin", though that's a mis-attribution.

But I'd say the operative word there is "expect". Which is completely different from "admit the possibility of". Allowing the possibility that something will work differently is sane. Expecting a different result, in spite of every single prior data point going the other way, is pretty insane though, IMHO.

So, yes, if you are in a new town and the first 9 people you see are all white, chances are pretty good that the next one will be too. Allowing for the possibility of the next one being black is sane. Expecting that the next one will be black, e.g., because of some gambler's fallacy kind of belief about how probabilities work, is insane. Or at least stupid, if not truly insane.

 

[catsmate]

A Time Lord certainly, but much more likely "The Master". The Doctor avoids publicity.

The Meddling Monk perhaps?

 

[Jabba]

If you believe in the shroud's authenticity, then you must have positive reasons for this belief. Simply let us know what they are.

Also the burden of proof is on believers in anything, not on disbelievers. So the issue is: what evidence do you have in favour of the Shroud, apart from proclamations by the Church, which don't count.

Thanks Craig -- just the opening I've been waiting for! The following would be my "opening statement." I'll get to some of the specifics in my next post if so desired.

I believe that — Contrary to current popular opinion — the preponderance of evidence clearly supports the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin… (By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)
Here’s a very brief summary of why I believe that the Shroud is authentic.

1. Despite what appears to be the current popular opinion, real evidence against Shroud of Turin authenticity is actually quite meagre. I.E.,
- 1.1. Enthusiastic skeptics do not realize how much their enthusiasm depends upon “authenticity” (in regard to the Shroud) requiring supernatural intervention — and consequently, do not realize just how meagre their real evidence is.
- 1.2. The only significant evidence against authenticity has been the 1988 carbon-dating which concluded that the 13th century marks the earliest possible origin of the Shroud. However, closer scrutiny since 1988 has indicated that the carbon dating, itself, was invalid…
- 1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Shroud was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.
- 1.4. Numerous scientists have done “hands on” research on the Shroud itself (or, on “takings” from the Shroud), but aside from the scientists who did the Carbon dating, only one hands-on scientist has argued against authenticity… And closer scrutiny appears to invalidate that scientist’s methodology.
- 1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Shroud, only two have argued against authenticity.

2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’ I.E,
- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
- 2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
- 2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…
- 2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.

3. Summary of Summaries.
- 3.1. In my estimation, the evidence against authenticity is quite meagre, and the public is quite misled in that regard.
- 3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the image and apparent bloodstains on the Shroud is that they constitute some kind of ancient “imprint” of the body of a human male who happens to have been tortured and crucified precisely as was the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
- 3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Jesus of Nazareth would appear to be extremely low…
- 3.4. Though, we still don’t know how the image was formed…

 

[realpaladin]

- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.

Ehm... http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/05/us-italy-shroud-idUSTRE5943HL20091005

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, more exactly "they" usually means "Benjamin Franklin", though that's a mis-attribution.

But I'd say the operative word there is "expect". Which is completely different from "admit the possibility of". Allowing the possibility that something will work differently is sane. Expecting a different result, in spite of every single prior data point going the other way, is pretty insane though, IMHO.

So, yes, if you are in a new town and the first 9 people you see are all white, chances are pretty good that the next one will be too. Allowing for the possibility of the next one being black is sane. Expecting that the next one will be black, e.g., because of some gambler's fallacy kind of belief about how probabilities work, is insane. Or at least stupid, if not truly insane.

I'd say that all depends on what else is known. If you're in a township in Trinidad and just happened to see 9 white people first, you'd still be justified in expecting to see a black person next. If you'd rolled 9 6s in a row on a die that you owned and knew wasn't weighted, you'd be justified in expecting not to roll a six on your next roll. If you'd drawn 9 spades from a well-shuffled deck of cards you'd be justified in expecting to draw a card other than a spade on your next go.

And so on. There's any number of situations in which repeating the same action can be expected to provide a different result than previously. Sweepingly declaring this to be stupid or insane isn't really justified.

 

[Myriad]

Jabba, I'd like to ask a different sort of question, if it's okay with you. I am a Christian. As such, as I hope you can understand, I am every bit as concerned over the prospect of people being fooled by a forgery as the average skeptical atheist.

Do you agree that if it should turn out that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery, that the act of forgery was blasphemous? And that in that case, do you agree that venerating the Shroud, however well-intentioned, would be mere idolatry? Or do you think some good comes, or could come, from treating a forgery as if it were a genuine miraculous relic?

No, those aren't the important questions yet, but they're explaining where I'm coming from, why I'm asking questions in the first place. I understand that you personally believe the Shroud of Turin is not a forgery.

The important questions I want to ask are about what if you are correct, and the Shroud genuinely bears an image of the incarnated Christ.

In that case, what does it mean? What does the Shroud tell us? What is it for? Why is it important?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Thanks Craig -- just the opening I've been waiting for! The following would be my "opening statement." I'll get to some of the specifics in my next post if so desired.

I believe that — Contrary to current popular opinion — the preponderance of evidence clearly supports the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin… (By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus. “Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)
Here’s a very brief summary of why I believe that the Shroud is authentic.

1. Despite what appears to be the current popular opinion, real evidence against Shroud of Turin authenticity is actually quite meagre. I.E.,

Which is pretty unimportant actually, since that's a mix of your own argument from personal incredulity fallacy, and argument from ignorance fallacy. And the latter is actually the most important part. Nobody has to prove a negative to you. If anyone wants to claim the authenticity of the shroud, they have the burden of proof. The other side technically doesn't even have to make any arguments at all. Failure to support it as actually the real thing is enough reason to take it as a forgery. It's that simple.

- 1.1. Enthusiastic skeptics do not realize how much their enthusiasm depends upon “authenticity” (in regard to the Shroud) requiring supernatural intervention — and consequently, do not realize just how meagre their real evidence is.

Irrelevant, and consisting essentially of a mix of appeal to motive fallacy and just a dash of thinly veiled bulverism. Stick to presenting the evidence, not speculations about what blinds everyone who doesn't see things your way. If something can be supported, then it will still be supportable regardless of what shortcomings or motives the other camp has, so please do so. Handwaving about why the others don't want to believe you, is fully irrelevant in logic.

- 1.2. The only significant evidence against authenticity has been the 1988 carbon-dating which concluded that the 13th century marks the earliest possible origin of the Shroud. However, closer scrutiny since 1988 has indicated that the carbon dating, itself, was invalid…

BS. There have been three independent datings, and no valid argument has been made against the validity of either. All there has been were people just postulating it invalid for BS reasons.

At any rate, if you have actual evidence that would invalidate it, please present the actual evidence, not just postulate that it exists. Bare postulates have exactly zero value as evidence either way.

- 1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Shroud was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.

Again, show the evidence, don't just postulate that something must exist that invalidates whatever you don't want to believe.

- 1.4. Numerous scientists have done “hands on” research on the Shroud itself (or, on “takings” from the Shroud), but aside from the scientists who did the Carbon dating, only one hands-on scientist has argued against authenticity… And closer scrutiny appears to invalidate that scientist’s methodology.

Again, don't just postulate. We have enough people on the board already who think they can just postulate reality as they'd like it to be. Provide names, references, etc. Just stating that you know there was only one and it was invalid, it's scrapping the bottom of the proverbial barrel even by apologist standards.

- 1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Shroud, only two have argued against authenticity.

And this is where things start to go from silly to sillier. What matters isn't the number of articles or number of people who believe something, what matters is who has the evidence. The Argumentum Ad Populum or its "argumentum ad numerum" variant, are fallacies for a reason.

2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’ I.E,
- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.{/QUOTE]

Well, blimey, if it's not the return of the argument from ignorance Something must be true, because you don't know or refuse to accept the other explanations. Heh.

- 2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.

Name some, and why do you think someone wouldn't be able to do that at the time. Again, don't just postulate that something somewhere must exist that makes you right. Show your evidence.

- 2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…

Evidence? Plus, it being consistent with the narrative as they told it in the 14'th century, instead of how we know the Romans actually did a crucifixion (e.g., the holes in the feet), is exactly what makes it likely a forgery.

- 2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.

Which clues? Evidence? Again, just postulating that somewhere something unspecified exists that makes your beliefs right, is easy. Everyone can do that.

3. Summary of Summaries.
- 3.1. In my estimation, the evidence against authenticity is quite meagre, and the public is quite misled in that regard.

Again, it would be fully irrelevant and a textbook case of argument from ignorance. What you need to do is support its authenticity, not just sit back and proclaim that you don't really like the refutation. When the burden of proof is on your side, you don't have that luxury.

- 3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the image and apparent bloodstains on the Shroud is that they constitute some kind of ancient “imprint” of the body of a human male who happens to have been tortured and crucified precisely as was the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Sorry, unless you actually support it, just throwing in a "clearly" won't magically make some postulates true.

- 3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Jesus of Nazareth would appear to be extremely low…

Really? Even if you actually found the shroud of some crucified guy from the 1'st century BC -- as opposed to something dated to the late middle ages -- exactly how do you figure that out of tens of thousands of people crucified by the Romans in that century alone, the one you have has to be specifically Jesus's? Why not the shroud of some bandit? Even your bible does say there were two bandits crucified with him, so why not one of those? Why not one of the many people taken down from the cross alive and who died later of their wounds anyway? (IIRC Josephus tells us of a couple of such people, for example.)

And I'm actually glad that you brought this point up, because it's one of the points that gets just glossed over. Most of the pseudo-support for it being Jesus's is really really lame. It takes the form of basically, "It has the proportions of a human, therefore it's Jesus."

- 3.4. Though, we still don’t know how the image was formed…

And more of the same argument from personal ignorance. Actually the presence of paint gives us a pretty good idea how the image was formed. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it a big mystery.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'd say that all depends on what else is known. If you're in a township in Trinidad and just happened to see 9 white people first, you'd still be justified in expecting to see a black person next. If you'd rolled 9 6s in a row on a die that you owned and knew wasn't weighted, you'd be justified in expecting not to roll a six on your next roll. If you'd drawn 9 spades from a well-shuffled deck of cards you'd be justified in expecting to draw a card other than a spade on your next go.

And so on. There's any number of situations in which repeating the same action can be expected to provide a different result than previously. Sweepingly declaring this to be stupid or insane isn't really justified.

I'd argue though that at least some of those either still are wrong, or aren't the same action over and over again. Drawing a card from a deck of 52 cards, out of which 13 spades, is subject to some pretty radically different probabilities than drawing a card from a deck of 43 cards, out of which there are only 4 spades left. The former has a 0.25 probability to draw a spade, the latter only 0.11 probability.

More importantly, you'll notice that all your examples included some pretty perfect knowledge of the problem as a justification for that expectation. Which is not really what that silly saying is supposed to be about in the first place.

Sure, if you KNOW that a die is perfectly balanced, or you KNOW exactly what cards are in a deck and that it's perfectly random, then you can have more accurate expectations based on that perfect knowledge than based on past data points. And really, the same would apply to these shrouds too. If you knew exactly how many shrouds there are total, and how many of them aren't fake, you could have some pretty accurate expectations as to how likely one of them is to be fake.

But commentaries about someone's ability to learn from past experience, which really is what that quip is about, are really relevant when that past experience is all you have as a baseline estimate.

E.g., if you're a publisher and give some money to a game company to make a fourth MMO after they screwed up 3 out of 3 MMOs in a row, and in 2 out of those 3 cases they screwed up quite spectacularly, you don't have the perfect knowledge of what their probability is to screw up again. And arguably such knowledge isn't even possible to have. At that point, you just show whether you can learn something from past data points, or you don't. That quip calls you insane if you don't.

 

[Aepervius]

Jabba in case HansMusterman reply is TL;DR for you :
1) most of your point 1 if not all are full of fallacy, and do not consdier where the burden of proof is (not on the sketpic contrary to what you seem to think).
2) you have no provided evidence that the CD test are invalid, and indeed the way they were conducted the sample preleved and how the objection came only AFTER the result were known , there is no evidence that the CD dating is invalid
3) basically you have provided no argument supporting your assertion, you jsut asserted.

I predict now that you will go into the usual BS argument of "but the shroud sample were taken on repair patch" or some other "fire contaminated the sample" BS argument, both of which have long been debunked.

But please , present your argument.

 

[Aepervius]

E.g., if you're a publisher and give some money to a game company to make a fourth MMO after they screwed up 3 out of 3 MMOs in a row, and in 2 out of those 3 cases they screwed up quite spectacularly, you don't have the perfect knowledge of what their probability is to screw up again. And arguably such knowledge isn't even possible to have. At that point, you just show whether you can learn something from past data points, or you don't. That quip calls you insane if you don't.

Ha, I see you are acquainted with FUNCOM .

 

[Craig B]

Jabba,

You state that all relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative, but also that "authenticity" does not require that anything "supernatural" be involved.

Do you mean that the Biblical narrative is not an account of miraculous or supernatural events? So are you asserting that Jesus was not dead when entombed, but simply recovered from physical trauma and walked away, sharing the good fortune of the surviving crucifixees correctly remembered by HansMustermann as appearing in Josephus? Or did he die, and his companions removed his body? Or did he just rot away in the tomb, and the resurrection story is false?

But if you believe Jesus was really dead, and really came alive again, then you believe something "supernatural" related to the "authenticity" of the Shroud.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Ha, I see you are acquainted with FUNCOM .

Aye, I actually wrote the whole paragraph with Funcom instead of "a game company", then thought it's a pointless derail and edited it

 

[tsig]

Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.

He walks on water and raises the dead and he's hard to kill.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'd argue though that at least some of those either still are wrong, or aren't the same action over and over again. Drawing a card from a deck of 52 cards, out of which 13 spades, is subject to some pretty radically different probabilities than drawing a card from a deck of 43 cards, out of which there are only 4 spades left. The former has a 0.25 probability to draw a spade, the latter only 0.11 probability.

The fact that the probabilities are different doesn't mean that it's not the same action, it just means that performing the same action is likely to produce different results. Excluding situations where performing the same action will likely produce different results is begging the question.

More importantly, you'll notice that all your examples included some pretty perfect knowledge of the problem as a justification for that expectation. Which is not really what that silly saying is supposed to be about in the first place.

If there are meant to be exceptions, then those exceptions should be specified. If not, then the "silly saying" doesn't really accurately reflect reality, does it?

 

[Craig B]

He walks on water and raises the dead and he's hard to kill.

OK, but was he more than 5 feet 1 inch tall? That's what people really want to know. Well, some people anyway.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

If there are meant to be exceptions, then those exceptions should be specified. If not, then the "silly saying" doesn't really accurately reflect reality, does it?

I'd say that no wisecrack ever is particularly accurate, so, yes, this one isn't either. I mean, after all, if insanity was that easy to define accurately, we wouldn't need all those manuals and medical schools

I would have thought that part would be rather obvious, but apparently there's always someone who feels that they're the only person in the world who figured out that a joke isn't an actual axiom, or that an metaphor isn't an identity, or such, and needs to enlighten us all about that

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I mean, after all, if insanity was that easy to define accurately, we wouldn't need all those manuals and medical schools

Kind of my point, really.

 

[catsmate]

I believe that — Contrary to current popular opinion — the preponderance of evidence clearly supports the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin…

You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, just like flat earthers are free to believe that particular nonsense.

(By “authentic,” I mean only that the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus.

You could start with some evidence that the biblical Jesus actually existed......

“Authenticity,” here, does not require that anything “supernatural” be involved.)

Really? The "Biblical Jesus" was the alleged offspring of a deity, performed acts contrary to physical laws and returned after death; that's pretty supernatural.

- 1.1. Enthusiastic skeptics do not realize how much their enthusiasm depends upon “authenticity” (in regard to the Shroud) requiring supernatural intervention — and consequently, do not realize just how meagre their real evidence is.

Is this supposed to actually mean something?

1.2. The only significant evidence against authenticity has been the 1988 carbon-dating which concluded that the 13th century marks the earliest possible origin of the Shroud. However, closer scrutiny since 1988 has indicated that the carbon dating, itself, was invalid…

Utterly untrue. There has never been any scientific reason to doubt the accuracy of the ¹⁴C dating of the cloth; believers have distorted facts and lied to try and create such doubt but that's all.

1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Shroud was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.

Feel tree to try and do so.

1.4. Numerous scientists have done “hands on” research on the Shroud itself (or, on “takings” from the Shroud), but aside from the scientists who did the Carbon dating, only one hands-on scientist has argued against authenticity… And closer scrutiny appears to invalidate that scientist’s methodology.

A carefully selected group of believers, and limited access, is not the way to carry out proper investigation.

1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Shroud, only two have argued against authenticity.

Untrue.

2. Whereas, the evidence for authenticity of the Shroud is … ‘incredible.’

Quite literally true, it is far beyond credibility.

2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.

Also untrue.

2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.

Evidence for your assertion please.

2.3. All relevant details of the Shroud fit with Biblical narrative. And where details depart from “tradition” (tradition not always reflecting, or being faithful to, Biblical narrative) they do fit precisely with recent scientific, archaeological and historical discoveries…

Again untrue.

2.4. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.

There is no credible historical evidence of an earlier origin. When the shroud first "emerged" (soon after it was faked) various authorities, inside and outside the church, condemned iot as a fake.

3.1. In my estimation, the evidence against authenticity is quite meagre, and the public is quite misled in that regard.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the image and apparent bloodstains on the Shroud is that they constitute some kind of ancient “imprint” of the body of a human male who happens to have been tortured and crucified precisely as was the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

No the most likely explanation, and the only one supported by actual evidence, is that the cloth is a medieval fake created to separate the gullible from their money.

3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Jesus of Nazareth would appear to be extremely low…

You have failed to show any evidence for this assertion. Your unsupported opinion is without value. Given that any historical Jesus, if he existed at all, would have been a long decayed corpse when the shroud was created your explanation is rubbish.

3.4. Though, we still don’t know how the image was formed…

Several mechanisms have been posited.