Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Ian,
- See below.
--- Rich

Jesus H. Christ ... that photo is absolutely useless, even in it's supposedly "close-up" version (which is not close-up at all lol).
- Yeah. And for some reason, it doesn't allow for a close up version -- at all -- of the corner itself.

What on earth do you think you can see in a photo like that. OK don't waste time answering that (it was rhetorical), instead just look at all other small areas of the shroud (corners or folds or anywhere really) - you can see all sorts of similar darker lines and smudges etc …. the shroud is absolutely covered with marks like that .
- After I posted the post quoted in your post, I realized it was pretty weak in the sense that I didn't have any real understanding of the "uniqueness" of that discoloration. But then, the main point I had in mind was in reference to your statement from 1245, i.e. "...my first reaction to Rogers photo is that it’s really far too vague to say anything much about the image at all…" I just wanted to show that the macro image of the Shroud does show a discoloration that would seem to fit with Rogers claim.

If you want to see a decent close-up photo of part of the shroud thread/weave, then look at the figure in the link I gave before to the website BadArchelogy.com, where their close-up photo compares the weave of the shroud to the weave from a genuine 1st century cloth … Ok here's that link again - just click the following link and scroll down the page to see first the shroud weave, and then further down the page a genuine 1st century sample.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=322
- I think that the difference between the accepted 1st century Shroud and "our" Shroud is easily explained -- Joseph of Arimathea bought something special. From what I've read, the special weave of our Shroud was available to the rich in first century Jerusalem.

 

[dafydd]

Ian,
- See below.
--- Rich

'The first time we hear of the Shroud is in 1389×90, when Pierre d’Arcis (or d’Arcy, Bishop Pierre II of Troyes 1377-1395) wrote a letter to the Antipope Clement VII (1342-1394, elected Pope at Avignon in 1378, in opposition to Pope Urban VI). He objected to an exposition of the shroud in the collegiate church at Lirey on the grounds that it was being done “falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore”. He pointed out that in view of any earlier mention of a shroud bearing an image of Jesus, “it was quite unlikely that the Holy Evangelists would have omitted to record an imprint on Christ’s burial linens, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time”.

 

[IanS]

Ian,
- See below.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=322
- I think that the difference between the accepted 1st century Shroud and "our" Shroud is easily explained -- Joseph of Arimathea bought something special. From what I've read, the special weave of our Shroud was available to the rich in first century Jerusalem.

--- Rich

OK, great. Then if it's easily explained as you say, then I assume you can easily post a photo and a link to a verified 1st century cloth with the same construction/weave as that of the shroud?

I'll wait for that link & the photo, shall I?

 

[Craig B]

OK, great. Then if it's easily explained as you say, then I assume you can easily post a photo and a link to a verified 1st century cloth with the same construction/weave as that of the shroud?

I'll wait for that link & the photo, shall I?

You won't get a photo. The authentic shroud is so far unique. And it came from an elite burial ground, and the interment of a priest, so it remains to be shown that other rich people had shrouds of different type. Has any twill woven material ever been found in ancient Palestine?

 

[carlitos]

I just saw this elsewhere, and thought it was apt.

English Standard Version Luke 5.

36 He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old.

 

[IanS]

You won't get a photo. The authentic shroud is so far unique. And it came from an elite burial ground, and the interment of a priest, so it remains to be shown that other rich people had shrouds of different type. Has any twill woven material ever been found in ancient Palestine?

Well that’s what it appears to say in the link that I already gave 10 pages back (and same link again above), but it’s not true according to Jabba.

According to Jabba, the explanation is simple, and it's merely the case that the shroud cloth was freely available to the rich in 1st century Palestine, and that Joseph of Arimathea bought some specially to wrap the body of Jesus.

So if the explanation is really that "simple", then obviously Jabba will be easily able to provide a link to that fact showing some photos of such 1st century Palestinian cloth, right?

 

[IanS]

Jabba, by the way - I’m still waiting for you to give any credible explanation at all of why Flury-Lemberg and prof. Ghibirti on behalf of the Vatican have repeatedly denounced Rogers claim of an invisible patch, as complete nonsense?

And also still waiting for any credible explanation from you as to why 16th century repairs would have bothered trying to make an invisible repair on a completely irrelevant tiny corner of the shroud, and yet never have attempted any such invisible repairs on numerous well known patched and damaged areas of the shroud?

Or are you hoping that now you have diverted people to some other website, all the C14 questions can be conveniently swept under your magic carpet?

 

[Pope130]

Jabba,
Just answer the C14 question.

 

[realpaladin]

Jabba,
Just answer the C14 question.

That would be a good opening gambit on the 'against authenticity thread'.

A good rebuttal to anything in the 'for authenticity thread' will probably be 'be that as it may, since the C14 clearly shows it is medieval, this point is moot'

But we'll see how it goes.

 

[carlitos]

The main point is that I'm very happy to try to answer all of the questions and comments posted in this thread.

There is no evidence supporting this assertion, and much evidence to the contrary.

The "controversial" issues that "plague" you are your lack of acceptance of reality. The C14 issue is not complex. All the best.

 

[pakeha]

..
- The main point is that I'm very happy to try to answer all of the questions and comments posted in this thread. ...

- My claim is that if the anatgonists could just take one sub-issue at a time to its end, they would gradually get somewhere. ...

Great.
So why not stick to the ¹⁴C dating of the TS?
I'm looking forward to actually seeing you discuss the subject.

 

[Locknar]

Thread has been placed on Moderated Status pending review/clean out.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[IanS]

Just answer the damn questions here (for the 38th time of asking!) ... that's the C14 questions which I already asked you 38 times -

Q. Flury-lemberg and Ghiberti denounce and dismiss Rogers entirely - Why?

Q. Why invisibly repair a useless corner, but not any of the known serious holes?


This thread is definitely a scam from you. And frankly it's become both absurd and now quite bizarre in your attempts to derail it on to some other SP and Team-shroud website ... I'm just amazed than anyone here is falling for that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee,

- This is sort of tricky -- though, I think that Paladin will be partially solving the problem by posting from there to here.
- The main point is that I'm very happy to try to answer all of the questions and comments posted in this thread. But, maybe I'm just slow and you guys wouldn't have a problem if the tables were turned, but I just haven't been able to keep up over here. My claim is that sticking to my plan for effective debate over here has required more self-discipline on my part than I have been able to muster...

- Probably, my most important claim is that normal debate never gets anywhere because the antagonists get seduced into trying to answer multiple sub-issues at the same time -- and (inevitably) end up just going in circles.
- My claim is that if the anatgonists could just take one sub-issue at a time to its end, they would gradually get somewhere.
- Then probably, the main reason that never happens is that each sub-issue tends to "expand" exponentially -- and to actually get somewhere, we must follow only one "branching" at a time. We have to leave an ever increasing number of branchings behind until we finally reach the end of one little sub-sub-sub-etc-branch.

- People "fuss" at me for making my plan so complicated. My claim is that such complexity is forced upon us if we are to ever get anywhere with the controversial issues that plague us. And further, it's forced upon us by the inherent (but typically unappreciated) complexity of these issues.

- That's probably the main problem I'm trying to solve with my plan for debate.

--- Jabba

It's been said many, many times - the key issue is the C14 dating. All you need to do is to provide unbiased, scientifically-valid evidence that the C14 dating is flawed. That's it. That's absolutely everything you have to do. The C14 evidence is the most important issue there is, and all the scientific data thus far presented in this thread supports it.

Anything else that can be said on the subject is subordinate to the C14 data. You know this, because you've been told it many times over. If you cannot refute the scientific evidence with better scientific evidence, then you have no argument whatsoever.

 

[tsig]

It's been said many, many times - the key issue is the C14 dating. All you need to do is to provide unbiased, scientifically-valid evidence that the C14 dating is flawed. That's it. That's absolutely everything you have to do. The C14 evidence is the most important issue there is, and all the scientific data thus far presented in this thread supports it.

Anything else that can be said on the subject is subordinate to the C14 data. You know this, because you've been told it many times over. If you cannot refute the scientific evidence with better scientific evidence, then you have no argument whatsoever.

The main refutations I've seen are:

An invisible patch done by unknown weavers who must have done it at the same time the shroud was first exhibited.

Contamination by dirt, microbes or a type of varnish


Sloppy sampling by persons unknown

Home kitchen analysis of samples of unknown provenance.

 

[Dinwar]

I just wanted to show that the macro image of the Shroud does show a discoloration that would seem to fit with Rogers claim.

Is there any evidence that this discoloration was caused by something capable of altering the C14 dating of the shroud? If not, it is 100% completely and totally irrelevant. And since YOU are saying that this discoloration is cause for rejecting all the C14 dating done on the shroud, YOU need to provide evidence that the discoloration is a valid consideration. Many researchers, including the Vatican, have agreed that it's not, so our burden of proof has been met.

 

[carlitos]

If a debate is taking place elsewhere, might someone post a convenient link to it here?

 

[IanS]

Is there any evidence that this discoloration was caused by something capable of altering the C14 dating of the shroud? If not, it is 100% completely and totally irrelevant. And since YOU are saying that this discoloration is cause for rejecting all the C14 dating done on the shroud, YOU need to provide evidence that the discoloration is a valid consideration. Many researchers, including the Vatican, have agreed that it's not, so our burden of proof has been met.

Well, ... as I said to Jabba above - the sort of discoloration Jabba refers to in his linked photo (a distinctly inadequate and unclear photo) is seen all over the shroud - the shroud is covered in dirty smudges like that.

The photo which I linked, and which Marduk kindly displayed in post #1269 as a side-by-side comparison, shows the sort of magnification and clear macro-image that allows us to see a detailed difference between the TS and a genuine 1st century burial cloth.

And despite Jabba saying Joseph or Arimathea is known to have bought a special 1st century cloth to cover Jesus (ie the Turin shroud) he has not yet responded here to my request for any evidence of any such thing. So that looks like yet another smokescreen of obfuscation from Jabba ... Afaik the fact is that the TS shows a type of weave that was probably not available until the latter part of middle ages, most likely from around the time when the Shroud was first known to have appeared, and by coincidence also the same date found by C14 testing.

As for us all trooping off to post on some shroud fundamentalist site where shroud fundemantists will decide whether we can post or not, and where they will decide whether to decorate people with their invented status of "Team Leaders" and "SP's" etc., that's just about the most absurd and obvioulsy fraudulent tactic I've ever witnessed from any theist on any of these forums (JREF, Rat.Skep., or RD.com).

 

[Olowkow]

If a debate is taking place elsewhere, might someone post a convenient link to it here?

This is where they went.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Gaspode]

Thread no longer on Moderated status.

Posted By: Gaspode