Luther certainly believed in the resurrection, but launched the reformation responding to indulgences and relics. There is no Biblical support for veneration of relics.
3 Likes
Is there any problem taking a neutral position? Instead of veneration of the shroud look at it as an interesting artefact to analyse.
Not at all. But thatâs not your position, is it?
Every analysis the Shroud was ever put to, beginning from its appearance in the middle ages all the way up into modernity kept pointing to it not being authentic. Absolutely everything, from its superficial looks looking nothing like either a projection or an imprint of a person, through the chemical composition of the pigments collected from it, to the radiometric age, points to it being neither a burial shroud nor having existed at the time of Jesusâ burial.
A neutral position would be to consider the evidence, and concluding that what it indicates is probably how things actually are. But thatâs not what you do, is it?
Given all of the evidence squarely pointing one way, you rather conclude that in all likelihood the truth is exactly in the opposite direction. You conclude that eventhough there is only one reasonable conclusion one could possibly come to at this point, that the jury is still somehow out on the matter. You conclude that perhaps one ought to consider the possibility that something physically impossible happened that would make it so all the evidence is misleading. To you it is somehow a virtuous neutrality to suggest that, perhaps, really, methodological naturalism â you know, the entire basis of all rational inquiry regarding things within the natural world â is clouding the judgement of those who would dare follow the actual evidence as it actually exists.
1 Like
It is my position. I think the evidence points to authenticity since the non destructive dating methods started surfacing. Before @Giltil highlighted those in the past I was more of a skeptic based on the carbon dating. As a skeptic I was ignorant of the nuance of the image which is more compelling evidence than I realised at the time.
I am not certain of its authenticity at this point but new evidence may push me in that direction especially if Ruckers theory turns out to be right.
Methodological naturalism is a limited inquiry of the natural world. It is rational only when its limitations are understood.
1 Like
Be honest. If you thought that the evidence did so, you would cite the evidence itself, not names and words.
As I have pointed out before Bill, until these new âmethodsâ have been validated they are speculation not evidence.
Iâm sure there is a (near?-)infinite number of potential new dating methods, likely giving dates for the shroud anywhere between a million years ago and a million years in the future. But until any given method has been validated, it has zero probative value.
Names and words?
The results of the tests are posted in various papers already cited. No mater what Gil or I post the tactic is simply to attack the author if the results are not what the skeptic wants.
1 Like
As I said, Iâve been reading âshroudâ cranks, and the responses thereto, for almost 50 years. I am familiar with the state of the evidence, and have characterized it accurately. No new supporting evidence of any value has come to light in that time.
I would note, again, that your behavior in this thread has done nothing but confirm and reinforce the fact that there is no evidence supporting the authenticity of the âshroud.â If you knew of such evidence, you would not point to these asinine and frankly insane sources to support your view. Youâd point to the actual evidence. Instead, what do you do? Cite ANOTHER shroud crankâs arguments, instead of evidence.
The best case for authenticity? Silence. Nothing can be credibly said in support of authenticity, and the more you have said, the more ludicrous the position has appeared.
4 Likes
No Bill.* You are slandering us. Our âtacticâ is to point out that these purported tests are not valid unless and until they have been validated!
As for Giulio Fanti:
-
AFAIK, you have presented no tests that Fanti conducted himself (ditto Gil and Marino); and
-
it was you yourself trumpeting his â150 papersâ â opening up the issue that many of these papers were published in for-profit journals that lack any editorial standards.
So please, stop your hypocritical whining â it is making me nauseous.
1 Like
See, there you go again. None of those results convinced YOU. If they did, you would cite the results.
In all the times Iâve pointed out that no design hypothesis (including your hopelessly vague one) explains the polymorphism of human MYH7, did I ever mention anyoneâs name? Anyoneâs description?
Pointing out the authorâs lack of authority in the subject of discussion is a perfectly appropriate response to your and Gilâs ridiculous arguments from authority. Look at his post earlier todayânot a speck of evidence in all that blather.
1 Like
Sure but asserting someone has a lack of authority is not. Especially someone versed in the subject they know very little about. I am surprised you are thinking this is ok.
No one here has extensive experience studying the shroud yet skeptics are claiming authority.
And properly so. Common knowledge in the possession of anyone reasonably well informed in general history and science is sufficient to weigh the claims in support and opposed to authenticity. The evidences offered are not particularly esoteric to evaluate. Special study is neither required nor warranted, and there are no enlightened acolytes with Gnostic insights.
âExperience studying the shroudâ is not an academic field. How much time someone wastes on conjuring up apologetics is not a measure of their relevant qualifications to discuss the subject, and as you seem to recognize, it is certainly not in its own right an argument.
As several other users have already pointed out to you, no, it is a lie (and you know it) that the response to the names and words you posted was a mere attack on your sources. The arguments themselves, as they were, had been addressed, most of which you ignored, and none of which you now recall. The only reason anybody ever bothered saying anything about the credibility of your sources is because of exactly this sort of rhetoric on your part.
If you make it an issue, how credentialed they are, or how many papers they put out, and how their honours or numbers compare to those of this boardâs users, then you have noone else to blame when it turns out and said users point out, that your precious experts have no documented relevant education and publish only in predatory propaganda rags.
Oh, andâŚ
âRuckerâs theoryâ, must I remind you, is that a physically impossible mechanism made the carbon date incorrect by about as much as the time when the Shroud first showed up. This is why I said your position had nothing to do with neutrality. Youâll grasp at anything, no matter how ridiculous, just to avoid conceding the obvious, presumably because us icky people happen to recognize it.
4 Likes
Really?
It starts by describing the image:
The body is well proportioned and muscular, with no observable defects.
Well proportioned? The forearms are too long, the eyes are too high, the forehead is too small, the thighs are too short compared to the shins and the chin is off-centre.
As for âno observable defectsâ, Meacham continues with, among others:
âŚthe rib cage is abnormally expanded⌠arms would have had to be broken⌠slight dislocation of the right elbow and shoulder⌠some flexion of the left knee⌠a number of facial wounds⌠swelling of both eyebrows, torn right eyelid, large swelling below right eye, swollen nose, bruise on right cheek, swelling in left cheek and left side of chin⌠peppered with marks of a severe flogging⌠two broad excoriated areas⌠contusions on both knees and cuts on the left kneecap⌠lacerations about the upper bead [sic] and the wound in the side⌠at least 30 blood flows from spike puncturesâŚan oval puncture about 4.4 X 1.1 cmâŚ
If those donât qualify as âobservable defectsâ itâs hard to imagine what would.
Meacham is not credible.
2 Likes
Those are expected observable features for a man who was tortured and crucified to death like Jesus was.
So was Meacham lying when he said there were no observable defects?
1 Like
I showed why he wasnât credible, and that wasnât it.
Quote-mining is dishonest.
3 Likes
You are a shameless liar.
4 Likes
Iâm pretty sure that even you know that âstudying the shroudâ is not the type of authority to which I had referred.
Once again, you avoid evidence.