Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Dinwar]

If those five events occurred in that order, then " indications of still bleeding wounds... on the shroud" is actually evidence that the Shroud is NOT the burial shroud of Jesus. Dead bodies do not still bleed from wounds.

Most wounds don't bleed that long. Many of the wounds Christ would have received would have stopped bleeding by the time he was killed. Remember, he allegedly spent three hours on the cross (which is frankly silly; crucifixions took days, not hours). The scourge marks on his back would have scabbed over well before he was taken down, as would the wounds from the crown of thorns (no one's pushing it down repeatedly, so it'll start healing around the thorns--I have personal experience with this sort of thing). The only wounds that would have been able to bleed when he was taken down would have been the wounds in his wrists, feet, and side.

None of those wounds would have been unfamiliar to a Medieval scholar. We live in a relatively civilized time, and I'm pretty sure my sister (an artist) could easily paint a realistic wound simply from her experiences patching people up and being patched up by people. I couldn't, but then I can't draw a realistic coffee mug so I'm a horrible example. In the Middle Ages, what we'd call torture was common practice in interrogations. Wrist and ankle wounds wouldn't have been hard to come by.

I have a quick and unrelated question: Has the issue of the head-shroud been addressed? In Acts they describe the head-cloth lying apart from the rest of the burial cloth, yet the shroud of Turin clearly shows a(n undistorted) face.

And think through the implications of this claim, Jabba.
Because if that's true there is NO image under any of the 'blood' neither front nor back, it's is more or less 'evidence' the TS is a medieval artefact.

Even if it IS blood, and there IS a picture under it, so what? My usual tactic for drawing things that overlap (something that comes up with remarkable frequency in SCA heraldry) is to draw the underlying image first, then the over-lying image. A perfectly plausible scenario is that a Medieval artist drew the image, got ahold of some blood (again, not a rare commodity at the time), and put the blood over the image.

In fact, if this were an authentic relic--meaning Jesus wore it and the image was burned in during the Resurrection, because apparently God wastes time and energy on pyrotechnics instead of curing diseases or feeding starving children--the image should be over the blood. Even if the body was still bleeding for some reason (unlikely, but not entirely impossible) the blood would have stopped before the next day. Since Jesus supposedly rose from the dead three days (actually an afternoon, two nights, one day, and part of one morning) later, that would mean that the image should have been burned into the bloodstains as well as the cloth. The fact that it's not is yet more proof that it's a forgery--it's a very, very obvious choice to put the blood over the image, but entirely wrong.

- Keep in mind that for most every response I give, I receive several rejoinders. Then, when I respond to just one of those rejoinders, I get several new rejoinders -- and , when I respond to one of those, I get several more, etc.
- I guess what I'll try to do now is ignore the unflattering rejoinders, and stick solely to the evidence. It won't be easy -- or, quick.

You've been saying this for months. Yet all we've gotten is bad legalese, reposts of previous debunked posts, and you saying "Give me time, this takes a while".

 

[Kid Eager]

I have just read the set of claims relating to blood

Forgive me if I'm being a little thick here, but all those 26 items plus the introductory paragraph would establish

****** IF the statements were actually true********

is that.... (Drumroll please)

We have a large piece of cloth with some blood on it first being seen in the mid-1300s


That's not exactly helpful to your case is it...

 

[Stray Cat]

What people like Jabba are saying is that for the bible to be true the bible has to be wrong.

There is a line the The Simsons where Ned Flanders is talking to God and saying something along the lines of;
"Why have you forgotten me God? I always believed the Bible... even the parts that contradicted the other parts"

 

[Dinwar]

Woz bored.

That is AWESOME! You should get bored more often!

Forgive me if I'm being a little thick here, but all those 26 items plus the introductory paragraph would establish

****** IF the statements were actually true********

is that.... (Drumroll please)

We have a large piece of cloth with some blood on it first being seen in the mid-1300s


That's not exactly helpful to your case is it...

I tried to explain this to Jabba before. In order for his arguments to be true, he'd have to prove

1) The cloth was at least 2,000 years old
2) The image was at least 2,000 years old
3) The image is genuine (ie, not painted on later)
4) Jesus (Jeshua bin Yoseph) actually existed
5) This is the image of Jeshua bin Yoseph
6) Jeshua bin Yoseph was crucified
7) Jeshua bin Yoseph was buried
8) Jeshua bin Yoseph was buried in this cloth
9) Jeshua bin Yoseph rose from the dead

There are a few other issues; however, if ANY of these is lacking, all we can POSSIBLY say is "We have an interesting cloth with an interesting picture on it). In other words, even if the shroud WAS Jesus Christ's burial cloth, and Jesus Christ rose from the dead in a show of pyrotechnics not equaled until the first Kiss concert, and all the rest, if we can't demonstrate those pieces of data at minimum we cannot honestly claim to know that this cloth was the burial shroud of the Son of God. It could all be true, but that information could be entirely lost to us.

 

[Marduk]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/CSI-Jerusalem.jpg[/qimg]

Woz bored.

 

[catsmate]

This part never ceases to befuddle me; it's not just with the Shroud of Turin but with apologetics for the differing resurrection stories and the differing birth stories, and on and on.

And the different creation myths.........

What people like Jabba are saying is that for the bible to be true the bible has to be wrong.

Exactly.

 

[catsmate]

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/CSI-Jerusalem.jpg

Woz bored.

Excellent. Have a muffin.

 

[Ladewig]

Mr. Jabba, I would advise not getting too caught up in the reasonable doubt standard. Reasonable doubt is the standard for acquittal - the standard for conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt. That means each if these

1) The cloth was at least 2,000 years old
2) The image was at least 2,000 years old
3) The image is genuine (ie, not painted on later)
4) Jesus (Jeshua bin Yoseph) actually existed
5) This is the image of Jeshua bin Yoseph
6) Jeshua bin Yoseph was crucified
7) Jeshua bin Yoseph was buried
8) Jeshua bin Yoseph was buried in this cloth
9) Jeshua bin Yoseph rose from the dead

does not just require evidence. Each one requires evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[Ladewig]

That is AWESOME! You should get bored more often!

seconded.

 

[pakeha]

thirded

Though you have a rival, catsmate1- check out the TS charm bracelet here:
http://letyscreations.blogspot.com.es/2010/01/jesus-relic-holy-shroud-religious.html
and the leggings here:
http://www.polyvore.com/les_chiffoniers_print_zip_leather/thing?id=15863943

....What people like Jabba are saying is that for the bible to be true the bible has to be wrong.

One of my colleagues is a bible literalist and precisely because of that utterly rejects the possiblility of the TS being other than a fake.

...
I have a quick and unrelated question: Has the issue of the head-shroud been addressed? In Acts they describe the head-cloth lying apart from the rest of the burial cloth, yet the shroud of Turin clearly shows a(n undistorted) face.

The Sudarium de Oviedo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo
At that CES conference last April, one of the speakers claimed the two cloths are an exact fit. Jabba could tell us more about that, I daresay.

...In fact, if this were an authentic relic--...the image should be over the blood. Even if the body was still bleeding for some reason (unlikely, but not entirely impossible) the blood would have stopped before the next day. Since Jesus supposedly rose from the dead three days (actually an afternoon, two nights, one day, and part of one morning) later, that would mean that the image should have been burned into the bloodstains as well as the cloth. The fact that it's not is yet more proof that it's a forgery--it's a very, very obvious choice to put the blood over the image, but entirely wrong. ...

Yes, very true.
My own reasoning was that IF such an event would have occured, the cloth corresponding to the back would have been pressed between the body and the stone.
Would the source of the image come from the stone?

It's all speculation, of course and precluded by the established dating of the cloth

 

[IanS]

- Keep in mind that for most every response I give, I receive several rejoinders. Then, when I respond to just one of those rejoinders, I get several new rejoinders -- and , when I respond to one of those, I get several more, etc.

Well you have been asked numerous times to stick just to answering the C14 first ... so you should not be having any difficulty over dealing with various "new rejoinders", because you are still stuck on that very first step of the C14 ...

.... when are you going to provide even one genuine independent scientific paper which casts doubt on the C14? ... because that is your only task so far.

In your last post you had a long list of claims about blood, surface image and history etc., but as has been pointed out to you dozens of times, it's absolutely 100% useless talking about any of those things unless you can genuinely cast doubt on the C14 ... so where is that doubt? ...

... just post any genuine independent scientific paper which casts doubt on the C14. That's all you have to do ... where is it?


... if you can't actually do that (and you have been asked literally 50 times here, and completely failed all 50 times), then just say so ... and then you can move on to blood and image etc., on the basis of course that C14 dates stand.

 

[Multivac]

- And, as long as you agree that there is at least reasonable doubt in the “direct” evidence re the carbon dating (reasonable doubt as to its validity), the indirect evidence deserves its day in court…

But there aren't any reasonable doubts about the process, or the results of, the C₁₄ tests.

 

[Multivac]

- I guess that you guys don't see reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

You guess correctly.

 

[Multivac]

- What I have wanted to do during our time together, is proceed from my primary claim -- that "The great preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud favors authenticity." to a summary of my broadest claims underlying my primary claim, to elaborations on one of those broadest claims, to evidence for those elaborations -- one elaboration at a time...

But this simply isn't true. The preponderence of evidence shows that the shroud was made in the 14th century. Unless you mean that it's an authentic 14th century fake, in which case I will agree with you.

 

[Jabba]

Image under the blood?

- So first, I need to provide evidence that there was no body image beneath the apparent bloodstains.

- To tell you the truth (I’m an old, and big, fan of Jackie Mason), this hasn’t been as easy as I had expected, and I still haven’t been able to access the actual journal articles that allegedly describe how that conclusion was reached. In addition, one of my quotes below asserts that the necessary research had not yet been done, when from my notes, this assertion was made in 1990, and articles claiming the absence of image below the paint were written in 1981…

- Also, I can’t remember the official way to cite my references (but you should probably get the idea).
- And also, my first source below is a book rather than a link…
- I'm still looking, and will let you know whether or not I find anything better, but I wouldn't want you guys to think that I had left you in the lurch.

From, Lambert, J. B., Editor Archeological Chemistry – III 1984, American Chemical Society, P460
“It is interesting to point out that many of these wound images appear to have a border encircling the darkly colored area where body image is absent, a halo of sorts that can clearly be seen as such in the UV photography…”(Heller, J. H.; Adler, A. D. The Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 1981, 14, 81 – 103.
“This absence of body image on the wound image margins suggest that the blood images were present on the cloth before the body image was ‘placed,’ ‘appeared’ or perhaps ‘developed’…” (Miller, V. D.; Pellicori, S. F. Journal of the Biological Photographic Association 1981, 49, 71 – 85.


http://www.shroud.com/schwalbe.htm
I do see a few exceptions to this cautious forecast. One is the possibility of determining from the distribution of blood on individual fibers, whether the blood was applied before or after the body image was made. Evidence on this question is important for arguing whether the Shroud was actually a shroud or whether it is an artist’s production. If an artist produced the Shroud, I would expect the image to have been made first and the blood stains applied later, after their intended locations had been defined precisely. On the other hand, if the shroud enveloped a tortured body, I would expect the blood transfer to have occurred on, or shortly after, contact with the cloth, and the image to have been formed afterwards. STURP scientists have proposed to perform systematic studies of this question, and I am optimistic that a result will help resolve this issue in the next few years. (1990)

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/soonsresponse.pdf
Another little detail is the fact that on the original Shroud there is no image under the bloodstains, proving the fact that there were two image formation processes. Direct contact for the blood proper and another image formation process for the image itself. Prof Garlaschelli added the "blood" (liquid tempera) later on top of the image that he had created. Under Ultra Violet fluorescence photography (not known of course in the 14th century), the blood on the Shroud shows a serum separation, visible as a lighter ring around a darker center, which is typical of post mortem wound exudate. This is not visible with the naked eye. The proposed artist from the 14th century could of course not have known this fact, so he could not create it either.

http://www.shroud.com/fanti3en.pdf
The image originated after the sheet wrapped a corpse. Under the bloodstains the threads have no body image yellowing. While the image was originating, the blood shielded the underlying area. It is not possible to transfer first the blood with the serum and then to reproduce the image in the perfect corresponding position[60]. It agrees with the hypothesis of the resurrection.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...
- Any of you willing to admit that you actually perceive reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

<snippage of irrelevant rambling>
From, Lambert, J. B., Editor Archeological Chemistry – III 1984, American Chemical Society, P460
“It is interesting to point out that many of these wound images appear to have a border encircling the darkly colored area where body image is absent, a halo of sorts that can clearly be seen as such in the UV photography…”(Heller, J. H.; Adler, A. D. The Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 1981, 14, 81 – 103.

Already dealt with.

“This absence of body image on the wound image margins suggest that the blood images were present on the cloth before the body image was ‘placed,’ ‘appeared’ or perhaps ‘developed’…” (Miller, V. D.; Pellicori, S. F. Journal of the Biological Photographic Association 1981, 49, 71 – 85.

No evidence of alleged blood supplied, full of supposition and weasel words.

<snippage of unsupported quotes>

Quotes posted from a shroudie website.

- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...
- Any of you willing to admit that you actually perceive reasonable doubt here?

Utter rubbish. You have failed, repeatedly, to show any reason to doubt the validity of the radiocarbon dating. You opinions on this matter are worthless and clearly biased.

 

[Resume]

- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...
- Any of you willing to admit that you actually perceive reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

You haven't introduced any reason to doubt the dating so if you are going to continue with only the highlighted bare assertion, there isn't much point in going on.

 

[pgwenthold]

- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...

Seriously, this is about as loopy of thinking that I have ever heard.

No, you cannot assume that just because folks didn't pile on to the others that they support you. It's just that the others are doing more than enough to make your stuff look foolish, there is no reason to say, "me too"

OTOH, what do you assume about the fact that no one has jumped in to throw you a lifepreserver?

 

[catsmate]

Seriously, this is about as loopy of thinking that I have ever heard.

No, you cannot assume that just because folks didn't pile on to the others that they support you. It's just that the others are doing more than enough to make your stuff look foolish, there is no reason to say, "me too"

OTOH, what do you assume about the fact that no one has jumped in to throw you a lifepreserver?

Unfortunately this isn't an uncommon way of thinking for some believers and one of the reasons I class religious belief as a form of mental illness.
Usually it's in the form of denying that atheists are really non-believers in the existence of god, but rather that they deny their knowledge of god. It's down to either a profound inability to understand the position of non-belief or a refusal to do so as this might engender doubt in the believer, i.e. a form of self-protection.
In Jabba's case I think he has so much invested in the truth of the shroud, something that is utterly disproved by the radiocarbon dating, that he just cannot accept that validity of the dating and thus it must be wrong.