Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or to put a WS turn to this darned thread:
Methought I heard a voice cry 'Sleep no more!
Macbeth does murder sleep', the innocent sleep,
Sleep that knits up the ravell'd sleeve of care,
The death of each day's life, sore labour's bath,
Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course,
Chief nourisher in life's feast,
Click to expand...
 
IanS said:
Why would anyone in the 15th century (or whenever) bother to attempt an invisible repair on a completely insignificant corner of the shroud in a non-image area?

Was it supposed to be trial run to see if it worked well enough to apply to important damaged areas of the image?

Well it certainly seems to have worked well enough, because even now with 21st century science we still can’t detect any such repair.

Or perhaps shroud believers think that the shroud is full of invisible repairs ... do they think we are looking at a shroud which is now just one enormous invisible repair :D
Click to expand...

Yes, if we accept that there can be invisible reweaving the the whole shroud could have been reweaved many times.
 
tsig said:
Yes, if we accept that there can be invisible reweaving the the whole shroud could have been reweaved many times.
Click to expand...

Oh no, you have given them a completely new conspiracy theory.

This isn't the original and true shroud but a replacement put there to fool impertinent scientists. :boxedin:
 
Perfect, perfect.
Was the switch done with the 'da Vinci' replicate?
Or when the cloth was translated to Turin?
 
pakeha said:
Perfect, perfect.
Was the switch done with the 'da Vinci' replicate?
Or when the cloth was translated to Turin?
Click to expand...

The conman mentioned by the Bishop of Troyes was in fact a counterfeiter. He copied the original and True shroud to produce the Turin Shroud.

The original is obviously held as a secret relic by the Illuminati at the Rosslyn Chapel. This can be proved by folding a dollar bill in a certain way, when it shows a picture of the shroud.
 
Acleron said:
Oh no, you have given them a completely new conspiracy theory.

This isn't the original and true shroud but a replacement put there to fool impertinent scientists. :boxedin:
Click to expand...


Yep ... it's like the creationist explanation for fossils - God made them and put them in the ground deliberately to start fooling people ... he does it test your faith.
 
I thought it bizarre that this thread was still going and approaching 100 pages. So. I went back to the OP and clicked on the shroudie link, and - sweet Jesus in a pepperoni pizza! - was I impressed . . . by how self-deceptive pattern recognition can be. What was especially absurd were the supposed images in clouds, etc. (often turned sideways) of Jesus, Mary, etc.

Let me suggest that the same absurdity is at work in just about every argument for dating the Shroud of Turin to the first century. So, why are we even talking about this?
 
Yes, the OP's link is a fascinating testimony what the mind can be brought to see, isn't it?
As I recall, there's even Father Christmas.
 
TimCallahan said:
I thought it bizarre that this thread was still going and approaching 100 pages. So. I went back to the OP and clicked on the shroudie link, and - sweet Jesus in a pepperoni pizza! - was I impressed . . . by how self-deceptive pattern recognition can be. What was especially absurd were the supposed images in clouds, etc. (often turned sideways) of Jesus, Mary, etc.

Let me suggest that the same absurdity is at work in just about every argument for dating the Shroud of Turin to the first century. So, why are we even talking about this?
Click to expand...

We talk about it 'cause as far as "infinite loop thread" goes, we prefer talking about the shroudies, than the bigfooter, the 9/11 truther, the new testament truther, the birther, knoxer, and other wacky multi dozen page threads :p.
 
Last edited:
Just read up on the thread. I think something needs to be clarified:

Yes, the C14 result may be false. Depending on how you calculate it, there is about 0.01% - 0.1% probability that it is false in some way.

So there might be an invisible reweave in the patch, using newer fibres, or there might be enough contamination with modern material, or there might be deliberate (and very cleverly executed) fraud.

All these things are possible, they are just not very likely.

However, this is what science works: When we have a set of solid evidence, it is considered conclusive pending even more conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Thus, it does not matter one bit what Jabba or anybody else feels, thinks, would like, or supposes.

There is simply no reason to discuss it. Unless somebody presents a smoking gun, or repeats the C14 analysis, in at least as valid a way and gets a conflicting result, the C14 trumphs all other evidence. - Especially as all other evidence is mainly speculation.

What I simply fail to understand is why these people cling so desperately to the shroud story. After all, this has nothing to do with religion; it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus Son of God. Even in the very best instance it just might prove the existence of a historical Jesus, but no more than that.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Just read up on the thread. I think something needs to be clarified:

Yes, the C14 result may be false. Depending on how you calculate it, there is about 0.01% - 0.1% probability that it is false in some way.

So there might be an invisible reweave in the patch, using newer fibres, or there might be enough contamination with modern material, or there might be deliberate (and very cleverly executed) fraud.

All these things are possible, they are just not very likely.

However, this is what science works: When we have a set of solid evidence, it is considered conclusive pending even more conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Thus, it does not matter one bit what Jabba or anybody else feels, thinks, would like, or supposes.

There is simply no reason to discuss it. Unless somebody presents a smoking gun, or repeats the C14 analysis, in at least as valid a way and gets a conflicting result, the C14 trumphs all other evidence. - Especially as all other evidence is mainly speculation.

What I simply fail to understand is why these people cling so desperately to the shroud story. After all, this has nothing to do with religion; it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus Son of God. Even in the very best instance it just might prove the existence of a historical Jesus, but no more than that.

Hans
Click to expand...



I suspect that Christian shroud believers (and afaik, the vast majority are committed Christians) actually do believe that an authentic shroud is (or would be) highly reassuring to them as evidence of a biblical Jesus.

Given that the historical written evidence is so vanishingly weak (eg the devotional writing of the gospels), and the fact there appears to be no physical evidence of Jesus, they probably see the shroud as an absolutely huge piece of evidence.

They may be living in dreamland, but what else is new!?

Religious people can rarely if ever bring themselves to admit the truth about anything which appears to go against the credibility of their faith in God, Jesus and the bible (ditto faith in Mohamed and the Koran).
 
IanS said:
I suspect that Christian shroud believers (and afaik, the vast majority are committed Christians) actually do believe that an authentic shroud is (or would be) highly reassuring to them as evidence of a biblical Jesus.

Given that the historical written evidence is so vanishingly weak (eg the devotional writing of the gospels), and the fact there appears to be no physical evidence of Jesus, they probably see the shroud as an absolutely huge piece of evidence.

They may be living in dreamland, but what else is new!?

Religious people can rarely if ever bring themselves to admit the truth about anything which appears to go against the credibility of their faith in God, Jesus and the bible (ditto faith in Mohamed and the Koran).
Click to expand...

Yes, you are probably right. What intrigues me is that this makes them closet skeptics; they really don't like to take that leap of faith, they would prefer evidence. It is the same with creationists trying to conjure evidence for creation: If you take the full leap of faith, God could easily have created Earth as it is 6,000 years ago (or yesterday, for that matter), but then why look for evidence?

... So maybe it is, after all, a good idea to keep hammering them with the lack of evidence. Who knows? Occasionally the odd one may actually come out of the closet. ;)

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Just read up on the thread. I think something needs to be clarified:

Yes, the C14 result may be false. Depending on how you calculate it, there is about 0.01% - 0.1% probability that it is false in some way.

So there might be an invisible reweave in the patch, using newer fibres, or there might be enough contamination with modern material, or there might be deliberate (and very cleverly executed) fraud.

All these things are possible, they are just not very likely.

However, this is what science works: When we have a set of solid evidence, it is considered conclusive pending even more conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Thus, it does not matter one bit what Jabba or anybody else feels, thinks, would like, or supposes.

There is simply no reason to discuss it. Unless somebody presents a smoking gun, or repeats the C14 analysis, in at least as valid a way and gets a conflicting result, the C14 trumphs all other evidence. - Especially as all other evidence is mainly speculation.

What I simply fail to understand is why these people cling so desperately to the shroud story. After all, this has nothing to do with religion; it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus Son of God. Even in the very best instance it just might prove the existence of a historical Jesus, but no more than that.

Hans
Click to expand...

What would another C14 analysis achieve? It would only stop the deniers if the result came out at 0030AD and that is extremely unlikely.
 
Acleron said:
What would another C14 analysis achieve? It would only stop the deniers if the result came out at 0030AD and that is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

My point was that it took something as solid as a new C14 to refute the first one.

Since I have not see even one half-convincing argument for the first one being wrong, I personally see no reason for another, but the believers might want to give it a try.

Hans
 
Acleron said:
What would another C14 analysis achieve? It would only stop the deniers if the result came out at 0030AD and that is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...
Actually several of the radiocarbon analyses showed as age of ~2,000 years BP; alas for the shroudies they were from one of the controls, an Egyption mummy shroud, and independently dated to the same range.
 
Acleron said:
What would another C14 analysis achieve? It would only stop the deniers if the result came out at 0030AD and that is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

I've often wondered why the pro-authenticity proponents didn't manage to convince the Vatican that the massive restoration in 2002 wasn't the perfect opportunity to obtain material under the most stringent conditions to perform a C14 dating.

It wouldn't be because the Vatican accepts the findings of those three labs, would it?
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, you are probably right. What intrigues me is that this makes them closet skeptics; they really don't like to take that leap of faith, they would prefer evidence. It is the same with creationists trying to conjure evidence for creation: If you take the full leap of faith, God could easily have created Earth as it is 6,000 years ago (or yesterday, for that matter), but then why look for evidence?

... So maybe it is, after all, a good idea to keep hammering them with the lack of evidence. Who knows? Occasionally the odd one may actually come out of the closet. ;)
Hans
Click to expand...

Okay, that's a good point and a good reason to keep talking about the shroud; i.e. it's the same as continuing to talk about creationism. Shroudies and creationists both constitute communities of faithlessness as opposed to communities of faith; or, as you put it, they're closet skeptics. Each group wants to prove Christianity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom