Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
A word in defense of Jabba

Yes, a word in defense of Jabba. He won’t like it, but here goes:

Why does he keep rolling and tumbling this topic over and over, never coming to a conclusion? The answer is simple: Fear.

He wants to be a good religious believer and, like a little child, love his cult and wrap it around him as his days (like mine) grow shorter. But doubt, inspired by a healthy incredulity, just won’t go away; disbelief, like King Charles’s head, keeps somehow getting into it. That scares him, as it does any religious person who suffers from flashes of sanity.

As we know from the immortality thread, loss of faith, for Jabba, means the loss of eternal life; it means facing the reality of annihilation. He’s recently said that if somebody can prove that there’s no blood on the Shred of Turin* he’ll “give up the ghost.” That’s a telling phrase: in ordinary speech, it means to die.

Yes, to die. If you aren’t afraid of death – and somebody here is bound to declare that he isn’t – then Jabba and I will just have to admit that we differ from you.

But if primitive animal fear impels him to keep cranking the handle of his religious hash-grinder, going over over OVER the same old stuff, then there I’m happy to say that I differ from him, while feeling a kind of distant sympathy and pity.

Am I speaking only for myself?



*That’s a disrespectful thing to call it. Isn’t it?
 
Blood/What difference does it make?

No, it doesn't.

Would you please answer the question asked of you?
- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity. And if the shroud is actually authentic, it is about 2000 years old -- not 700 years old, or whatever.
 
The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity.

No, it wouldn't.

Not even a little.

The only thing that can do that is you presenting some affirmative evidence directly concerning the cloth's age. Nothing else matters. Nothing else will help you. Nothing else will tip the scale. Nothing else could.

Not even a little.
 
- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity. And if the shroud is actually authentic, it is about 2000 years old -- not 700 years old, or whatever.

There is no scale. It's not a court of law. You tried those analogies and you got nowhere. Now make with the evidence already.
 
- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity. And if the shroud is actually authentic, it is about 2000 years old -- not 700 years old, or whatever.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

How would the presence of blood indicate anything about the age of any piece of cloth? it has been pointed out to you, over and over, that blood has been available wherever, and whenever, there have been humans.

When do you expect to begin demonstrating that the stains on the CIQ (wrong color, dubious chemistry, impossible behaviour and all) are, in fact, blood?

BTW, have you repaired the egregious errors on your "map"?

Through it all, I remain,

(apparently) Invisibly yours, &ct.
 
- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity. And if the shroud is actually authentic, it is about 2000 years old -- not 700 years old, or whatever.

Sorry, but wrong.

Problem here, Jabba, is that if there is a scale at all, it is not a two-side scale; it has many sides and directions. If there is blood on the shroud, it may tilt in some way in the "creation metod" direction, but the "age" direction is not affected at all: The presense of blood does not give any clue to the age of the object.

Hans
 
- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity. And if the shroud is actually authentic, it is about 2000 years old -- not 700 years old, or whatever.


This doesn't actually answer the question. It just shifts you from "how does the presence of blood affect the date of the shroud" to a different question: why would blood on the shroud be evidence of authenticity?
 
- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity.

No it wouldn't. I'm not going to explain why again.
 
- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity. And if the shroud is actually authentic, it is about 2000 years old -- not 700 years old, or whatever.

But the cloth has a terminus post quem of 1290 CE.

ETA: Meaning, the material, whatever it is has to have been added after the cloth was made. I'll note that we only know that the organic material used to make the cloth was harvested no later than 1290 CE with 95 percent certainty. It had to have been made between 1290 and when d'Arcis wrote his memo in 1390 CE, giving us a terminus ante quem. We know the cloth existed before the bishop wrote a memo about it. If it is blood, it can ONLY have been put on the cloth between those two dates.
 
Last edited:
- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity.

As has been explained many times, NO, it wouldn't.

Unless there is actually evidence in the "authentic" pan of the balance, it doesn't matter how much you take out of the other side, it will never change how much it tilts. Despite being asked repeatedly, you have never been able to provide any evidence to actually put in the "authentic" side.

The only thing you can say about the blood is "it discredits McCrone." But blood on the shroud itself does not go into the authentic pan.

Provide evidence for authenticity. I can accept that if you had evidence for authenticity, it would support a 2000 year old cloth. But "McCrone is wrong" doesn't do that. "There is blood" doesn't do that. "There is blood of a tortured being" (even if it were true) doesn't do that.

Perhaps you missed it up above, but I have asked you, how do you know it is not just the burial cloth of a person who died 700 years ago? Actually, that is a lot more consistent with the data we have than claiming it is the burial cloth of Jesus. It would account for blood, and even tortured blood, and also accounts for other problems like the weave and the 14C dating. So what is the argument against it?
 
I am trying to answer that question.

No. As your incessant resets and ongoing obtuseness shows, you're desperately trying to dance around it.

The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity. And if the shroud is actually authentic, it is about 2000 years old -- not 700 years old, or whatever.

No, no, no, and no -- for the reasons amply expounded and totally, completely ignored by you. And I've taken the liberty of highlighting today's motte-and-bailey attempt: further evidence that you have no intention of pushing the discussion forward.

On the question of age, showing that the 1290 CE date isn't supported by evidence does nothing to establish a more authentic date. I covered this at length here, but you obviously don't care.

On the question of discrediting McCrone and thereby establishing a 2,000-year age, that's just pure assumptive reasoning. I elaborated on that here, but you obviously don't care. If you want to establish that you are as sincerely engaged in this debate as you pretend to be, dealing with your critics' ample refutation of your claims is a must. Simply repeating your irrational lines of reasoning over and over does not make them work.

Your latest offering is entirely circular. You want to conclude by default that the shroud is authentic, therefore it "must" (by inference alone) be 2,000 years old despite the data. Wishful inference of this kind does not "tilt" anything in your behavior.
 
Blood/What difference does it make?

Lack of blood would be heavy, even conclusive evidence against authenticy.

At the moment, there is no proof either way. There may or may not be blood there. Thus, the blood issue does not provide evidence against authenticy...
Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity. So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years. Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood, and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.
 
Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity. So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years. Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood, and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.

Then why don't you address Slowvehicles dismantling of your claims of blood?
 
Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity.

No, that evidence is only against the stains being blood. Blood is not evidence of authenticity.
 
Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity. So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years. Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood, and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

"Hutti, Hutti, Lamma Sabachtini?"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10675254#post10675254

I remain,

Pseudo-aramaically yours, &ct.
 
So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

No. As previously explained at length, there can be no preponderance without affirmative evidence. You have none, as you admitted. That's why you desperately try to reverse the burden of proof. All you have is various nebulous claims you think undermine McCrone. Once again you have no idea what it means to support an affirmative claim.

For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years.

It doesn't and can't, as has been amply explained to you. Persisting in a moot line of reasoning has no purpose other than to prolong the discussion and evade accountability. You tell us you have a limited ability to respond to your critics, but how you spend your efforts is telling us volumes.

Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood, and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.

As explained, those questions are moot.
 
I'm confused. How does 'blood' = authenticity?
Blood = Jesus blood? How do we know?
Blood = tortured person = jesus was tortured = jesus blood? already discredited
Blood = ?????

Really MR. Jabba. How does blood in anyway take us closer to authenticity?
 
Really MR. Jabba. How does blood in anyway take us closer to authenticity?

Apparently only by "tilting the pan" in his false dichotomy. I assume he's gearing up (again) to show that the "blood" shows evidence of having come from a tortured person. And that would show authenticity, apparently, because the only person who was ever tortured was Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom