• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
^
It gets even stranger when they try to explain why they believe Jesus' crucified corpse was put, unwashed, into a tomb.
If that WERE case, one would expect to find stains of more than just blood, AFAIK.
 
The Blood

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Certainly, it's possible that someone would be deliberately crucified, in the 14th century, in the manner that Jesus was crucified, so as to produce a monetarily valuable artifact. But to me, as you might expect, that seems highly unlikely...
Dinwar said:
This is nothing more than Argument from Personal Incredulity. And your assessment is not based on data, but on your own need to see the shroud as ancient, whatever the data say...
Click to expand...
Dinwar,
- I guess that my main claim here is that skeptics have needs also, and that these needs are much more effective than skeptics generally think that they are.
--- Jabba
 
The Blood

Jabba:
- For one thing -- as far as I know -- such an explanation has never been suggested by any publication about the Shroud...
Dinwar said:
...Doesn't invalidate the idea, though...
Click to expand...
Dinwar,
- No. But it is significant evidence against the idea. I don't think that Joe Nickell has ever brought up the possibility -- and, I know that McCrone didn't. If either had considered such to be a reasonable possibility, I assume they would have pointed us to it.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Dinwar,
- I guess that my main claim here is that skeptics have needs also, and that these needs are much more effective than skeptics generally think that they are.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

The only thing skeptics need is evidence.

The carbon 14 date is evidence.
 
The Blood

Jabba:
- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do (we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work), and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body.
Dinwar said:
...First, this is a lie. It's been proven in this thread that 1) we CAN reproduce the image...
Click to expand...
Dinwar,
- As far as I can tell, you guys just claim that it has been duplicated. Show me where you have proven that it has.
- And further, show me where they've used a dead body to do it.
--- Jabba
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- No. But it is significant evidence against the idea. I don't think that Joe Nickell has ever brought up the possibility -- and, I know that McCrone didn't. If either had considered such to be a reasonable possibility, I assume they would have pointed us to it.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Speculation as to how the image on the shroud was produced is completely separate from whether it is actually the shroud of Jesus. We know that it isn't the shroud of Jesus because it is 1400 years too new. You cannot turn things upside down and say that just because we don't know how the image was produced then the carbon dating must be wrong (although that is exactly what you seem to be saying).
 
Jabba said:
- As far as I can tell, you guys just claim that it has been duplicated. Show me where you have proven that it has.
Click to expand...

Already posted in this thread. Let me guess, you ignored it at the time and "forgot" to take a note, and now you want everybody else to do your work for you again and find it?
 
The Blood

Dinwar said:
...and 2) the image on the shroud today isn't what needs to be reproduced--the 14th century bright and colorful image is...
Click to expand...
Dinwar,
- I must admit that this is an interesting issue -- I had wondered about this myself, but had never asked anyone about it. If I can find the time, I'll see if someone has a good answer...
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Jabba:
- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do (we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work), and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body.
Dinwar,
- As far as I can tell, you guys just claim that it has been duplicated. Show me where you have proven that it has.
- And further, show me where they've used a dead body to do it.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

I don't understand why it would be necessary to use a dead body. If the image has been duplicated, it matters not whether there was a dead body being used.

Second, I actually agree with you. I don't accept claims that the image on the shroud has been duplicated. Because that is because of Dinwar's point #2 - WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL IMAGE LOOKED LIKE, so it is impossible to duplicate it. The only way we could duplicate the image on the shroud NOW would be to allow at least 500 years, because all reports are that the image on the shroud is a result of an original image and at least 500 years of time.

So no, I don't agree that we have reproduced the image on the shroud.

However, before getting excited, note that since we don't know what the original image looked like, you cannot claim that it cannot be reproduced. Shoot, it could be trivially easy, as far as we know. You just need some paint, cloth, and 500 years...
 
The Blood

zooterkin said:
Speculation as to how the image on the shroud was produced is completely separate from whether it is actually the shroud of Jesus. We know that it isn't the shroud of Jesus because it is 1400 years too new. You cannot turn things upside down and say that just because we don't know how the image was produced then the carbon dating must be wrong (although that is exactly what you seem to be saying).
Click to expand...
Zoo,
- You seem to be saying that the carbon dating has to be correct -- that there is no reasonable doubt here. I claim that only a bias can dismiss reasonable doubt in this situation.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Dinwar,
- I must admit that this is an interesting issue -- I had wondered about this myself, but had never asked anyone about it. If I can find the time, I'll see if someone has a good answer...
Click to expand...

Says the guy who claims he has been investigating the shroud for 20 years...
 
The Blood

pgwenthold said:
I don't understand why it would be necessary to use a dead body. If the image has been duplicated, it matters not whether there was a dead body being used.

Second, I actually agree with you. I don't accept claims that the image on the shroud has been duplicated. Because that is because of Dinwar's point #2 - WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL IMAGE LOOKED LIKE, so it is impossible to duplicate it. The only way we could duplicate the image on the shroud NOW would be to allow at least 500 years, because all reports are that the image on the shroud is a result of an original image and at least 500 years of time.

So no, I don't agree that we have reproduced the image on the shroud.

However, before getting excited, note that since we don't know what the original image looked like, you cannot claim that it cannot be reproduced. Shoot, it could be trivially easy, as far as we know. You just need some paint, cloth, and 500 years...
Click to expand...
Pgwenthold,
- Interesting points to discuss, but will take awhile. I'll try to get back to them after I finish up responding to Dinwar's claims.
--- jabba
 
Jabba said:
Pgwenthold,
- Interesting points to discuss, but will take awhile. I'll try to get back to them
--- jabba
Click to expand...


There is nothing to discuss. We don't know what the original image looked like. Therefore, you cannot claim that we can't reproduce the image.
 
The Blood

Jabba:
- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do (we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work), and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body.
Dinwar said:
...Second, this isn't that tricky. We do it all the time...
Click to expand...
Dinwar,
- Show me when.
--- Jabba
 
The Blood

pgwenthold said:
There is nothing to discuss. We don't know what the original image looked like. Therefore, you cannot claim that we can't reproduce the image.
Click to expand...
pgwenthold,
- Another interesting point to discuss.
--- Jabba
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom