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

Closed Thread
Old 2nd December 2015, 09:30 AM   #1801
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Hopefully Jabba can spend some of his vacation time trying to find positive evidence in favor of authenticity. My guess is, he'll come back with "blood!".
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 09:57 AM   #1802
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,355
Should we place bets on what the next fringe reset will be, then?
__________________
<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 Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 10:12 AM   #1803
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,378
My crystal ball says: " No one has exactly duplicated the CIQ, therefore authenticity"
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 01:39 PM   #1804
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,205
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:

What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.)

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 02:46 PM   #1805
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,353
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:

What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.)

Perhaps if the holy sandal could be recovered, we could do a DNA comparison with the blood on the shroud. It wouldn't establish authenticity, but at least it could rule out it being Brian of Nazareth's shroud. Then he'd have one fewer person to rule out...

Basically, Jabba has set himself an impossible task. The chances of producing evidence connecting a particular piece of cloth of unknown provenance with a particular first-century preacher of unknown burial place is pretty much zero. And given the evidence suggesting a medieval origin for the cloth and the image on it, the anatomical impossibility, etc...
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 2nd December 2015 at 02:51 PM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 02:46 PM   #1806
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:

What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.)

Hans
Some things I would expect to see in support of such a possibility:
!. Reliable dating of the artifact to the correct period.
2. Identification of the material as consistent with the alleged source.
3. Identification of the production methods as consistent with the alleged source.
4. Demonstration of similarity to other such objects known to be from the same period and area.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 02:46 PM   #1807
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:

What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.)

Hans
One person's opinion: Long before you get to whose shroud it is, there would have to be some evidence that it actually was a burial shroud for an actual person. For example, it would have to show the 3D characteristics that occur when a cloth is wrapped around a body.

Then there would have to be some evidence that would link it to the first century CE. It would need to be made of material similar to other materials for that time/place. There would need to be some reason to date it accordingly, and indicate that it could only have come from that time/place.

Once those requirements were met, you'd have to start demonstrating that Jesus actually existed, and was in fact buried wrapped in a one piece shroud (as opposed to the strips of linen that was the custom of the time, and is what is claimed in the bible.)

While this would still not be conclusive, it would at least give me a reason to consider it as a possibility.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 03:23 PM   #1808
Steve
Master Poster
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Perhaps if the holy sandal could be recovered, we could do a DNA comparison with the blood on the shroud. It wouldn't establish authenticity, but at least it could rule out it being Brian of Nazareth's shroud. Then he'd have one fewer person to rule out...

Basically, Jabba has set himself an impossible task. The chances of producing evidence connecting a particular piece of cloth of unknown provenance with a particular first-century preacher of unknown burial place is pretty much zero. And given the evidence suggesting a medieval origin for the cloth and the image on it, the anatomical impossibility, etc...
Heretic!!! The gourd is the one true symbol!
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 03:47 PM   #1809
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,378
Historical provenance traceable to the right time and place.
14C or other radiometric dating, or any hard physical data tracing it to the right time.
Similarity to other samples from the same period.
Evidence that it was an actual burial cloth.
Evidence that Jesus really existed.
Evidence that this cloth was Jesus' burial cloth -- like DNA-matching the many holy foreskins through the ages to this same cloth

And then, maybe.

ETA: I just had a thought: If Jabba were banned here, and somehow returned again on the third day, would he bring his own shroud?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 2nd December 2015 at 03:57 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 03:55 PM   #1810
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,531
Let me summarize the epistemological approach in a fourth of the related threads:

Pikachu is proof of authenticity
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 04:01 PM   #1811
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,355
Cart before the horse. We still haven't solved the debate of Pikachu's historicity.
__________________
<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 Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 04:02 PM   #1812
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,442
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Historical provenance traceable to the right time and place.
14C or other radiometric dating, or any hard physical data tracing it to the right time.
Similarity to other samples from the same period.
Evidence that it was an actual burial cloth.
Evidence that Jesus really existed.
Evidence that this cloth was Jesus' burial cloth -- like DNA-matching the many holy foreskins through the ages to this same cloth

And then, maybe.
I agree. The foreskins might not be authentic, so I would be willing to agree if the DNA was haploid, a homozygous diploid (two XXs I guess), or a human DNA combined with something very exotic.

Honestly, if we are only discussing what Jabba should work toward in his proof, then I would be happy if his initial sub-conclusions would at least be based on the first 5. If even that much was established, we could then work on ways that potentially might next identify the individual buried in the cloth as Jesus rather than as some other person of that era and location. I started to think of how that next step might be approached, but then realized that we would never get past #1.

Last edited by Giordano; 2nd December 2015 at 04:03 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 05:54 PM   #1813
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,378
brb
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 2nd December 2015 at 05:57 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2015, 07:42 PM   #1814
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,611
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:

What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.)

Hans
Well, first I'd want to see carbon dating placing the CIQ in the correct time period. Without dating evidence there's nothing. Next, I'd have to see some historical evidence indicating Jesus was an oddly shaped man who could lay on his back with his arms bent and still cover his penis. It's a little hard to imagine someone with arms that freakishly long as that not having that particular feature mentioned in a historical account.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 01:20 AM   #1815
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,532
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:

What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.)

Hans
That would be extremely difficult, as the shroud doesn't conform with burial rituals of the time, both in the real world and the Bible.
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 02:04 AM   #1816
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,533
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
That would be extremely difficult, as the shroud doesn't conform with burial rituals of the time, both in the real world and the Bible.
In that case, evidence needed could include the discovery of contemporary documents which did describe the manner of burial consistent with the Turin cloth.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 07:44 AM   #1817
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,532
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
In that case, evidence needed could include the discovery of contemporary documents which did describe the manner of burial consistent with the Turin cloth.
But wasn't there a report [referenced up-thread somewhere] where real burials and the Bible actually agreed - and they didn't match the CIQ?

But you're right - should such a discovery be made, it might/would add some doubt to the existing contrary evidence.
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 08:37 AM   #1818
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,664
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:

What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.)

Hans
As we are where we are, then the evidence to convince me would have to be pretty dramatic, probably entailing a change in the way we understand the laws of physics.

I remain open to other evidence concerning other old rags, I just don't have a need to believe in the CIQ.
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 08:45 AM   #1819
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,205
Well, I agree with most, here. I hope this might make Jabba realize just how long his path is.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 12:24 PM   #1820
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 336
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:

What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.)

Hans
Just for a start, I would need to see some kind of secular paper (papyrus? parchment?) trail establishing the existence of Jesus, his career, and his execution.

I recall reading that Jesus is conspicuously absent from any contemporary secular histories, and that the Romans were great record keepers.
Humots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 12:29 PM   #1821
Lucian
Illuminator
 
Lucian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
As we are where we are, then the evidence to convince me would have to be pretty dramatic, probably entailing a change in the way we understand the laws of physics.
The shroud turned me into a newt.
Lucian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 12:42 PM   #1822
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,468
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well, I agree with most, here. I hope this might make Jabba realize just how long his path is.

Hans
I'm uncertain that he will. All along, Jabba has considered that discrediting the evidence for a medieval date is sufficient to prove a 2kya date.

I have no idea why he thinks this is the case, in fact several over the course of this thread and it's former iterations have pointed out exactly why this is utterly useless. I would like to ask Jabba upon his return to address that very point, yet he has steadfastly refused to do so for all of those who have asked that very question, so why should I expect to be any different? For four years.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 12:52 PM   #1823
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,907
Originally Posted by Lucian View Post
The shroud turned me into a newt.

Really?! A newt?
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 01:41 PM   #1824
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 Monza View Post
Really?! A newt?
...He got better...
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 02:11 PM   #1825
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth (aside from any claims to divinity) is one leg of the proof. And while several scholarly works are available for that study, they fall short of being able to place Jesus at distinct times and places. Thus we don't have any basis to localize him in a time and place that allows for attribution of artifacts.

The provenance and propriety of the cloth is another leg. Provenance includes scientific dating and some verifiable story of how it came into our possession. Propriety includes fitting it into a cultural and artistic tradition that matches its purported origin. The real problem here is that the scientific dating of the cloth corresponds to a period of rampant forgery of relics. Now that is consilience. But in any case a successful proof must place the cloth at the appropriate time and place.

In the general case, the connection of a specific artifact with a specific figure centuries dead requires the artifact to be discovered with the corpse. Yes, if we find a dead cave man 15,000 feet up a remote mountain, and an archery bow 30 feet from the corpse, they're probably connected. But if you talk about one alleged rabble-rouser who lived 2,000 years ago in a big city and didn't become an iconic figure until much later, and a cloth that suddenly appeared in the medieval period, there is really no scientific basis upon which one could make a case for a connection.

It's a two-legged stool, with two very wobbly legs.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 02:20 PM   #1826
Lucian
Illuminator
 
Lucian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...He She got better...
Cured sir. Yes, sir, bloody miracle, sir. Fellow comes along and cures me without so much as a by-your-leave.












Alms for an ex-newt!
Lucian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 02:44 PM   #1827
Lucian
Illuminator
 
Lucian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth (aside from any claims to divinity) is one leg of the proof. And while several scholarly works are available for that study, they fall short of being able to place Jesus at distinct times and places. Thus we don't have any basis to localize him in a time and place that allows for attribution of artifacts.

The provenance and propriety of the cloth is another leg. Provenance includes scientific dating and some verifiable story of how it came into our possession. Propriety includes fitting it into a cultural and artistic tradition that matches its purported origin. The real problem here is that the scientific dating of the cloth corresponds to a period of rampant forgery of relics. Now that is consilience. But in any case a successful proof must place the cloth at the appropriate time and place.

In the general case, the connection of a specific artifact with a specific figure centuries dead requires the artifact to be discovered with the corpse. Yes, if we find a dead cave man 15,000 feet up a remote mountain, and an archery bow 30 feet from the corpse, they're probably connected. But if you talk about one alleged rabble-rouser who lived 2,000 years ago in a big city and didn't become an iconic figure until much later, and a cloth that suddenly appeared in the medieval period, there is really no scientific basis upon which one could make a case for a connection.

It's a two-legged stool, with two very wobbly legs.
Regarding the highlighted sentence: this wording is unfortunate and excessively general. We can, for instance, say with some authority that Alfred the Great commissioned the Alfred Jewel although it was not buried with him. We know this because the Alfred Jewel is inscribed with the words "AELFRED MEC HEHT GEWYRCAN," which means, "Alfred ordered me to be made." Similarly, we have sufficient evidence to suggest that the Shroud belonged to Geoffroi de Charny in the 14th century and Margaret de Charny in the 15th.
Lucian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2015, 03:41 PM   #1828
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Lucian View Post
Regarding the highlighted sentence: this wording is unfortunate and excessively general.
Yes it is. I meant to go back and add some notable special cases and then never did.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 01:04 AM   #1829
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,641
Originally Posted by Lucian View Post
Regarding the highlighted sentence: this wording is unfortunate and excessively general. We can, for instance, say with some authority that Alfred the Great commissioned the Alfred Jewel although it was not buried with him. We know this because the Alfred Jewel is inscribed with the words "AELFRED MEC HEHT GEWYRCAN," which means, "Alfred ordered me to be made." Similarly, we have sufficient evidence to suggest that the Shroud belonged to Geoffroi de Charny in the 14th century and Margaret de Charny in the 15th.
Regarding the Alfred Jewel, is the inscription just one tiny piece of evidence pointing at authenticity ? After all if anything else was "wrong" about it (like the wrong style or anachronistic features) then the inscription would be viewed as an attempt to fake authenticity.

After all, a laundry label saying "Burial shroud property of Jesus H Christ" on the shroud wouldn't be considered evidence of authenticity given how much else is wrong with it.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 04:06 AM   #1830
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 The Don View Post
Regarding the Alfred Jewel, is the inscription just one tiny piece of evidence pointing at authenticity ? After all if anything else was "wrong" about it (like the wrong style or anachronistic features) then the inscription would be viewed as an attempt to fake authenticity.

After all, a laundry label saying "Burial shroud property of Jesus H Christ" on the shroud wouldn't be considered evidence of authenticity given how much else is wrong with it.
This is worth exploring.

For me, this particular CIQ cannot be rehabilitated. There are, simply, too many things that are "wrong" about it, from the representational Byzantine-styled features of the face and body; though the gravity-challenged "hair" and "blood", past the scriptural, anatomical, mechanical, and historical impossibilities; down to the provenance and history of the cloth itself; there does not seem to be a single factor that would allow the CIQ to be considered the "True Shroud", much less demonstrated so to be.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 04:18 AM   #1831
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,664
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Regarding the Alfred Jewel, is the inscription just one tiny piece of evidence pointing at authenticity ? After all if anything else was "wrong" about it (like the wrong style or anachronistic features) then the inscription would be viewed as an attempt to fake authenticity.

After all, a laundry label saying "Burial shroud property of Jesus H Christ" on the shroud wouldn't be considered evidence of authenticity given how much else is wrong with it.
The shroud has its own fake laundry label in the form of the image.
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 04:45 AM   #1832
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,641
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
This is worth exploring.

For me, this particular CIQ cannot be rehabilitated. There are, simply, too many things that are "wrong" about it, from the representational Byzantine-styled features of the face and body; though the gravity-challenged "hair" and "blood", past the scriptural, anatomical, mechanical, and historical impossibilities; down to the provenance and history of the cloth itself; there does not seem to be a single factor that would allow the CIQ to be considered the "True Shroud", much less demonstrated so to be.
That's one of the things I've learned from this thread. Beforehand I thought that the carbon dating was the key evidence because pretty much everything else was plausible or at least not implausible. Now I know about everything else, even if the carbon dating gave a first century date, I'd question it
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 06:31 AM   #1833
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 The Don View Post
That's one of the things I've learned from this thread. Beforehand I thought that the carbon dating was the key evidence because pretty much everything else was plausible or at least not implausible. Now I know about everything else, even if the carbon dating gave a first century date, I'd question it
...keepin' the "E" in ISF...
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 09:13 AM   #1834
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
That's one of the things I've learned from this thread. Beforehand I thought that the carbon dating was the key evidence because pretty much everything else was plausible or at least not implausible. Now I know about everything else, even if the carbon dating gave a first century date, I'd question it
Hence the wobbly-stool analogy. A determination of authenticity is a judgment that has to stand on several sturdy legs in order to work. Shoring up one leg of it doesn't buy you anything. And Jabba isn't even doing that; he's kicking the guys who are inspecting the legs for sturdiness, apparently in the hopes that if they can't make their determination then no one will know just how wobbly it is.

As for overall plausibility, the claim is patently implausible on its face. From a community known to fake relics, in the period of frantic relic-faking, comes an artifact claiming to be the most intimately pertinent relic of all. Uh, right.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 12:58 PM   #1835
Lucian
Illuminator
 
Lucian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Regarding the Alfred Jewel, is the inscription just one tiny piece of evidence pointing at authenticity ? After all if anything else was "wrong" about it (like the wrong style or anachronistic features) then the inscription would be viewed as an attempt to fake authenticity.

After all, a laundry label saying "Burial shroud property of Jesus H Christ" on the shroud wouldn't be considered evidence of authenticity given how much else is wrong with it.
That's true, of course. In the case of the Alfred Jewel, all the evidence suggests that it is genuine and that it is Anglo-Saxon. Given that evidence, the inscription ties it firmly to Alfred's reign. Moreover, while it doesn't prove Alfred owned it, it provides reasonable evidence that he did indeed have it made. And although we're on slightly shakier ground here, it was probably made as part of Alfred's program of educational reform. Specifically, it and similar jewels from the same time period were probably used as pointers for reading. In the case of the Alfred Jewel, I believe we have consilience: different strands of evidence that strongly suggest that Alfred had the jewel made.

In the case of the shroud, we have many different strands of evidence that show that it was produced during the Middle Ages, centuries after the Alfred Jewel. I'm putting that in bold just so no one thinks that my comments about the authenticity of the Alfred Jewel could in any way be used to argue for the shroud's authenticity.

I used the Alfred Jewel as an example because it was the first thing that popped into my head that wasn't a medieval manuscript. I just wanted to point out that sometimes we do have evidence that a specific artifact belonged to/was associated with a specific long-dead individual, even if that evidence comes from the humanities instead of/as well as the sciences.
Lucian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 02:02 PM   #1836
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,442
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
That's one of the things I've learned from this thread. Beforehand I thought that the carbon dating was the key evidence because pretty much everything else was plausible or at least not implausible. Now I know about everything else, even if the carbon dating gave a first century date, I'd question it
Absolutely! WIthout thinking much about it, before the carbon dating I thought that the total sums of evidence for vs. against authenticity were perhaps 30/70, or even 10/90, but I did assume that there must be some, perhaps ambiguous, evidence on the pro-authenticity "pan." I must ultimately thank Jabba for dragging out all the "pro-authenticity" arguments into the light. leaving me amazed to see that there was no pro-authenticity evidence at all, and that the only arguments made by the pro-authenticity advocates were entirely imaginative, made up of whole-cloth (sorry) attempts to desperately cast some doubt on the extra-ordinarily strong anti-authenticity evidence. And unbelievably this has continued even after the definitive carbon dating results. Sure, the isotopic date is all wrong, the weave of the clothe is wrong, the image is impossible if based on a 3D person, the chemical analysis is consistent with the use of pigment, the is no written record establishing the current SOT as coming from the time of Christ, the Church itself denounced it as a fake, etc. Yet we have multiple people wasting their lives to come up with some imagined doubt in each of these pieces of evidence, generally along the lines "Well, isn't possible that the one region tested was an invisible (even under a microscope) patch made with Middle Ages cloth that just had precisely the same look as the original under lighting not available in the Middle Ages, and thus totally unlike the overt patches in the other parts of the cloth."

It is really fairly sad that people are so desperate to make it a holy object despite all evidence to the contrary.

So thank you Jabba, and of course thanks to the rest of you here, for clarifying the true "balance" of evidence here. The thread educated me, and also made me much less willing in general to assume that where there is smoke there must be a least a tiny bit of fire.

Last edited by Giordano; 4th December 2015 at 03:26 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 02:48 PM   #1837
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,378
I'll add my voice to those above. I thought that there must be some compelling reason the think CIQ was authentic, or else people wouldn't cling to that idea so tenaciously.

Having examined the best Jabba has to offer, I have no doubt that it is a medieval artifact made either to deceive, or as a prop for worship ceremonies.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 03:43 PM   #1838
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
I thought that there must be some compelling reason the think CIQ was authentic, or else people wouldn't cling to that idea so tenaciously.
Spend enough time among some of the die-hard Italian Catholics and you'll realize the reason for clinging has nothing to do with evidence. Some of the rural Italians I knew had such a warped and superstitious interpretation of Catholicism that it was sometimes scary.

Umberto Eco mocks this a bit in The Name of the Rose. The hero is impressing his young apprentice with his knowledge of relics, and tells him he has seen the skull of John the Baptist at age 12. The apprentice is at once impressed, then reconsiders: "But the Baptist was executed at a much more advanced age." The hero responds, "The other skull must be at some other monastery."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 05:38 PM   #1839
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,378
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Spend enough time among some of the die-hard Italian Catholics and you'll realize the reason for clinging has nothing to do with evidence. Some of the rural Italians I knew had such a warped and superstitious interpretation of Catholicism that it was sometimes scary.

Umberto Eco mocks this a bit in The Name of the Rose. The hero is impressing his young apprentice with his knowledge of relics, and tells him he has seen the skull of John the Baptist at age 12. The apprentice is at once impressed, then reconsiders: "But the Baptist was executed at a much more advanced age." The hero responds, "The other skull must be at some other monastery."
I've heard that.

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek earlier about the Holy Foreskin relics, but look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

My mother-in-law is devoutly Roman Catholic, and cites Nostradamus as though he were a saint.

Go figure.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 12:50 AM   #1840
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
 
Christian Klippel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,431
My tiny, unimportant prediction:

now that Jabba has been suspended for a few days, if he ever comes back he will complain about how unfair he was treated, despite all the evidence.

"The shroud is true, i was _sooo_ close to proving it by meticulous reserch, and then they cut me off"

Alternatively:

"Not only the users are rude there, but the mods as well! How can anyone have a fair deabte that way!"

If not here, he will put it that way elsewhere. Won't be the first time he misrepresented stuff. Heck, he can't even faithfully quote stuff, after all...

Greetings,

Chris
Christian Klippel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 03:37 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.