So, the discoloration which is supposedly beyond the most powerful UV laser is somehow due to the resurrection, which in the gospels does not even mention any flash of light. Like halos, that is an imagery.
Neither when Lazarus was raised from the dead, was there any light involved.
John 11:43,44
He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” 44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.”
Apart from the historical and scientific evidence of fraud, a case could be made that the shroud is extra-Biblical and idolatrous.
I don’t recall him stating this in the video, so where did he say that, and isn’t it simply a matter of exposure time? The laser is much more intense than sunlight, but the exposure time is also extremely short.
It is entirely possible the whole thing is suspect and we can’t take anything any of these people say, for granted. Just on the chance that the claim is correct, UV light seems a perfectly good explanation for the chemical composition of the colors.
You’re doubly wrong here. First, in Lazzaro’s experiments, the UV is responsible for coloration, not discoloration. Secondly, from the fact that a particular hypothesis regarding the image formation on the shroud can safely be dismissed (here the UV hypothesis), it doesn’t follow that said image is due to the resurrection.
Unless resurrection events started to become repeatable, science will never be able to prove resurrection.
That same article says coloration can be achieved at intensities below the threshold intensity, by heating or simply by aging of the linens exposed to radiation below the intensity normally required to produce color.
Nonsense. The Big Bang only happened once, but there is little doubt that it happened because science has demonstrated this.
Also, if there were adequate documentation of, say, someone being decapitated and then his head rejoins his body and he goes on to live a long and happy life, that would demonstrate that a resurrection had taken place.
Surely if he was willing to report results that didn’t support the shroud’s authenticity (unlike other shroudies who ignore or suppress inconvenient data), he was the right guy for the job?
Maybe in that sense. I’ve never been able to find another example of an expert in dating ancient artifacts using the technique of dabbing at it with sticky tape and then analyzing the residue. I do believe, however, it is used in forensic science, which was his area of expertise.
I did not say it was, but pointed out the basis, an image supposed to be formed by intense light, is similar, and so it is awkward to reject the one while embracing the other.
It is pretty straightforward that attempting to eliminate alternative explanations apart from the resurrection is part of building the case for shroud authenticity.
Indeed, given that shroud advocates just seem to assume that resurrections are image forming processes, without any Biblical or scientific support, there is nothing really defined to test.
I agree if you’re limited to methodological naturalism in determining the possible cause. If the shroud is real then understanding it will probably require possible causes outside MN. Rucker has made a reasonable case that the variation in the carbon samples are beyond normal measurement error expectations.
I agree if everything you say means the opposite. Rucker’s explanation for his supposed variation (using at most three data points) is that Jesus emitted a lot of neutrons at the moment of resurrection. How does that make any sense, even divorced from methodological naturalism?
IMHO, that should be the default position. The STURP group is often cited as the foremost experts on the “shroud”, but as one learns about them it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that they were just a bunch of bumbling amateurs. I don’t think a single one of them has any previous experience in the study of archeology or ancient artifacts, and instead they just made up methods of invesgation based on their own, largely unrelated, fields. McCrone using the forensic technique of analyzing whatever schmutz happened to adhere to his pieces of tape is one example. And they seem to have no idea whatsoever of basic practice such as documenting chain of custody. The WAXS paper is not the first involving fibres supposedly from the “shroud” without any documentation of their provenance. Does someone just have some stray strands sitting in a desk drawer somewhere?
But for the past 40 years this is the only information anyone who feels compelled to write about the Shroud has had to go on. There is more than enough room for anyone to spin whatever fanciful hypothesis tickles their fancy, as there is so little reliable data.
My suspicion is that this was the best that could have been done, because anyone who is actually expert in a relevant field has a bullshit detector that is working well enough to know to stay away from this. For this same reason, you rarely find legit archeologists searching for remains of the Kingdom of Atlantis.
The only test appropriate for such an artifact that seems to have been carried out properly by appropriately experienced investigators is the C-14 dating. And we know what happened there.
Hi John
We don’t know the physics of resurrections.
All the data put together suggest what caused the carbon dating to be off, (assuming this is Jesus burial cloth), in both the shroud and sudarium were caused by the event generating addition C-14 in the cloth and the sudarium which was next to the shroud according to the Gospels.
Ruckers shows variation in the C-14 measurements of the carbon dated strips that increase greater than expectation as you get closer to the centre of the body.
Page 39 or 3rd page from the abstract explains this.
Either evidence matters to you or it doesn’t. Either all phenomena are (to be treated as) intelligible and investigable, or some phenomena are not. You don’t have to pick a lane, you don’t have to stick to one either.
But to waste all of that time and energy trying to construct arguments or cite research, only to then turn around the instant you are out of ideas to say “well maybe we should set the scientific method aside altogether if we are to get to the bottom of this” is, frankly, somewhat disrespectful, both to yourself and to what few of us ever gave you the time of day.
If you never actually cared, that’s fine. But what’s the point in ever pretending otherwise? Is it really just to waste everyone else’s time?
