ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Reply
Old 15th February 2017, 06:12 PM   #1
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Question The Turin Shroud: The Image of Edessa created in c. 300-400 AD?

I believe that the Turin Shroud's history goes back into the past beyond Da Vinci and beyond the Templars and Crusaders. What I think happened most likely was that the Crusaders took it from Constantinople. The story of an image of Jesus on cloth being held by Christians goes back at least to 5th c. Edessa. The Byzantines recorded having such an image they got from Edessa.

What I would like to see is what sources if any talked about this shroud before c. 300 AD when Christianity became a religion patronized by Rome. I would want to see whether this shroud was just a pious fraud by the Byzantine empire or are their traces of it going back before then.



Map of the Roman province of Edessa (Wiki free use)

1. Wikipedia says about "Doctrine of Addai":
Quote:
The Doctrine of Addai is a Syriac Christian text, perhaps written about 400, which recites the Legend of the Image of Edessa as well as the legendary works of Addai and his disciple Mari in Mesopotamia.
2. Wikipedia says about the Image of Edessa:
Quote:
The report of an image, which accrued to the legendarium of Abgar, first appears in the Syriac work, the Doctrine of Addai: according to it, the messenger, here called Ananias, was also a painter, and he painted the portrait, which was brought back to Edessa and conserved in the royal palace.

... Doctrine of Addai [Thaddeus], c. 400, which introduces a court painter among a delegation sent by Abgar to Jesus, who paints a portrait of Jesus to take back to his master:

"When Hannan, the keeper of the archives, saw that Jesus spoke thus to him, by virtue of being the king's painter, he took and painted a likeness of Jesus with choice paints, and brought with him to Abgar the king, his master. And when Abgar the king saw the likeness, he received it with great joy, and placed it with great honor in one of his palatial houses." (Doctrine of Addai 13)
...
The later legend of the image recounts that because the successors of Abgar reverted to paganism, the bishop placed the miraculous image inside a wall, and setting a burning lamp before the image, he sealed them up behind a tile; that the image was later found again, after a vision, on the very night of the Persian invasion, and that not only had it miraculously reproduced itself on the tile, but the same lamp was still burning before it; further, that the bishop of Edessa used a fire into which oil flowing from the image was poured to destroy the Persians.

The image itself is said to have resurfaced in 525, during a flood of the Daisan, a tributary stream of the Euphrates that passed by Edessa. This flood is mentioned in the writings of the court historian Procopius of Caesarea. In the course of the reconstruction work, a cloth bearing the facial features of a man was discovered hidden in the wall above one of the gates of Edessa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa
A couple notes:
  • The image of Adessa is said to have been "painted", not a miracle image.
  • The story about the image being hidden due to a reversion to paganism and then rediscovered sounds credible to the extent that Christians in the city could reasonably want to keep an image for themselves about this. The idea that the image was totally lost and then rediscovered would seem unlikely. People would probably have an idea that the image was there, just that it wasn't being venerated due to the paganism of the emperors.

3. The Biblical Archaelology website says about early concern for Jesus' shroud:
Quote:
The second century apocryphal Gospel According to the Hebrews, considerably respected by early Christian writers, had a passage reporting Jesus giving his shroud to “the servant of the priest,” or as some scholars amend the text, “to Peter” (Sox 1978: 45 – 6). Other 2nd century apocryphal books like the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, Gospel According to Peter, and Mysteries of the Acts of the Savior all show a concern for the sindon’s whereabouts (Savio 1982: 11). As a young girl being educated in 4th century Jerusalem, Saint Nino was told by her learned teacher Niaphori of a tradition of it being given to Peter (Humber 1977: 75).
OK, it's curious that the shroud was given to the servant, but it doesn't mean there was an image on it.

Gospel of Peter says:
"And having taken the Lord, he washed and tied him with a linen cloth and brought him into his own sepulcher, called the Garden of Joseph." I don't see anything particularly curious or notable about that regarding the cloth.

4. John 20 says:
Quote:
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
Some have theorized that what they saw in the linen clothes is something that made them believe. However, that seems speculative.

5. Eusebius writes in his late 3rd c. History about Jesus' contacts with King Abgar and the letter, so Biblical Archaeology is saying that the kind *could" have had the shroud at that point, even though the shroud is never mentioned in that letter:
Most historians agree that Christianity was a growing force in Edessa late in the 2nd century under the famous ruler Abgar VIII (“The Great”), with a church sanctuary dated there in 201 (Segal 1970: 24). But when the Edessan Christians wrote their history in the 3rd century, they remembered that the Gospel originally came to them in the 1st century from a Jerusalem disciple named Addai and to a King Abgar V, a known historical figure contemporary with Christ. Eusebius included in his Ecclesiastical History a brief late 3rd century version, reporting a famous letter from Jesus still kept in the Edessan archives (Eusebius 1991: 43-47). But later in the 4th century (or possibly early in the 5th) a Syriac writer penned a much expanded text. Known as The Teaching of Addai (hereafter TA) one small passage has Abgar, who is corresponding with Jesus by way of a messenger Hanan, instructing him to make a picture of Jesus:
  • When Hanan the archivist saw that Jesus had spoken thus to him, he took and painted the portrait of Jesus with choice pigments, since he was the king’s artist, and brought it with him to his lord King Abgar. When King Abgar saw the portrait he received it with great joy and placed it with great honor in one of the buildings of his palaces (Howard 1981: 9 - 10).


Most modern scholars usually reject The TA as reliable history for a variety of reasons, but sometimes admit “a substratum of fact” (Segal 1970: 179–181). Wilson recognizes numerous “anachronisms and interpolations” more characteristic of Abgar VIII’s time than Abgar V’s but also concludes that many “elements of the story have an authentic period ring” (Wilson 1998: 165). As for the picture, this is the only certain place in antiquity that mentions the Edessa Image, and by itself would lead no one to dream that it was actually the NT sindon or Turin Shroud. Writers like the Edessan Church Father Ephrem in the 4th century show no knowledge of the picture, leading some scholars to believe there never was such an object in ancient Edessa (Drijvers 1998: 17). Others believe it was there, just not very famous (Drews 1984: 75). Historian Daniel Scavone opines that the story is “made up after the fact, when the real history was forgotten, to explain the presence of the Christ-picture in Edessa” (Scavone 1991: 180). What the TA may also suggest is that there was a distant memory in 4th century Edessa of a Christ picture coming to their city in an early evangelization, and if a lengthy history (like The TA) were to be written, contemporary readers might expect it to be included. However, because of persecution, it had to be hidden away and perhaps even lost, with only confused memories surviving by the 4th century (Wilson 1979: 129 – 130).
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...To-Edessa.aspx

It seems very speculative to draw the connection between Jesus' relations with Abgar V in the 1st c., or the apostles' relations with him, and getting a shroud to him of Jesus.
The apostles did go to Syria. Here is a map of Abgar's empire in Edessa:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/533535887089261142/

6. A USA Today article says that new Carbon Dating in 2013 gives a date of 300-400 AD. That would agree with the time when the first record of an Edessan shroud was reported:
Quote:
. Subsequent testing of fabric from an un-repaired section dated it to between 300 BC and 400 AD (see, for example, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...splay/2038295/).
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...To-Edessa.aspx

Quote:
The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...splay/2038295/
Since the researchers are setting a date of 300-400 AD, it means they are not skewing their results to deliberately turn it into a 1st c. object.

7. Edessa was a major Christian center in AD 190 or earlier:
there is no doubt that even before AD 190 Christianity had spread vigorously within Edessa and its surroundings and that shortly after the royal house joined the church.[5] According to a legend first reported by Eusebius in the 4th century, Syriac King Abgar V Ukāmā was converted by Addai,[6] who was one of the seventy-two disciples, sent to him by "Judas, who is also called Thomas".[7] Yet various sources confirm that the Abgar who embraced the Christian faith was Abgar IX.[8][9][10] Under him Christianity became the official religion of the kingdom.[11] As for Addai, he was neither one of the seventy-two disciples as the legend asserts, nor was sent by Apostle Thomas, as Eusebius says.[12] He was succeeded by Aggai, then by Palout (Palut) who was ordained about 200 by Serapion of Antioch. Thence came to us in the 2nd century the famous Peshitta, or Syriac translation of the Old Testament; also Tatian's Diatessaron, which was compiled about 172 and in common use until St. Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (412–435), forbade its use. Among the illustrious disciples of the School of Edessa Bardesanes (154–222), a schoolfellow of Abgar IX, deserves special mention for his role in creating Christian religious poetry, and whose teaching was continued by his son Harmonius and his disciples.

A Christian council was held at Edessa as early as 197.[13] In 201 the city was devastated by a great flood, and the Christian church was destroyed.[14] In 232 the relics of the apostle Thomas were brought from Mylapore, India, on which occasion his Syriac Acts were written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edessa...ristian_centre
The Christians then could have brought the Shroud to Edessa by 190, or alternately it could have been a pious fraud done in the context of the religion's official sanction by the king. Abgar IX was an Armenian ruler of Edessa, who ruled in AD 177 to 212 and made Christianity the official religion there 100+ years before Rome made Christianity legal. The Shroud could reasonably have been brought to Edessa or manufactured there at that time or in the period leading up to its first mention of being in Edessa in c. 400 AD.

8. This skeptical article says that the shroud doesn't match the legends of Jesus wiping the cloth with his face (the Veronica story):
Quote:
Image of Edessa there were two or three stories, that it had been painted by the court painter of king Abgar or, more usually, that Christ himself had wiped his face with a cloth and the image had been imprinted.
...
no one knowing the legend that gave the image its authenticity, as a cloth wiped by Christ himself on his face while he was alive, would have stared at the face we see the Turin Shroud and have believed that this was an image of a living man. We can assume that the image, if extant, in the sixth century, would have been brighter than it is now. It might have been possible to fold the Turin Shroud up to conceal the image of a naked lifeless body but this could hardly have been kept secret for long. The Turin Shroud is of a dead man, the Edessa image is, like all the other images of this time, a living Christ.

...one of the legendary accounts of the origins of the Image of Edessa in a sixth century text, the Acts of Thaddeus (or Jude). This gives a standard account of the image having been made by Christ himself
http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry...rney/index.htm

The article points out that one of the arguments in favor of the shroud is that supposedly all images of Jesus were beardless before the shroud was discovered in the 6th c. However, the article points out that actually there are depictions of a bearded Jesus from the late 4th and 5th c. at least.

Quote:
we have the earliest bearded Christ in the catacomb of Commodilla in Rome in about 390 and then a fine central image of a bearded Christ in the church of San Pudenziana of c. 405 (below).

Wikipedia image of c. 405 church depiction of Christ

This part just gets confusing:
a document called The Doctrine of Addai. This may date from the early fifth century and is one of hundreds of legendary accounts that develop the early history of Christianity. Addai is a disciple of Jesus who has miraculous healing powers. After Christ’s death he visits Abgar in Edessa and Wilson quotes from the Doctrine as follows:

‘And when Addai came up and went to Abgar, his nobles standing with him, and in going towards him, a wonderful vision was seen by Abgar in the face of Addai. At the moment that Abgar saw the vision, he fell down and worshipped Addai. Great astonishment seized all those who were standing before him, for they saw not the vision which was seen by Abgar.’
So Addai’s face is transformed but no one but Abgar can see it. Addai shows he is miraculous (he is after all a disciple of Christ), Abgar that he has some special status so that he alone can see the transfigured face. A fairly typical feature of such texts. So what has this to do with the Shroud of Turin? Well, according to Wilson, the transformed face of Addai IS the Shroud of Turin! Wilson lost me here because I cannot see the connection between Addai’s transformed face and a burial shroud with an image of a dead man on it. Wilson tries to improve his case by going on a further five hundred years, to the tenth century, and then finds a document that reports the legend as it had been embellished to show that a wonderful vision was sent out by an image that was ‘covering’ Addai. These are legends, not historical narratives and they cannot be taken as such. There is nothing to suggest that this is a burial shroud especially when the word ‘covering’ would equally apply to the living Christ on the Image of Edessa cloth. It is surely a later addition to the legend of Addai so as to include the Image itself which is not, of course, and never had been anything to do with a burial shroud.

http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry...rney/index.htm

I know there is also an apocryphal story from maybe 200 AD about Didymus Thomas the apostle traveling to Jesus with a "twin" Jesus, and it sounds alot like the Abgar story. In both stories, people looked at the Addai or Thomas and saw Jesus. To conclude from this that Addai or Thomas were traveling with the shroud is a bit speculative though.

9. Where does Markwardt get this claim that I underline:
Quote:
There was, throughout the city’s history, a strong tradition that the apostle Thomas and a disciple variously named Addai, Thaddeus Jude (of the biblical 72 or 70) went to Edessa after the death of Jesus. This is legend and it is more likely that, as historian Jack Markwardt writes:
. . . Avircius Marcellus, the Bishop of Hieropolis, was summoned to Rome, where he was introduced to Abgar’s wife, Queen Shalmath, that he then travelled to Antioch, where he was joined by Palut and provided with the Shroud, identifiable as the historically-documented sacred Christ-icon which had been taken from Palestine to Syria, and that he then proceeded to Edessa, where he displayed the imaged relic to the king and baptized him into the Christian faith, thereby resulting in the Shroud’s commemoration, in legend, as the Portrait of Edessa.
Markwardt goes on the suggest us that the shroud was then brought back to Antioch where it remained until sometime in the 6th century. It was, Markwardt believes, concealed above the city’s Gate of the Cherubim in A.D. 362 where it remained until about 540.
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Def...ns/edessa.html
10.
Quote:
According to Irenaeus, around the year 180 , the Carpocratians owned icons of Christ that were believed to be authentic ( Adv Haer I 25.6). Hyppolitus from Rome tells that the model for gnostic representations of Christ corresponded to an image tran smitted by Ponzio Pilato ( Ref VI 32).
...
Because of the state of the art of the available sources, we must consider the journey of the Cloth from Jerusalem to Edessa as speculative. Yet the “possibility” is, at least, not some “impossibility” to exclude.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/duemaggioReisnerENG.pdf

"Ponzio Pilato"? Is that a reference to Pilate?

The Carpocratians were in the islands to the west of modern Turkey. That's not Edessan.
rakovsky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 06:19 PM   #2
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,393
Okay, to start with, there's a thread on this. Next point is that cloth carbon dates (by three different labs) to 1400ish. The image on the cloth cannot be older than the cloth. There's some nonsense in the Pro Shroud literature about an invisible patch at the sample site, but such a patch would use fibers from elsewhere in the cloth so no help there.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 06:49 PM   #3
welshdean
6 NATIONS 2016
-MORAL VICTORS-
 
welshdean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,973
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Okay, to start with, there's a thread on this. Next point is that cloth carbon dates (by three different labs) to 1400ish. The image on the cloth cannot be older than the cloth. There's some nonsense in the Pro Shroud literature about an invisible patch at the sample site, but such a patch would use fibers from elsewhere in the cloth so no help there.
Aw, that's not fair. He went to all that trouble and you go and spoil it all by quoting your so-called facts.
Bloody sceptics!

__________________
Pauline: Mickey's asked me to marry him, and I've said yes.
Ross: You and Mickey?
Pauline: Yes.
Ross: The lesbian and the monkey. Sounds like one of Aesop's fables.
welshdean is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 08:02 PM   #4
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,242
Betteridge's Law of Headlines in one!
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 08:20 PM   #5
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
I believe that the Turin Shroud's history [...]

All this crap has been debunked a hundred times over.

Better luck next time!
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 08:50 PM   #6
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Question

Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Better luck next time!
Which would be Next Time?
Some Orthodox miracles:
Jordan river reversing (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=132810)
Annual cloud on Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration feast
Holy Fire autolit at Holy Sepulchre
Healings with Oil
Turin Shroud / Edessa's mandylion
Apparitions of Jesus, Mary, and saints
Miracle-working and crying ikons
Prophecies
Casting out demons
Holy Water & Communion meals

Any I'm missing?

Last edited by rakovsky; 15th February 2017 at 08:53 PM.
rakovsky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 08:58 PM   #7
deaman
Philosopher
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 9,473
True fact.

Nobody really cares.

(Sorry.)
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 04:04 AM   #8
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,841
Two brief points:

(1) There is not any evidence nor hint that the Mandylion (Image of Edessa) would be the shroud of Turin. Quite to the contrary, it was ever described and painted as the protrait of teh face of a living man, not the picture of a whole corpse seen from front and back.

(2) Professor Fanti is a catholic propagandist that thinks that Jesus speaks with him. He has tryed to justify his personal relationship with God in every conceivable ways. His peculiar system of "mechanical" dating has not been correctly tested. And the use of some alleged samples taken from the Shroud has been discredited by the Catholic Church. Not to mention other inconsistences of his multifaceted works.

The article of USA Today is full of inexactitudes. Wikipedia page about the Shroud is constantly manipulated by the supporters of the Shroud. This is the main danger of Wikipedia where truth and fantasies are melted without control.

Last edited by David Mo; 16th February 2017 at 04:06 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 08:27 AM   #9
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,560
And it's not like the Bible even mentions some "shroud."

You'd figure that mention it if it were important.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 08:31 AM   #10
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
The shroud is a medieval fabrication, this is well.supported by the evidence.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 08:35 AM   #11
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,183
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Which would be Next Time?
You're right. There shouldn't be one.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 08:35 AM   #12
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,391
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Which would be Next Time?
Some Orthodox miracles:
Jordan river reversing (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=132810)
Annual cloud on Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration feast
Holy Fire autolit at Holy Sepulchre
Healings with Oil
Turin Shroud / Edessa's mandylion
Apparitions of Jesus, Mary, and saints
Miracle-working and crying ikons
Prophecies
Casting out demons
Holy Water & Communion meals

Any I'm missing?
Are you going to copy paste this crap all over the forum?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 12:19 PM   #13
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,409
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
And it's not like the Bible even mentions some "shroud."
In fact, as mentioned in the shroud thread, if the shroud WERE real, it would prove the bible wrong, because it is exactly not what the bible describes.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 12:37 PM   #14
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Firstly if you look at the image, it does look more like the representation somebody of the epoch and not from the region would think Jesus look like , he looks Caucasian to me.

Secondly, carbon 14.

Thirdly, it does not even look like the shroud.

There is really nothing here to think, I think this was even discussed to death in the shroud thread.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 12:47 PM   #15
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
So you think a 5th century painting is the same object as a 14th century not-a-painting, because they both depict the most popular god of their time? And that these medieval portraits that can't be the same object are somehow also the magical 1st century burial shroud of said god, which isn't mentioned in any of his holy writings and actually contradicts the story of his burial?
Complete gibberish.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 01:52 PM   #16
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Question

Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12

Last edited by kmortis; 17th February 2017 at 10:08 AM.
rakovsky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 01:58 PM   #17
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Smile

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
So you think a 5th century painting is the same object as a 14th century not-a-painting, because they both depict the most popular god of their time?
Maybe.
One skeptical explanation I've heard is that the Turin Shroud's imageis painted onto the shroud.


Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
And that these medieval portraits that can't be the same object are somehow also the magical 1st century burial shroud of said god, which isn't mentioned in any of his holy writings and actually contradicts the story of his burial?
Maybe, but I am skeptical that the shroud is Jesus' because of the underlined part.
rakovsky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2017, 09:09 AM   #18
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,841
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Maybe.
One skeptical explanation I've heard is that the Turin Shroud's imageis painted onto the shroud.

Maybe, but I am skeptical that the shroud is Jesus' because of the underlined part.
It is not exact. The most recent "sceptical" hypothesis about the image are that it is the remains of an ancient painting that has lose almost all pigments but has coloured the fabric by acids action (Garlaschelli and Charles Freeman). Other traditional explanations don't have the same chances (solar impression or superficial burnt).
The radiocarbon dating of 1988 (1260-1390) remains the main evidence against authenticity of the Shroud. Lack of evidence of authenticity needs also to be taken into account. Some material imposibilities of a natural transfer of the image from a corpse to the fabric are also contradictory evidence against authenticity.

Ultimately, the belief in the authenticity of the Shroud is only maintained by the stubborn resistance of a small group of believers and the Catholic hierarchy.

Last edited by David Mo; 17th February 2017 at 09:11 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 03:49 AM   #19
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
This quotation has been attributed to Savoy courtier, Antoine de Lalaing in 1503:

" Lalaing adds that the Shroud's authenticity has been confirmed by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times 'but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.' "

Even if one needs to take some of that with a pinch (or fistful) of salt, if nothing else it should serve as a warning to anyone trying to propose (or DISMISS) a role for a thermal imprinting mechanism as part of a medieval 'forgery' scenario. While there may not be evidence for a process that involves direct scorching of linen (for which a very hot template is needed - 200 degrees C and more) who's to say that the image was not imprinted with something that turns yellow or brown at lower temperatures (leaving the linen itself largely unaffected)? Who's to say that any unchanged residues of the 'mystery' imprinting agent were not removed by a final washing step, maybe less drastic than Lalaing's, leaving no obvious traces of the agent for 20th/21st century investigators to detect?

How might the use of a particular mystery agent be implicated? Answer: by laboratory (or even kitchen) modelling. Have such investigations been conducted and reported? Answer: yes. Seek and ye shall find. Start by inputting flour and oil and oven into your preferred search engine. I'd supply a link, but the T&C's prevent this newbie from doing so until 15 or more comments have been posted.

I may return later to explain the inverted commas placed around 'forgery'. Suffice it so say that medieval fabrication of the (so-called) 'Shroud' of Turin does not necessarily means 'forgery' in the sense of wishing to deceive the first cohorts of viewers. I might also explain the inverted commas just placed around 'Shroud' as well.

Oh dear - was there ever a research problem as multifaceted as the 'Shroud' of Turin 'forgery'?

Last edited by meccanoman; 22nd February 2017 at 03:51 AM. Reason: typo
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 04:13 AM   #20
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
This quotation has been attributed to Savoy courtier, Antoine de Lalaing in 1503:

" Lalaing adds that the Shroud's authenticity has been confirmed by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times 'but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.' "

Even if one needs to take some of that with a pinch (or fistful) of salt, if nothing else it should serve as a warning to anyone trying to propose (or DISMISS) a role for a thermal imprinting mechanism as part of a medieval 'forgery' scenario. While there may not be evidence for a process that involves direct scorching of linen (for which a very hot template is needed - 200 degrees C and more) who's to say that the image was not imprinted with something that turns yellow or brown at lower temperatures (leaving the linen itself largely unaffected)? Who's to say that any unchanged residues of the 'mystery' imprinting agent were not removed by a final washing step, maybe less drastic than Lalaing's, leaving no obvious traces of the agent for 20th/21st century investigators to detect?

How might the use of a particular mystery agent be implicated? Answer: by laboratory (or even kitchen) modelling. Have such investigations been conducted and reported? Answer: yes. Seek and ye shall find. Start by inputting flour and oil and oven into your preferred search engine. I'd supply a link, but the T&C's prevent this newbie from doing so until 15 or more comments have been posted.

I may return later to explain the inverted commas placed around 'forgery'. Suffice it so say that medieval fabrication of the (so-called) 'Shroud' of Turin does not necessarily means 'forgery' in the sense of wishing to deceive the first cohorts of viewers. I might also explain the inverted commas just placed around 'Shroud' as well.

Oh dear - was there ever a research problem as multifaceted as the 'Shroud' of Turin 'forgery'?
If you have a link you find germane to the "authenticity" of the CIQ, post it as text and one of us will re-post it.

However, you really ought to read the "Miracle of the Shroud" threads before you simply re-submit something that has been examined to exhaustion.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 05:31 AM   #21
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
However, you really ought to read the "Miracle of the Shroud" threads before you simply re-submit something that has been examined to exhaustion.
after all, that soap opera totals less than 25000 posts, a cakewalk
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 06:06 AM   #22
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,145
Any arguments that contain the phrase "who's to say?' automatically set-off my BS meter.
[.../...]
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 06:08 AM   #23
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by wea View Post
after all, that soap opera totals less than 25000 posts, a cakewalk
Gotta earn your bones, man...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 08:28 AM   #24
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Who said anything about arguments? Sure, they can be entertaining and occasionally informative argument on sites such as this. But science, cutting-edge science that is, is more than argument. The progress of science depends on the formulating and testing of hypotheses, on refining those hypotheses in the light of new data, and occasionally having to abandon one's pet hypothesis and returning to square 1. Communing one-to-one with one's own data frequently plays a more important part than "argument", whether with colleagues or as here on public access forums and other websites.

Where does the original, revised or rehashed hypothesis come from in the first place? From imagination, blue-sky thinking, call it what you want, but one thing's for certain. The preamble "who's to say?" plays a vital, often obligatory role in stepping aside from existing confusion, contradictions, uncertainty or received wisdom and seeking out entirely new and original approaches, "going boldly etc etc" as per Star Trek.

Can someone enlighten this newbie on what light the thousands, nay tens of thousands of previous comments have thrown on the Shroud and/or its claimed 'early sightings'?

Personally, I consider the first sighting of the Shroud's distinctive two-fold head-to-head body image was the Lirey Pilgrim's badge, circa mid 1350s, with the twin Geoffroy de Charny/Jeanne de Vergy coats of arms. I would need a lot of convincing to believe it was the the much earlier Image of Edessa/Mandylion etc conveniently doubled-up 4 times ("tetradiplon") so that only the framed face was visible, as per Wilson's thesis, with an entire double-body imprint tucked out of sight. There would surely have been mention of the bloodstains etc, especially the distinctive reversed 3 on the forehead,long trickles in the hair etc to make clear that the image was post-crucifixion, or at any rate post-placement of crown of thorns, as distinct from a Veronica-style face-only pre-crucifixion imprint that is generally assumed or implied.
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 09:01 AM   #25
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Meccanoman, the initial thought the shroud was made was for a easter shroud , as a decoration. You can find it explained multi threads with example of other such clothes used as decoration for easter tabernacle.

The forgery part comes only when it started to be taken as the shroud of jesus.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 09:38 AM   #26
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Really? That's hardly the take-away message one gets from that recently-discovered Machy mould for a variant of the Lirey Pilgrim's badge, with its Veronica-like face of Jesus, accompanied by the word SUAIRE. That means "shroud' in medieval French, and is/was generally taken to mean "burial shroud" (leading to much misunderstanding in my opinion as to its real intended purpose as a temporary body-wrap en route from cross to tomb). Be that as it may, I fail to see how a single sheet of linen deployed in up-and-over mode to envelope an entire body, one especially that bears faithful-to-Gospel-bloodstains that imply death by THE Crucifixion, can usefully be described as "clothes" , whether for use in some kind of Easter ceremony or not. In any case, why go to all that trouble for a tiny private chapel way off the beaten track in rural Champagne, especially given the manufacture of at least one, probably two pilgrim's badges designed to attract folk from far and wide to that remote location, with supporting documentary evidence of those early public exhibitions from that celebrated if much maligned Pierre d'Arcis (Bishop of Troyes) memorandum.

That alleged role in some kind of once-a-year-only Easter ritual strikes me as a big distraction from the real pertinent facts, one I suspect that's being/been used to prop up the chemically-illiterate notion that the Shroud image is "just a painting". No it's not - it's a highly subtle contact imprint (thus the image-superficiality, confined to the crowns of the threads, the negative, tone-reversed character, the typical imprint-type response to 3D-rendering software, the absence of solid inorganic paint pigments, the bleachability of the image by diimide consistent with a complex organic chromophore (melanoidins?) containing conjugated double bonds etc etc.
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 09:44 AM   #27
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
The shroud is a medieval fabrication, this is well.supported by the evidence.
Yes, it's a medieval copy of the original shroud. The one we have now is the touring copy; Jesus' original burial cloth remains hidden.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 10:33 AM   #28
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,171
So what if the Shroud of Turin was created in 300-400 AD?

If this is actually the case (which is quite unlikely), then it still does not mean that the Shroud of Turin was actually a shroud that was used by Jesus.
__________________
On 16 MAY 2017 Paul Bethke discussed some of the sexual prohibitions of his god regarding man-to-man sex acts and woman-to-woman sex acts: "So not only lesbian acts but also anal sex.."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11840580

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 10:42 AM   #29
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,183
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Firstly if you look at the image, it does look more like the representation somebody of the epoch and not from the region would think Jesus look like , he looks Caucasian to me.

Secondly, carbon 14.

Thirdly, it does not even look like the shroud.

There is really nothing here to think, I think this was even discussed to death in the shroud thread.
No. Firstly, carbon 14. And you don't need second.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 10:47 AM   #30
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,587
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Betteridge's Law of Headlines in one!
Thanks. That was new to me. I am not a fan of punctuation in topic titles, but this one fits nicely as an advertisement for the contents.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 11:44 AM   #31
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Really? That's hardly the take-away message one gets from that recently-discovered Machy mould for a variant of the Lirey Pilgrim's badge, with its Veronica-like face of Jesus, accompanied by the word SUAIRE. That means "shroud' in medieval French, and is/was generally taken to mean "burial shroud" (leading to much misunderstanding in my opinion as to its real intended purpose as a temporary body-wrap en route from cross to tomb). Be that as it may, I fail to see how a single sheet of linen deployed in up-and-over mode to envelope an entire body, one especially that bears faithful-to-Gospel-bloodstains that imply death by THE Crucifixion, can usefully be described as "clothes" , whether for use in some kind of Easter ceremony or not. In any case, why go to all that trouble for a tiny private chapel way off the beaten track in rural Champagne, especially given the manufacture of at least one, probably two pilgrim's badges designed to attract folk from far and wide to that remote location, with supporting documentary evidence of those early public exhibitions from that celebrated if much maligned Pierre d'Arcis (Bishop of Troyes) memorandum.
You seem to be suggesting that the CIQ is, in fact, a piece of cloth that was, in one way or another, actually in contact with the christ-'god', with all the assumptions that entails. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
That alleged role in some kind of once-a-year-only Easter ritual strikes me as a big distraction from the real pertinent facts, one I suspect that's being/been used to prop up the chemically-illiterate notion that the Shroud image is "just a painting". No it's not - it's a highly subtle contact imprint (thus the image-superficiality, confined to the crowns of the threads, the negative, tone-reversed character, the typical imprint-type response to 3D-rendering software, the absence of solid inorganic paint pigments, the bleachability of the image by diimide consistent with a complex organic chromophore (melanoidins?) containing conjugated double bonds etc etc.
The "alleged" role as a banner has been discussed with support, in the "Miracle of the Shroud" thread(s).

However, you touch on my personal hobby horse:

The "faithful-to-the-gospel" "bloodstains" are, demonstrably, NOT blood or blood products; further, they are hyper-real; that is, they look as they would look had they been over-faithfully applied by someone who knew what they thought the "bloodstains" ought to look like. The hyperprecision of the "dumbell" scourge-marks is but one example.

A more telling problem is the anatomical inaccuracy (not to mention the postural impossibility) of the cartoon.

JFG, may I inquire after your qualifications in art, and chemistry, and chemical art issues?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 11:45 AM   #32
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Yes, it's a medieval copy of the original shroud. The one we have now is the touring copy; Jesus' original burial cloth remains hidden.
Again with the blythe assumption that the christ-'god' ever existed...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 12:00 PM   #33
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
"You seem to be suggesting that the CIQ is, in fact, a piece of cloth that was, in one way or another, actually in contact with the christ-'god', with all the assumptions that entails. Am I wrong?"

Yup. The TS is an imprint from a medieval-era human volunteer, possibly two simultaneously (one for frontal, one for dorsal), though probably with a bas relief for the face, as conceded by Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli in his powder-frottage model.

"The "faithful-to-the-gospel" "bloodstains" are, demonstrably, NOT blood or blood products; further, they are hyper-real; that is, they look as they would look had they been over-faithfully applied by someone who knew what they thought the "bloodstains" ought to look like. The hyperprecision of the "dumbell" scourge-marks is but one example."


Agreed.

"JFG, may I inquire after your qualifications in art, and chemistry, and chemical art issues?"

Nope, but you're allowed to speculate. ;-)
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 12:12 PM   #34
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
"You seem to be suggesting that the CIQ is, in fact, a piece of cloth that was, in one way or another, actually in contact with the christ-'god', with all the assumptions that entails. Am I wrong?"

Yup. The TS is an imprint from a medieval-era human volunteer, possibly two simultaneously (one for frontal, one for dorsal), though probably with a bas relief for the face, as conceded by Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli in his powder-frottage model.
OK: so, no implication about the actual existence of any kind of 'god'. Good.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
"The "faithful-to-the-gospel" "bloodstains" are, demonstrably, NOT blood or blood products; further, they are hyper-real; that is, they look as they would look had they been over-faithfully applied by someone who knew what they thought the "bloodstains" ought to look like. The hyperprecision of the "dumbell" scourge-marks is but one example."


Agreed.
Good. A votary artifact, not a relic of the crucifiction of any actual 'god'.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
"JFG, may I inquire after your qualifications in art, and chemistry, and chemical art issues?"

Nope, but you're allowed to speculate. ;-)
Ah. Coyness. Good. No actual qualifications, then.

This really, really ought to be merged in with the other "Shroud" threads...

ETA: the "Quote" button, lower right, lets you quote words and preserve the identity of the original author. It helps avoid confusion...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 22nd February 2017 at 12:14 PM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 12:13 PM   #35
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,272
Well this should be fun if it goes anything like the previous shroud threads. (Rimshot)
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 12:16 PM   #36
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
Well this should be fun if it goes anything like the previous shroud threads. (Rimshot)
I keep asking for a merge...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 12:31 PM   #37
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
This whole thing is going to unravel.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 12:33 PM   #38
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
This whole thing is going to unravel.
Meh. Not a patch on the original...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 12:46 PM   #39
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
What makes you think specialists in this or that have the answer?

[quote=Slowvehicle;11728079]

Ah. Coyness. Good. No actual qualifications, then.


One can only speculate as to who created the Shroud, how they made it, precisely when they made it, why they made it. What's more the image characteristics are totally unique, often described as 'enigmatic'. Scores, maybe hundreds of experts, armed with sophisticated instrumentation, have failed to produce a chemical formula for the Shroud body image, or the precise chemical composition of that unblood-like "blood" that stays permanently red and lacks a typical porphyrin spectrum (Adler and Heller).

So why bother asking for a commentator's qualifications in this or that? How can you be so certain they would have any bearing on something that is a total mystery?

Why not stick to discussing the issues? If you have reason to doubt what I or others say, then the onus is surely on you to consult specialists and/or experts
of your choosing whom you consider might have relevant expertise.
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2017, 01:04 PM   #40
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,391
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
........If you have reason to doubt what I or others say, then the onus is surely on you to consult specialists and/or experts
of your choosing whom you consider might have relevant expertise.
Oh no, no, no. The burden is on those making the claim. If you can't back up your claim, the sensible will consider it null and void. It couldn't be any other way, otherwise you would have to be seeking proof that there isn't a pink unicorn farting star-dust as it orbits the earth.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.