oldbadger wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:29 am
otseng wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:05 am
Yes, it says 100 pounds of spices were brought to the tomb, but it does not state if all the spices were used, so it's conjecture how much was on the body during burial.
I know, but I was asking about any lab reports.
Here is one research on the detection of myrrh:
Recent research with immunofluorescence methods has also
demonstrated the presence of traces of aloes and myrrh. These traces occur both in areas
corresponding to bloodstains and in other areas as well.
The present immunological investigations have
also confirmed the presence of aloes and myrrh in Shroud samples. The fact that the density
of the blood traces, aloes and myrrh is highest where there are bloodstains and decreases in
the other areas, lends support to a connection between the blood's preservation and the
presence of such plant preservatives. What is more, the demonstration of traces of aloes and
myrrh adherent to fibrils removed from areas corresponding to the body imprints leads us to
suppose the existence of a connection between these substances and the formation of the
images.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi13part3.pdf
So far I have read that this item dates back about 700 years so it is short by One thousand Three hundred years....no?
Are you referring to the 1988 C-14 dating?
I read about the Oxford dating, is all.
And I already refuted the C-14 dating in
post 1984.
I think it would be very easy to list your evidences in one clear concise post, but so far I have not read any evidence of yours about the shroud.... nothing.
The charge I have produced no evidence is completely baseless. There is so much evidence I've produced, it would not fit into a single post.
You can do this, review my summary argument in
post 1984 of refuting the C-14 dating. This will link to the specific arguments which will have the links to the details with evidences with references.
Also, my arguments so far is not the TS is the burial cloth of Jesus. The only thing I've argued so far is it is not a work of art but an actual body was involved. As I present more evidence of the blood, then I'll be arguing it is the body of Jesus.
And so you have acknowledged the fact that many many artifacts have been discovered which were intended to bolster faith in the people.
Yes, many other Catholic relics exist.
A list of evidences on a single post would in my opinion present the strongest possible proposal that this shroud might be one that covered Jesus.
We've already spent over 50 pages discussing the TS. It's not possible to reduce this into a single post. It could be reduced into a single book though, which I guess I might have to write some day.
I have already written that I have not seen any presence of faith in your posts, apart from where you wrote that you do believe in a resurrected Jesus and this shroud.
OK.
I wrote to you previously:- Yes. If your opinion is not based upon any faith then you won't have much to grasp at all......at this rate. So I take it back..... you will not be left with anything imo, if you cannot prepare a clear and concise list of evidence.
All I'd be doing is compiling all the evidence I've already been producing. Is that what you want me to do?
oldbadger wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:32 am
That's the problem with this shroud, it seems to be about One thousand two hundred years out of date with the claims.
Again, review my summary argument in
post 1984 of refuting the C-14 dating.
If you have valid counter-arguments with evidence, please present them. Otherwise my refutation of the 1988 C-14 dating stands unchallenged.
oldbadger wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:48 am
Now, if any ointments or spices were used then traces could be detected, and since G-John tells that Joseph of A brought the finest linen then the shroud would need to be of the finest Palestinian grown, thinned, spun and woven linen. Absence of any mention about these factors would damage any claims for it being genuine, I guess.
I have no idea what you are arguing about. Absence of mention in the Bible about what would show it's not genuine?