Hi Michael
Thanks for citing the the latest paper. If the blood does turn out to be human blood type AB and it matches the Sudariums (head cover) blood it confirms the hypothesis (statistically significant P value) that what is written in the Gospels especially the Gospel of John is valid.
3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
I was aware of that letter, but somehow never noticed that it was written by the very person the Shroudies cite to justify their belief that there is human blood on the “shroud.” Well, isn’t if fortunate that @colewd and @Giltil are now aware that that claim holds no water, and can stop publicly embarrassing themselves by making this false assertion?
LOL. No it doesn’t. That would make it consistent with that hypothesis, but it would not confirm it. You need to understand the difference between data X being compatible with hypothesis H, and data X conforming hypothesis H.
A confirmation would be something X that can only be explained by the hypothesis H being true. Or alternatively, something X that is much more likely if the hypothesis H is true, than on any other competing hypothesis.
If hypothetically blood-type AB is found on two different locations on the cloth that doesn’t confirm anything, as it is just as likely on an innumerable number of alternative hypotheses. An alternative hypothesis is that the same animal blood was used to put on the cloth in all locations. It is no more likely or better explained on the hypothesis that it wrapped a dead body.
As for the Shroud image purported to depict Jesus himself, consider that there is no actual explanation for it on supernaturalism. Nobody has any idea what sort of supernatural effect would create such an image on a piece of cloth.
Whereas, we have a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for it. The cloth was exposed to sunlight with painted glass on top of it, over the course of many days with the Sun wandering across the sky exposing the cloth from across an approximately 180 degrees angle from dawn till dusk. And blood was put on it. It immediately explains all aspects of the Shroud. Why the image on it is a negative. Why it looks like a face-on image you’d see in a painting. Why it is a “3D” imprint found in multiple layers of the linen fibers. Why there is no pigment. Why it carbon dates to the 1400s.
So in reality the situation is diametrically opposite to what Shroud-sycophants claim: that there is no naturalistic explanation for the Shroud image.
So what we actually have is ONLY a naturalistic explanation, and none for the supernatural crap.
My blood is AB. Maybe it’s my blood on the shroud. FWIW, my blood type is highly statistically significant, not merely ‘statistically significant’, which suggests I’m more likely to be Jesus than the guy under the shroud. Honestly, this is just math. You can’t argue with that.
The blood AB is also rare in animals. You have pollen samples indigenous to the region. You have an image whose quality has not been duplicated. You have a cloth weave known to first century. You have two cloth relics that survived over 1000 years that have the same blood type that is rare. You have two artifacts that may predate the Gospels.
You do not have any explanation that takes it all into account and you have a documented claims of these two pieces of evidence (found in the empty tomb) with the same blood type that had separate chain of custodies over a thousand years.
The problem is you cannot explain our universe its origin and evolution in naturalistic terms. So your assertion that only naturalistic explanation should be considered is not going to be persuasive to more broad based thinkers. This is indeed evidence of an extraordinary event that now appears carefully documented.
I don’t know if anyone has yet mentioned the views of Walter McCrone, the chemist and expert on microscopy, who was initially part of the STURP group, on whether there is any blood on this piece of cloth:
This is a story of the irresistible force and the immovable object. I regard me as the former and my (dis)-loyal opposition as the latter. Anyone is welcome to reverse the assignment if they wish. It seems the crux of the matter is, what is the image (blood or paint)? If we could answer that question to the satisfaction of the irresistible force and the immovable object, we could all be friends again. My modest contribution toward that goal is to show four pictures.
Shortly after I learned through careful study of the 32 sticky-tapes taken from the Shroud that the image substance was paint, I made up two paints; one with pigment (red ochre) and gelatin solution and the other with diluted blood. The red ochre paint was 0.01% pigment and 0.01% gelatin in water. The blood paint was 3% whole blood in water. I made up these two paints for two reasons: first, to determine the amount of iron (as red ochre) that is needed to register a visible image (it turned out to be about 3 micrograms per square centimeter); second, to compare sticky tape samples from linen cloths painted with both paints. The red ochre-painted linen yielded tapes indistinguishable from the Shroud tapes. I have chosen these four pictures to illustrate those results:
Figure 1. Real blood on a linen cloth.
Note the color is brown and not the red color normally associated with (fresh) blood. Low magnification, about 5X (see Judgement Day For The Turin Shroud, p. 95, Figure 23).
Figure 2. Shroud “blood” on linen.
This is also a low magnification shot taken of a “blood-image” area 3-FB (small of the back) taken by Pellicori and Evans in 1978. Note the red color unlike blood (Figure 1), magnification 12X (see Judgement Day For The Turin Shroud, p. 87, Figure 16).
Figure 3. A tape of the real blood image in Figure 1 showing at high magnification (1000X) real blood, again brown, unlike the Shroud paint (Figure 2) (see Judgement Day For The Turin Shroud, p. 95, Figure 24).
Figure 4. The tape of a Shroud “blood-image” area 3-CB showing only a red ochre paint image also at high magnification (see Judgement Day For The Turin Shroud, p. 91, Figure 22).
These figures show conclusively that the Shroud “blood” images are paint. I don’t understand how anyone could draw any other conclusion from those results.
There are none so blind as those who will not see…
There is NO blood on the Shroud. The Shroud is a beautiful painting by an inspired medieval artist.
Reminder that the shroud relic authenticity is rejected by the two YEC apologetics organizations that have addressed it, as well as arguably most Biblical scholars, so this is not a case of naturalistic limitations. The carbon dating does not stand alone, it lines up with what appears to be the case anyways, that this is a late medieval forgery as are the vast majority of pieces of the cross, thorns, and various apostolic bits and pieces. As for the weaving and pollen and so forth, I doubt these are as exclusive or critically analyzed as made out to be, but given the overall picture it looks to me like the sort of made up claims that are difficult to check so easy to make. As for the pattern being consistent with wounds and details in the Bible, that is the entire point of a forgery! That is what forgers do. They are corrupt, not stupid. They count on the credulity of others.
But can I disprove every detail? Not without wasting a huge amount of time to no real purpose. At times, I just go with what the larger view seems to indicate.
Walter’s claim here is inconsistent with the immunology and biochemistry studies done on the Shroud that show the presence of blood-related molecules in the supposed bloodstains on the Shroud. What say you?
This thread is astonishing. I can think of few more effective ways of destroying one’s own credibility as a serious thinker than affirmation of belief in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. A person who thought that Big Bird was a real avian would have more of a chance of being taken seriously.
And how does the fact that blood type AB is ‘rare’ show that it is related to Jesus? Where does the Bible say “Jesus was type AB”? Plus the blood type AB is not nearly rare enough to identify a single individual. As @Argon said, it could even be his blood! Or it could be animal blood! Or as @Faizal_Ali just pointed out, it could even be paint, not blood.
Also, you can’t just throw around terms like “statistically significant” when you have no math to back it up. I can’t believe that you claim this is “statistically significant” but you’re unwilling to admit that the evidence for common ancestry is “statistically significant” when P = 2.59 * 10^-132.
What happened there: Some guys ran some immunological studies on some crud that got stuck to some pieces of Scotch tape.
I asked earlier whether this is the standard method by which archeologists determine whether there is blood on 2000 year old pieces of fabric. I have yet to receive an answer.
Never mind the fact that these people later recanted and said they can’t even tell if there is human blood in their samples.
The most we can say is that there are conflicting opinions among people who have examined the “shroud” as to whether there is even any blood there at all.
The term statistically significant was not proper on my part and @Dan_Eastwood helped educate me on this.
The evidence I think is significant is:given the blood type was experimentally determined to be AB was on both famous relics:
The relics were mentioned in the Gospels especially John.
Both relics have the same blood type based on current documented experimental evidence.
This finding is low probability (probability of a mammal w AB blood) if one claims one of the relics was forged. If one claims both of the relics were forged this becomes extreme low probability.(probability of both forged relics = P(shroud forged) X P(sudarium forged)).
Can you provide examples of the results that have been obtained when people ran the same tests on whatever schmutz came off when they stuck tape to a piece of cloth from the Medieval era? TIA!
