Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Ladewig]

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

seconded.

 

[Jabba]

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

Pope,
- Actually, in my scheme for effective debate, I allow for two branches to be developed at the same time: each side would have one branch to control.
– Here, you introduce the branch that I would like to control.
– I'm not sure which specific claim houses my strongest argument, but for now– as expressed under number eight on http://shrouddebates.com/.

- 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. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud.)
– While proof that the blood is real on the shroud would not prove that the shroud is authentic, it would be a significant step in the right direction.
- You can see my more specific claims about blood on that same page.

 

[realpaladin]

Jabba... I am using the people's wisdom to call it a fake by uttering this unkillable internet meme:

Pics or it didn't happen!


Jabba, all this carbon dating etc. does not mean a thing until we have a chain of transfers that we can verify all the way back to just after the salesman at Golgotha handed it over to one in the company of people that were to cover him in it.

Anything less makes that hole shroud thingy conjecture with sentences like 'may have been...' and 'could possibly be...'.

If you want to prove it has anything to do with Jesus, then follow the 'papertrail'.

We can do all that without any spiritual stuff at all.

 

[IanS]

- We know that the shroud ... etc. ... – 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. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud.)

Unless the above is published in a genuine science research Journal, and verified there by reputable scientists who are not members of some religious shroud group, then the above claims are worthless ...

... where are these results published?

There is no remaining argument about the shroud. The arguments ended in 1988 when radiocarbon dating conclusively showed that that shroud almost certainly dates from circa.1260AD to 1390AD.

That result stands until anyone can produce significantly different dates using genuine objective accurate and independent modern scientific methods, such as improved radiocarbon dating.

Until then the arguments are at an end. And they cannot be brought back from the dead by an endless stream of unsubstantiated self-interested religious objections.

 

[catsmate]

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...

Why not stop wasting time with silly and unnecessary procedural details and state why you believe that the evidence for the medieval origin of the shroud isn't correct. If you really want to debate this matter, rather than just state your opinions as if they were facts, you could try addressing:

• the ¹⁴C dating
• the textile analysis
• the confession of the alleged forger
• the contemporary denunciation of the shroud as a fake, e.g. Henry of Poitiers
• the lack of any evidence of the shroud's existence before the mid fourteenth century
• the stylistic similarity to other religious artworks from that period

 

[catsmate]

<some snipage of nonsense>
- 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. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud.)

We await you showing some evidence of these assertions; specifically what are these supposed "details".
Frankly, given the ease of reproduction of the shroud in various tests, using fourteenth century materials and methods, I consider this assertion to be nonsense.
I await your evidence.

– While proof that the blood is real on the shroud would not prove that the shroud is authentic, it would be a significant step in the right direction.

There is no blood on the shroud, just paint.

You can see my more specific claims about blood on that same page.

You have yet to show that there is any evidence whatever of blood on the shroud; repeated testing shows no sign of blood, just pigment.

 

[catsmate]

Unless the above is published in a genuine science research Journal, and verified there by reputable scientists who are not members of some religious shroud group, then the above claims are worthless ...

... where are these results published?

There is no remaining argument about the shroud. The arguments ended in 1988 when radiocarbon dating conclusively showed that that shroud almost certainly dates from circa.1260AD to 1390AD.

That result stands until anyone can produce significantly different dates using genuine objective accurate and independent modern scientific methods, such as improved radiocarbon dating.

Until then the arguments are at an end. And they cannot be brought back from the dead by an endless stream of unsubstantiated self-interested religious objections.

McCrone's analysis more than thirty years ago showed there was no sign of blood, just various pigments. Naturally this annoys the shroudies.

 

[Craig B]

In December 2009 it was reported that archaeologists had discovered in a Jerusalem tomb the remains of a real shroud from the early 1st century CE. Guess what? It in no way resembles the Turin confection. As reported in National Geographic:

The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy/

 

[Ladewig]

Unless the above is published in a genuine science research Journal, and verified there by reputable scientists who are not members of some religious shroud group, then the above claims are worthless ...

... where are these results published?

Right there.

That's it, Jabba.

The only format or procedural process that anyone here is interested in is valid citations pointing to objective studies published in established, peer-reviewed journals. If you don't have that then you cannot step onto the playing field.

If I may be allowed to mix metaphors, you've already told us what great cards you have in your hand. Now we are at the part of the game when the cards are actually laid on the table. We have laid our cards on the table - you need to lay your cards on the table.

I would like to close with two pieces of friendly advice.
1) Please take IanS's post seriously. If you do not address it, then you will find more and more posters in this thread making five word posts: Put up or shut up.
2) If you believe you are not being treated with the same respect that other posters are treated, then I suggest you immediately report all Forum Membership Rule violations.

 

[Myriad]

- 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.

I don't understand what you mean by the Shroud being both real (not a forgery), and not supernatural. Do you mean something like, Jesus had weird mutant perspiration that stained cloth? Or that Jesus deliberately created the image by physical means, like a chemist?

-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...

Well, Christians already believe that there was something very special about Jesus. But the idea that the something special was some characteristic of his physical body is specifically contrary to the beliefs of every denomination I'm familiar with. A rather important aspect of the whole narrative is that Jesus was incarnated as a man. And that His miracles were supernatural acts of God, not alchemy or Mr. Wizard science tricks.

I just don't see what the Shroud of Turin would add to the story or to anyone's understanding of it, even if it were real.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

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…

Heard the same argument on the bigfoot thread.

 

[tsig]

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

It proves the resurrection.

 

[tsig]

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

He was exactly as tall as he needed to be at all times.

 

[Craig B]

It proves the resurrection.

An image of a person proves that the person was dead and then became alive again? How does that follow from the data?

 

[Wolrab]

An image of a person proves that the person was dead and then became alive again.? How does that follow from the data?

It's really as simple as that.

 

[Aepervius]

Why not stop wasting time with silly and unnecessary procedural details and state why you believe that the evidence for the medieval origin of the shroud isn't correct. If you really want to debate this matter, rather than just state your opinions as if they were facts, you could try addressing:

• the ¹⁴C dating
• the textile analysis
• the confession of the alleged forger
• the contemporary denunciation of the shroud as a fake, e.g. Henry of Poitiers
• the lack of any evidence of the shroud's existence before the mid fourteenth century
• the stylistic similarity to other religious artworks from that period

Jabba why don't you address this ? That seems a relative simple bullet point list. Also keep in mind as pointed below that a shroud found from 1th century CE does not look at all in fabrication like the Turin Shroud, and the technic of woving in the shroud were not available at the 1th Century CE.

 

[IanS]

Unless the above is published in a genuine science research Journal, and verified there by reputable scientists who are not members of some religious shroud group, then the above claims are worthless ...

... where are these results published?

There is no remaining argument about the shroud. The arguments ended in 1988 when radiocarbon dating conclusively showed that that shroud almost certainly dates from circa.1260AD to 1390AD.

That result stands until anyone can produce significantly different dates using genuine objective accurate and independent modern scientific methods, such as improved radiocarbon dating.

Until then the arguments are at an end. And they cannot be brought back from the dead by an endless stream of unsubstantiated self-interested religious objections.

McCrone's analysis more than thirty years ago showed there was no sign of blood, just various pigments. Naturally this annoys the shroudies.

Well also, it would not matter if there was real blood on the shroud.

Since the shroud has been in existence for around 700 years, during which time it's been handled by countless people, it would hardly be a surprise if there are traces of all sorts of human debris on it.

So claims like that, i.e. claims about blood spots or about the image not being reproducible, or whether the image is anatomically correct, or whether certain types of pollen grain are on the cloth etc., are all far too subjective, unscientific, and just no longer valid in light of the radiocarbon dates.

If the Vatican and the various Shroud Groups want to overturn the 1988 radiocarbon results, then the only scientifically credible way to do that is to perform either more radiocarbon tests, or else to perform even more advanced more powerful scientifically independent tests.

 

[Jabba]

- Good morning!

- Just to address a somewhat general objection -- I didn't mean my claims to be evidence. I don't know the right terminology, but I was trying to provide a sort of “hierarchy of claims,” in the attempt to better convey my overall argument… Something like a lawyer's “brief.”
- I started out with my broadest claim -- something to the effect that the great preponderance of evidence supports Shroud authenticity. Then, I gave a summary of more specific claims supportive of that broadest claim. Then, I selected one of those more specific claims, and provided a set of the underlying, and "even more specific," claims supportive of that “more specific” claim… I'm sure that is now clear…

- Anyway, I will now try to provide evidence for one of the “even more specific” claims. I choose to start with the evidence for real blood.
– So, this will be the side of this conversation that I will steer. Here, you guys will provide whatever questions and comments you wish, but I will decide which of those is answered first.

– Ideally, you guys will decide which question or comment to answer first in the conversation that you steer. But, since there are several of you, I will probably have to choose the specific topic among those suggested.
– Here, I suspect that if you guys could vote, carbon dating would win. So, in this side of the conversation, I will try to provide the evidence for invalidity of the carbon dating.

- Talk to you soon.

 

[Craig B]

- Good morning!

- Just to address a somewhat general objection -- I didn't mean my claims to be evidence. I don't know the right terminology, but I was trying to provide a sort of “hierarchy of claims,” in the attempt to better convey my overall argument… Something like a lawyer's “brief.”
- I started out with my broadest claim -- something to the effect that the great preponderance of evidence supports Shroud authenticity. Then, I gave a summary of more specific claims supportive of that broadest claim. Then, I selected one of those more specific claims, and provided a set of the underlying, and "even more specific," claims supportive of that “more specific” claim… I'm sure that is now clear…

- Anyway, I will now try to provide evidence for one of the “even more specific” claims. I choose to start with the evidence for real blood.
– So, this will be the side of this conversation that I will steer. Here, you guys will provide whatever questions and comments you wish, but I will decide which of those is answered first.

– Ideally, you guys will decide which question or comment to answer first in the conversation that you steer. But, since there are several of you, I will probably have to choose the specific topic among those suggested.
– Here, I suspect that if you guys could vote, carbon dating would win. So, in this side of the conversation, I will try to provide the evidence for invalidity of the carbon dating.

- Talk to you soon.

I don't think I've ever engaged in a discourse of this kind before. It's like discussing things with a momomaniac, rigidly-programmed computer. This hierarchical specificity of claims is of no interest to me whatsoever. What I think you should provide is the evidence, or sources of information which we can consult, to justify your belief in the authenticity of the shroud in the face of the contrary evidence listed above, and ignore the bizarre procedures set down in your shrouddebate forum.

As to your forum: I have asked why the wording of your "Our Purpose" page is different from the Opening Statement, the latter being more "ecumenical". You may answer that, if you can do so without passing the answer through your weird construction of claims and specificities. Rather than be subjected to any more of that, I will forgo any response from you at all.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

The following list of articles re the carbon dating is long, but could be much longer. While waiting for your responses, I’ll try to track down all “peer-reviewed” articles re the carbon dating. I know that there isn’t very many.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Sh...?--History-Tells-a-Different-Story&id=3110899, Breault
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Marino and Prior
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/inquirer/shroud-Vanililin.htm, Vanillin
http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf, Ray Rogers
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticl...drdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth/, Joe Nickell
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html, Porter
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/vanhaelst8.pdf, Statistics