Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[IanS]

Squeegee,
- The links that Dave brought up have to do with the scourge marks.
- I'm trying to use the scourge marks to show that no one could forge the Shroud in the 14th century -- but, Dave's links seem to discredit the scourge marks.
--- Jabba

Just out of interest - when were these scourge marks first noticed?

Were they pointed out when the shroud was first seen around 1400AD?

Or is it only much more recently that someone notched these marks and said they were made by Roman soldiers flogging Jesus?

Who was it that first claimed these were scourge marks, and when did that claim first surface?

 

[catsmate]

Dinwar,
- The Sudarium appears to be the face cloth from Jesus' tomb. It's just a cloth full of old blood that appears to ^{match perfectly with the Shroud}. It is documented back to the 6th or 7th century. Now will you track it down on Google? Google has all sorts of info.

Evidence for these claims? Or are you just wasting our time again?

Squeegee,
- The links that Dave brought up have to do with the scourge marks.
- I'm trying to use the scourge marks to show that no one could forge the Shroud in the 14th century -- but, Dave's links seem to discredit the scourge marks.
--- Jabba

No. The supposed blood is irrelevant to the radiocarbon dating. Remember? The thing you claimed you were addressing.

And the scourge marks have nothing to do with the C14 dating. What you need is some peer-reviewed science.

There's a pitiful lack of such supporting the authenticity of the shroud.

When you speak of the Sudarium of Oviedo, you're talking about this - right? It's a browncloth with some stains on it. So, what?

Exactly.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

No, there isn't. It wasn't that long ago that I attended Easter services, and the readings quite clearly and unambiguously state that the head-cloth was lying separately from the rest of the shroud when they found the tomb empty. At minimum, that means that the head was wrapped with a separate cloth. Where is that separate cloth, Jabba? Or is the Bible wrong--and therefore a useless reference? It's one or the other for your side--either the shroud is right and the Bible wrong, or the Bible is right and the shroud a fake. (My side holds that both are fakes, so it's a moot point.)

- Note that by giving in and responding to Dinwar's post, I stirred up a hornet's nest -- giving me numerous more 'stings' to deal with, when I was already overwhelmed by numerous new stings from Dave's #3913.
- So, once again, I'll try to resist the temptation to defend my whole perimeter -- and focus, instead, upon one 'small' front at a time. Back to 3913...
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

Originally Posted by davefoc (3913)
...

This site is a skeptical view of the "scourge marks":
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehyp...roud-of-turin/

The author makes a few interesting points that provides daunting evidence against the notion that the "scourge marks" are scourge marks:
1. The claim in that the scourge marks were produced by Roman flagrum which was a whip that had little balls attached to the end of the whip cords. The portion of the whip cord between the little balls is allegedly visible in the shroud image but what is missing is any sign of the whip cord itself that is closer to the handle part of the whip than where the balls are. Somehow the person allegedly doing the whipping causes the end of the whip (including the balls and the whip cord between them) to touch the body of the victim without ever leaving an impression of the whip cord that lies nearer the handle than where the balls are attached…

Dave,
- It sure seems to me that such makes sense – remember using a rolled up towel as a whip in the locker room? It was only the very end that you wanted to pop your "friend" with. Not only was that probably the technique typically used with the flagrum by the Roman soldiers, but the ends of their whips were heavier than the rest of the cord. In addition, the portion of the whip cord between the little balls was possibly (probably?) thinner than the rest of the cord, and therefore more likely to cut.
--- Jabba

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Note that by giving in and responding to Dinwar's post, I stirred up a hornet's nest -- giving me numerous more 'stings' to deal with, when I was already overwhelmed by numerous new stings from Dave's #3913.

If you're feeling overwhelmed, I'd suggest dealing with the core issue of the C14 dating. What you need is scientific evidence that it wasn't valid.

- So, once again, I'll try to resist the temptation to defend my whole perimeter -- and focus, instead, upon one 'small' front at a time. Back to 3913...
--- Jabba

Or, even better, back to discussing the C14 dating, rather than this dishonest tangent.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- It sure seems to me that such makes sense – remember using a rolled up towel as a whip in the locker room? It was only the very end that you wanted to pop your "friend" with. Not only was that probably the technique typically used with the flagrum by the Roman soldiers, but the ends of their whips were heavier than the rest of the cord. In addition, the portion of the whip cord between the little balls was possibly (probably?) thinner than the rest of the cord, and therefore more likely to cut.
--- Jabba

*sigh*

So now you are claiming that your a Roman flagellator would have wielded a scourge the way a schoolboy flicks a towel? Have you thought about this at all? Try it: roll three rat-tails; dip the ends in water; pop them against a wall, being sure that only the tips touch the wall. Compare the marks made on the wall to the "scourge marks" on the shroud.

Or, you could research how flails have been wielded since ancient Egypt.

Or, you could acquire an actual flail. and try to wield it in the flicking manner you need to have happened for your claim to make any sense.

Or, you could simply explain how marks that were not made by a flail used in a way that flails are not; marks appearing on the non-anatomical stylyized representation of a figure; marks not comprised of, nor containing blood; marks appearing on a cloth in a way that obviates any possibility that the representation was transferred to the cloth when it was wrapped around the non-anatomical stylized figure in question...

...have any kind of probative value at ALL against the ¹⁴C dates arrived at independently by three labs.

Because you STILL have not dealt with the dates...

 

[zooterkin]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

You keep entering that, and then start talking about something completely different, such as:

- Note that by giving in and responding to Dinwar's post, I stirred up a hornet's nest -- giving me numerous more 'stings' to deal with, when I was already overwhelmed by numerous new stings from Dave's #3913.
- So, once again, I'll try to resist the temptation to defend my whole perimeter -- and focus, instead, upon one 'small' front at a time. Back to 3913...
--- Jabba

Do you think you could just focus on the carbon dating? Can you give one serious reason why it might be inaccurate, apart from wishful thinking?

 

[Dinwar]

- It sure seems to me that such makes sense

That's our immediate cue to be highly skeptical. Your idea of sense has been demonstrated to be wrong many, many times.

remember using a rolled up towel as a whip in the locker room? It was only the very end that you wanted to pop your "friend" with.

A whip isn't a rolled-up towel. You want a length of the fall to hit the guy in some cases; in others, not so much. It depends on the type of whip. Besides, it's inevitable that SOME of the fall after the tip will hit, merely from the angles the whip will be at when the guy's whipped. Again, you can see this yourself in nearly any city if you ask the right folks.

Not only was that probably the technique typically used with the flagrum by the Roman soldiers,

Which document did you read this in? This is a bit of archaeological data which we almost certainly have; therefore it's insane to take your word for it, particularly since you seem to have no experience with actual whips.

None of this negates the C14 dating, as all of this technology was readily available to everyone since long before Rome. I can buy cat-o'-nines quite easily today, and whips were FAR more common in the Middle Ages. Finding someone who'd been whipped to lay on the cloth, or to model for the cloth, would have been a trivial task--or the monk could have done it to himself to begin with (enough of them did it that it wouldn't have appeared out of place).

 

[pakeha]

Oh, Jabba.
What do scourge marks or possible bloodstains even matter if the cloth is dated to the 14th century?
But now that we're here, l have a question:
Why would anyone imagine there could ever be any difficulty whatsoever in finding someone to flog in any given century?

Anyway, while Jabba considers the implications of scourging through the ages, allow me to remind our gentle readers that 2012 is the 500th anniversary of the Isenheim Altarpiece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isenheim_Altarpiece

This remarkable work includes my favourite depiction of a musician, an awesome Resurrection and possibly the most hideous cruxifixion ever painted.
Grunewald's depiction of the scourge marks merits special attention in the context of the discussion.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

Originally Posted by davefoc (3913)
...

This site is a skeptical view of the "scourge marks":
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehyp...roud-of-turin/

The author makes a few interesting points that provides daunting evidence against the notion that the "scourge marks" are scourge marks:
…2. His most devastating argument that the "scourge marks" are not scourge marks is his observation that the "scourge marks" lie on the body and and across the edge of the arms. This would only be possible if the victim held his arms the way they are shown in the shroud image while he was being whipped...

Dave,
- To be honest, I don't follow his logic. Couldn't the victim be suspended from a horizontal bar (without the vertical "bar" in the middle) in much the same way as he was suspended from the cross, and scourged from both front and back -- and, exhibit the same marks? Superficially at least, I can't see why not.
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

Superficially at least, I can't see why not.

Given the state of your knowledge, that's hardly surprising.

Here's the thing: Romans had systematic, institutionalized and formalized ways of beating people. They are well-documented, and were part of the normal legal process. It's the equivalent of our cross-examination in terms of how surprised any Roman was when they were used. Several major Roman senators even argued that without using specific techniques the testamony of certain groups should be declared inadmissible.

We know what those marks look like. It's easy enough to determine how they'd look if the limbs were moved. And they DO NOT look like the shroud. If you look up Roman whipping techniques, you'll see why quite quickly.

Also, Roman floggings tended to be powerful enough to knock people over. They actually used that systematically to dislocate arms and legs (while suspending you from said limbs--Romans weren't nice people). I'd love to see someone try to do that with just the tip of the falls on a cat.

 

[pakeha]

^
I did a quick search on flogging techniques but had to desist rather early on- the photos of the Philippine penitents were too much for me.

This reminds me, however, why I find the mentality of the pro-authenticity defenders to be like that of CT believers. They both seem to rely on rumour and half truths and pseudo-science which never stand up to examination.

 

[Aepervius]

^
I did a quick search on flogging techniques but had to desist rather early on- the photos of the Philippine penitents were too much for me.

This reminds me, however, why I find the mentality of the pro-authenticity defenders to be like that of CT believers. They both seem to rely on rumour and half truths and pseudo-science which never stand up to examination.

IMHO they rely on rumor and half truth, because they , subconsciously or not, realize that their claim would rapidely fall apart if they try to research more solid data.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

Oh, Jabba.
What do scourge marks or possible bloodstains even matter if the cloth is dated to the 14th century?
But now that we're here, l have a question:
Why would anyone imagine there could ever be any difficulty whatsoever in finding someone to flog in any given century...

Pakeha,
- In regard to your last question: I don’t know. We humans are still pretty barbaric -- and surely, we were more barbaric in the 14th century than we are now. That isn’t my issue.
- However, the probability of there being a person of the 14th century (or, a group of such persons) 1) willing to do the necessary flogging, 2) able to place the flogging and other wounds so accurately (including a couple of non-traditional -- but probably correct -- details), and 3) somehow able to get the image transferred, and transferred so effectively to the Shroud, should be damned small.
- In other words, if we are stuck with an imprint (which we would be if I'm right about the serum clot retraction rings), rather than a painting, the probability is quite large that the Shroud is that of Jesus, and the 14th century dating is just wrong.
--- Jabba

 

[Resume]

- In other words, if we are stuck with an imprint (which we would be if I'm right about the serum clot retraction rings), rather than a painting, the probability is quite large that the Shroud is that of Jesus, and the 14th century dating is just wrong.
--- Jabba

I'm guessing probability is a term with which you lack a certain familiarity.

That's what I'm guessing.

 

[Aepervius]

Pakeha,
- In regard to your last question: I don’t know. We humans are still pretty barbaric -- and surely, we were more barbaric in the 14th century than we are now. That isn’t my issue.
- However, the probability of there being a person of the 14th century (or, a group of such persons) 1) willing to do the necessary flogging, 2) able to place the flogging and other wounds so accurately (including a couple of non-traditional -- but probably correct -- details), and 3) somehow able to get the image transferred, and transferred so effectively to the Shroud, should be damned small.
- In other words, if we are stuck with an imprint (which we would be if I'm right about the serum clot retraction rings), rather than a painting, the probability is quite large that the Shroud is that of Jesus, and the 14th century dating is just wrong.
--- Jabba

"1) willing to do the necessary flogging,"

That is the msot STUPID statement I read in a few days.

People FLOG themselves in spain and philippine all the time each easter.

People were FLOGGING themselves to "repent" their sin during the whole middle age.

"2) able to place the flogging and other wounds so accurately (including a couple of non-traditional -- but probably correct -- details), "

That is the most pretty stupid things I read since... 10 seconds.

IF you use the same type of whip there is no reason to have JC flogging look differentely than any other flogging.

"3) somehow able to get the image transferred, "

Yeah and transffered without lateral deformation of the image as one would expect. But i don't expect you to pick that one up.

Soooooo how about that 14C dating ?

"- In other words, if we are stuck with an imprint (which we would be if I'm right about the serum clot retraction rings), rather than a painting, the probability is quite large that the Shroud is that of Jesus, and the 14th century dating is just wrong."

Non Sequitur. Look that one up.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

Given the state of your knowledge, that's hardly surprising.

Here's the thing: Romans had systematic, institutionalized and formalized ways of beating people. They are well-documented, and were part of the normal legal process. It's the equivalent of our cross-examination in terms of how surprised any Roman was when they were used. Several major Roman senators even argued that without using specific techniques the testamony of certain groups should be declared inadmissible.

We know what those marks look like. It's easy enough to determine how they'd look if the limbs were moved. And they DO NOT look like the shroud. If you look up Roman whipping techniques, you'll see why quite quickly.
Also, Roman floggings tended to be powerful enough to knock people over. They actually used that systematically to dislocate arms and legs (while suspending you from said limbs--Romans weren't nice people). I'd love to see someone try to do that with just the tip of the falls on a cat.

Dinwar,
- Can you point me to a specific link showing the whipping techniques? So far, the only conflict I've found between standard Roman techniques and what we see on the Shroud is that (according to what I read), the arms and forearms were usually spared from the flogging due to the way the victim was suspended during the flogging.
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,
- In regard to your last question: I don’t know. We humans are still pretty barbaric -- and surely, we were more barbaric in the 14th century than we are now. That isn’t my issue.
- However, the probability of there being a person of the 14th century (or, a group of such persons) 1) willing to do the necessary flogging, 2) able to place the flogging and other wounds so accurately (including a couple of non-traditional -- but probably correct -- details), and 3) somehow able to get the image transferred, and transferred so effectively to the Shroud, should be damned small.
- In other words, if we are stuck with an imprint (which we would be if I'm right about the serum clot retraction rings), rather than a painting, the probability is quite large that the Shroud is that of Jesus, and the 14th century dating is just wrong.
--- Jabba

I simply cannot believe you take 1) seriously.
2) and 3) have been dealt with already.
Or have you forgotten the posts I've drawn your attention to?

We already know the serum clot retraction rings are nothing more than figments of imagination.
Have you really forgotten the discussion at the Atheists' Forum?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

I'm guessing probability is a term with which you lack a certain familiarity.

That's what I'm guessing.

Resume,
- Obviously, this will only meet with derision, but I can't resist pointing it out anyway -- I'm actually a certified Statistician, and LOVE probability. Take a look at
http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php,
http://messiahornot.com/Act2Scene2.php and
http://messiahornot.com/Virtually1.php
-- if you dare.
--- Jabba

 

[wollery]

Resume,
- Obviously, this will only meet with derision, but I can't resist pointing it out anyway -- I'm actually a certified Statistician, and LOVE probability. Take a look at
http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php,

Once you've drawn an ace from a normal pack of cards the probability of drawing a second ace is 3/51, not 1/13. The 3rd ace is 2/50 (1/25) and 4th ace is 1/49.

Colour me unimpressed with your statistical abilities.