Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Kid Eager]

I see JabbaPapa has published a collection of objections by assertion, rather than evidence. I'm sure these have all been covered in this thread?

 

[Akri]

a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century [partially untrue -- there is no independently corroborated evidence of its existence prior to 14th century]

In science if it can't be independently corroborated it isn't evidence.

b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds) [false reasoning, not "evidence" -- the existence of 40 fake $1 bills does not prevent the existence of a genuine one]

I don't think Castmate is saying that the existence of fake relics means the Shroud must be fake. But if there are 40 shrouds then at least 39 of them must be fake. Statistically speaking any shroud you look at is far more likely to be one of those 39.

c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings [irrelevant -- the MAXIMUM life expectancy of even the most carefully preserved manuscript is about 1200 years. It is unreasonable to expect that any such evidence could possibly have survived in the first place]

Except that we've got early Christian writings about the resurrection that don't discuss the Shroud. So either writings which included that detail had a higher rate of deterioration, or it wasn't mentioned until later.

 

[JabbaPapa]

1 Corinthians 11:14

("If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him")

The Vulgate, which is usually correctly translated, if you understand your Late Latin, has :

{11:14} Nec ipsa natura docet vos, quod vir quidem si comam nutriat, ignominia est illi:

... which would translate as something like "... that if a man pampers his hair, he will be ill considered."

And if Jesus had long hair, so did his apostles. Else, why did Judas have to point him out?

False syllogism.

Besides, Paul was a Roman citizen.

 

[pakeha]

I see JabbaPapa has published a collection of objections by assertion, rather than evidence. I'm sure these have all been covered in this thread?

AFAIK, yes, all of them.
I'd be glad if JabbaPapa would fix that broken link of theirs.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Thanks, that's helpful.

<snip for space>

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

 

[JabbaPapa]

Slowvehicles's main point, as has been made clear more than once, isn't really the hair style itself; that's just an add-on to the real point, i.e., that the hair is on the shroud as if the man were standing when the image was made. In other words, it hands down from the top of the head toward the shoulders as opposed to hanging down to the slab on which he was supposedly lying.

Right, despite the corpse being wrapped in the Shroud ?

Frankly, what looked unnatural to me -- until I saw the 3D reconstruction -- is the way that the hair seems to reach out on either side of the head ; but this is sensibly explained as a distortion of the linen around the corpse.

The blood flow issue has the same objection: besides flowing along the hair (something which real flowing blood does not do), it flows down to the shoulders instead of down to the slab.

Again, those stains are not on the corpse, they are on the linen.

Put material onto a wound, blood will soak into it.

Also, if the corpse is lying down, how is blood going to flow horizontally towards the shoulders, contrary to the expectations of Physics ? That's a bizarre notion.

 

[John Jones]

Thank you for your lovely insults, that can only be demonstrative of a keenly analytical mind, bubbling with creativity, loathe to jump to hasty conclusions, and that makes Montaigne's motto its own : "Que Sais-je ?"

/roll-eyes/

:rolls them eyes right back to you:

 

[SezMe]

Furthermore, are you aware that to have arms of different lengths is a surprisingly common genetic mutation ?

You're suggesting that the son of god, a perfect being, was born with a genetic defect? Really?

 

[John Jones]

Frankly, what looked unnatural to me -- until I saw the 3D reconstruction

The same one on The History Channel?

 

[JabbaPapa]

It doesn't.

It doesn't ???

So you think snide ad hominems constitute an "argument" ???

But at least he has arguments that could be weakened.

You know -- when I SAY that I'm asking myself questions rather than advocating a particular position, I actually MEAN that I'm asking myself questions rather than advocating a particular position.

Some members in this forum might find it entertaining for their own reasons to throw a barrage of weighted, leading questions at me, and then pretend that whatever responses are given to explain the objections that some people are putting forward against the 14th century dating are mysteriously some sort of "proof" that I believe those things, and then proceed to deduce that they are therefore fully authorised to post vilifications of my character as a result of these FAULTY inferences that they've made -- well then NO, sorry, that does NOT provide me with a positive impression of their analytical methodology.

Particularly when they pretend this to be a product of scientific reason.

Particularly when they COMPLETELY refrain from addressing any of the papers that they have so unhelpfully demanded of me, unhelpfully AKA they weren't actually even interested in reading them in the first place, as they had obviously made up their minds on the questions already.

And when I posted "the contents found at XXX are NOT scientific", their reaction to this is "ooooh loook at the moron who believes XXX" --- notwithstanding that I explicitly denounced it as unscientific.

No -- these sorts of juvenile antics do NOT induce respect.

 

[JabbaPapa]

I suggest you follow your own advice, Jabbapapa.

There are only so many rocks that you can throw at a dog til it starts biting back.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Either the shroud was assembled in a factory from different cloths, seemingly just to throw us off, and despite the fact that no patching is visible

One of the papers I've linked to claims -- perfectly reasonably -- that the Shroud has been repaired on multiple occasions through the centuries, including once in the past 10-15b years or so.

Restoration work is supposed to be invisible.

or there are some people who desperately need the shroud to be authentic, and I'd like to know why, since nothing in the christian faith seems to hinge on it.

Absolutely correct -- my own occasional interest in the Shroud is that its a FAR more interesting object than the "mediaeval fake" believers claim it to be.

I WAS hoping that some kind of discussion might be possible about these latest claims in that book --- that was without counting on the hordes of people accusing me, on the basis of their own dreadful leading questions, of all kinds of complete RUBBISH instead.

 

[AdMan]

It

<snip>

If you feel any post is a personal attack, just report it to the moderators (click on the icon with the exclamation mark in that particular post). That sort of thing isn't allowed here.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Well one thing that I do understand, however, and as discussed in this thread, is that the presence or absence of blood on the cloth has no bearing whatsoever to its authenticity so long as the C14 dating stands.

Refreshing to see someone simply talking common sense

 

[Dinwar]

Rubbish, you're reading your own prejudices into my statements, and providing yourself with a justification to deny them a priori.

Nope. I'm an actual scientist. Says so on my business cards and everything. I deal with stuff tremendously close to these issues every day (Quaternary mammology, with bits of archaeology thrown in). You do not understand the field, and while you can toss out rhetorical jargon the fact that you appear pathologically allergic to "context" demonstrates how twisted your views are.

Again, I came into this with no particular problem believing the cloth was from the 1st century. The facts are the facts. It's a Medieval fake. The more strongly you and Jabba cling to the delusion that if you twist words around enough you can erase reality, the more insane your arguments are going to become. We already got Jabba to admit he doesn't believe in reality, and you're on the same track.

By the way, have you bothered to read the thread yet? Because it doesn't appear so. Which means you can't honestly say what has and hasn't been argued. And your "rebuttal" of the summary is meaningless and a waste of bandwidth, because you haven't addressed any of the actual arguments. You can't have--you haven't read the thread, so you don't know them.

A logical error that is so common, in fact, that many people who have came to the conclusion that the shroud is a mediaeval forgery before examining any data prior to their reading it in a newspaper or seeing it on TV are committing it too.

Dude, you're talking to someone who's taken C14 samples. I, as well as others, have given our profesional opinions supported by research and years of experience, and with numerous references--on at least two occasions giving links to open-access textbooks on the topic.

First, no, I haven't seen newspaper reports or TV shows on it. I read the bloody scientific studies. The fact that you rank the History Channel higher than the actual C14 results shows you to be hopelessly biased.

Second, you're now accusing me of fraud. Don't bother to deny it; I know you didn't come out and say it, but I don't play the "I didn't say those exact words!" game. Everyone knows what you're saying.

I see JabbaPapa has published a collection of objections by assertion, rather than evidence. I'm sure these have all been covered in this thread?

Not entirely true. JabbaPapa did offer up Roger's paper again. But yeah, every single issue JP has brought up has been addressed, most of them multiple times. The fact that JP has to ask for links is proof positive that JP hasn't bothered to examine the thread, and isn't interested in context. The links have been given repeatedly.

b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds) [false reasoning, not "evidence" -- the existence of 40 fake $1 bills does not prevent the existence of a genuine one]

This isn't entirely false, but it demonstrates an intentional misunderstanding. Alone, no, this fact doesn't prove the shroud is a fake. However, it does cast serious doubts on its authenticity. There was a whole industry devoted to the production of holy relics, including numerous "burial shrouds of Christ". This makes it vastly more likely that it's a fraud, as we've established means, motive, and opportunity in spades. Sure, it still could be real (if we ignore the anatomical issues, the projection issues, the C14 dating, the textile data, the fact that it's been known to be a fraud for a few hundred years, etc). But it certainly indicates that we need to examine this more closely than normal.

To put the concept into a different context, think about Egyptian artifacts. In the 1700s/1800s, they were big business, and frauds were rampant. It was even money that if you bought an Egyptial relic it was a fraud. In contrast, there's no market for nine-pounder round shot from the war between Michigan and Ohio. So if someone has an Egyptian relic in their home that their grandfather's grandfather gave to them, you have to be very careful to determine whether it's a fraud or not. No one's dumb enough to make a fraudulant cannon ball, however, so you can be reasonably sure that your grandfather's grandfather's cannon ball is the real deal. It's not proof, but it indicates how much doubt is reasonable.

This is an example of someone who knows just enough about rhetoric to be dangerous. I only bothered to discuss it because I don't want anyone to get the impression, reading JabbaPapa's rantings, that JP had a point. Yes, under the absolute strictest criteria, JP's statement is true--IF you ignore the context and all the evidence that even JP can't dismiss. When viewed IN CONTEXT, that is, as supporting evidence for a conclusion, the point that there was a massive industry churning out religious relics in the Middle Ages is a valid point that requires serious consideration. ANY relic of Medieval origins is almost certainly a fake.

Also, if the corpse is lying down, how is blood going to flow horizontally towards the shoulders, contrary to the expectations of Physics ? That's a bizarre notion.

Okay, this one actually made me laugh. Apparently the master of rhetoric has never heard of capilary action!

 

[AdMan]

By the way, have you bothered to read the thread yet? Because it doesn't appear so. Which means you can't honestly say what has and hasn't been argued. And your "rebuttal" of the summary is meaningless and a waste of bandwidth, because you haven't addressed any of the actual arguments. You can't have--you haven't read the thread, so you don't know them.

^ This.

 

[JabbaPapa]

JabbaPappa is going to quickly come to the same situation. Neither can doubt the authenticity of the shroud--it's their god, the foundation of their belief, and it'd be blasphemy to deny it--so they pretend there's scientific doubt. When it becomes obvious there isn't, they simply prey on the mistaken notion that all doubts are reasonable.

This is complete bloody RUBBISH.

You're clearly just projecting your own fantasies onto me.

These fantasies are worthless.

 

[Olowkow]

Seems that Frank Zappa has magical 3D info encoded into his pictures also. Compliments of CorelDraw (Emboss).

 

[JabbaPapa]

Especially since we have the witness of the Shroud of Chippewa Falls^TM!11elevendy11!

... which looks not even **remotely** like the Shroud of Turin.

(You do realize that all the hippified, long-haired, gentle white-guy jeebus pictures in all those baptistries are not photographs, right?

You DO realise that a post such as yours is colloquially referred to as "internet trolling", right ?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Nope. This is entirely false.

The problem you and Jabba have is that REALITY is biased towards a 14th century date. As in, that's where all the data point. And that makes your delusions impossible to prove.

You're confusing data with reality -- you're FALSELY assuming that I myself am a firm believer in 1st century AD Jerusalem origin -- whereas my interest is far more simply to try and resolve some reports of conflicting data that I have become aware of.

The context was quite clearly a discussion of the term "bias" and what it means in C14 research.

Fair enough on this particular point, OK, but given that you are making a similar error in your accusations of "bias" against me personally, I'm not exactly convinced that every nasty attack I've seen against Jabba in this thread is really justified.

This whole post demonstrates that you're not interested in an honest discussion.

Very few people have been offering me any.