Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[azzthom]

Catsmate1 posted this link earlier in the thread, now seems like a good time to re-post it. It is about the claims that the dating process was invalid, and shows just how wrong those claims are.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticl...udrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth

 

[catsmate]

Catsmate1 posted this link earlier in the thread, now seems like a good time to re-post it. It is about the claims that the dating process was invalid, and shows just how wrong those claims are.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticl...udrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth

That's a good summary, I posted it myself in the other shroud thread, though it doesn't cover some of the more recent nonsense promulgated by the shroudies.

 

[azzthom]

That's a good summary, I posted it myself in the other shroud thread, though it doesn't cover some of the more recent nonsense promulgated by the shroudies.

Yes indeed, it even summarises the evidence suggesting the shroud is actually a tempera painting. Most importantly though, it highlights the shortcomings in Rogers' case.

 

[Jabba]

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.

1) 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?

2) 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.

3) 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.

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

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad,

- I think you'll find that you and I really are on the same side -- and, it's great to hear from you!

- I've numbered your paragraphs above for easy reference.
- Re #1: Yes. If it we know, or suspect, that the Shroud was created by human hands, we should present it that way. Presenting it as if it were clearly real, when we don't essentially know that it's real, would be blasphemous.
- Re #2: I think that, so far, the great preponderance of evidence supports its authenticity.
- Re #3: I'm not really a Christian, though I would like to be. I'm clearly biased in that direction. The more I think that the Shroud really was Jesus' burial cloth, the more encouraged I am. If science can eventually explain how it came about, and there was nothing supernatural about it, I would still be greatly impressed, and thankful, so long as it appears to be real.
-Re #4: Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be an imprint of Jesus, it suggests that there was something very special about Jesus even if Science can explain it... Something like that...

 

[Craig B]

-Re #4: Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be an imprint of Jesus, it suggests that there was something very special about Jesus even if Science can explain it... Something like that...

Something like what? How "very special" does something have to be in order to leave an imprint through the operation of non-supernatural forces, as you concede? Not all that special, I would imagine.

And if there is indeed only one such object, and if it is non-supernatural and potentially understood by science, and given also the untold hordes of people crucified by the Romans, and the Persians also I believe, over many centuries - what is the probability that this single figure is indeed Jesus, and not someone else?

 

[Leumas]

Hey Jabba,

Consider all the points you made below but apply them to the Quran instead of the Shroud….. how much credence would you give to the argument presented below….. would you perhaps argue that most of the claptrap given below is crap?

The below are the points you made in defense of the shroud but modified to be about the Quran which Moslims believe is just as much of a miraculous proof of their religion as you seem to think about the shroud.

Can you see how all the points are devoid of any merit? It might be a lot easier for you to recognize the fallacies and unsubstantiated claims in the stuff below once you are disabused of the utter brain numbing bias that you apparently have regarding Jesus.

When posed in terms of something you are not so emotionally biased about you may be able to see how FALLACIOUS and FAULTY the points you make are.

P.S. I modified your posts to make them applicable to the Quran ….

-Re #4: Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be the work of Allah, it suggests that there was something very special about Mohammad even if Science can explain it... Something like that...

- 1.3. The few other specific tests that would seem to indicate that the Quran was not authentic can also be explained and discounted.
- 1.5. And then, of the numerous “peer-reviewed” articles on the Quran, very few have argued against authenticity.
- 2.1. The Quran has been scientifically studied for centuries, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 1400 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
- 2.2. We know that the Quran existed in 680 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 680 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.
- 2.3. All relevant details of the Quran 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…
- 3.2. Clearly, the most likely explanation of the Quran and apparent amazing composition is that it constitutes the revelation of the words of Allah by the angel Gabriel to Mohammad.
- 3.3. And, in that regard, the probability that this man could be someone other than the historical Prophet of Allah would appear to be extremely low…

 

[catsmate]

Yes indeed, it even summarises the evidence suggesting the shroud is actually a tempera painting. Most importantly though, it highlights the shortcomings in Rogers' case.

Exactly. Especially his "The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic" lie, the cotton content lies and his omission of McCrone's analysis.
However it doesn't cover other areas, such as the shroud's commonality of style with other medieval artwork, the cloth's history (utter lack of references prior to mid 14th century), the dubious dealings of the de Charny family, the relic trade in general, the confession of the reputed forger, et cetera.

Joe Nickell has another article, an interview, here where his discusses some aspects of the shroud not covered in the CSICOP article, including the decidedly dodgy pollen allegedly found by Max "Hitler diaries" Frei and cited by some shroud believers.
Walter McCrone's work is available here on his website.

Really I can't see how any intelligent, open-minded, person could think the cloth is anything other than a fake.

 

[catsmate]

If it we know, or suspect, that the Shroud was created by human hands, we should present it that way. Presenting it as if it were clearly real, when we don't essentially know that it's real, would be blasphemous.

The shroud is a medieval fake relic. Blasphemy is an irrelevant concept except to believers

I think that, so far, the great preponderance of evidence supports its authenticity.

Utter nonsense. As you've had explained to you the evidence shows the shroud was created in the in fourteenth century; while believers don't like this fact, and attempt to obfuscate the issue, it is reality.

I'm not really a Christian, though I would like to be.

Why? Christianity is just as nonsensical as the particular fake relic.

I'm clearly biased in that direction.

Obviously.

The more I think that the Shroud really was Jesus' burial cloth, the more encouraged I am.

Sorry to disappoint you be it isn't; and (at the risk of going off topic) there's damn all evidence Jesus actually existed.

If science can eventually explain how it came about, and there was nothing supernatural about it, I would still be greatly impressed, and thankful, so long as it appears to be real.

Science has suggested several methods to create it. Of course the restrictions imposed by the church authorities on examination of the cloth ake it difficult to be sure. McCrone's examination and analysis back in 1979 showed it was painted.

Seeing that this is essentially the only example of such an item, and that it appears to be an imprint of Jesus, it suggests that there was something very special about Jesus even if Science can explain it... Something like that...

There are myriads of fake religious relics and examples of religious artwork; the only thing special about this piece of cloth is the vehemence of some people in denying the reality of its origin.
Just like Jewish history was littered with messianic rabbis and false prophets.

 

[azzthom]

Exactly. Especially his "The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic" lie, the cotton content lies and his omission of McCrone's analysis.
However it doesn't cover other areas, such as the shroud's commonality of style with other medieval artwork, the cloth's history (utter lack of references prior to mid 14th century), the dubious dealings of the de Charny family, the relic trade in general, the confession of the reputed forger, et cetera.

Joe Nickell has another article, an interview, here where his discusses some aspects of the shroud not covered in the CSICOP article, including the decidedly dodgy pollen allegedly found by Max "Hitler diaries" Frei and cited by some shroud believers.
Walter McCrone's work is available here on his website.

Really I can't see how any intelligent, open-minded, person could think the cloth is anything other than a fake.

Excellent links, much appreciated. I agree entirely, the mental gymnastics performed by the shroudies are truly staggering.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

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…

This post wasn't "copy + pasted" from elsewhere, the magical facsimile occurred when one IE session was wrapped around the original body of text.

Praise jesus

http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43

 

[Leumas]

This post wasn't "copy + pasted" from elsewhere, the magical facsimile occurred when one IE session was wrapped around the original body of text.

Praise jesus

http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43

All of the Jesus Myth is a plagiarism..... that is how Jesus was contrived..... so why not use the same mischief to also prop up the facade.

Christians have been using all sorts of shenanigans since the first scene of the farcical tragedy called Christian history why stop at plagiarism and dissemblance.

 

[Craig B]

This post wasn't "copy + pasted" from elsewhere, the magical facsimile occurred when one IE session was wrapped around the original body of text.

Praise jesus

http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43

As a poster to the shrouddebates thread commented: "It’s posts like this that make srufnig so much pleasure". Oh Jabba, you naughty person. No srufnig for you.

And using my post as an "opening" to enable you to dump your cut 'n paste job on us innocents. Shame!

 

[The Norseman]

No srufnig for you.

Hahahaha! That's so sigworthy!

 

[Craig B]

Jabba

Spot the difference: from your site shrouddebates.com:

From your "Opening Statement" evidently intended for general circulation (as we have learned)

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

Your wording in the "Our Purpose" is subtly different:

“Authentic” meaning simply that the Shroud was, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus — at this point, we are not claiming that there is anything supernatural about the Shroud…)

Can you explain this discrepancy? Is it indeed "dissimulation"? Why should your purpose be served by circulating statements which don't correspond to the terms in which that purpose is declared? It reminds me of the Intelligent Design people who adopt "sciency" wording when addressing secular audiences like school boards, but are openly religious about their motivation when trying to screw money from Church congregations.

Two discrepancies, I should have said: I have just noted another, in your definition of "authenticity". Your "the Shroud once covered the crucified body of the Biblical Jesus" in the "for public consumption" Opening Statement, becomes "the Shroud was, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus" in the Our Purpose. These two utterances have different meanings. Which is the honest one? A person, particularly a non-religious person, might possibly accept the first, but balk at the second, of these definitions of "authenticity". More dissimulation?

But some religious thinkers appear to have believed that dissimulation is justified, if it's in the cause of propagating the Faith. The names of Eusebius and Luther often turn up in this context, so you're in exalted company - if dissimulation is indeed your tactic, which I fervently hope it's not!

 

[Jabba]

- Obviously, you guys have posed too many questions and objections in order for me to answer them all in any kind of timely manner – especially when you consider that for each answer I offer, there will most likely be a bunch of new questions and objections…

- Here's what I propose.
- If someone has a suggestion as to which of your previous responses to respond to first, I'll try to comply.
- Otherwise, I’ll pick one for myself…
- Whichever – following your responses to what I say in my first response, someone will have to choose which of your new responses I should respond to next…
- Clearly, one step at a time like that would be quite tedious. But then, slow and forward is still a lot better than fast and circular – the latter being what generally happens when those in a debate try to follow more than one (or perhaps, two) branches at a time.

- So anyway, if someone has a quick suggestion as to which response I should respond to first, I'll try to follow his or her suggestion. Otherwise, I'll choose for myself.

– I really do believe in the possibility of having friendly, and actually effective, debate. I also suspect that developing a method for such debate is ultimately necessary for human survival...

 

[Craig B]

... So anyway, if someone has a quick suggestion as to which response I should respond to first, I'll try to follow his or her suggestion. Otherwise, I'll choose for myself.

– I really do believe in the possibility of having friendly, and actually effective, debate. I also suspect that developing a method for such debate is ultimately necessary for human survival...

I'm surprised that you didn't just go ahead and answer something. Particularly with human survival potentially at risk.

However, I think debate is not going to be effective in determining anything about the Shroud. Whether it is authentic or not is a matter of fact, not of parliamentary decision-making. Nor is it a question of faith - purely of fact.

This being so, may I make a suggestion? Although there is no reason to dispute the findings of the carbon 14 test, many Shroudies still do so. Now, in the years since the test there have been many improvements in technology, and the test would use only a tiny sample of the Shroud, and would be certain to an even more precise result.

The original sample was taken under the eyes of representatives of the Church, so there is no reason for you to challenge it (except you don't like the result) but since you do, why not start a campaign of persuasion of the Church to give permission to take another one, and perform a more up to date test?

We could debate that if you want.

You could also explain (not debate) the discrepancies in wording I noted above.

But other contributors may have other priorities.

 

[Jabba]

I'm surprised that you didn't just go ahead and answer something. Particularly with human survival potentially at risk.

However, I think debate is not going to be effective in determining anything about the Shroud. Whether it is authentic or not is a matter of fact, not of parliamentary decision-making. Nor is it a question of faith - purely of fact.

This being so, may I make a suggestion? Although there is no reason to dispute the findings of the carbon 14 test, many Shroudies still do so. Now, in the years since the test there have been many improvements in technology, and the test would use only a tiny sample of the Shroud, and would be certain to an even more precise result.

1) The original sample was taken under the eyes of representatives of the Church, so there is no reason for you to challenge it (except you don't like the result) but 2) since you do, why not start a campaign of persuasion of the Church to give permission to take another one, and perform a more up to date test?

We could debate that if you want.

You could also 3) explain (not debate) the discrepancies in wording I noted above.

But other contributors may have other priorities.

Craig,
- Let's try this. You're really giving me three suggestions as to what to debate – as numbered above. You, or someone else, could decide which one of those I should address first.
- This is hard to explain but I'll try anyway. I push so hard for you guys to tell me exactly what to address next because, somehow, that helps me to feel comfortable about spending so much time on one issue. Something like that...

 

[Pope130]

- This is hard to explain but I'll try anyway. I push so hard for you guys to tell me exactly what to address next because, somehow, that helps me to feel comfortable about spending so much time on one issue. Something like that...

Why don't you tell us what you believe is your one strongest argument, and present the evidence you believe supports it?

 

[Craig B]

Craig,
- Let's try this. You're really giving me three suggestions as to what to debate – as numbered above. You, or someone else, could decide which one of those I should address first.
- This is hard to explain but I'll try anyway. I push so hard for you guys to tell me exactly what to address next because, somehow, that helps me to feel comfortable about spending so much time on one issue. Something like that...

You may be required to follow such a schema on your own website, with its elaborate and complex procedures. But that has nothing to do with me. Say whatever you want, or remain silent, as you please.

 

[Ladewig]

- 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.

This is more of an assertion of evidence than actual evidence. Could you include a 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 etc explaining exactly what this evidence is? Ideally with citations and references?

Also, you seem to have excluded the 1390 letter to the Vatican. Shouldn't that claim get a number in your list or are you asserting that there is no genuine letter? Lastly, when the bishop says he has evidence for forgery, is he simply mistaken? Is he actually lying? Is he part of a conspiracy? Is he referring to a shroud other than the one currently known as the Shroud of Turin? Something else?


..............................
ETA:

3. Summary of Summaries.

As Xzibit might say, "Dude, I heard you like summaries so I made summary of your summaries."