Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Dinwar]

Jabba:
- I'll leave it at that for now.
Dinwar,
- I think you're doing the same when you say, "The C14 data proves it's from the 14th century...
--- Jabba

~sigh~

There are two differences between your statements and mine, Jabba. First, my statements are backed by research, data, and experiments. C14 has been widely tested as a way to date artifacts, using multiple methods (dendochronology, coral growth rings, and I myself have tested it using optically stimulated luminescence). There has been no data presented proving that the sample taken was anything but representative (your WAGs don't count--the word "data" is the key word here). Three independent labs did the work under the closest observation of any archaeological dating in history. The Vatican itself accepts the C14 dating, for the reasons I do. In short, there's a huge amount of support for the C14 data being correct. In contrast, the support for the notion that the C14 dating is somehow flawed is limited to you speculating wildly without any evidence or even any understanding of what you're talking about (seriously, you don't get that the Bible was widely read in THE AGE OF FAITH).

Second, I'm actually qualified to discuss radiometric dating methods. I'm not giving a mere opinion here, but an expert opinion. Sure, there are far better experts than me--I certainly don't pretend to be a nuclear geochemist or the like. But I have used these methods in my professional life, and put a fair amount of time into studying them. That means that my utilization of Type One logic (going off the nomenclature used in the "Straw Vulcan" lecture--highly recommend it for anyone who hasn't seen it) is actually valid. You, on the other hand, don't even know that radiometric decay rates follow a geometric path--something I've literally taught grade school kids, using 100 pennies and a box. Your gut feelings are actually quite irrelevant, as you don't know jack about the system.

So, the tl;dr version:

1) I'm not doing what you're accusing me of doing, because I actually have provided evidence and data to back my arguments up; and
2) Even if I was you're grossly characterizing what's being done.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Mumbo-jumbo

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

The time has long since passed when anything you claim was worthy of discussion.

All you're doing now is waving your arms around and yelling "Shroud real! Shroud real!"

It's pretty pathetic to watch.

 

[wollery]

Zoo,
- No. You just proved your own bias by insisting that there is no reasonable doubt.
--- Jabba

There is no known method of patching a cloth that is invisible to the naked eye from both sides of the cloth, and none at all that is actually undetectable to experts making a close examination. The area of cloth in question was examined by several textile experts who all agree that there was no patch.

The area of cloth was independently tested by three laboratories who all agree on the date as being between 1260 and 1390.

In order for a 1st century cloth to be contaminated by modern material sufficient to give a C14 date of 1260 to 1390 it would have to be 75% (or more) contaminant and just 25% original cloth. The samples were carefully washed before testing.

So, no, there's no "reasonable" doubt about the C14 dating.

None at all.

Any doubt you may have about it is utterly unreasonable.

 

[wollery]

Dinwar,
- If I understand what you're saying, you're forgetting the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds. And, to get such detail of these wounds would seem to be impossible if the "artist" had to lift the Shroud off the body.
--- Jabba

That's your hypothesis. One that isn't supported by any evidence at all.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Gibberish

Jabba:
- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.

...The reason you can say this is the reason that anyone who wanted to could reproduce the image: IT IS WRITTEN DOWN. ANY literate person in the Middle Ages could have read the description and gone "Hey, I know how to do that!"...

Dinwar,
- Could be that you have a point here... I would need time to dig up and confirm the different claims.

Another 20 years?

- Here's the best I can do for now:
1) According to the claims of various experts, the number of scourge wounds is right on target, done with roman flagrums of the first century, by two different persons, of differing height, from both sides.

I'll be interested to read (in the peer reviewed publications that contain the findings of these experts) where they got the control subject, the equipment and the Roman legionnaires to conduct the experiments which underpin these claims.

2) The spear wound is right on target for insuring that the victim is dead and for producing the appropriate blood and "water."

Why are you unable to see that the description in the book that you're using to make this claim was also available to the person or persons who made the shroud in the 14th century?

3) The body had to be washed before the shroud was applied, and

So what?

4) The shroud had to be lifted without effecting the stains.
--- Jabba

I have a sneaking suspicion it's been lifted a few times since the 1300s.

What the hell are you really trying to say here?

 

[tsig]

Zoo,
- You think much too highly of your own objectivity...
--- Jabba

Nothing left but personal attacks? If you can't convince 'em denigrate 'em.

 

[Akhenaten]

That's your hypothesis. One that isn't supported by any evidence at all.

This touches on one of my greatest concerns with this thread.

Jabba has no compunction about reporting this discussion in other places as having been based on certain assumptions and hypotheses when the truth is that these assumptions and hypotheses are no more than WAGs on Jabba's part which have been universally rejected as utter nonsense by people who know what they're talking about.

 

[FFed]

Why do you so desperately need this shroud to be real? Is your whole faith suddenly invalidated if this shroud is fake?

 

[Akhenaten]

Why do you so desperately need this shroud to be real? Is your whole faith suddenly invalidated if this shroud is fake?

Which is pretty sad for Jabba because even if a miracle occurred (and that's what it would take) and the shroud could somehow be shown to be a product of the 1st century it would still take a leap of faith to conclude that it was the shroud of the alleged Jesus.

 

[tsig]

Sad

The time has long since passed when anything you claim was worthy of discussion.

All you're doing now is waving your arms around and yelling "Shroud real! Shroud real!"

It's pretty pathetic to watch.

When a man get's tied up to the ground

He gives the world it's saddest sound.

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric....nd-Garfunkel/26EECCEC8AF51B79482568960011F5D9

 

[abaddon]

Jabba:
- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.
Dinwar,
- Could be that you have a point here... I would need time to dig up and confirm the different claims.
- Here's the best I can do for now:
1) According to the claims of various experts, the number of scourge wounds is right on target, done with roman flagrums of the first century, by two different persons, of differing height, from both sides.
2) The spear wound is right on target for insuring that the victim is dead and for producing the appropriate blood and "water."
3) The body had to be washed before the shroud was applied, and 4) The shroud had to be lifted without effecting the stains.
--- Jabba

Sure, but wouldn't you know, jebus kept on bleeding.

ETA: Now that I think of it this means either

A: The shroud is fake

OR B: The shroud is real, jebus was not really dead and the resurrection is fake.

 

[Akhenaten]

Topical

When a man get's tied up to the ground

He gives the world it's saddest sound.

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric....nd-Garfunkel/26EECCEC8AF51B79482568960011F5D9

 

[pgwenthold]

If that is the hypothesis, we need to make predictions and test them.

So let's start: given Jabba's hypothesis, then the image on the shroud should look like X.

As I pointed out last night, the image on the shroud looks nothing like it should given his hypothesis of where it comes from. Therefore, Jabba's hypothesis is falsified.

That was easy. Now what is there to talk about?

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

Dave,
- Are you still around?
- I'm sure that you have reservations to what I've been saying. Just let me know one of them and I'll respond. If you want to provide more, just tell me which one you'd like me to address first.
--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

The 'None so Blind' Gambit.

Dave,
- Are you still around?
- I'm sure that you have reservations to what I've been saying. Just let me know one of them and I'll respond. If you want to provide more, just tell me which one you'd like me to address first.
--- Jabba

Dave's not here man.

What about responding to the many, many points that have been raised by the people who actually are here?

Like, for example, what do you have to say about it having been pointed out to you that the same biblical descriptions that you're using to claim that the shroud is authentic were obviously also available to someone wishing to produce a fake in the 14th century?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Dave,
- Are you still around?
- I'm sure that you have reservations to what I've been saying. Just let me know one of them and I'll respond. If you want to provide more, just tell me which one you'd like me to address first.
--- Jabba

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here's a question - Jabba, do you still consider your one in a billion doubt "reasonable"? If so, what would you consider an unreasonable doubt? 1 in 2b? 1 in a trillion?

 

[pgwenthold]

Dave's not here man.

What about responding to the many, many points that have been raised by the people who actually are here?

Like, for example, what do you have to say about it having been pointed out to you that the same biblical descriptions that you're using to claim that the shroud is authentic were obviously also available to someone wishing to produce a fake in the 14th century?

I'd take it even further. The bible clearly describes a headcloth, which means that the head should not show up. How can it do that?

There are so many aspects of the shroud that are completely contrary to the bible description of the burial of Jesus that it makes it very dangerous to tread down the road of looking to the bible for support.

In order to even consider the premise that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus, you have to accept that the bible description of it is not correct.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'd take it even further. The bible clearly describes a headcloth, which means that the head should not show up. How can it do that?

Yes, all of the gospel accounts of the burial describe it as having been carried out in accordance with the Jewish customs of the day, which most definitely involve a separate headcloth. The reason for this headcloth was to enable folks who weren't actually dead to be able to blow the cloth off and call for help if they woke up in the tomb. Measures like this to guard against premature burial were quite common in antiquity and also include revisting the tomb after three days to make sure the dear departed isn't a bit less departed than was at first suspected (although for some reason the various people who were described as coming to check up on the late Jesus turned up a day-and-a-half early).

There are so many aspects of the shroud that are completely contrary to the bible description of the burial of Jesus that it makes it very dangerous to tread down the road of looking to the bible for support.

Indeed. It certainly wasn't 'wrapped' or 'wound' about the a body as described in the gospel accounts.

In order to even consider the premise that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus, you have to accept that the bible description of it is not correct.

Next thing you'll be telling us the walking on water story was only make believe.

 

[Aepervius]

Dear, sweet, waltzing zombie Jesus on a biscuit-bicycle! How is this thread still going!? It seemed utterly dead when I last looked at it some 30 pages ago.

I would like to imaging that this is because Jabba has extracted a digit and started to actually engage in the dialogue that he spent so long setting up. I suspect I am fooling myself.

So - have I missed anything in the last half-a-thread?

I think jabba is going for a "victorey by boring people" type, where he is the only one posting in the thread bcause everybody else has given up trying to convince him. That might work in some forum, but this is JREF here. The only way to make us release a woo claim from our jaw, would be to shoot us dead : there is no chance that jabba atctic to regurgitate the argument until it sticks or we abandon will work.