-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
realpaladin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,585
I fixed up an Evernote account and Pm'ed the password... there is no excuse now for not being able to keep track of all info and/or priorities.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Well, the later is a couple of orders of magnitude easier than the first.
...................................................
Instead of continuing to tell us how honorable, accurate, insightful, and perceptive Rogers is; please briefly tell us why you think Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg are dishonorable, inaccurate, obtuse, or undiscerning? The latter must be true if your Rogers assertions are correct.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
My Plan
- I’m naturally slow.
- In addition, I keep trying to respond to your questions and comments that seem easy to answer -- only to stir up more questions and comments to which I again try to respond…
- On top of that –because of these personal traits and tendencies -- I’m always rushing (I’m like a tortoise trying to hop) and forget my resolve to answer CAREFULLY... If you notice, that’s what I’m doing right now (trying to QUICKLY respond CAREFULLY to your questions and comments about my efforts…).
- Anyway, my target right now is to be more specific about the link to which I told you I’d be referring (Note that this is the same link that Ian had suggested a while back), and to explain (by presenting evidence and argument) my opinions about “invisible weaving,” and the piece carbon dated not being representative of the larger cloth. In that explanation, I will address the claims of Professor Guiseppe Ghibirti and Dr. Flury-Lemberg.
- In addition, I’ll be trying to use Paladin’s Evernotes – which will likely take a lot of time to figure out how to use and whether it will actually do me much good.
- So, for now, I’ll be TRYING to ignore your questions and comments, and restrict my aim to the targets above. In other words, it’s a good thing if you don’t hear from me for awhile. (What a “straight line”!) Pray for me.
--- Jabba
- I’m naturally slow.
- In addition, I keep trying to respond to your questions and comments that seem easy to answer -- only to stir up more questions and comments to which I again try to respond…
- On top of that –because of these personal traits and tendencies -- I’m always rushing (I’m like a tortoise trying to hop) and forget my resolve to answer CAREFULLY... If you notice, that’s what I’m doing right now (trying to QUICKLY respond CAREFULLY to your questions and comments about my efforts…).
- Anyway, my target right now is to be more specific about the link to which I told you I’d be referring (Note that this is the same link that Ian had suggested a while back), and to explain (by presenting evidence and argument) my opinions about “invisible weaving,” and the piece carbon dated not being representative of the larger cloth. In that explanation, I will address the claims of Professor Guiseppe Ghibirti and Dr. Flury-Lemberg.
- In addition, I’ll be trying to use Paladin’s Evernotes – which will likely take a lot of time to figure out how to use and whether it will actually do me much good.
- So, for now, I’ll be TRYING to ignore your questions and comments, and restrict my aim to the targets above. In other words, it’s a good thing if you don’t hear from me for awhile. (What a “straight line”!) Pray for me.
--- Jabba
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
First Move...
- Oops. I was wrong…
- In restricting my moves to baby steps, I need to present only very small pieces of my claimed evidence/argument at a time, and field your questions and comments regarding those pieces before moving on to new pieces. So…
- First, I refer you back to pages 13-15 of http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf.
- Right now, I’ll go look at Evernote.
--- Jabba
- Oops. I was wrong…
- In restricting my moves to baby steps, I need to present only very small pieces of my claimed evidence/argument at a time, and field your questions and comments regarding those pieces before moving on to new pieces. So…
- First, I refer you back to pages 13-15 of http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf.
- Right now, I’ll go look at Evernote.
--- Jabba
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Seeking evidence for faith is pointless for when you have evidence you have knowledge not faith.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Jabba, the issue isn't whether or not Rodgers is a liar. We have the Vatican itself saying "No, this isn't a patch". We have some of the most well-constrained sampling procedures I've ever heard about. We have video evidence. WE HAVE THE BLOODY SHROUD ITSELF. Whether Rodgers is lying, mistaken, insane, or a purple mongoose that ballances pickles on his nose is irrelevant. Unless you can provide evidence that the sample taken was of a patch--not evidence that Rodgers actually believed what he said, but actual evidence FROM THE ARTIFACT that the artifact itself was not dated--you've got nothing. Period.
There's also the small matter of parsimony. You say that it's unlikely that Rodgers was lying. Okay, fair enough. But if you assume that he's also accurate (as opposed to merely mistaken), you have to assume that 20 Vatican officials with a vested interest in the shroud being a holy rellic ARE lying. You have to assume that the video was faked--because otherwise the video couuld be analyzed and the patch detected. You have to assume that the scientists who dated the shroud were lying--remembering that their entire careers rested on their honesty. (As someone in a similar position, I can tell you that it would have been MUCH better for them to refuse the contract than to do it poorly, and sampling a patch would be the next thing to outright fraud in the minds of, well, pretty much everyone.) A 7 cm piece of cloth is pretty noticeable, so the people who did any repair work, who saw the shroud, or who interacted with it in any way would have to either be too stupid to notice that a patch had been added, or they'd have to be lying. The lab that did the trace chemical analysis on the C14 sample would have to be lying (again, at the risk of their career at best)--or the single greatest fraud in history would have had to have been perpetrated at a time when the technology to know that such things as "water trace chemistry" existed wasn't available.
Simply put, if we assume that Rogers was both honest and factual, we have to assume that everyone else is lying. I realize that it's easier to accuse nameless, faceless mooks of things, but these people are NOT nameless, faceless mooks. They're people with vested interestes in figuring out the answer, in taking high-quality samples, and in some cases in proving that the shroud is from the 1st century AD. Each and every one of them must be lying for your argument to make any sense.
By the way, even if you're right you've got a long uphill slog before you can prove that this is the actual shroud Jesus was burried in. I mean, even if this is 1st century cloth, you have to prove that it was in fact a burial shroud and not, say, some scrap a vendor kept as a display model or something. You have to prove that the image was actually of Jesus (who's actually name was Jeshua bin something), and not some other random person. You have to prove that the shroud was Jesus's burial shroud--tricky business, as provinence for this relic is sketchy at best. You have to prove that the image was put there via some supernatural means--which means that you'll have to demonstrate that the supernatural exists. You'll also have to explain why the shroud doesn't follow the biblical description of the burial (again, the head-cloth wasn't near the body--I sat through enough Easter Sunday masses to remember that).
Every single piece of that--and that's just the beginning, really--needs to be established before we can rationally even tentatively say that this was Jesus's burial shroud. If any single bit of data here is missing, the BEST conclusion we can draw (from the perspective of someone who wants to believe) is "We don't know". And that's true even if this IS Jesus's burial shroud.
All of this is rather rediculous, by the way. The shroud is a facinating historical relic in its own right. Even if it's a Medieval forgery (and it probably is) it's still important historically--someone had forge the thing and for some reason, and the how and why are facinating questions. We don't NEED to assume it's anything more than the data (which you've yet to refute, or even fully acknowledge as far as I can see) say it is.
There's also the small matter of parsimony. You say that it's unlikely that Rodgers was lying. Okay, fair enough. But if you assume that he's also accurate (as opposed to merely mistaken), you have to assume that 20 Vatican officials with a vested interest in the shroud being a holy rellic ARE lying. You have to assume that the video was faked--because otherwise the video couuld be analyzed and the patch detected. You have to assume that the scientists who dated the shroud were lying--remembering that their entire careers rested on their honesty. (As someone in a similar position, I can tell you that it would have been MUCH better for them to refuse the contract than to do it poorly, and sampling a patch would be the next thing to outright fraud in the minds of, well, pretty much everyone.) A 7 cm piece of cloth is pretty noticeable, so the people who did any repair work, who saw the shroud, or who interacted with it in any way would have to either be too stupid to notice that a patch had been added, or they'd have to be lying. The lab that did the trace chemical analysis on the C14 sample would have to be lying (again, at the risk of their career at best)--or the single greatest fraud in history would have had to have been perpetrated at a time when the technology to know that such things as "water trace chemistry" existed wasn't available.
Simply put, if we assume that Rogers was both honest and factual, we have to assume that everyone else is lying. I realize that it's easier to accuse nameless, faceless mooks of things, but these people are NOT nameless, faceless mooks. They're people with vested interestes in figuring out the answer, in taking high-quality samples, and in some cases in proving that the shroud is from the 1st century AD. Each and every one of them must be lying for your argument to make any sense.
By the way, even if you're right you've got a long uphill slog before you can prove that this is the actual shroud Jesus was burried in. I mean, even if this is 1st century cloth, you have to prove that it was in fact a burial shroud and not, say, some scrap a vendor kept as a display model or something. You have to prove that the image was actually of Jesus (who's actually name was Jeshua bin something), and not some other random person. You have to prove that the shroud was Jesus's burial shroud--tricky business, as provinence for this relic is sketchy at best. You have to prove that the image was put there via some supernatural means--which means that you'll have to demonstrate that the supernatural exists. You'll also have to explain why the shroud doesn't follow the biblical description of the burial (again, the head-cloth wasn't near the body--I sat through enough Easter Sunday masses to remember that).
Every single piece of that--and that's just the beginning, really--needs to be established before we can rationally even tentatively say that this was Jesus's burial shroud. If any single bit of data here is missing, the BEST conclusion we can draw (from the perspective of someone who wants to believe) is "We don't know". And that's true even if this IS Jesus's burial shroud.
All of this is rather rediculous, by the way. The shroud is a facinating historical relic in its own right. Even if it's a Medieval forgery (and it probably is) it's still important historically--someone had forge the thing and for some reason, and the how and why are facinating questions. We don't NEED to assume it's anything more than the data (which you've yet to refute, or even fully acknowledge as far as I can see) say it is.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,829
Hmmm, that's a good point. Maybe Jabba can address it some time in the future.
Several of these points require no effort on your part other than typing an explanation:Jabba said:
1) Why do you assume that a few hundred people are lying, but one man (Rogers) isn't? I've provided a psychological reason, but I doubt you find it flattering.
2) Do you believe that you can prove the rest of the chain of reasoning? Even if we assume that the thing is from the 1st century you still have a huge number of issues to overcome--do you think that you can do that?
3) Why do you think it's so important that the shroud be something other than a facinating Medieval artifact?
And after reading your posts, I agree with Captain_Swoop. I'm not interested in statements that you'll eventually get to my arguments. Either discuss them, or don't. A post saying "I'll get around to it eventually" is of marginal value at best.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,546
That's a whole new sub-sub-sub-etc... sub-topic
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,493
Nearly seven hundred posts later and we see he's still doing absolutely nothing about his claims. What a shocker.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
See it that way : quoting from orbituary is fitting for a thema debunked so often it is like beating a dead horse.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Old blood look brownish. If you want to make something look like blood, you will want to use fake blood. So funnily enough if you want to make it look like somebody being nailed/bleeding, you will want to use fake blood... to look more authentic.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Ah, Jabba is going the invisible patch route, then?
'refer you back to'?
Finally, afer repeated requests, you reveal your source for your 'proposed' discussion, more like!
That.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
This would appear to be the burden of Jabba's link "pages 13-15 of http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf"
So this is it?
There MUST be an invisibly woven patch because Rogers affirms it?
And we can't perceive it because it's...invisible?
So this is it?
There MUST be an invisibly woven patch because Rogers affirms it?
And we can't perceive it because it's...invisible?
Last edited:
- Status