Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[MRC_Hans]

- No, it doesn't.
- Though, I might need to further explain my logic.
- This might help: If you believed that the image was not painted, wouldn't you suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body?

There are several other ways to create an image other than painting it, including, certainly, making an impring of a dead body.

Hans

 

[Sideroxylon]

Would I be wrong to say that there is zero evidence of this cloth being 2000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Stuart,
- I'll try not to use the word "prove" anymore -- except to say that I'm not trying to prove anything.
- Instead, I'm trying to support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old by supporting intermediate conclusions that, if true, support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage!

ONE of the problems with your "intermediate conclusions" is that they do not, in any way, address your pre-reached "conclusion" that the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old. It would not matter if the representation on the CIQ were an image of a young asiatic hebrew male of perfectly normal proportions, with perfectly accurate wounds (and other and indicia of crucifiction), with perfectly accurate blood flows and seepages, wound and bound in historically accurate strips of linen in accord with 1st-Century CE funerary practices--not one bit of that indicates that the cloth of the CIQ is 2000 years old.

ANOTHER of the problems with your "intermediate conclusions" is that they do not appear to be based upon factual evidence.

Be that as it may, are you, in fact, admitting that there IS no evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

The problem is that Jabba wants to argue that if you ignore all of the evidence against in it's entirety, then he has a watertight case.<snip>

This, Dread Angel, is the quintessence of "Effective Debate^TM".

...I would study at your feet...

 

[hugh farey]

Would I be wrong to say that there is zero evidence of this cloth being 2000 years old?

Zero direct evidence, certainly. Radiocarbon dating is a good way of dating things, but apart from that, it's not always easy. They tend to be dated by their physical context, and in the case of the Shroud there isn't any. Rogers and Fanti have attempted to describe possible chemical and physical tests based on the deterioration of linen over time, but they have not received much support from archaeologists, and can only be described as speculative so far. Some objects can be dated by their cultural context, but this cannot be said of the Shroud.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Zero direct evidence, certainly. Radiocarbon dating is a good way of dating things, but apart from that, it's not always easy. They tend to be dated by their physical context, and in the case of the Shroud there isn't any. Rogers and Fanti have attempted to describe possible chemical and physical tests based on the deterioration of linen over time, but they have not received much support from archaeologists, and can only be described as speculative so far. Some objects can be dated by their cultural context, but this cannot be said of the Shroud.

What is the indirect evidence?

Also do we not have good cultural context for it being a medieval artifact?

 

[Mojo]

Stuart,
- I'll try not to use the word "prove" anymore -- except to say that I'm not trying to prove anything.
- Instead, I'm trying to support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old by supporting intermediate conclusions that, if true, support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Not even that. You're just trying to prolong the discussion via irrelevant digressions in order to produce a superficial impression that there is something here that is still open to debate.

 

[John Jones]

Would I be wrong to say that there is zero evidence of this cloth being 2000 years old?

That seems to be the case based on this and the ancestor thread.

 

[John Jones]

Not even that. You're just trying to prolong the discussion via irrelevant digressions in order to produce a superficial impression that there is something here that is still open to debate.

Based on his blog, I assume he's still playing to a silent (if extant) audience here in hopes of persuading them of the CIQ's authenticity.

How well is that working out in the absence of any evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[Loss Leader]

Would I be wrong to say that there is zero evidence of this cloth being 2000 years old?

Jabba, on his website, says that there is some evidence of an oral history showing the shroud to be older, but no written evidence of it before the middle ages. He never explains what this oral evidence is or how far back it dates or even on what source he bases his statement.

 

[John Jones]

2000 years old???

Jabba, on his website, says that there is some evidence of an oral history showing the shroud to be older, but no written evidence of it before the middle ages. He never explains what this oral evidence is or how far back it dates or even on what source he bases his statement.

I'd say this oral history isn't worth the paper its written on.

 

[Jabba]

Memory

Hugh,
- Thanks.
- I'm not trying to prove anything. I still think that the scale tips in favor of authenticity, and here I've been trying to express my intermediate conclusions that lead me to what for now is my ultimate conclusion. I might be forced to change my mind about my intermediate conclusions, and therefore about my ultimate conclusion, but for now, that the image really is of Jesus is still my best guess.
- Obviously, I'm biased, and I could be giving more weight or credit to my various intermediate conclusions than I should... But, what'r'ya'gonna'do?
- I accept your much greater knowledge of the data, and your probable greater objectivity in general -- but so far, I do think that you're putting more 'faith' in the carbon dating than you should. And, I think that if the carbon dating is wrong, we've got a whole new ballgame.

But you have already done so in the past with your own research on invisible patching. You seemed convinced by experts in the field that an invisible patch was impossible, but then some months later it was as though that never happened. What reason would we have to believe that things would be different if evidence caused you to change your mind again?

Ward,
- If I remember correctly, I forgot...
- Also, if I remember correctly, that 'disappearance' occurred over my short hiatus from this thread. If you want, I'll go back and track down the exact evolution. But that shouldn't be necessary -- if I forget again, just remind me again...

Please do. It is necessary because you still seem to have no memory of it occurring and it was something new and original that you personally brought to shroud research. You contributed significant research to the invisible patch theory. Most everything else you've done here is cut and paste of the research of others, but this was your baby and it should be front and center in any blog or permanent record you compile.

Ward,
- I'm having trouble including posts (in the usual way) from the previous section of this thread, so I'll just copy them directly...

#5222 (Jabba)
- Previously, I had figured that a patch of invisible French re-weaving was probably the cause of what I figured to be an age discrepancy in the carbon dating. I never really attached any specific probability to that position.
- Currently,
1) I am 99% convinced that even if there is "invisible reweave" (the "invisible patching" I've been referring to) involved in the patching, it uses only undamaged threads from the greater cloth, and would therefore not affect the dating... 2) I'm about 80% convinced, however, that the sample being dated did include a patch or patching that is not visible to the naked eye, but that is "visible" (observable) through a sufficiently powerful microscope or through chemical testing. 3) For a patch or patching to account for a discrepancy of more than 1000 years would require a patch of "considerable" size -- but so far, I still think that's a possibility. I mostly think it's possible because no one (that I know of) has claimed to do the specific testing that would reveal what Rogers and others have claimed to reveal. (Though, I'd be hard-pressed to estimate a probability for this possibility...)
- As I have time, I'll track down and quote the other papers (that I refer to above) that indicate patching of some sort.

#5255 (Ward)
Jabba,
It seems to me that your position regarding a patch has changed very little. Please correct this timeline in case I have it wrong.
You came here believing that some sort of patch was the most likely reason for the carbon 14 dates, but you did not know how such a patch was possible.
Further research suggested that a French weaving technique might have achieved the invisibility necessary.
But even further research suggested that the French weaving technique used threads from other parts of the shroud. So you reject French weaving.
That brings us back to your initial position that there was a patch, but you don't know how it got there.
It seems like you've progressed, but progressed in a circle right back to your initial point.
Once again, am I missing something important?
And remember the quote that intriged you some 40 pages ago about any invisible patch: "It's invisible in the way that cellophane tape is invisible, not in the way that god is invisible."
I can't believe that I'm quoting myself.

#5265 (Jabba)
Originally Posted by wardencliffe (#5255)
(You came here believing that some sort of patch was the most likely reason for the carbon 14 dates, but you did not know how such a patch was possible.)
- Yes.
Quote:
(Further research suggested that a French weaving technique might have achieved the invisibility necessary.)
- Yes.
Quote:
(But even further research suggested that the French weaving technique used threads from other parts of the shroud. So you reject French weaving.)
- Yes.
Quote:
(That brings us back to your initial position that there was a patch, but you don't know how it got there.)
- I think that there was something done, somewhere back in time, to that particular area of the Shroud that was not done to the greater Shroud.

#2305 (Ward)
I can wait. Waiting has not harmed me so far, only aged me.


-- Me now:
- So anyway, I seem to have something of a retort here -- I did decide that invisible re-weave was impossible -- but, I did let you know that I still considered that near-invisible re-weave was possible.

 

[Jabba]

My Blog

Jabba, on his website, says that there is some evidence of an oral history showing the shroud to be older, but no written evidence of it before the middle ages. He never explains what this oral evidence is or how far back it dates or even on what source he bases his statement.

LL,
- Yeah, my blog is all screwed up for now -- it requires a lot of work...

 

[zooterkin]

-- Me now:
- So anyway, I seem to have something of a retort here -- I did decide that invisible re-weave was impossible -- but, I did let you know that I still considered that near-invisible re-weave was possible.

But since it wasn't invisible, it would have been seen, so it's not relevant.

Now, back to the age of the cloth; what evidence do you have that it's 2000 years old?

 

[zooterkin]

LL,
- Yeah, my blog is all screwed up for now -- it requires a lot of work...

I really wouldn't bother until you have some evidence to present.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- Yeah, my blog is all screwed up for now -- it requires a lot of work...

So, instead of posting your evidence for the age of the shroud, you took time out to convey that you have work to do on your website. Please, for Meg Ryan's sake, just present your evidence.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[Degeneve]

Jabba, on his website, says that there is some evidence of an oral history showing the shroud to be older, but no written evidence of it before the middle ages. He never explains what this oral evidence is or how far back it dates or even on what source he bases his statement.

To the best of my knowledge there has never been such oral history. He did maybe refer to the tall tales of Ian Wilson which are made of an accumulation of farfetched assumptions.

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, on his website, says that there is some evidence of an oral history showing the shroud to be older, but no written evidence of it before the middle ages. He never explains what this oral evidence is or how far back it dates or even on what source he bases his statement.

Ah, oral history, where historians and archeologists go when they have no evidence.

 

[Craig4]

LL,
- Yeah, my blog is all screwed up for now -- it requires a lot of work...

That's okay, I have the same internet you do. Where might I find this oral history?

 

[abaddon]

I know this is pointless. but what evidence exists for 2000 years of oral history for the tablecloth?

You somehow have to bridge the gap between the death of the proposed jebus in ca. 33 CE and the appearance of the CIQ in the 14th century on the basis of an oral history for which you can provide nothing more that your say so?