How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1731

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:52 am The TS artist left no prototype. From all that we can tell, he created it in a single shot without the need for prototypes.

So, even though da Vinci was an incredibly gifted artist by God, the TS artist was so much more talented than da Vinci that his skills could be classified as miraculous.
If such is the case, then we can dismiss an artist's involvement. That still doesn't get us to "God did it".

In the normal course of events many men and women are born with remarkable talents; but occasionally, in a way that transcends nature, a single person is marvellously endowed by Heaven with beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill. Everyone acknowledged that this was true of Leonardo da Vinci, an artist of outstanding physical beauty, who displayed infinite grace in everything that he did and who cultivated his genius so brilliantly that all problems he studied he solved with ease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
[/quote]
We're well aware theists attribute to gods, that which we do not know.

1. There's never been a confirmed case of humans and gods mating, and then producing viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question.

Barring some human effort, our most reasonable, rational conclusion here is that the TS is the product of otherwise natural processes.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1732

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:13 pm
otseng wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:52 am The TS artist left no prototype. From all that we can tell, he created it in a single shot without the need for prototypes.

So, even though da Vinci was an incredibly gifted artist by God, the TS artist was so much more talented than da Vinci that his skills could be classified as miraculous.
If such is the case, then we can dismiss an artist's involvement. That still doesn't get us to "God did it".
If the TS is not artwork of any kind, then it involved an actual body. There are three possible scenarios that I can think of involving a body:

1) a medieval forger used a body to create a shroud that looks like the body of Jesus
2) it was a burial shroud of a crucified person and it somehow left an image, but it was not Jesus
3) it was the burial shroud of Jesus Christ

For #1, why would a forger even go through all that trouble? Who did he scourge and crucify? How did he get away with doing that without anybody else noticing a missing person? Wouldn't it be much simpler to create a painting than to go through the trouble of murdering someone?

For #1 and #2, it still doesn't explain how the body image and blood stains were formed. How would a medieval forger be able to create effects centuries before their invention (photography, x-ray, 3-D imaging, etc) by using a dead body? Do we even know how to do that? If someone was crucified and wrapped in a cloth, what natural process could've created the image on the linen?

Here's a paper on stages of a decomposing body:
Over the course of one year, the cadavers of six unembalmed, unautopsied
individuals were dressed in clothing and placed at the Anthropology Research Facility to decompose naturally.

Early postmortem changes are observable by the pathologist through the
processes of rigor mortis, algor mortis, and livor mortis. These are first observed
approximately two to four hours after death (Gonzales et al. 1954). Rigor mortis is
the stiffening and release ofthe muscles. Rigor typically presents during the first
three hours after death and is fully developed after approximately 10-12 hours. It
remains for 24 to 36 hours, on average, and then dissipates (Dix and Graham 2000).

Livor mortis is the phenomenon of postmortem blood pooling. Due to
circulatory stasis, soon after death gravity begins to gradually take affect on blood in
the body. This results in pooling of blood in the capillary beds of dependent regions
ofthe body (perper 1993). It is noticeable within about an hour postmortem and is
fixed within 8 to 12 hours. At this point, if the body is moved, "staining" or
"blanching" will remain intact at contact areas rather than move to a new area.

Destruction of body tissue occurs through the processes of autolysis,
putrefaction, and decay. Putrefaction is the anaerobic degradation of body tissue,
while decay is aerobic (Micozzi 1991). The early stages of putrefaction begin with
autolysis. Autolysis is the process of cell death by intra and extracellular enzymes.

As gas pressure within the body rises, tissues are distorted. The eyes begin to bulge,
blisters or bullae form on the skin and burst, and the entire body increases in size
(Marks and Love 2000). Eventually, these gases are released either through the
orifices, through tissue ruptured by gaseous pressure, or by carnivores. After the
gases dissipate the abdominal cavity caves in and the internal organs begin to
liquefy.
https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcon ... 1&referer=
(Warning: paper contains graphic images)

We see on the TS an image of a body that has only been in the stage of rigor mortis, but no futher. There is no evidence of any decomposition on the TS. So, somehow the body image was created while the body was in rigor mortis and not afterwards.

When a body decomposes, it would just leave a giant stain. (Warning: following links contains graphic images)
This is an extremely sad abandoned house that I explored where an elderly woman died alone and a body stain has been left where she fell.

Viewer discretion is advised, if the sight of a body stain will upset you, please be warned.
https://freaktography.com/sad-abandoned ... ody-stain/
On the concrete floor of an abandoned mental hospital known as The Ridges, there is a stain in the shape of a human body. The stain marks the spot where a patient, a woman named Margaret Schilling, died, after lying undiscovered for several weeks. The stain was created in 1979 and has drawn much speculation as well as curious visitors. Forensic scientists recently tested the stain and determined it was caused by human decomposition.

In one of these rooms on the top floor of the hospital, remains the vestige of Margaret Schilling. She was a patient found dead in this room in 1979. On the floor is a large stain, in the shape of a human body, where she was found.
https://www.historicmysteries.com/margaret-schilling/

So, we can rule out #2 since the shroud is not just a giant stain of a decomposed body, but the image of a body in rigor mortis.

This leaves option #3 as the only other possible scenario.

The signs of rigor mortis also rules out Jesus was not dead when he was wrapped with the shroud.

If Jesus died and the image on the TS shows his death only went to the stage of rigor mortis, then what can we deduce from that?
We're well aware theists attribute to gods, that which we do not know.
What are you claiming here? That only theists resort to supernatural explanations? That supernatural explanations should automatically be rejected? That we need to know the details of proposed explanations in order to accept them? Evidence please to support your claims.
Barring some human effort, our most reasonable, rational conclusion here is that the TS is the product of otherwise natural processes.
What evidence can you present that a natural process was involved? If you have no evidence, then how can you say it is the most reasonable conclusion?
1. There's never been a confirmed case of humans and gods mating, and then producing viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question.
Again, this will be ignored until you can present any shroud skeptic that claims these things.

And are you going to accept my challenge instead of just repeatedly claiming the shroud is inauthentic? Why do you continue to make irrelevant claims, make unsupported assertions, and fail to provide any evidence? Please point out any of your posts discussing the TS where you have provided any evidence.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1733

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:21 am If the TS is not artwork of any kind, then it involved an actual body. There are three possible scenarios that I can think of involving a body:

1) a medieval forger used a body to create a shroud that looks like the body of Jesus
2) it was a burial shroud of a crucified person and it somehow left an image, but it was not Jesus
3) it was the burial shroud of Jesus Christ
It's a piece of cloth of unknown origin, bearing blood and imagery of unknown origin.

Such a condition doesn't require forgers, but it would require confirmation if we're to declare the blood and image is that off a human / god hybrid.

Your case here centers on it being the biblical Jesus, but unanswered in any of your posts is any means of confirming...

1. Humans and gods can breed, producing viable human / god hybrid offspring
2. The blood is that of the particular human / god hybrid
3. The image is that of the hu,an / god hybrid

In your zeal to tie this thing to the resurrection, you've otherwise ignored these fundamental facts. Answer these problems, and you might can begin to form a coherent argument. Otherwise, your speculation doesn't get us to the truth. Your speculations will not get us to the back side of the wall these facts build against you.
For #1, why would a forger even go through all that trouble?...
So we dismiss the forger, and look to what we know of the facts.
For #1 and #2, it still doesn't explain how the body image and blood stains were formed. How would a medieval forger be able to create effects centuries before their invention (photography, x-ray, 3-D imaging, etc) by using a dead body? Do we even know how to do that?
So we dismiss the hypothetical forger, and concentrate on the facts.
If someone was crucified and wrapped in a cloth, what natural process could've created the image on the linen?
What supernatural process can be confirmed to be involved in the process? Lacking such confirmation, reason and logic dictate natural processes.
Here's a paper on stages of a decomposing body:
[Snipped for brevity]
Barring confirmation of the circumstances that created this shroud, we can dismiss as a cause all that I snipped.

And stick to the above numbered facts I've presented with no rebuttal from you except perhaps your calling those facts "silly claims".
We see on the TS an image of a body that has only been in the stage of rigor mortis, but no futher. There is no evidence of any decomposition on the TS. So, somehow the body image was created while the body was in rigor mortis and not afterwards.
But it's not been established to be the body of a human / god hybrid.

[Snip some stuff about decomposing bodies]
We can dismiss all we know about decomposing bodies.

That leaves us with the three facts that remain unrefuted, or unanswered.
This leaves option #3 as the only other possible scenario.
The signs of rigor mortis also rules out Jesus was not dead when he was wrapped with the shroud.
We can only say the image appears to represent a human of unknown identity.

Remember, it's yet to be established that...

1. Humans and gods can produce viable offspring
2. The image represents a particular human / god hybrid
3. The blood represents the particular human / god hybrid
If Jesus died and the image on the TS shows his death only went to the stage of rigor mortis, then what can we deduce from that?
We can deduce you can't separate biblical claims from the three presented facts that scream louder than all your ifings.
JK wrote: We're well aware theists attribute to gods, that which we do not know.
What are you claiming here? That only theists resort to supernatural explanations? That supernatural explanations should automatically be rejected? That we need to know the details of proposed explanations in order to accept them? Evidence please to support your claims.
I'm claiming that you continue to assert this thing's the blood and image of Jesus, as you gloss over or don't consider the following facts...

1. Humans and gods have never been confirmed to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud hasn't been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud has not been confirmed to be that of the human / god hybrid in question.

JK wrote: Barring some human effort, our most reasonable, rational conclusion here is that the TS is the product of otherwise natural processes.
What evidence can you present that a natural process was involved?
If you have no evidence, then how can you say it is the most reasonable conclusion?
Nature exists. History's chock full of stuff happening in nature, for which no explanation was available, only to find natural processes to be involved.

JK wrote: 1. There's never been a confirmed case of humans and gods mating, and then producing viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question.
Again, this will be ignored until you can present any shroud skeptic that claims these things.
We're all aware you prefer to ignore my declaring myself a shroud skeptic.

Having you try to strip me of my status as a shroud skeptic, after repeatedly explaining to you I am, we can see you will ignore my own identity in this matter, and the facts I present.

How would you feel if I said you weren't a man? Not a Christian? Not a human worthy of these debates?

Just what part of your identity can I deny, that puts truth to any of our claims?
And are you going to accept my challenge instead of just repeatedly claiming the shroud is inauthentic?
Right about the time you accept I am a skeptic, and your attempts to ignore that fact will not make the facts go away.
Why do you continue to make irrelevant claims,
Only in religion are facts irrelevant.
make unsupported assertions,
That's rich, considering you deny my own identity as a skeptic.
and fail to provide any evidence?
Who needs evidence when facts do all the work?
Please point out any of your posts discussing the TS where you have provided any evidence.
They're scattered throughout, in the form of facts, in counter to your speculation.

You mighta seen em, if ya wasn't so danged busy ignoring em.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1734

Post by otseng »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1738]

Actually, you just continue to make the same irrelevant and unsupported assertions without answering any of my questions. So, again, your tactic of diversion will be ignored. Further repeating of your same statements will simply mean you have nothing to contribute to the debate.

Since you cannot engage in a debate on the Shroud of Turin and present claims by shroud skeptics, I'll present the arguments from the shroud skeptics myself.

The earliest textual record we have of the TS is a document that claims the shroud is a forgery.
The History of the Shroud of Turin begins in the year 1390 AD, when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum where he charged that the Shroud was a forgery. Historical records seem to indicate that a shroud bearing an image of a crucified man existed in the possession of Geoffroy de Charny in the small town of Lirey, France around the years 1353 to 1357. The history from the 15th century to the present is well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... d_of_Turin

This is often cited by skeptics as evidence the shroud is a fake.
The first certain mention of it comes from the 14th century when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to antipope Clement VII in which he stated that the shroud was a fraud and that the forger had confessed.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Other evidence that the Shroud is a fake includes (c) the fact that the first creditable mention of it is in 1357 C.E., (d) the fact that Bishop Pierre d'Arcis and his predecessor Bishop Henri, of the 1300’s, told the Pope it was fake and even (e) had a confession by the forger.
https://www.gcrr.org/post/let-go-of-the-shroud-of-turin

Here is the complete translated text of the D’Arcis Memorandum:
Memorandum of Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes
To The Avignon Pope Clement VII
Written circa 1389

Translated from Latin by the Reverend Herbert Thurston
“The Holy Shroud and The Verdict of History”
The Month, Volume CI (101), pages 17-29, 1903

Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, Collection de Champagne,
v. 134, folio 138.
&
Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, Collection de Champagne,
v. 154. folio 137.

The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of the law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year. And now again the present Dean of the said church with fraudulent intent and for the purpose of gain, suggested, as it is reported, to the Lord Geoffrey de Charny, Knight, and the temporal lord of the place, to have the said cloth replaced in the said church, that by a renewal of the pilgrimage the church might be enriched with the offerings made by the faithful. Acting upon the Dean's suggestion, who was thus treading in the footsteps of his predecessor, the knight went to the Cardinal de Thurv, your Holiness' Nuncio and Legate in French territory, and suppressing the facts that the said cloth at the time above referred to was asserted to be the shroud of our Saviour, and that it bore the Saviour's likeness imprinted upon it, and that the Ordinary had taken action against the canons in order to stamp out the error which had arisen, and that the said cloth for fear of the Ordinary had been hidden away, nay even, it is said, conveyed out of the diocese, he represented to the Cardinal that the said cloth was a picture or figure of the shroud, which many people came to visit out of devotion and which had previously been much venerated and resorted to in that church, but on account of the war and other causes, by the command of the Ordinary, had been placed for a long time in safer keeping, petitioning that he might be allowed to set up in the said church this picture or figure of the shroud which so many out of devotion desired to see, so that it might there be shown to the people and venerated by the faithful. Then the said Lord Cardinal, without entirely approving the petition, but probably acting on the facts before him and so far prudently, granted to the petitioner by Apostolic authority that without asking leave of the Ordinary or of any other person he might set up this picture or figure of the shroud of our Lord in the said church or in any other decent place. And under cover of this written authority the cloth was openly exhibited and shown to the people in the church aforesaid on great holidays, and frequently on feasts and at other times, with the utmost solemnity, even more than when the Body of Christ our Lord is exposed; to wit, by two priests vested in albs with stoles and maniples and using the greatest possible reverence, with lighted torches and upon a lofty platform constructed for this special purpose; and although it is not publicly stated to be the true shroud of Christ, nevertheless this is given out and noised abroad in private, and so it is believed by many, the more so, because, as stated above, it was on the previous occasion declared to be the true shroud of Christ, and by a certain ingenious manner of speech it is now in the said church styled not the sudarium but the sanctuarium. which to the ears of the common folk, who are not keen to observe distinctions, sounds much the same thing, and crowds of people resort there as often as it is shown or is expected to be shown, under the belief, or more truly the delusion, that it is the true shroud. Moreover, it is currently reported amongst them that it has been approved by the Apostolic See by means of the letters of the said Lord Cardinal.

Accordingly, most holy Father, perceiving this great scandal renewed amongst the people and the delusion growing to the peril of souls, observing also that the Dean of the said church did not keep within the terms of the Cardinal's letters, obtained though they were by the suppression of the truth and the suggestion of what was false, as already explained, desiring to meet the danger as well as I could and to root out this false persuasion from the flock committed to me, after consultation with many prudent advisers, I prohibited the said Dean under pain of excommunication, by the very act sufficiently published [eo ipso latael] from exhibiting this cloth to the people until otherwise might be determined.

He, however, refusing obedience and lodging an appeal, in defiance of the prohibition went on with the exhibition as before. Moreover, the knight, maintaining and defending this behaviour, by holding the said cloth with his own hands on a certain solemn feast, and showing it to the people with the observances above described, caused himself, by a royal warrant [salvagardia], to be put in formal possession and occupation of the said cloth and of the right of exhibiting it, and had this notified to me; and so under cover of the appeal as well as of the said royal warrant this delusion is shielded and propagated, to the contempt of the Church, scandal of the people, and peril of souls – all which I am powerless to remedy – nay more, to the defamation of my above-named predecessor who denounced the abuse in his time, and of myself who to the best of my poor ability am also anxious to take such prudent action as I may. But, alas! The scandal is upheld and defended and its supporters cause it to be spread abroad among the people that I am acting through jealousy and cupidity and to obtain possession of the cloth for myself, just as similar reports were circulated before against my predecessor; while, on the other hand, others aver that I move too half-heartedly in the matter and that I make myself a laughing-stock by allowing the abuse to continue. But though I have earnestly and humbly cited the said knight and besought, him that he would for a time suspend the exhibition of the said cloth until your Holiness could be consulted and should pronounce upon the matter, he paid no attention, or rather without my knowledge he had representations made to your Holiness in the same sense as those already made to the said Lord Cardinal, adding that I refused to defer to the said Cardinal's letters, that I disregarded the appeal and went on launching inhibitions and sentences of excommunication against those who exhibited the cloth and against the people who came to venerate it. But with all deference to the author of these representations, my action in thus proceeding against those who exhibited and venerated the cloth was in no wise derogatory to the said Lord Cardinal's letters, obtained though they were surreptitiously. This authorization of his by no means conceded that the cloth could be exposed with publicity or venerated, but only that it might be restored to or lodged in the said church or some other decent place. And because they would not keep to the terms of the Cardinal's permit therefore it was that I proceeded against them according to the ordinary forms of law, as in my duty I am bound, and not without much asking of counsel, with the view of removing the scandal and the said popular delusion, believing that I should be gravely in fault if I connived at such abuses. Moreover, having to look to my own security in this matter, I was compelled, acting always upon the advice of prudent counsellors, to have recourse to the aid of the secular arm, and this more particularly because the said knight in the first instance had begun to place the matter in the hands of the civil authorities by causing himself to be put in formal possession of the right of exhibiting the cloth by the King's warrant, as said above, which seems a sufficiently absurd proceeding. Accordingly I took measures to have the cloth placed in the custody of the King's officers, always with the same end in view, viz., that at least until I could bring the whole story to the notice of your Holiness there might for the time being be an end of these exhibitions. And in this request I prevailed without any difficulty with the court of the King's Parliament when once they were fully informed of the superstitious origin of this shroud, of the use to which it was put, and of the delusion and scandal to which I have called attention. Indeed it is a wonder to all who know the facts of the case that the opposition which hampers me in these proceedings comes from the Church, from which quarter I should have looked for vigorous support, nay, rather have expected punishment if I had shown myself slothful or remiss. However, the knight above mentioned has been beforehand with me, and, having represented the matter as I have explained, has obtained from your Holiness a Brief in which the said Lord Cardinal's letters are substantially confirmed ex certa scientia and permission is granted that in spite of all prohibitions and appeals, the said cloth may be shown and exposed for the veneration of the faithful; while, as I hear, – for I have not been able to procure a copy of the said Brief, – perpetual silence is enjoined upon myself.

But whereas the canon law requires me to see that no man be imposed upon by false representations and documents for purposes of gain, and because I am certain that this Brief was obtained by suggestion of what is false and suppression of the truth, and that otherwise it would never have been issued, while I was neither cited nor heard, especially as the resumption ought to stand in my favour that I would not interfere in such a cause without reason, or disturb any man in any practice of devotion which was harmless and free from extravagance, I do most confidently trust that your Holiness will bear with me if in view of the foregoing facts I still oppose the said exposition until I have fuller instructions from your Holiness yourself, now better informed of the truth of the case. I would ask you then, most blessed Father, to vouchsafe to bestow your attention upon the foregoing statement and to take measures that such scandal and delusion and abominable superstition may be put an end to both in fact and seeming, in such wise that this cloth be held neither for sudarium nor sanctuarium, nor for an image or figure of our Lord's sudarium, since our Lord's sudarium was nothing of the kind, nor, in fine, under any other ingenious pretext be exhibited to the people or exposed for veneration, but that to express horror of such superstition it be publicly condemned, the surreptitious letters above spoken of being recalled, or more truly declared null and void [for fear that the keen-eyed persecutors and detractors of the Church should rail at the Church's discipline and say that a more prompt and efficacious remedy against scandals and impostures is found in the secular tribunals than in those of ecclesiastical authority]. I offer myself here as ready to supply all information sufficient to remove any doubt concerning the facts alleged both from public report and otherwise, in order to exonerate myself and also to discharge my conscience in a matter which I have greatly at heart. Moreover, if health had allowed I should have presented myself personally to your Holiness to state my complaint to the best of my poor ability, for I am convinced that I cannot fully or sufficiently express in writing the grievous nature of the scandal, the contempt brought upon the Church and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the danger to souls; still I do what I can, chiefly that I may be guiltless before God, leaving all else to the disposition of your Holiness, whom may the Almighty long preserve, &c.
https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/link ... andum.html

It is interesting that one of the top arguments would be textual evidence to argue against the authenticity of the shroud. So, skeptics rely on textual evidence as a leading form of evidence.

Significantly, the letter is unsigned, undated, and there is no record of it ever sent to Antipope Clement VII. So, would skeptics consider an anonymous letter of unknown date to be reliable? And since it was never sent, why should we consider it any more seriously than finding a document in the trash can?

Why would skeptics accept the testimony of a bishop? Would skeptics accept the testimony if a bishop said it was authentic? Highly doubtful.

Further, the alleged forger was not named. So, it is meaningless to say someone confessed to creating it if nobody was specified. That's like a lawyer saying to a judge, "Your honor, we have an eyewitness who saw the crime. But we don't know his name and we can't bring him in to take the stand." So, it's pretty much a useless statement.

Also, how do we know they are referring to the TS? It could've been referring to a replica of the TS.

Even if everything written in it was true, that an forger created the TS, it does not explain how he did it. It would go back to the argument that the TS is a work of art, which I have argued against in the past several pages. This artist would be a super genius artist that we completely ignore today.

The letter itself is also suspect. From what I can tell, there is no other document written by anybody else complaining to the Pope about a relic not being genuine. During this era, relics were everywhere.
Once, the western world was full of relics. The bones and skin, fingernails and even heads of saints were preserved, bought and sold, stolen and cherished. Relics of holy people and of Jesus Christ were at the heart of medieval Christianity.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... ian-relics
Way back in the Middle Ages, relics were all the rage. Such objects were thought to be religiously significant and were said to have magical properties, healing and helping those who possessed them. There was a thriving market centered on holy relics, and people jumped at the chance to spend money acquiring them.
https://www.magellantv.com/articles/bli ... technology
Relics and pilgrimage churches played a large role in religious life in the Middle Ages, and had a significant economic impact on both the church as well as the city where it was located. Towns that possessed important sacred relics were popular destinations for spiritual tourism, and the offerings these pilgrims made to the church as well as the money they spent at local businesses made relics an important commodity.

The competition to obtain relics quickly lead to merchants and agents who located, bought, and sold them. And as inevitably happens, most areas had a network of unscrupulous riffraff who dealt in counterfeits.

In those days it was impossible to tell if you had the skull of Saint Bernard or Bernard the bartender. Protestant theologian John Calvin famously remarked that there were enough pieces of the True Cross to build a ship.
https://gallivance.net/2015/01/19/relig ... ddle-ages/

Why would the only medieval text we have complaining to the Pope that a relic is a fake be about the Shroud of Turin (which ironically is probably the only genuine relic from the first century)?

It all doesn't add up.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1735

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng, I'm trying to be polite as I can be, but discounting me as a skeptic is uncalled for.

I have never implied or stated you were not a Christian, nor have I ever implied or stated that you're not a proponent of the TS as a religious / supernatural product.

If we're to have a debate of mutual respect, I respectfully ask that you quit denying me being a skeptic. It's very insulting, if only to me...

otseng wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:06 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1738]
Actually, you just continue to make the same irrelevant and unsupported assertions without answering any of my questions. So, again, your tactic of diversion will be ignored. Further repeating of your same statements will simply mean you have nothing to contribute to the debate.
I have to keep repeating them because you keep declaring that I ain't a skeptic, and so I'm somehow 'avoiding' debate with you, as we continue to debate one another.

When you can give me, and the facts I present the recognition they deserve, maybe I won't have to repeat myself so much.
otseng wrote: Since you cannot engage in a debate on the Shroud of Turin and present claims by shroud skeptics, I'll present the arguments from the shroud skeptics myself.
PLEASE OBSERVE, DEAR OBSERVER, THAT I HAVE BY MY OWN ADMISSION BEEN SHOWN TO BE A SKEPTIC, AND OUR ARGUER HERE REFUSES TO ACCEPT THAT I GET TO DECIDE MY POSITION ON THIS MATTER.

MY SKEPTICISM IS NOT BOUND TO SOMEONE TRYING TO DENY ME WHO I AM. IT'S NOT UP TO SOME THEIST TO DECIDE FOR ME, OR ANYONE ELSE, IF THEY'RE A SKEPTIC OR NOT.

NOTICE HOW otseng IGNORES THE FACT OF MY BEING A SKEPTIC, JUST AS HE IGNORES THE COMPELLING NATURE OF THE THREE FACTS I REPEATEDLY TRY TO GET HIM TO CONSIDER. HE GOES SO FAR AS TO CALL THESE FACTS "IRRELEVANT", AND "SILLY CLAIMS".




I've said it before - I don't need anyone else to debate MY POSITION for me, and see no need to introduce their arguments to support my contentions in this matter.

Your choosing to ignore my presentation of facts is sound indication you'll ignore any fact that goes against your religious beliefs.

1. No human / god procreation has been shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
2. The image on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

We all must wonder why you consider these facts "silly claims", or "irrelevant".
The earliest textual record we have of the TS is a document that claims the shroud is a forgery.
Then shame on them for not showing it's a forgery?

Where has the theist -ahem- any theist, shown the three facts I've continued to present are in error?
...Snip wiki...
This is often cited by skeptics as evidence the shroud is a fake.
Then shame on that bunch of skeptics?

Where has the theist -ahem- any theist, shown the three facts I've continued to present are in error?
otseng wrote:
The first certain mention of it comes from the 14th century when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to antipope Clement VII in which he stated that the shroud was a fraud and that the forger had confessed.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Then shame on the Bishop?

Where has the theist -ahem- any theist, shown the three facts I've continued to present are in error?
otseng wrote:
Other evidence that the Shroud is a fake includes (c) the fact that the first creditable mention of it is in 1357 C.E., (d) the fact that Bishop Pierre d'Arcis and his predecessor Bishop Henri, of the 1300’s, told the Pope it was fake and even (e) had a confession by the forger.
https://www.gcrr.org/post/let-go-of-the-shroud-of-turin
Then shame on whoever which one of em there needs it?

Where has the theist -ahem- any theist, shown the three facts I've continued to present are in error?


Here is the complete translated text of the D’Arcis Memorandum:
otseng wrote: ...Snip verbose verbosity...

It is interesting that one of the top arguments would be textual evidence to argue against the authenticity of the shroud. So, skeptics rely on textual evidence as a leading form of evidence.

Significantly, the letter is unsigned, undated, and there is no record of it ever sent to Antipope Clement VII. So, would skeptics consider an anonymous letter of unknown date to be reliable? And since it was never sent, why should we consider it any more seriously than finding a document in the trash can?
Skeptics're just as prone to error as any bunch.

That said...

Where has the theist -ahem- any theist, shown the three facts I've continued to present are in error?
otseng wrote: Why would skeptics accept the testimony of a bishop? Would skeptics accept the testimony if a bishop said it was authentic? Highly doubtful.
I never said I accepted that testimony, but then again, you deny I'm a skeptic.
otseng wrote: Further, the alleged forger was not named. So, it is meaningless to say someone confessed to creating it if nobody was specified. That's like a lawyer saying to a judge, "Your honor, we have an eyewitness who saw the crime. But we don't know his name and we can't bring him in to take the stand." So, it's pretty much a useless statement.
So shame on somebody?

Where has the theist -ahem- any theist, shown the three facts I've continued to present are in error?
otseng wrote: Also, how do we know they are referring to the TS? It could've been referring to a replica of the TS.
Just as the ancients could been referring to a replica of a human / god hybrid?

This is why I prefer fact to speculation.
otseng wrote: Even if everything written in it was true, that an forger created the TS, it does not explain how he did it. It would go back to the argument that the TS is a work of art, which I have argued against in the past several pages. This artist would be a super genius artist that we completely ignore today.

The letter itself is also suspect. From what I can tell, there is no other document written by anybody else complaining to the Pope about a relic not being genuine. During this era, relics were everywhere.
So shame on whiver bunch needs em some of it?

I don't understand why you keep carrying on about folks saying it's a forgery, when that ain't even my argument. Why do you feel so compelled to toss this argument at me, when I seek to discuss the facts related to the shroud?
otseng wrote: Once, the western world was full of relics.
...
It's still full of relics, in the form of prayers to God's that can't be shown tomexist, much less to have the capability to recieve em.
otseng wrote: In those days it was impossible to tell if you had the skull of Saint Bernard or Bernard the bartender. Protestant theologian John Calvin famously remarked that there were enough pieces of the True Cross to build a ship.
https://gallivance.net/2015/01/19/relig ... ddle-ages/
Now we getting somewhere.

Where has the blood been shown to be that of Jesus?
Where has the image been shown to be that of Jesus?
otseng wrote: Why would the only medieval text we have complaining to the Pope that a relic is a fake be about the Shroud of Turin (which ironically is probably the only genuine relic from the first century)?

It all doesn't add up.
So we dismiss, if only for now, any claim that the shrouds a forgery, and look at the facts...

1. No human / god hybrids have been confirmed to be viable
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybridmin question.

With these facts, I propose the most rational conclusion to be had would fall at least two ways...

1. Who the heck knows
2. The shroud represents the result of natural processes, even if we can't confirm what those processes may be

We can toss out any and all claims regarding a forgery, but we can't toss out the three facts you seem to consider so "irrelevant", or "silly claims".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1736

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:20 am otseng, I'm trying to be polite as I can be, but discounting me as a skeptic is uncalled for.
I never said that. Where did I ever say you were not a skeptic? Why are you getting mad at something I never said?

And while we're on this subject, are you willing to be a skeptic of anything other than religion?
We can toss out any and all claims regarding a forgery, but we can't toss out the three facts you seem to consider so "irrelevant", or "silly claims".
You did not present any counter-evidence with references, so actually all of your responses are merely your personal opinion and will be discounted. And until you can provide evidence with references, they will continue to automatically be ignored.
1. No human / god hybrids have been confirmed to be viable
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybridmin question
Noted the continual repetitious irrelevant claims and again ignored.

A few more questions for you:
Have you even been studying the Shroud of Turin?
What sources have been reading from?
Can you post the urls for those sources?
From your reading, what shroud skeptics do you find the most convincing?
What are the top claims by shroud skeptics to argue against the authenticity of the shroud?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1737

Post by otseng »

otseng wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:06 am From what I can tell, there is no other document written by anybody else complaining to the Pope about a relic not being genuine. During this era, relics were everywhere.
I want to underscore this point. The display of a relic at the Lirey cathedral was not unique. As a matter of fact, all Catholic cathedrals were expected to have a relic. And all of them believed their relic was genuine.
Inspired by this, the second Council of Nicea in 787 decreed that no altar could be consecrated without its own relics. A manuscript in the Fitzwilliam known as the Metz Pontifical, a book which details the various ceremonies to be performed by a bishop, shows the insertion of relics into a newly dedicated altar [MS.298.f.46r]. The ruling at Nicea still applies in the Roman Catholic Church today.
https://fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/objects-an ... eliquaries
Given that the materials of most relics – bone, wood, cloth – often had little intrinsic value, the scope for forgeries was wide. A Church Council in 1215 tried to legislate against the trade in fakes, and decreed that henceforth all relics had to be authenticated by a bishop.

Over a hundred years later, Martin Luther complained about the profusion of relics and the absurd claims being made for them.

"What lies there are about relics! One claims to have a feather from the wing of the angel Gabriel, and the bishop of Mainz has a flame from Moses’ burning bush. And how does it happen that eighteen apostles are buried in Germany when Christ had only twelve?"
https://fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/objects-an ... eliquaries
In medieval Europe, relics of dead martyrs were the ultimate must-have, venerated by princes and paupers alike.

The medieval market for relics was big business – a huge industry with an infrastructure to match. From peasants to popes, all clamoured to see them – so much so that Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor, ordered relic veneration to be an integral part of Frankish canon law, directing every altar to possess its own relics.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/med ... ck-market/

It was in 1555 that the relic trade was officially banned.
In 1555 at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church, responding to the accusations of the Reformation which rejected relics, forbade their sale altogether.
https://fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/objects-an ... eliquaries

If relics were everywhere in medieval Europe, shouldn't we also have textual records everywhere complaining to the Pope about forgeries?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1738

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:43 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:20 am otseng, I'm trying to be polite as I can be, but discounting me as a skeptic is uncalled for.
I never said that. Where did I ever say you were not a skeptic? Why are you getting mad at something I never said?
As you say you haven't, and with my trust in your decency, I'll chalk it up to a difference in perspective.
And while we're on this subject, are you willing to be a skeptic of anything other than religion?
What you got on the trickle down theory of economics?

As this is a site more focused on religion, I'll fess to being a skeptic of all the same gods as you, plus the one you ain't.
otseng wrote:
JK wrote: We can toss out any and all claims regarding a forgery, but we can't toss out the three facts you seem to consider so "irrelevant", or "silly claims".
You did not present any counter-evidence with references, so actually all of your responses are merely your personal opinion and will be discounted.
Oh, so you take the Answers in Genesis approach to facts?

There's been no confirmable cases of human / god hybrids. Christians like to say they have such a case, but fail miserably to show that to be true.
otseng wrote: And until you can provide evidence with references, they will continue to automatically be ignored.
JK wrote: 1. No human / god hybrids have been confirmed to be viable
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybridmin question
Noted the continual repetitious irrelevant claims and again ignored.
Let the record show that you consider facts irrelevant.
otseng wrote: A few more questions for you:
Have you even been studying the Shroud of Turin?
I've studied it right up until I ran headlong into the three facts I've presented.
otseng wrote: What sources have you been reading from?
The Big Book of Facts otseng Considers Irrelevant.
otseng wrote: Can you post the urls for those sources?
I present my arguments as a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the available facts
otseng wrote: From your reading, what shroud skeptics do you find the most convincing?
Me.
otseng wrote: What are the top claims by shroud skeptics to argue against the authenticity of the shroud?
1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud can't be shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

With these three facts in mind, and keeping in mind no forgery can be shown, it's my contention the shroud should be considered the product of natural processes, and that the image represents a human.

Now, if you're still intent on considering these three facts irrelevant, we'll turn to the subject of trickle down economics :wave:
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1739

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:27 pm As this is a site more focused on religion, I'll fess to being a skeptic of all the same gods as you, plus the one you ain't.
However, we do touch on areas that religion also touches on. For example, just in this thread we've also covered cosmology. Do you accept everything what cosmologists claim? If not, what do you reject?
otseng wrote: You did not present any counter-evidence with references, so actually all of your responses are merely your personal opinion and will be discounted.
Oh, so you take the Answers in Genesis approach to facts?
I have no idea what you mean by the AiG reference. Have I even referenced AiG when talking about the shroud (or any topic for that matter)?

What I am talking about is the rules to this forum and to what you continually ask from Christians... that people should provide evidence. It is quite ironic you ask from Christians for evidence all the time, yet when I ask it from you, you provide none.
otseng wrote: What sources have you been reading from?
The Big Book of Facts otseng Considers Irrelevant.
otseng wrote: Can you post the urls for those sources?
I present my arguments as a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the available facts
Actually, these demonstrate you have not been studying the Shroud of Turin, but rather just make up claims.

I asked for sources and urls that you have been reading from. And you only replied back with "The Big Book of Facts otseng Considers Irrelevant" and "I present my arguments as a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the available facts".

Responding like this is even more reason to ignore pretty much everything you say since you're not even trying to engage in a logical debate.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8535
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2166 times
Been thanked: 2310 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1740

Post by Tcg »

otseng wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:13 pm
Actually, these demonstrate you have not been studying the Shroud of Turin, but rather just make up claims.
Have you studied the Shroud of Turin directly?


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Post Reply