What would be interesting before you close is a compilation of the evidence for and against the shroud being Jesus burial cloth.
1 Like
In the “for” column you don’t even have a validated first century date, against a reliable fourth century date in the “against” column, so the entire argument is a non-starter.
This attempt to change the terms of the argument to support your side, rather than simply accepting that your original claim has been refuted, is disappointing.
3 Likes
This shows a clear lack of understanding of both sides of the arguments. You are trying to shut down your opponents which shows a lack of desire to think critically.
2 Likes
I note you haven’t provided any evidence for this assertion. I have a clear understanding of both sides of the argument. Here’s one side of the dating argument.
- The Shroud is a first century artifact, based on unvalidated dating and unsubstantiated claims of corroboration via independent lines of evidence.
Here is the other side of the dating argument.
- The Shroud is a fourteenth century artifact, based on validated dating, corroborated by several independent lines of evidence.
No I am not trying to shut down opponents. I have repeatedly requested they provide evidence for their assertions. That is the opposite of trying to shut them down.
As usual, you have avoided addressing the actual evidence and you’re retreating into empty rhetoric and false accusations.
1 Like
I am not going to read beyond this point as there are problems with your argument here. There is evidence that contaminants were involved in point 2.
There are non carbon dating methods that support number 1.
I don’t know whether it is 14th century or 1st century. What I know is there are arguments on both sides and I would like to have someone competent summarize them and not just advocate a position. There was a flow chart posted earlier that did this but a lot more evidence has come to bear here that is not on the flow chart.
What evidence? Please provided it. Bear in mind that this claim was made previously, without any validated evidence.
How surprising.
That’s like saying there are “arguments on both sides” of the flat earth “debate”. As in that case, in this case there is no “debate”, because there is only one side with evidence.
It is all over this post if you read it without prejudice.
If it was all over this post, you’d be able to point to it easily.
It’s your job to understand the post in order to argue competently.
I agree. Thus far you have provided no evidence that I don’t understand it. Do you understand why the only people you can find who believe that there is validated evidence “all over this post”, are people who already believe the Shroud is true?
It does not matter what they believe. It is if they have found evidence that backs up their claim.
They have shown evidence of contamination in the carbon 14 samples. A very small part of the shroud was measured. There was large lab to lab variation that did not exist in the controls. This is evidence of contaminants.
This argument is mostly represented by bias on one side or the other. Thats what makes it interesting.
It matters if they can’t demonstrate that their evidence is valid, to professionals in relevant fields. That’s the point.
No they have claimed it. This has been dealt with previously. Here’s a summary.
The 1988 carbon dating was also questioned on the basis that the fragments tested had been contaminated by modern material. Scientists, however, believed that the different cleaning procedures at the three laboratories would between them have removed all possible contamination. Independent scientists also said the cleaned cloth would have needed to stay heavily impregnated with modern carbon for the results to be so skewed that a 2,000-year-old shroud was dated to the 13th or 14th Century.
Do you realise that pious Catholics were calling this artifact a fraud in the fourteenth century?
1 Like
Let us begin by going a little further and ask ourselves what could the purpose of the forger be in creating the image of the man of the shroud. I do not see what other answer we can give to this question than to say that he wanted to convince his contemporaries of the truthfulness of the gospels, the account of Christ’s passion and the resurrection. As a result, it was logical for him to forge an image that correspond as closely as possible to the representations we had of Christ in medieval times, and thus to give him long hair and a long beard. But then, why did he, against all medieval representations, create an image with a helmet of thorns as opposed to a circlet and nails through the wrists?
Dealt with by a counter argument. Let’s make it part of the list against. Ok?
You are a competent guy but not sole arbitrator of which argument is the strongest. I am going off line today but one last question. Are you aware that the sample may have been repaired? Are you aware the inventor of carbon 14 questioned their methods of eliminating bacterial contamination?
How about you read the motivation ascribed to the forger by fourteenth century Christians who were already calling it a fake?
Shrouders can’t even agree on these details.
What counter argument? Where is the evidence that all the samples were contaminated? Or any of them?
I’m sorry but “may have” is irrelevant. Unless you have evidence, it’s worthless.
So what? We need evidence here, not “maybe”, and “what if”, and “I think”.
1 Like
Can you tell me more on this?
Forgive me for jumping in late to this conversation (and it is so long now that I don’t wish to read the entire thread) but I’m wondering if what you were saying above is that the Shroud of Turin is a “sudarium” and that it was on Jesus head while he was being crucified?
Presumably the sudarium was a piece of cloth that was used to temporarily cover his face while his body was taken off the cross, hence there is a chance that the bloodstains on both the sudarium and the burial shroud would be similar.
1 Like
From the gospel of John it appears that the sudarium was left at the empty 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.
1 Like