Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Slowvehicle]

You're assuming particulars from generalities -- these descriptions are incompatible with the accounts of Christ's extremely hasty burial found in the Gospels (done in a great rush, because it was the Easter vigil).



Oh good grief bad KJV translations ...

ἔλαβον οὖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν.

acceperunt ergo corpus Iesu et ligaverunt eum linteis cum aromatibus sicut mos Iudaeis est sepelire

"clothes" ? nope. Linen and vegetable matter ? yep.

"Strips" of linen? Plural? (ὀθονίοις) Yep.
"Bound", "tied", "wound"? ( ἔδησαν) Yep.

"Great rush"? Only by broad implication.
Evidence of an hundredweight of myrrh and aloes? Not on the cloth...

 

[tsig]

The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.

I heard this today and looked up a link here....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...8/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

From the link:

Mr Fanti said the imprint was caused by a blast of “exceptional radiation”, although he stopped short of describing it as a miracle.

Looks like the "radiation of resurrection" story is being resurrected.

No miracle just something that can't be accounted for in the natural world.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The typical human body is not "cylindrical" ...

And there is some obvious image distortion on the image -- as would be obvious if some people were to stop and think about the internal incoherence of their ideas that the arms seem warped, and these suggestions that the image isn't.

The human body is much more cylindrical than flat.
I encourage you to try the demonstration with an anatomically correct (rather than a stylized Byzantine) mannequin. just use the head--it'll save time.

As has been pointed out to you, the ears will be displaced out from the midline of the face--by nearly half the width of the face itself.
And, no, that does not depend upon "tight" winding (although the text you quoted earlier uses the verb for bound, or tied), but upon simply draping a flat cloth on a highly-relieved object.

I didn't say that it belied the wrapping, I'm saying that it belies YOUR assumptions about how such a cloth must be wrapped.

"ἔδησαν" —" they bound"

"historically incorrect hair" ????

What on EARTH is that supposed to be ???

Wy would a 1st-century itinerant preacher wear his hair in a style from 1100 years later?

Your quibbles about blood flow appear to be completely irrelevant, as you cannot have any idea whatsoever about the positions that the corpse may have been in, nor the patterns of blood stains on the fabric that would emerge, prior to whatever imprint occurred onto the linen.

Your characterization of an understanding of simple physics as "irrelevant quibbles" is interesting.

If the body were laid out "καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν", it would have been washed before" ἔδησαν" it.
Blood does not continue to flow from a dead, washed body.
Blood does not flow along ringlets of hair, but soaks into it, particularly if the hair is wet.
The blood that would not have flower from a dead body, that would not have flowed along the hair, would not have flowed at right angles to gravity.

As has been pointed out to you, these things have been dealt with.

 

[Slowvehicle]

JP,

- When I first logged on here, I figure I was about 90% convinced that the Shroud was authentic. Until you logged on, my conviction had slipped to about 80%. Now, I figure it's about 85%...
- Attaching actual numbers is sort of foolish -- but yet, in reading my own mind, that's what I get.

- I have done a lot of reading about the Shroud over the last 40 years, but I never kept good track of it... I'm trying to now, but for me, doing so takes up a lot of time.
- Whatever, my conviction is based a lot upon a pile of stuff rather than the specific sources making up that pile. Consequently, when asked for sources, it takes me awhile to dig them up -- and in the meantime, numerous new questions and comments are being posed. Then, everyone gets upset with me for being so slow in coming up with evidence.

- Glad you joined in -- it's also good to have one open mind on the thread.

--- Jabba

RICH:

How do you plan to deal with the fact that your statement, "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective", is demonstrably untrue?

If you do not admit to its falsity, then justify it with proof.

If you cannot justify it, then repudiate it with an apology.

You can't just leave it hanging.

 

[tsig]

I've seen this analytical fallacy multiple times -- you are assuming a priori that the Shroud must have been tightly wrapped around the corpse, rather than loosely -- except that the image on the Shroud belies this assumption. ergo the assumption is wrong.

Second, the analysis states that the blood stains are not those that were on the body -- but those that ARE on the surface of the Shroud itself. It is TOTALLY UNSURPRISING that blood stains on a fabric from contact with wounds will not resemble blood stains on either a living body or a corpse.

Since the appearance of the wounds is what lends credence to the shroud you would seem to have debunked the shroud.

 

[Slowvehicle]

If you're going to accuse members in here of "untenable, insulting, demonstrably dishonest claims", don't you think it would be wise to refrain from making similar claims yourself ?

Please to demonstrate the unbroken chain of possession of the supposed threads taken (without authorization) and tested.

Declaring authenticity of a thread without provenance is, in fact, untenable.
You might want to consider which claim I characterized as insulting and demonstrably dishonest...

Not that it matters, but might I as why you chose what you chose as your nym?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Belz,
- I can't PROVE anything. Though, I think that I can substantiate a lot. Though at this point, I'm not sure exactly what you want me to substantiate. Obviously, you don't want me to substantiate that everyone involved accepted that the attempt to "blind" was unsuccessful (ineffective) -- which is all I was trying to say.
--- Jabba

Rich:

It is simple. I want you to substantiate that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective".

 

[tsig]

The typical human body is not "cylindrical" ...

And there is some obvious image distortion on the image -- as would be obvious if some people were to stop and think about the internal incoherence of their ideas that the arms seem warped, and these suggestions that the image isn't.



I didn't say that it belied the wrapping, I'm saying that it belies YOUR assumptions about how such a cloth must be wrapped.



"historically incorrect hair" ????

What on EARTH is that supposed to be ???

Your quibbles about blood flow appear to be completely irrelevant, as you cannot have any idea whatsoever about the positions that the corpse may have been in, nor the patterns of blood stains on the fabric that would emerge, prior to whatever imprint occurred onto the linen.

Jesus on a rotisserie?

 

[Aepervius]

Several news reports this morning mentioning the Shroud because of a new book again claiming that the radiocarbon tests were done on the "replaced" areas and that the shroud actually dates to Jesus' time....
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/29/shroud-turin-dates-back-to-jesus-era-study-says/

One article mentions that the researcher (an Italian...) used "spectrographic" techniques to assist his analysis.

Sounds like same-old-same-old... The Shroud enthusiasts, like Creationists, simply will not give up.

It comes up on regular basis, and the cynic in me tells that this come up for easter not by accident.

 

[tsig]

You're comparing two extreme scenarios -- that of the 19th-21st century photographic image, devoid of all distortions ; and the full body-wrap method of maximum distortions.

Why are you assuming that it must be either the one or the other extreme ?

It doesn't make sense.

I can see people OT1H denying that it can be the real image of a corpse because it's distorted ; OTOH denting that it can be an imprint because it isn't ...

The History Channel documentary provides the only realistically acceptable solution that I've yet to see, that it is a partially distorted imprint.

Why is this so hard for some people to even conceive of ?



The dating is HARDLY the most interesting thing about the Shroud, IMO

The dating is the only thing unless you're into studying medieval forgeries.

 

[Aepervius]

There are several inter-related problems, but that is the biggest one, yes.

Bad C¹⁴ datings have nevertheless been identified in the past.

I am NOT claiming that this is necessarily the case with the Shroud, but I do accept that the theory merits some examination.

Bad SINGLE 14C dating may have been identified, but there is no evidence that the sample taken was bad, and there were three 14C dating leading to a similar result.

Now you have to argue that THREE dating in independent labs went bad or try to say the sample was a new modern patch (which expert says is not).

I am sorry but with the evidence known, the 14C dating are the best and unexpugnable evidence that the shroud is barely 800 years old.

Unless you have PROPER evidence against those 14C dating, the rest (pollen, and whatever the rest) has zero impact.

BTW ultraviolet was not the single technic to reproduce the shroud. There are in this thread a few shroud alike which are near enough for the time invested to demonstrate this is doable by an artisan / painter of teh epoch.

 

[Aepervius]

I've seen this analytical fallacy multiple times -- you are assuming a priori that the Shroud must have been tightly wrapped around the corpse, rather than loosely -- except that the image on the Shroud belies this assumption. ergo the assumption is wrong.

Second, the analysis states that the blood stains are not those that were on the body -- but those that ARE on the surface of the Shroud itself. It is TOTALLY UNSURPRISING that blood stains on a fabric from contact with wounds will not resemble blood stains on either a living body or a corpse.

E,mphasis mine : your apriori is wrong. I assume no tight i assumed loose in fact putting the absorbing paper around my head was loose (I did not press, I did not do anything except let it fall vertically on my face).

If I had put it tight , the spacial distortion would have been up to my ears making an even wider distortion , rather than the small bit I had , it would be more than 60 or 80% wider.

Your assumption are wrong.

Secondely please read the blood stain stuff in this thread. 1) it is not evidenced it is blood 2) it does not look like blood in hair for many rason.

 

[Aepervius]

We're not discussing a contamination of Carbon -- it's a potential contamination of C¹⁴ isotopes specifically.

What is the Mass of C¹⁴ isotopes that would affect the Carbon dating by +1300 years relative to the Mass of the linen fragments in question, assuming that these fragments were 1950 years old ?

Now it is even worst. You would have to contaminate with a single isotope when in nature and abck 800 (or 2000) years ago both are mixed. Unless you are going to pretend a new physic phenomenon, that is not going to happen. But by the way this was already answered up thread. You would need 50% modern carbon, which has a definite quantity of 14C. So take the weight of the sample, using the formula for cotton I gave, approximate that it is 100% pure cotton, take 1/2 for 50% , and you will get the number of carbon, multiply by the amount of 14C in carbon and you will get the contamination necessary.

But again, 14C contamination never happen alone so you are off a goose chase. You would need first to come up with a reason why 14C alone contaminated the shroud before calculating that.

 

[Aepervius]

Why is this a "sidetrack" -- is this thread about the radiocarbon dating exclusively ???

Otherwise, your scenario strikes me as being farfetched and unlikely.

It is a sidetrack because most "dating" method mentionned like pollen and so forth are actually not recognized to be dating method which are as precise as 14C , or not even counted as dating method at all.


Which is why it is a sidetrack.

 

[Aepervius]

OK, so these images are supposed to demonstrate what, exactly?

Funny things is that the linen picture show clearly that the linen cloth fall on the SIDE of the face, which should show a distortion but does not. Their own simulation of a cloth clearly shows it could not have happened that way.

 

[IanS]

No, I've seen it demonstrated.

I've had this argument before, with others, elsewhere.

I think many people simply do not realise how burial shrouds were actually used in 1st century Palestine.

Ironically, in my experience the same people who like to claim "anatomical impossibility" are often quite happy to link to URLs detailing experiments recreating images similar to the Shroud by wrapping living volunteers up with similar linen sheets plus whatever tinctures.

How did a detailed image of the entire body get transferred to the shroud?

The "ironic" examples you allude to above, were all attempts to re-create the shroud using such things as paint pigments. They were attempts to show how an artist/faker might have created the shroud in the 14th century. But if the shroud is really the burial cloth of Jesus, then the question is ...

... how could an image of Jesus appear on the shroud?

Afaik, bodily fluids inc. blood would not produce that sort of detailed full body image (front and back!) merely from the cloth covering a dead body for 2 or 3 days in a room.

Are there any examples of that ever happening?

Also ... you did not answer my earlier question asking if you are going to present real scientific papers to support any scientific claims you make?

To repeat that point - since the C14 dating and it's publication in a real research journal, it is certainly no use at all claiming to refute that publication merely by referencing pro-shroud books etc.

You must produce real published independent science papers if you want to contest the real independent science paper reporting the C14 results.

If you don’t have any genuine research papers contesting the C14, then you actually do not have any valid “evidence” (published beliefs of Christian shroud fanatics do not count as comparable valid scientific evidence).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Also ... you did not answer my earlier question asking if you are going to present real scientific papers to support any scientific claims you make?

To repeat that point - since the C14 dating and it's publication in a real research journal, it is certainly no use at all claiming to refute that publication merely by referencing pro-shroud books etc.

You must produce real published independent science papers if you want to contest the real independent science paper reporting the C14 results.

If you don’t have any genuine research papers contesting the C14, then you actually do not have any valid “evidence” (published beliefs of Christian shroud fanatics do not count as comparable valid scientific evidence).

He was asked to provide published science on the other thread and came up with a link to a pro-authenticity wiki. He then claimed that publishing a book or presenting a paper at a conference counted as peer-review.

He seems to have a very strange view of what science is and how it's done.

But, then, he's also used the word "sceptic" pejoratively, so we'll see how this thread goes. I'd say that that suggests an exit strategy already in place.

 

[Jabba]

Rich:

It is simple. I want you to substantiate that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective".

Slowvehicle,
- I think that you want me to substantiate that everyone involved accepted that the control samples were totally ineffective -- not just ineffective in regard to the "blinded" aspect. Is that correct?
--- Rich

 

[IanS]

If you want to claim that Jesus, if he existed at all, had long hair despite the cultural and historical evidence against that, go right ahead. But of itself, the hair on the depiction on the shroud is far more suggestive of a mediaeval high Gothic artist's representation of Jesus than an actual 1st century person.

Since you mention the hair - I'd like to know from shroud believers like JabbaPapa (or anyone else) how a detailed image of hair is supposed to have become imprinted on a burial cloth? What other examples are known where that has ever happened? Any?

And yet you keep citing a History Channel "documentary".

Rather than continuing to make people laugh, can you point us to a published peer-reviewed paper that contains the results of whatever the show is attempting to show?

Indeed.

I'm sorry to keep banging on about this point, but this really is the bottom line on dating the shroud. That is ...

... before the C14 tests in 1988 it was possible to argue either way about the shrouds authenticity. Until that time, even the most sceptical scientists would have agreed that it was at least conceivable that the shroud might have dated from the 1st century, even though they may have doubted that the image could have ever got on to the cloth in any way other than by someone deliberately "painting" it on with pigments or dyes etc.

However, the C14 changes that position completely.

Now we do have a real scientific identification made at the research level, and fully published in the research literature.

If people still believe that the shroud may date from the 1st century, then they must show some real published research paper where independent scientists (not well known shroud believers) have disputed the C14 dates and claimed instead that the shroud may indeed date to the 1st century.

It's not impossible for the C14 dates to be wrong, and myself and others said that right at the very start of this thread. But the point is that, now, following publication of that C14 paper, if anyone wants to claim those C14 dates are wrong, then they must publish their counter-evidence in a real science journal ...

... posting believer articles on the internet, writing pro-shroud books, or printing "papers" from shroud conferences etc. is of absolutely zero value in contesting properly published science.

Where is the published independent science disputing the C14?

 

[Agatha]

Slowvehicle,
- I think that you want me to substantiate that everyone involved accepted that the control samples were totally ineffective -- not just ineffective in regard to the "blinded" aspect. Is that correct?
--- Rich

When you made the allegation, did you mean totally ineffective?

If you meant everyone involved accepted that the control samples were totally ineffective, substantiate that.

If you didn't mean totally ineffective, substantiate what you did say.

All this quibbling and restating is just wasting the time in which you could substantiate the allegation that YOU made in the first place.

You said it, it's your burden of proof.