Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[AdMan]

- In this thread, I will try to show that the preponderance of evidence greatly favors the existence of appropriate blood (on the Shroud of Turin), and in the right places.

What the hell is "appropriate" blood? Are you going to prove it's the blood of Jesus?

Otherwise, who cares?

 

[PiedPiper]

- In this thread, I will try to show that the preponderance of evidence greatly favors the existence of appropriate blood (on the Shroud of Turin), and in the right places.
- I do this for three reasons. I think that,
1) Actually effective debate requires a constant narrowing of focus – otherwise, we just go in circles. If we start out with a sub-sub-issue within the larger Issue of the Shroud’s authenticity, we won’t need as much narrowing.
2) Showing such preponderance of evidence for appropriate blood on the Shroud, and in the right places, would be a big step towards showing that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity.
3) Showing that, and spreading the word, would be quite useful.
--- Jabba

What do you mean by "appropriate" blood? Do you mean blood of the correct age, determined by some scientific method? Blood of the right blood type (which blood type)? Blood in the right places on the shroud, that (logically) would arise from the shrouding of a dead body that had been injured in a particular manner? The blood of Jesus? Or are you just trying to show that there's some type of blood somewhere on the shroud?

Your point #2 - if you're trying to favor the Shroud's authenticity, my guess is you're trying to show that it's Jesus's blood on the shroud. Is there (anywhere in the world) an authenticated DNA sample from Jesus against which to compare the blood? I'm willing to go with preponderance of evidence, but I have no clue what you're trying to allude to here.

I realize that you're trying to narrow the focus, but nothing short of showing that the Shroud is from the correct time period and region and that the blood markings are real and 100% consistent with the injuries inflicted by Jesus described in various holy texts would, in my opinion, make any headway towards clearing up the mystery of the Shroud. We'd still have a long way to go from there, but it'd be a start.

I anxiously await such an event.

 

[Jabba]

Excuses and Things

- Not to worry, I'll get around to it.

- Appropriate blood means human blood, but it also means blood exudate, serum contraction rings, chemistry of a severe beating, and probably more.
- When you see how appropriate the blood is, you'll see that it couldn't have been painted on the Shroud.
- And, the only hands on scientist except the carbon dating team to discount authenticity was Walter McCrone, who also insisted that there was no blood on the Shroud and the Shroud was a painting.
- There is more.

- I will slowly roll out the evidence for those claims.
- Guys coming from my other thread won't believe that I'll ever roll out the evidence, but I have lots of "excuses" for being so slow over there. As I get a chance, I'll roll out those excuses here.

--- Jabba

 

[Craig B]

- Not to worry, I'll get around to it. <snip>
- Guys coming from my other thread won't believe that I'll ever roll out the evidence, but I have lots of "excuses" for being so slow over there. As I get a chance, I'll roll out those excuses here.

--- Jabba

Heaven forbid that you should roll out more of these. I fervently hope that you mean "evidence" rather than "excuses".

 

[dafydd]

- Not to worry, I'll get around to it.

- Appropriate blood means human blood, but it also means blood exudate, serum contraction rings, chemistry of a severe beating, and probably more.
- When you see how appropriate the blood is, you'll see that it couldn't have been painted on the Shroud.
- And, the only hands on scientist except the carbon dating team to discount authenticity was Walter McCrone, who also insisted that there was no blood on the Shroud and the Shroud was a painting.
- There is more.

- I will slowly roll out the evidence for those claims.
- Guys coming from my other thread won't believe that I'll ever roll out the evidence, but I have lots of "excuses" for being so slow over there. As I get a chance, I'll roll out those excuses here.

--- Jabba

You are always going to do something. When are you actually going to do it? Why couldn't blood have been painted, dripped or smeared on this piece of cloth? If it is blood, why would it be from Jesus? Where are you going to get a specimen of his DNA?

 

[tsig]

What the hell is "appropriate" blood? Are you going to prove it's the blood of Jesus?

Otherwise, who cares?

It does miracles?

 

[dafydd]

It does miracles?

It can form a group.

 

[tsig]

- In this thread, I will try to show that the preponderance of evidence greatly favors the existence of appropriate blood (on the Shroud of Turin), and in the right places.
- I do this for three reasons. I think that,
1) Actually effective debate requires a constant narrowing of focus – otherwise, we just go in circles. If we start out with a sub-sub-issue within the larger Issue of the Shroud’s authenticity, we won’t need as much narrowing.
2) Showing such preponderance of evidence for appropriate blood on the Shroud, and in the right places, would be a big step towards showing that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity.
3) Showing that, and spreading the word, would be quite useful.
--- Jabba

What do you mean by "appropriate" blood? Do you mean blood of the correct age, determined by some scientific method? Blood of the right blood type (which blood type)? Blood in the right places on the shroud, that (logically) would arise from the shrouding of a dead body that had been injured in a particular manner? The blood of Jesus? Or are you just trying to show that there's some type of blood somewhere on the shroud?

Your point #2 - if you're trying to favor the Shroud's authenticity, my guess is you're trying to show that it's Jesus's blood on the shroud. Is there (anywhere in the world) an authenticated DNA sample from Jesus against which to compare the blood? I'm willing to go with preponderance of evidence, but I have no clue what you're trying to allude to here.

I realize that you're trying to narrow the focus, but nothing short of showing that the Shroud is from the correct time period and region and that the blood markings are real and 100% consistent with the injuries inflicted by Jesus described in various holy texts would, in my opinion, make any headway towards clearing up the mystery of the Shroud. We'd still have a long way to go from there, but it'd be a start.

I anxiously await such an event.

Maybe from a splinter of the True Cross?

 

[IanS]

- First of all, tell me why you guys think that the members of STURP, as well as other scientists, presenting (what they call, at least) evidence and arguments for Shroud authenticity, are all a bunch of religious bigots. Give me citations and numbers.
--- Jabba

I think it's perfectly clear that most members of STURP and most of the other individuals you are citing, are likely to be Christians. That follows simply from the fact that the Shroud is a famous Christian religious artefact. And if, for example, you just look at the biog for the last reference you cited, you see that Ms Marinelli apparently has a history of lecturing about religion.

But I don’t want to get into the specific evidence for that and checking the personal history of various named individuals such as Ray Rogers et al., because that clearly risks inviting you to make yet another time-wasting diversion such that you continue to evade the question of why you have been unable to post any genuine independent research against the C14.

And in any case, before anyone else answers new questions from you, you are long overdue to answer the question about the C!4, which has been put to you at least 30 times now. -

- can you cite any genuine independent scientist who has ever published evidence in a genuine science journal, saying the C14 is wrong?

Can you do that, Yes or No?

If you cannot provide any such paper, then please stop messing us all around and just say so. Then perhaps we can move on!

 

[tsig]

- Not to worry, I'll get around to it.

- Appropriate blood means human blood, but it also means blood exudate, serum contraction rings, chemistry of a severe beating, and probably more.
- When you see how appropriate the blood is, you'll see that it couldn't have been painted on the Shroud.
- And, the only hands on scientist except the carbon dating team to discount authenticity was Walter McCrone, who also insisted that there was no blood on the Shroud and the Shroud was a painting.
- There is more.

- I will slowly roll out the evidence for those claims. - Guys coming from my other thread won't believe that I'll ever roll out the evidence, but I have lots of "excuses" for being so slow over there. As I get a chance, I'll roll out those excuses here.
--- Jabba

One of those sentences is not like the other.

Are you admitting you're just trolling?

 

[pakeha]

- First of all, tell me why you guys think that the members of STURP, as well as other scientists, presenting (what they call, at least) evidence and arguments for Shroud authenticity, are all a bunch of religious bigots. Give me citations and numbers.
--- Jabba

I'm not aware of anyone writing that.
Certainly not me.
Are you quite sure that phrase was used?

- Maybe things would work better if I tried to devote this thread to the carbon dating.
- Doing that, I'll try to 1) defend what I've already presented, 2) see if I can find more information that I would consider evidence for invalidity, and 3) respond to your various q/c's regarding the C14.
- At the same time, I will start a new thread focusing on the probability that there is real blood, in the right places, on the Shroud. I perceive this conclusion as being especially important towards supporting the authenticity of the Shroud.
--- Jabba

Well, like other posters, I really think it would be easier to centre on ONE point.
Opening another thread to discuss the 'blood' without having established any objections to the dating of the TS seems like an invitation to stress and misunderstanding.

 

[Jabba]

- In this thread, I will try to show that the preponderance of evidence greatly favors the existence of appropriate blood (on the Shroud of Turin), and in the right places.
- I do this for three reasons. I think that,
1) Actually effective debate requires a constant narrowing of focus – otherwise, we just go in circles. If we start out with a sub-sub-issue within the larger Issue of the Shroud’s authenticity, we won’t need as much narrowing.
2) Showing such preponderance of evidence for appropriate blood on the Shroud, and in the right places, would be a big step towards showing that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity.
3) Showing that, and spreading the word, would be quite useful.
--- Jabba

What do you mean by "appropriate" blood? Do you mean blood of the correct age, determined by some scientific method? Blood of the right blood type (which blood type)? Blood in the right places on the shroud, that (logically) would arise from the shrouding of a dead body that had been injured in a particular manner? The blood of Jesus? Or are you just trying to show that there's some type of blood somewhere on the shroud?

Your point #2 - if you're trying to favor the Shroud's authenticity, my guess is you're trying to show that it's Jesus's blood on the shroud. Is there (anywhere in the world) an authenticated DNA sample from Jesus against which to compare the blood? I'm willing to go with preponderance of evidence, but I have no clue what you're trying to allude to here.

I realize that you're trying to narrow the focus, but nothing short of showing that the Shroud is from the correct time period and region and that the blood markings are real and 100% consistent with the injuries inflicted by Jesus described in various holy texts would, in my opinion, make any headway towards clearing up the mystery of the Shroud. We'd still have a long way to go from there, but it'd be a start.

I anxiously await such an event.

Pied Piper,

- Cool. Good questions.

- Hopefully, my last post will be sufficient to answer your first question.
- My claim is that the preponderance of evidence almost proves that the Shroud had to be draped over a dead body, and that no "painting" was involved.
- Then, the preponderance of evidence clearly favors that the body had been crucified.
- Then, there were like 150 apparent wounds on the body -- all supporting the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion -- some of those going against traditional conceptions, but have proved to make scientific sense.

- And, the blood evidence is just the beginning of supportive evidence that it actually was the burial shroud of the Biblical Jesus.

- I am currently trying to deal with the carbon dating issue under "Miracle of the Shroud."

- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Not to worry, I'll get around to it.

- Appropriate blood means human blood, but it also means blood exudate, serum contraction rings, chemistry of a severe beating, and probably more.
- When you see how appropriate the blood is, you'll see that it couldn't have been painted on the Shroud.
- And, the only hands on scientist except the carbon dating team to discount authenticity was Walter McCrone, who also insisted that there was no blood on the Shroud and the Shroud was a painting.
- There is more.

- I will slowly roll out the evidence for those claims.
- Guys coming from my other thread won't believe that I'll ever roll out the evidence, but I have lots of "excuses" for being so slow over there. As I get a chance, I'll roll out those excuses here.

--- Jabba

Could you PM me when you get to the post where you say, "...and that proves the existence of my personal god."?

 

[Jabba]

One of those sentences is not like the other.

Are you admitting you're just trolling?

Tsig,
- Not at all.
--- Jabba

 

[dafydd]

- I am currently trying to deal with the carbon dating issue under "Miracle of the Shroud."

It has been dealt with. It's a fake.

 

[dafydd]

Tsig,
- Not at all.

Kindly stop exhibiting troll-like behaviour and get on with it, please. No need to sign your posts, we know who you are.

 

[Jabba]

Personal God?

Could you PM me when you get to the post where you say, "...and that proves the existence of my personal god."?

Robo,
- I'll never claim to "prove" anything.
- I have to admit that I want the Shroud to be authentic, and can't be impartial -- but for now, I do think that the preponderance of evidence does favor authenticity.
--- Jabba

 

[dafydd]

- Maybe things would work better if I tried to devote this thread to the carbon dating.
- Doing that, I'll try to 1) defend what I've already presented, 2) see if I can find more information that I would consider evidence for invalidity, and 3) respond to your various q/c's regarding the C14.
- At the same time, I will start a new thread focusing on the probability that there is real blood, in the right places, on the Shroud. I perceive this conclusion as being especially important towards supporting the authenticity of the Shroud.
--- Jabba

The faker would not have been dumb enough to put it in the wrong places.

 

[Jabba]

Kindly stop exhibiting troll-like behaviour and get on with it, please. No need to sign your posts, we know who you are.

Dafydd,
- I like signing my posts. I like my name.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

- You won't here from me for awhile. I gotta go mow the lawn.
--- Jabba