Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

- From everything I've read, the details of the image and apparent blood stains are atypical, but in total agreement with the Bible description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion: "crown of thorns," spear wound in the side, no broken bones, over a hundred scourge wounds by Roman flagrums (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that the number of times to be flogged was very specifically prescribed, was based upon the "nationality" and crimes of the victim, and the number of scourge wounds on this body fit with Jesus' nationality and crimes).

This is not evidence of anything except good work by the artist who painted the shroud.

The fiber and weave of the Shroud also fit with the apparent status of Joseph of Arimathea, the person (according to the Bible) responsible for Jesus' burial.

Evidence for this assertion?

Also, the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today. The apparent blood stains were not affected by the removal.

Because they were painted onto the cloth............
You have provided no evidence for your assertion that "the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today"

You have no evidence for the existence of blood except the dubious and disputed tests of Adler and Bollone, neither of who eliminated (or even attempted to) contamination. Also neither checked their test methodology against the dyes on the cloth to eliminate false positives.

You have shown no reason to doubt the validity of the radiocarbon testing, the microscopical examination of the fibres or any of the other points I raised previously.

 

[IanS]

Gambling Cruiser,
- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

Well anything might be wrong lol.

But what you are now implying is that because two or more different things are both possible, it means they are all equally likely!

On that basis you’d be arguing that it's as likely as not that that the earth is only 6000 years old and that science has made a series of mistakes in thinking that all the vast mass of evidence conclusively points to a date around 4.5 billion years old.

 

[Jabba]

Roman crucifixions

For things to be classified atypical you would need either an 'all agreed upon' standard or you would need to have documentation of a lot of cases.
I have done some work for 'body part matching' software for disaster areas (yes, it is as grisly as it sounds) and I can tell you that even within one body (when you know there are not more than let's say 20 bodies around) there is a lot of possibilities for mismatching.
Just the database for 'standardized' tattoo's is over 8000 entries. That is 'standardized', meaning that I can not go lower than 8000 different 'types' of tattoo.

Saying something is atypical is extremely hard and in fact has not been achieved in current-day technology *with* all of our enormous capacity for data...

(Just to remind viewers that I'm currently trying to answer Paladin's question about even if we could show that the Shroud was 2000 years old, why would we logically think that it had to be that of Jesus.)

Paladin,

- I don't know anything about what you do (so, I really shouldn't say a whole lot about it), but my best guess is that the situations with which you're involved are not especially analogous to the Shroud issue. I guess it's up to me to track down my sources about crucifixions back then. I'll try to do that.

- But anyway, for the moment it is my understanding (and it makes sense) that the crown of thorns was not just atypical -- it was unique. The Bible story claims that many of the Jewish people welcomed Jesus as King when he entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, and that the Romans sarcastically placed the "crown" on his head and a sign on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews" because many Jews did consider him the Messiah and King.
- The spear in the side was not unique -- apparently, that was used to make sure the victim was dead. But from what I've read, most of the time it wasn't necessary -- the Romans usually left the body on the cross for the carrion to eat. In this case, so as not to agitate the Jewish leaders, they wanted to get him down before the Sabbath.
- No-broken-bones was supposedly atypical because in order to breathe the victim had to keep lifting himself up, and the Romans would typically break the victims' legs in order to speed things up. And again, the Bible agrees with the no-broken-bones scenario.
- The Shroud is very fancy -- not something that most crucifixion victims would receive -- but, it was a fabric and weave available in Jerusalem during the first century CE.
- And finally, the Shroud is essentially the only example of such image formation, and it would make for quite a coincident if this one example just happened to fit perfectly with the Biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion.

- I'll see what I can do about backing up my claims.

 

[The Norseman]

I guess it's up to me to track down my sources about crucifixions back then.

I'll see what I can do about backing up my claims.

Oh, don't be silly! Unsubstantiated, factless opinion has served you so well, so far; why change now?

 

[catsmate]

- But anyway, for the moment it is my understanding (and it makes sense) that the crown of thorns was not just atypical -- it was unique. The Bible story claims that many of the Jewish people welcomed Jesus as King when he entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, and that the Romans sarcastically placed the "crown" on his head and a sign on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews" because many Jews did consider him the Messiah and King.

The bible is a collection of xian stories, if you're trying to cite it as some sort of evidence you'll need to prove it is correct.

- The Shroud is very fancy -- not something that most crucifixion victims would receive -- but, it was a fabric and weave available in Jerusalem during the first century CE.

You've claimed this before, you still haven't shown it is true.

And finally, the Shroud is essentially the only example of such image formation,

Utterly untrue. There are many other such claimed "miraculous" cloths and acheiropoieta, e.g the Veil of Veronica, the Image of Edessa, the Holy Face of Genoa, the Sudarium of Oviedo et cetera.
Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you previously, despite the lies of shroudies it has been duplicated using medieval methods.

and it would make for quite a coincident if this one example just happened to fit perfectly with the Biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion.

It was painted by a believer who had access to the stories, this is not surprising.

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig,

- Good question!

- For one thing, the only hands on scientist arguing against authenticity, Walter McCrone, was adamant about there being no blood on the Shroud.
- Also, the apparent blood stains on the Shroud could not have been painted -- they have the characteristics (not visible to the naked eye) of real wounds, they were on the Shroud before the image and were established on the Shroud by a different process than was the image.

What are these miraculous characteristics?


The skeptic view is that it is paint with or without some blood mixed in. Therefore proving the presence or absence of blood does nothing to that position.

The believer point of view is that it is miracle juice or a mix of miracle juice and blood. Are there any believers who claim that blood is the only thing accounting for the image?

 

[realpaladin]

(Just to remind viewers that I'm currently trying to answer Paladin's question about even if we could show that the Shroud was 2000 years old, why would we logically think that it had to be that of Jesus.)

Paladin,

- I don't know anything about what you do (so, I really shouldn't say a whole lot about it), but my best guess is that the situations with which you're involved are not especially analogous to the Shroud issue.

What makes you say that? You know more about me and from a direct source than that you know about the situation of the shroud...

I guess it's up to me to track down my sources about crucifixions back then. I'll try to do that.

Yes please.

- But anyway, for the moment it is my understanding (and it makes sense) that the crown of thorns was not just atypical -- it was unique. The Bible story claims that many of the Jewish people welcomed Jesus as King when he entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, and that the Romans sarcastically placed the "crown" on his head and a sign on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews" because many Jews did consider him the Messiah and King.

But why would someone who loved him not first remove that symbol of mockery and despise? That is just downright evil.

- The spear in the side was not unique -- apparently, that was used to make sure the victim was dead. But from what I've read, most of the time it wasn't necessary -- the Romans usually left the body on the cross for the carrion to eat. In this case, so as not to agitate the Jewish leaders, they wanted to get him down before the Sabbath.

Ok.

- No-broken-bones was supposedly atypical because in order to breathe the victim had to keep lifting himself up, and the Romans would typically break the victims' legs in order to speed things up. And again, the Bible agrees with the no-broken-bones scenario.

What with the large number of people crucified in those same days, it stands to reason that not breaking bones was rather a timesaver, so it would probably occur with more people on that day.
Especially with Sabbath.

- The Shroud is very fancy -- not something that most crucifixion victims would receive -- but, it was a fabric and weave available in Jerusalem during the first century CE.

The keyword here being *most*. That already puts it in the 'may', 'could' category. But where is it shown that the fabric was too fancy for crucifixion victims?
'It stands to reason' is not something that would be usable here, since we have no backlog of supplies from the merchants of those days.
The problem with this part is that again, without a large body of evidence describing what was common it can only be conjecture that

a) it really was fancier than normal shroud weave
b) crucifixion victims did not readily receive it

- And finally, the Shroud is essentially the only example of such image formation, and it would make for quite a coincident if this one example just happened to fit perfectly with the Biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion.

Barring it being a fake, because then it would not be coincidental at all.

But as I said earlier, you overrate coincidence way too much.

The logic 'it fits the description so it must be X' is a common fallacy.

First off, the best you could say would be 'it fits the description, so it could be X'.

But then you would need to seriously narrow down all the other variables.

Because one item we still have not addressed is that it may have been from crucifixion cases before or after Jesus.

These have not been documented so thoroughly and therefore could easily make for the same image forming; there is no documentation saying that the Romans did *not* crown others like 'beggar king' or 'queen of whores' or 'king of your castle'.
After all, the Roman empire was quite large and group minds often think of the same pranks.

While on the image forming... I also asked about the technology... can we get anywhere on that front?

- I'll see what I can do about backing up my claims.

Yes please, and again, thank you for your time and effort.

 

[IanS]

(Just to remind viewers that I'm currently trying to answer Paladin's question about even if we could show that the Shroud was 2000 years old, why would we logically think that it had to be that of Jesus.)

Paladin,

- I don't know anything about what you do (so, I really shouldn't say a whole lot about it), but my best guess is that the situations with which you're involved are not especially analogous to the Shroud issue. I guess it's up to me to track down my sources about crucifixions back then. I'll try to do that.

- But anyway, for the moment it is my understanding (and it makes sense) that the crown of thorns was not just atypical -- it was unique. The Bible story claims that many of the Jewish people welcomed Jesus as King when he entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, and that the Romans sarcastically placed the "crown" on his head and a sign on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews" because many Jews did consider him the Messiah and King.
- The spear in the side was not unique -- apparently, that was used to make sure the victim was dead. But from what I've read, most of the time it wasn't necessary -- the Romans usually left the body on the cross for the carrion to eat. In this case, so as not to agitate the Jewish leaders, they wanted to get him down before the Sabbath.
- No-broken-bones was supposedly atypical because in order to breathe the victim had to keep lifting himself up, and the Romans would typically break the victims' legs in order to speed things up. And again, the Bible agrees with the no-broken-bones scenario.
- The Shroud is very fancy -- not something that most crucifixion victims would receive -- but, it was a fabric and weave available in Jerusalem during the first century CE.
- And finally, the Shroud is essentially the only example of such image formation, and it would make for quite a coincident if this one example just happened to fit perfectly with the Biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion.

- I'll see what I can do about backing up my claims.

All the above is religious speculation which is rendered entirely irrelevant and completely useless in light of the C14 dates.

The C14 remains the only scientifically valid independent accurate dates which have ever been determined for the shroud.

You need to deal with the C14 before trying to create debates about anything else (such as biblical claims about what happened to Jesus).

The only way to overturn those C14 dates is by showing genuine published scientific research which supersedes the 1988 results and which contradicts those dates.

There are no such genuine publications contradicting the C14.

If the Vatican and shroud groups like STURP really wanted to challenge the C14 dates then they would be appealing to science labs around the world to make new and more accurate tests on dating the shroud. Almost all top level Univ. research labs would happily oblige and do that for free. You could have the new results within a week if you wanted.

 

[Multivac]

(Just to remind viewers that I'm currently trying to answer Paladin's question about even if we could show that the Shroud was 2000 years old, why would we logically think that it had to be that of Jesus.)

Even if it was possible* to prove that it was wrapped around JC, my question would be "who cares?" It still wouldn't prove that JC was the son of a mythical god.




* It isn't possible as the shroud is a 13th century fake.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

No matter what kind of obfuscation is tried, C14 dating shows the shroud is fake.

- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

Well anything might be wrong lol.

But what you are now implying is that because two or more different things are both possible, it means they are all equally likely!

On that basis you’d be arguing that it's as likely as not that that the earth is only 6000 years old and that science has made a series of mistakes in thinking that all the vast mass of evidence conclusively points to a date around 4.5 billion years old.

IanS,
- I didn’t mean to imply what you said I implied.
- All I was trying to imply was that C14 data didn’t show the Shroud is a fake – it appeared to show that the Shroud is a fake. Many scientists, and investigators otherwise, have since claimed that the dating, itself, was invalid… For instance, see http://www.factsplusfacts.com/. At this point, we all need to carefully weigh both sides. That's what I'm hoping to do with our debate.

 

[Andy_Ross]

To me the biggest 'tell' that it's a fake is that it doesn't look like a real person. It looks like a painting. it has wrong proportions, it has a styalised face.

Why would anyone think it was anything but a painting?

 

[Jabba]

- Unfortunately, I must have hundreds of questions and objections yet to answer…

- Here’s something I had said earlier:
- The basic claim here is that the best way to actually “get somewhere” in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up (down?) to the next “branching.”
- When we spokespersons in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be — our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing appropriate turns and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

- So anyway, I got seduced, and must now ignore most of those questions and objections… I am genuinely sorry about that. I would really like to try to answer them all. But for now, I’m going to try to limit my focus to carbon dating and blood, and to only one branch of each at a time.

Paladin,
- Before I do that, I will try to provide some of the evidence to which I referred back in #163.


- I’ll be back.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

- Here are a couple of pro authenticity writings that I think should be considered when evaluating the validity of the carbon dating.

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/rogers.htm

 

[carlitos]

- Here are a couple of pro authenticity writings that I think should be considered when evaluating the validity of the carbon dating.

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/rogers.htm

Your first link goes to a dead link at csicop.org, instead of the article by Joe Nickell.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.htm

ETA - found it here.

Ouch.

However, apart from the fire damage, the cloth is remarkably well preserved for a reputed age of nearly 2000 years. Also, no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave (Nickell 1998, 35; Wilson 1998, 98—99, 188; Sox 1981). In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.

Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century—when a bishop reported the artist’s confession—as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “blood” stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators. These facts argue against Rogers’ assertions that the shroud is neither a forgery nor a miracle—that “the blood is real blood”3 and the image was produced by “a rotting body” (Rogers 2004).

Science has proved the Shroud of Turin a medieval fake, but defenders of authenticity turn the scientific method on its head by starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence—picking and choosing and reinterpreting as necessary. It is an approach I call “shroud science.”

 

[Craig B]

- The basic claim here is that the best way to actually “get somewhere” in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up (down?) to the next “branching.”
- When we spokespersons in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be — our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing appropriate turns and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

Dear God! More convoluted shrouddebate.com complexity.

- I’ll be back.

No need to hurry. Take your time.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Your first link goes to a dead link at csicop.org, instead of the article by Joe Nickell.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.htm

ETA - found it here.

Ouch.

Carlitos,
- For me, that first link (http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm) goes to a pro-authenticity article talking about Joe Nickell...
- Can you try again?
- I wonder if I'm the only one getting that...

 

[tsig]

To me the biggest 'tell' that it's a fake is that it doesn't look like a real person. It looks like a painting. it has wrong proportions, it has a styalised face.

Why would anyone think it was anything but a painting?

Looks remarkably like a Teutonic knight.

 

[welshdean]

- Unfortunately, I must have hundreds of questions and objections yet to answer…

- Here’s something I had said earlier:
- The basic claim here is that the best way to actually “get somewhere” in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up (down?) to the next “branching.”
- When we spokespersons in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be — our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing appropriate turns and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

- So anyway, I got seduced, and must now ignore most of those questions and objections… I am genuinely sorry about that. I would really like to try to answer them all. But for now, I’m going to try to limit my focus to carbon dating and blood, and to only one branch of each at a time.

Paladin,
- Before I do that, I will try to provide some of the evidence to which I referred back in #163.


- I’ll be back.

from: http://messiahornot.com/challenge99.php

The basic claim here is that the best way to actually "get somewhere" in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up to the next “branching.”

1. When we SP’s in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be -- our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing critical turns (“exits”) and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

From:http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=68

The basic claim here is that the best way to actually “get somewhere” in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up to the next “branching.”
When we SP’s in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be — our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing critical turns (“exits”) and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

So in a nutshell, we have cutting and pasting from one or more websites, avoidance of legitimate questions, repeating of points already shown to be without merit, empty promises to provide evidence, multi day sabbaticals and obfuscation.
Am I the only one here to smell a troll? Jabba, are you DOC?

 

[GlennB]

It might have been said already but ...

We did a "shroud" experiment in the office one day, where we wrapped a sheet of A3 round someone's head and pencilled in the major features plus chin, hairline etc.

Spread out flat it was comical, with the ears way out there looking ridiculous and the whole thing didn't resemble the shroud-thingy whatsoever. The whole business is too ridiculous to contemplate, for me, but if this shroud registered the impression of a face, why aren't the ear areas way out there?

p.s. you can try this at home, just don't poke anybody's eyes out with a pencil.

 

[IanS]

IanS,
- I didn’t mean to imply what you said I implied.
- All I was trying to imply was that C14 data didn’t show the Shroud is a fake – it appeared to show that the Shroud is a fake. Many scientists, and investigators otherwise, have since claimed that the dating, itself, was invalid… For instance, see http://www.factsplusfacts.com/. At this point, we all need to carefully weigh both sides. That's what I'm hoping to do with our debate.

No ... you are now trying to go back over the same old ground that you started with - you gave that link before, that is most definitely not a scientific research paper, on the contrary it appears quite blatantly to be a fundamentalist Christian Shroud propaganda site.

What the C14 shows, as you must well know by now, is that the only scientifically reliable dates we have for the shroud show that it almost certainly dates from 1260AD to 1390AD ... there are no other scientifically reliable dates at all.

That's the end of the debate unless you can show a genuine scientifically valid research paper which overturns the C14 dating ...

... where is that paper?

Forget the other stuff ... you need first and foremost to overturn the C14 ... where are the scientific research publications which do that?