|
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. |
28th December 2015, 02:17 PM | #2241 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
Totally absurd, considering that you have admitted you have no direct evidene.
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously the answer to all three is NO. You have to take what you can get, or get out. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
28th December 2015, 03:15 PM | #2242 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
28th December 2015, 08:41 PM | #2243 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
28th December 2015, 09:15 PM | #2244 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
My Dear Mr. Savage:
I am sorry to say that this last post of yours contains many things to which a reasonable person will, even must, object. First, I remind you that you do not have "multiple opponents"; you have only one: reality. Second, I beleive that you are misusing the term, "colleagues". There are as many reasons to point out the errors in your apporach and your reasoning as there are people doing so. You may, in fact, feel as if a vast group of posters are allied against you; in fact, there is no such alliance. Third, you have yet to provide a single bit of evidence that positively indicates that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. You have made a habit of continued equivocation, ignoring the demonstrable fact that casting unsupported aspersions on the 14C date, or calumniating Mme F-L and Dr. McCrone, do nothing to indicate a 1st Century C.E. date for the CIQ; nor do they undermine a mid-13th Century C.E. date. The 14C dating is a consistent part of a bigger pattern: the cloth itself, the style of the representative (and, I remind you, undistorted) image, the hisotrical record, the papal declaration of fraud; all of these and more point to a medieval date. You have yet to provide any evidence that says otherwise. Please do be aware that conjectures about "...patching..." or the Whangers' fanciful pareidolia are not evidence of a 1st Century C.E. date. (NB: even if the "coins" [for instance] that the Whangers claim to be able to identify were, in fact, images of 1st Century C.E. coins, that only provides a limit on how old the CIQ could be. I could be buried tomorrow with a 1st Centiry C.E. coin in my pocket...) Fourth, and very telling, you do not listen when it is explained to you why your sources (sources, it pains me to add, that you often have not even read) do not constitute evidence. As mentioned above, merely speculating about supposed weaknesses of the 14C date does nothing to indicate that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. Smearing Dr. McCrone and Mme F-L does nothing to indicate that teh CIQ is ~2000 years old. You really, really ought to consider presenting what positive evidence you have. Fifth, your "branch about your "Effective Debate" technique would, in fact, be unsupportably off-topic for this thread. I, for one, will report any attempt at such a derail, and will agitate to have it removed form the thread. You had the opportunity to demonstrate your "Effective Debate" technique, in an unprecedented, protected, and moderated thread; a thread you, personally, abandoned. I wonder why it is that you have not admitted to, and attempted to explain, your actions there. If you must do so, please conduct that "branch" in a separate thread. Before you begin, do consider your experiences in your "immortality" thread(s), and in your "Effective Debate" threads; and ponder whether you have the resources to assay two discussions at once. In my humble opinion, what you really ought to do is find, and present, positive evidence (empirical, objective, testable, practical evidence, attested to by neutral scholars) that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old. Without that, all the rest is vanities (saith the ex-preacher). I continue to remain, Patiently yours &ct. |
__________________
"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 |
|
29th December 2015, 04:10 AM | #2245 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
The confusing system of Jabba's reasoning doesn't clarify the main stream of current sindonism: 90% of sindonists efforts are dedicated to disqualify the 14C dating. Sophisticated theories, such as the bio-plastic layer (Garza-Valdés), vanillin dating (Rogers), mechanical dating (Fanti) or invisible mending (Marino and Bedford) are developed with this aim. We have a new theory every month. There are two "curious" circumstances: they are mutually incompatible and there is not a sindonist consensus after more of 30 years of attempts. This is a serious objection against the critics of the radiocarbon dating 1988.
The sindonists usually reply that the sceptics have a similar problem: they cannot explain how the image of the shroud was made. They are unable to do a satisfactory reply with medieval resources. There is not a sceptical consensus about this question. I think this is the strongest position of sindonism. Is it really strong? |
29th December 2015, 04:36 AM | #2246 |
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
|
|
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin |
|
29th December 2015, 05:18 AM | #2247 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
No, it is not a strong position, at all. The committed sidonist acts as if casting enough ungrounded aspersion upon the 14C date demonstrates support for "authenticity"; when, in reality, if the 14C dating had never been done there is still no indication, none, that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.
And, as has been pointed out to Mr. Savage, even if the CIQ were conclusively demonstrated to be ~2000 years old, that does nothing to address all of the other deficiencies of the image. |
__________________
"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 |
|
29th December 2015, 05:53 AM | #2248 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
- Deflection, obfuscation, ignoring criticism, waffling...
I'll be back. |
29th December 2015, 12:28 PM | #2249 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
29th December 2015, 02:04 PM | #2250 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
29th December 2015, 02:07 PM | #2251 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
There is no engagement from Jabba with his critics therefore no debate.
|
29th December 2015, 02:12 PM | #2252 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Seven-day break, folks.
|
__________________
"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 |
|
29th December 2015, 02:41 PM | #2253 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
29th December 2015, 03:59 PM | #2254 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
|
29th December 2015, 04:44 PM | #2255 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
29th December 2015, 06:20 PM | #2256 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
29th December 2015, 06:24 PM | #2257 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
NVM
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
30th December 2015, 02:24 AM | #2258 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Well, you can say "the less weak".
I am afraid I have not explained it correctly. The argument arises in the context of a pragmatic conception of scientific truth. A scientific theory is verified when produces accurate predictions and affords manipulate (control) the things. There is not any scientific theory about the shroud that has been able to produce an exact replica of the Shroud with medieval resources. This situation goes on from a century and after more than ten failed attempts of replying it. Therefore, the Shroud is unavailable to science. Obviously this doesnt refute directly the 1988 dating, but introduces the mystery and opens the way to alternative knowledge. This line of reasoning seems to me harder than the efforts to invalidate the 1988 dating. |
30th December 2015, 02:49 AM | #2259 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
The best that could be done, even with full knowledge of how the original was created, would be to produce an exact replica of the Shroud as it looked when it was originally created 800 years ago. You would then need to wait 800 years, during which you would need to subject your replica to the identical environments and treatments the original underwent, before you could reasonably expect it to be an exact replica.
We cannot produce an exact replica of any centuries old art work as it looks now. We cannot deduce anything about such art works from that fact. |
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
30th December 2015, 03:15 AM | #2260 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
Not very long ago, I mentioned that we might be approaching a melt-down. Seems Jabba is aiming for a suicide by moderator. During the last several weeks, Jabba has made no attempt at all at any kind of argument. Instead, he has made diversions, attacked the form, and lamented that he is overwhelmed by enemies.
Once he achieves a banning, he can enjoy martyrdom with his friends, claiming that he was ganged up upon and silenced because skeptics did not want to have an effective debate[tm] . Sad. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
30th December 2015, 03:25 AM | #2261 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
The reason is that there is not enough data. Science has not has unhindered access to the shroud, so we cannot make a conclusive theory about how it was made. We cannt even know what it may have looked like when it was new.
Quote:
It does not open the way to alternative knowledge. Just to baseless speculation. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
30th December 2015, 11:00 AM | #2262 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Philippine Republic
Posts: 1,634
|
No, it would open the way to never-ending Shround-of-the-gaps assertions by Shroudies. Can you imagine a replica sufficiently faithful to the original such that a dedicated Shroudie would accept it? I can't, and I don't think that I'm being the least bit cynical. ETA: OK, yes, considering the definition it is cynical. But I think it's reasonable based on my experience in this thread. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
__________________
If bands were cars, Band Maid would be a pink Nissan GT-R with a Hello Kitty graphic wrap. |
|
30th December 2015, 11:12 AM | #2263 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
1. As already mentioned, to duplicate the SOT now could only produce a young SOT replica, which would differ from the old SOT if only for that reason.
2. If you actually look at the claims of the pro-authenticity SOT advocates, the things about the SOT that they claim cannot be reproduced are in fact not true of the SOT itself- they exist only in their imaginations. Example: "The original image was created without the use of paint/pigment" so they claim that one would have to reproduce such an image without paint or pigment. Well, there is a lot of evidence that the original has pigment/paint on it. 3. As mentioned many times, even if one were to throw up one's hands and state that the Shroud could not be duplicated today, that doesn't mean that it is Christ's burial shroud in any way. Let's even say only a miracle could create the SOT (not true, but okay for argument): then it could any miracle- an image of a very virtuous knight in 1203 AD, an image of Mohammed, an image of a graveyard marker created by a ghost, etc. Even more- duplication is not a requirement for a scientific assessment. We can't duplicate a supernova, or even understand exactly what happens during the event, but science fully accepts supernovas. |
30th December 2015, 01:01 PM | #2264 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,843
|
Martyred by the Mods? Yes, possibly that's Jabba's intent, whether altogether consciously or otherwise.
Could it happen to a nicer guy? |
__________________
When I spoke out against the bullies, they called me woke. When I lashed them with a length of chain, they called me sir. |
|
30th December 2015, 01:25 PM | #2265 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
Also, it's been done:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe....turin.shroud/ Anyone claiming the shroud can't be replicated is either lying or hasn't done their research. |
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
30th December 2015, 06:16 PM | #2266 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
31st December 2015, 01:13 AM | #2267 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
A “ lot of evidence”? I know only one: McCrone enquiry that was denied by Adler.
I agree. But the door is still open to the miracle or paranormal effects. (I don't believe in miracles or paranormal. I am intending to close de door). You are right, but in the case of astronomy the control is largely replaced by prediction. This is not the case of the Shroud of Turin. Even more, in astrology we have some evident reasons that hamper the manipulation (large scale of the objects). This is not the case of the Shroud of Turin. |
31st December 2015, 01:15 AM | #2268 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
31st December 2015, 01:33 AM | #2269 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I agree,but the correct answer to both arguments is scepticism: we don't know anything about the Shroud, except its date. The science has nothing to say about the Shroud of Turin. This explains the constant attacks against the 14C dating.
My question: Is there any non scientific argument against the authenticity of the Shroud? Is there some kind of non sicentific argument in favour of the painting theory? |
31st December 2015, 06:30 AM | #2270 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
There are manifold arguments againt authenticity, and in favor of the painting (or daubing, or block transfer) theories; many of them tend to overlap.
To delineate but a few: 1. There is no reliable record of the CIQ (Cloth In Question) before the 13th Century C.E. (or so). 2. The CIQ was declared a clever work of art by a pope, who claimed to know the identity of the painter. 3. The linen of the CIQ resembles cloths of the mid-13th Century C.E. to a far greater extent than it resembles any fabric known to date from the first Century C.E. 4. The image on the CIQ shows none of the distortion and lateral expansion that would result from being wrapped around a three-dimensional object. 5. The CIQ does not, in any way, match the description of the "strips" of linen said to be said to have been wrapped around the body of MJ. 6. The supposed preparation of the body does not match the known funerary practices of the 1st Centutry C.E.; if the body had been washed and prepared according "the customs of the Jews", it would not have still been bleeding. 7. The representational image on the CIQ matches the Byzantine style of exaggeration and elongation. 8. The representational image is anatomically ridiculous, form the length of the arms to the representations of the hands and on to the distinctly european cast of the features. 9. The representational image is posturally impossible; the "shroud slough" cannot be duplicated by an actual body lying on a flat surface. 10. The "hair" of the representational image falls neatly toward the feet, as if the body were presented erect, instead of falling behind the head as would happen with an actual, supine body. 11. There are reasons to question whether the HJ (even had he been a "nazarite" would have had, in fact, long, flowing, straight hair). 12. The images of "blood" on the CIQ are represented as flowing in directions that ignore the fct of gravity. 13. The images of "blood" on the CIQ are represented as flowing in ways that ignore capillary action and fluid dynamics, as well as the adsorptive interaction of actual hair and actual blood. 14. The substances detected on the CIQ are consistent with common medieval pigments, sizes, and gessoes. ...and so on. Some of those may be too "scientific" to fulfill your request; but all are, in fact, consistent with and/or indicative of a medieval image rendered on a sized and gessoed surface. The arguments for "authenticity" are, in essence, pareidoilia (The Whangers claim to be able to identify 1st Century C.E. coins laid on the eyes of the "body"); calumny ("Mme. F-L was incompetent, dishonest and part of the conspiracy"); or fabulous special pleading ("a burst of 'resurrection energy' suspended the corpse between the sheets, while much of the actual 14C was transmuted to 14N by 'neutron irradiation' "). Their common characteristic is that they are driven by the assumed consequent, rather than by evidence. |
__________________
"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 |
|
31st December 2015, 06:56 AM | #2271 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
|
So, Slowvehicle, what do you think?
|
31st December 2015, 07:02 AM | #2272 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
31st December 2015, 07:29 AM | #2273 |
Lost in translation
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
|
Nice work, but since Jabba has found that the preponderance of the evidence is in the authenticity panŽ, he will easily refute all your points and present all sorts of evidence. Any time now. Of course he may "accidentally" get banned before he has an opportunity to present it. Poor guy. He's been trying so hard to present his strong evidence. Did I mention it is preponderant? |
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "Theres a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." Stephen Wright |
|
31st December 2015, 07:46 AM | #2274 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
1st January 2016, 03:12 AM | #2275 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Too much.
You include dubious facts (2, 6 ), exaggerations (3), vague sentences (5), non-conclusive sentences (7, 8, 11), debated facts (14)... All these evidences have been questioned by sindonists long time ago. I think a most suitable strategy should be focused on strong points. In your scheme the strong points are 4, 10, 12, 13. Point 4, 10 forces the sindonist to claim miraculous events if correctly developed. The “blood rivulets” (12 and 13) lead to a factual impossibility. (Very interesting -and obvious: Garlaschelli and Borrini: https://youtu.be/SNzVc1MqJ2s ; Garlaschelli, Luigi & Borrini, Matteo: “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin:A Preliminary Examination of the Left Forearm to Reconstruct the Crucifixion Practice”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 66th Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, February 17-22, 2014; http://www.aafs.org/sites/default/fi...roceedings.pdf ). I think this line of attack makes irrelevant all the never ending debates with sindonists about the nature of the stains of blood, the invisible mending, the coins in the eyes and other sindonist topics. Yes, the sindonist can take refuge in miracle claims. (Cf. Gilbert Lavoie or John Jackson), but this upsets the bulk of the “sindonologs” because their alleged science became irrelevant. The “sindonology” is a myth of the twentieth century because its acritical devotion of techno-science. It is a myth built with slot machines. The sindonists need a “scientific” confirmation of the existence of God. Without this, they become simple believers and remain in front of the philosophical/epistemological problems of their belief. They don’t like this. Too heavy. Therefore, if you want to put an end to a discussion with a sindonist, you should bring on the table simple questions as the floating hair, the blood trails on the nape or the absence of marks of crush in the buttocks due to the corporal weight. Every time that I have brought those questions up to the sindonists they tried to change of subject. Significative. |
1st January 2016, 04:03 AM | #2276 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
Dubious? The Pope at the time declared it fake, fact. The CiQ does not match funereal practice of the time, nor the biblical description, fact. You have an evidentiary mountain to climb if you claim otherwise.
Nope. That weave is unknown until medieval times. If you have evidence that such a weave was present in the Levant 2,000 years ago, please, share. Nobody else has ever seen such. Seems pretty clear to me. No such burial cloth has ever been seen anywhere else, it does not conform to burial methods of the period and frankly, it would be a stupid way to wrap a corpse. Why? It is a typical Byzantine illustration, it is anatomically messed up and the hair style of preference at the time was short. So where is your problem? Facts are not subject to debate. And debunked long ago. Your point? You are a believer? You want to direct the counter argument to where you think you can argue rather than the issues you know you cannot? It matters not what you think. What does the evidence say? It matters not what they like. What does the evidence say? You are advocating pandering to sindonists, ignoring evidence that shoots them in the foot and only debating that which they think they can argue when the eveidence is right in front of them. Do you think that's valid? Ignore the actual evidence so that one may focus on the arguable? Really? And you are doing exactly the same thing. "Ignore the man behind the curtain". Well, sorry. The real world does not work that way. I refuse to ignore the man behind the curtain. I refuse to engage in the wantonly ignorant exercise that if we ignore some evidence then maybe...<insert woo here>. The evidence is the evidence. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
1st January 2016, 04:10 AM | #2277 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
1st January 2016, 04:55 AM | #2278 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
So you feel one should ignore all the objective evidence and concentrate on something vague. ..... You should get along fine with Jabba.
Anyhow, I have no particular need to put an end to the discussion. If I want that, I simply leave. It is not my problem what these people want to believe. They want to discuss it with me, and since I do like debate, I tend to comply. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
1st January 2016, 04:56 AM | #2279 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,622
|
According to his website, David believes the dirty tea towel to be a medieval fake.
|
__________________
You can't defeat fascism through debate because it's not simply an idea, proposal or theory. It's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world. It's a distorting prism, emotionally charged and completely logic-proof. You may as well challenge rabies to a game of Boggle. @ViolettaCrisis |
|
1st January 2016, 06:28 AM | #2280 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
How very...odd. You dispute that there is "a lot of evidence" that the CIQ is a representational image; and yet, when presented with a précis of the evidences that the CIQ cannot physically be the "shroud" in which a body (any body) was "wrapped" after supposedly being crucified, you complain about being presented with "too much" evidence.
For a more exhaustive list of the evidence, look here. I will overlook the fact that each one of your objections has, in fact, been addressed by multiple posters in this tortuous, 4-part thread, and simply respond to your objections. With facts. (2)There is nothing "dubious" about the historical fact that Bishop D'Arcis reported to Pope Clement VII that the CIQ was a cleverly-wrought fake produced by an artist. Pope Clement's response was to allow the continued exhibition of the CIQ, but not as a relic; and to instruct the clergy that it should not be presented as the "actual shroud of Christ", but as an image of it. (6)There is nothing "dubious" about he fact that, had the body supposedly "wrapped" in the CIQ been prepared "...following the Jewish burial custom..." (John 19:40, NJB), it would have been washed, and wrapped in strips of linen, with spices. The "body" represented on the CIQ is represented as bleeding copiously enough for blood to flow down its neck; this could not happen (ignoring for a moment the navďete of the representation of the "blood flows") if the body had been washed after its heart had stopped beating. The CIQ is a sheet of linen that shows no hint of draping distortion; the image is flat. The gospels call for "strips" of linen (ὀθόνιον, literally the diminutive of ὀθόνη) that were "wrapped" (δέω) around the body. The CIQ does not conform with what is known about 1st. Century C.E. funerary practices, nor with what is presented in the 'god'spiel. (3)The linen of the CIQ is of a size and fineness typical of medieval looms. The 3:1 weave is not represented in any piece of cloth known to date from the 1st Century C.E. This is not an "exaggeration" but a statement of fact. You are welcome to provide evidence of any authentically-dated 1st Century C.E. middle eastern cloth that demonstrated the 3:1 twill, but until you do, your characterization is demonstrably incorrect. (5)The 'god'spiel attributed to "John" states that the body was "wrapped" (δέω) in "strips" (ὀθόνιον) of linen. The CIQ is a "sheet" (ὀθόνη) of linen; the representational image on it shows no trace of wrapping distortions. I confess that I am not sure what you mean by "non-conclusive sentences". However: (7)The Byzantine style of representational image is a style recognizable by anyone with even a layman's exposure to religious iconography. It is characterized by distinctly european facial feature, with characteristic elongations, simplifications, and iconic traditions. The representational image on the CIQ follows recognizable Byzantine traditions. (8)The arms of the figure represented on the CIQ are not the same length; the posture of the CIQ cannot be assumed by an actual body on a flat surface; the features of the "face" on the CIQ are european ("gentile white guy, meek and mild..."), and not representational of middle eastern peoples of the 1st Century C.E. (11)The wild-eyed prophet with untrimmed locks and beard is a medieval construct; the "hippie Jesus" in white robe and sandals is a 19th century construct; a Jewish man of the 1st Century CE (or, for that matter, any 1st Century C.E. asiatic Hebrew) would have been unlikely to have sported the long, flowing locks depicted on the CIQ (Xref. Cor. 11:14). (14)I suggest you read Bright Earth, by Phillip Ball. The substances on the CIQ are representative of common medieval art supplies. The ubiquitous CaCO3 indicates that the linen was sized and gessoed, which is not something that would be done to any cloth intended to absorb fluids leaking from a corpse (size and gesso are used to prevent fluids from absorbing into the treated cloth). Of course sidonists disagree with the evidence; they do so, however, without the support of demonstrable fact. They do so in support of their assumed consequent, with incessant special pleading, instead of allowing the evidence to lead to a conclusion. You are, of course, welcome to whatever approach comforts you. I will continue as I have done, pointing out that there is not a single bit of evidence that actually supports "authenticity"; instead, every bit of evidence points to the fact that the CIQ is not a 1st Century C.E. cloth in which a 1st Century C.E. body was wrapped. I would, however, encourage you to be more careful about misrepresenting facts that are presented you. |
__________________
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|