Diogenes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:09 pm
Are you claiming 1260 to 1390 CE somehow disputes what I wrote that it's dated to
about 1300 CE?
Of course not, why would you say that? 1300 is between 1260 and 1390 and I'm simply using shorthand to refer to that date range.
The main point is that it is WAY off from the 30 CE required to prove its authenticity.
Of course.
After ten years or so of wrangling about how to take the samples and how many of which labs to send them to, the Carbon 14 dating put the shroud at circa 1300 CE. End of story. It's a fake, even without going into the data that indicates it's a drawing, not an impression.
OK, let's run with C-14 dating is correct (which of course I will dispute later) and the shroud is medieval. It actually doesn't prove it's a fake nor a drawing. At the most, all it demonstrates is there is a high probability it is medieval.
Since you say it's a drawing, please provide the evidence it's a drawing.
Then, since no serious scholar doubted the reliability of the Carbon dating methods,
Actually there are many serious shroud scholars who have been studying it for decades that doubt the reliability of the C-14 dating.
This was all done because the believers could not accept the truth, it is a fake. No fallacious arguments or mockery needed. Why are you so set on trying to authenticate this relic, despite the evidence? It's not like your faith is based upon a piece of cloth.
No, my faith is not dependent on the cloth. As a matter of fact,
nobody's faith is dependent on the cloth.
The C-14 is only one line of evidence. Whatever explanation is proposed should best explain all the facts. And the C-14 evidence does not do that nor simply claiming it's a fake.
Now, I grant the C-14 dating is a major conundrum if the dating is valid. But,
all the properties of the TS are a conundrum. If you demand I explain the C-14 conundrum, then you must likewise be willing to explain all the conundrums I've brought up so far (and I'll be presenting more later). So, if you charge I'm dismissing the C-14 dating, then I can likewise charge you of dismissing
all the other evidence I've presented so far.
Why not settle for what the Roman Catholic church does and say:
In a carefully worded announcement, the Archbishop of Turin says that the Pope "confirms the devotion to the shroud that millions of pilgrims recognise as a sign of the mystery of the passion and death of the Lord".
You'll notice that this says nothing about its authenticity. The Catholic Church takes no official position on that, stating only that it is a matter for scientific investigation. Ever since radiocarbon dating in 1989 proclaimed the 14ft by 4ft piece of linen to be roughly 700 years old, the Church has avoided claiming that it is anything more than an "icon" of Christian devotion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668
Of course. Where did I say the RCC said the TS is authentic? Would you accept their testimony if they said it was genuine?
Since it's acknowledged a real body was involved...
What?! Where did you come up with that?
Through the debate that has been occurring in this thread with Joey. Since you have to ask this, it's obvious you have not read through anything else I've posted in this thread regarding the TS. You'll need to start in
post 1599. Since you're jumping into the middle of the debate, and if you want to counter any of my claims I've made so far on the TS, then you'll need read through my arguments I've made so far. I'm not going to rehash my lengthy arguments.
The scientific consensus is the opposite.
There is no scientific consensus on the TS. Who claims there is any scientific consensus on the TS?
In 1389, the bishop of Troyes sent a memorial to Antipope Clement VII, declaring that the cloth had been "artificially painted in an ingenious way" and that "it was also proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human work, not miraculously produced". In 1390, Clement VII consequently issued four papal bulls, with which he allowed the exposition, but ordered to "say aloud, to put an end to all fraud, that the aforementioned representation is not the true Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting or panel made to represent or imitate the Shroud "
I just spent many pages discussing the D'Arcis memo. Please respond to those posts and provide counter-evidence to my arguments.
The analysis of a crucified Roman, discovered near Venice in 2007, shows heel wounds that are consistent with those found on Jehohanan but which are not consistent with wounds depicted on the shroud. Also, neither of the crucifixion victims known to archaeology shows evidence of wrist wounds.
I've talked about this as well already. Please provide counter-argument and evidence to what I already said about it.
Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent.
I've also talked about image distortions.
In 2018, an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud.
This I have not talked about yet. Talking about the blood is another huge area. We'll have to get to that next after the C-14.
As Raymond E. Brown noticed, it is impossible for a corpse lying prostrate to cover his own genitals.
I've also explained this already.
