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.
As for how the image was formed. It could not have been a contact imaging through being pressed against the body like what Nickell proposes. There is no imaging distortion like what we would see if the cloth was pressed completely against the body. But it could be a contact imaging like what Jackson proposes since there is a fairly linear path for the cloth to travel through the body.
And as I keep pointing out, the linear path downward would have taken the cloth through the front curve of the cranium and not left a wide gap between the front and back images of the head.
As for someone removing the body, evidence is against this since the blood stains are intact and not broken or smeared
They should be broken and smeared if the body was treated with a mixture of myhrr and aloe before burial.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:57 pm
And as I keep pointing out, the linear path downward would have taken the cloth through the front curve of the cranium and not left a wide gap between the front and back images of the head.
Yeah, you keep pointing it out, but I keep responding that there's an angle threshold (perhaps around 80 degrees) where there would be no imaging.
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:09 am
At the sides of the body, the cloth is also touching the body, but there is no imaging there as well. For the angle encoding, I don't think the threshold of lack of imaging is only at 90 degrees, but somewhere less than that (maybe 80?). Around the ears, there had to be some angle of the cloth around that area, yet the ears are also missing.
They should be broken and smeared if the body was treated with a mixture of myhrr and aloe before burial.
Where in the text does it say myrrh and aloe were applied to the body?
The Shroud of Turin: Fake or Miracle? || Debate w/ Dale of Real Seekers
I'll start off by saying I was impressed with the civility of this debate. Both Dale and Jordan are quite knowledgeable about the TS. Dale is extremely well versed in the shroud and Jordan has also done a lot of research. Both are genuinely after truth and are respectful in their discourse. Jordan can be a bit facetious at times, but doesn't get to the point of personal attacks.
Dale opens with three points: the shroud does not have a medieval date, the Sudarium of Oviedo supports the TS, and the 1988 C-14 dating.
I don't really understand Dale's tactic of using the Sudarium of Oviedo as evidence for the shroud. Though the sudarium is interesting, the sudarium doesn't even come close with the amount of scientific evidence compared to the shroud. Why use inferior evidence to support something that itself has superior evidence?
The only evidence Jordan uses to argue for the shroud being medieval is the 1988 C-14 dating. Though he agrees there's a systemic bias in the data, he proposes there was contamination because of different cleaning methods to account for the irregularities. Dale argues the explanation is Bob Rucker's neutron radiation theory. They don't even consider other options, like the invisible reweave theory.
Even though there are other evidence that point to first century origin, Jordan hand waves them all off.
34:20
Jordan: What I'll say about these is that while you can have 16 or 24 or 100 different methods, what matters is how strong these methods are and I don't find those other methods convincing. I mean so it's a difference in magnitude. I think we have one extremely convincing piece of evidence that is more than all of these others which I don't particularly find very persuasive.
They both seem to be reticent on making a firm claim on their position.
35:32
Jordan: What you're saying is that I as a skeptic must must assert that the Shroud is is Medieval and is not a miracle.
Dale: Yeah I mean if if there's something to talk about like if you don't if you don't think that's a claim on your part.
Then Jordan tries to make Dale make a firm claim.
36:17
Jordan: The only reason we're talking about this at all is ... you think it's authentic burial shroud of Jesus.
Dale: To me the most important thing about the Shroud is that we can prove those images are probably miraculous of a miraculous nature so I focus on the scientific physical and chemical properties what I call these minimal relevant features. I could care less whether it's medieval or belong to Jesus.
38:09
Jordan: This feels a little bit like a Motte and Bailey defense. Like you've got the bigger claim that it is Jesus authentic burial of shroud miraculous thing with the resurrection. But that is too hard to defend so we're going to retreat back into our castle on the Motte over there and we're gonna oh well it's not actually authentic it's not actually first century. The Skeptics all gone? Awesome and then they just rush back out now it's first century again. Like the position you hold is at its first century so defend it.
38:38
Dale: I do right in my shows. But to me uh I don't think we have to defend uh some like it's sufficient if I can prove that it's a miracle.
I'd completely disagree with Dale's tactic here. There is no way anybody can prove a miracle. And Rucker's theory, as Jordan points out, has not been confirmed by evidence supporting his prediction.
And why avoid defending the position that it's first century? If he has done it on his show, then he should argue for it here.
38:50
Dale: If I can convince you with my argumentation that you are convinced yeah this thing is a miracle of God to authenticate Christianity that's the most important thing who cares if it actually covered Jesus.
This is a very strange statement of "who cares if it actually covered Jesus" from an authenticist.
40:26
Jordan: I think if I'm gonna say it's not first century then that is something I should be able to demonstrate, but if you want to say it's a miracle that's on you.
Yes, I agree the burden to support a position is to defend their position, not simply attack the other's position.
I completely agree with what Jordan says at the end about skepticism.
1:42:46
I think that skepticism is super important I think that the world would be a better place if people are more skeptical and just basically required evidence for claims.
Question from the chat:
1:44:00
Otangelo Grasso: How did the artist make this image?
1:44:06
Jordan:
I'm not committed to the artist hypothesis I mean it might be true it might not be um I don't know how the image was made.
I think this would be an example of a Motte and Bailey defense. The claim that is hard to support is someone around 1350 created the shroud, so skeptics retreat from this and the motte they go to is the C-14 dating, even though they admit the data is biased.
Yeah, you keep pointing it out, but I keep responding that there's an angle threshold (perhaps around 80 degrees) where there would be no imaging.
What you actually repond with is:
I don't think the threshold of lack of imaging is only at 90 degrees, but somewhere less than that (maybe 80?)
The phenomenon not being replicable, how would you know? What makes your conclusion any more than a convenient assumption?
Where in the text does it say myrrh and aloe were applied to the body?
"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:38-40)
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:12 am
What you actually repond with is:
Yeah, that was another of my many responses.
The phenomenon not being replicable, how would you know? What makes your conclusion any more than a convenient assumption?
The body image in general has not been replicated by any means, so nobody really knows how it was done.
The cloth collapse theory is not merely an assumption, but it alone explains the most features of the shroud.
Where in the text does it say myrrh and aloe were applied to the body?
"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:38-40)
It can be interpreted in many ways:
- spices were applied directly to the body.
- spices were applied on top of the cloth.
- spices were sitting on the side not even touching the body or the cloth.
The text is also not explicit how much spices was placed on Jesus at this time. For sure we know the anointing of the spices was not completed at this time. Mary came on the third day to complete the anointing, so we don't know how much of the preparation was not done by Joseph and Nicodemus.
The body image in general has not been replicated by any means, so nobody really knows how it was done.
The cloth collapse theory is not merely an assumption, but it alone explains the most features of the shroud.
I believe I mentioned the sliding stones of Death Valley at some point. Some have speculated that their movement is explained by a combination of high wind and the melting and refreezing of frost on the desert floor. Now if you want to get technical, the existence of invisible "Rock Pushers" would also explain the phenomenon, but the high wind/frost speculation was more likely to be the correct answer even before it was formulated.
It can be interpreted in many ways:
- spices were applied directly to the body.
- spices were applied on top of the cloth.
- spices were sitting on the side not even touching the body or the cloth.
No, it can't be "interpreted in many ways". The text says that the process was carried out "as the manner of the Jews is to bury."
"In Jesus’ day, the body was washed and anointed with expensive perfumes, like nard, myrrh, and aloes. Then, the body was wrapped in a shroud, the face covered with a special cloth, and the hands and feet tied with strips of cloth."
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 10:18 am
I believe I mentioned the sliding stones of Death Valley at some point.
Yes, which has nothing to do with the topic.
Now if you want to get technical, the existence of invisible "Rock Pushers" would also explain the phenomenon, but the high wind/frost speculation was more likely to be the correct answer even before it was formulated.
If there's a viable naturalistic explanation for something, of course that is preferable to any supernaturalistic explanation. However, in the case of the image formation of the TS, there is no viable naturalistic explanation.
"In Jesus’ day, the body was washed and anointed with expensive perfumes, like nard, myrrh, and aloes. Then, the body was wrapped in a shroud, the face covered with a special cloth, and the hands and feet tied with strips of cloth."
I dispute the claim Jesus's body was washed in any way.
From Jewish sources...
In "The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning" by Maurice Lamm page 284:
The blood that flowed at the time of death may not be washed away.
If the deceased died instantaneously through violence or accident and his body and garments are completely spattered with blood, no washing or taharah is performed.
Where blood flows continually after death, the source of the flow is covered and not washed.
From The Code of Jewish Law:
If a person collapses and dies instantly, if his body was injured, and blood flowed from the wound, and there is reason to fear that perhaps his lifeblood was absorbed in his clothes and his shoes, he should not be ritually cleansed, but he should be buried in his clothing and his shoes.
If there's a viable naturalistic explanation for something, of course that is preferable to any supernaturalistic explanation. However, in the case of the image formation of the TS, there is no viable naturalistic explanation.
This is arguing from ignorance. It took years for someone to come up with the wind-and-frost explanation for the sliding stones, but it was always viable.
"If a person collapses and dies instantly, if his body was injured, and blood flowed from the wound, and there is reason to fear that perhaps his lifeblood was absorbed in his clothes and his shoes, he should not be ritually cleansed, but he should be buried in his clothing and his shoes."
Let's look at this exerpt again:
"If a person collapses and dies instantly, if his body was injured, and blood flowed from the wound, and there is reason to fear that perhaps his lifeblood was absorbed in his clothes and his shoes, he should not be ritually cleansed, but he should be buried in his clothing and his shoes."
It's generally agreed that Jesus died of asphyxiation. He didn't die of blood loss, so his "lifeblood" didn't flow out.
It apparently was the custom of the Jews to wash off blood. From the same passage:
"Even if blood issued from his body but it stopped, and his clothes were removed, after which he lived for a few days and died, his body must be ritually cleansed and dressed in shrouds. Even though his body is stained from the blood which issued from him, he still must be cleansed, because we are not concerned [about washing off the blood] that issued when he was alive. We are concerned only about the blood which issued from him while he was dying because it may have been his lifeblood, or that his lifeblood was mixed with it."
Again----Jesus didn't die of blood loss, so he didn't lose his "lifeblood". From the criteria here, the blood he lost would presumably be washed off.
(As a side note, not dying of blood loss is one of the reasons Jesus didn't qualify as a sacrifice. The Paschal sacrifice had to die of blood loss.)
If there's a viable naturalistic explanation for something, of course that is preferable to any supernaturalistic explanation. However, in the case of the image formation of the TS, there is no viable naturalistic explanation.
This is arguing from ignorance. It took years for someone to come up with the wind-and-frost explanation for the sliding stones, but it was always viable.
It would only be an argument from ignorance if I did not support my position of the cause of the image formation with any evidence. Also, I am both arguing against it being a medieval fake and arguing for being a first century burial cloth of Jesus, so it's not an argument from ignorance. Further, I've studied all the major claims of the skeptics that I've been able to find and have a rebuttal to all of them. And all the evidence I've presented for the authenticity has not been refuted.
It's generally agreed that Jesus died of asphyxiation.
Jesus had issues both with breathing on the cross and he lost blood from the crown of thorns, scourging, and nails in his hands and feet. Asphyxiation is one reason commonly proposed, but most likely it was a combination of loss of blood and breathing issues for the cause of his death.
Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to death by
crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably
set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the
crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha. At the site of crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and,
after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post (stipes), his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major
pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly death
resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus’ death was ensured by the thrust
of a soldier’s spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicate that Jesus
was dead when taken down from the cross.
He didn't die of blood loss, so his "lifeblood" didn't flow out.
As for "lifeblood", this is an important point. What do Jews mean by the term? Please cite a source for the definition.
It apparently was the custom of the Jews to wash off blood.
Normally yes. But as I've pointed out, there are exceptions to this as evidenced by Jewish sources.
(As a side note, not dying of blood loss is one of the reasons Jesus didn't qualify as a sacrifice. The Paschal sacrifice had to die of blood loss.)
I'm not so sure the sacrifices had to die simply because of blood loss, instead, the death was initiated by cutting the throat, so there's both loss of breathing and loss of blood.
It would only be an argument from ignorance if I did not support my position of the cause of the image formation with any evidence. Also, I am both arguing against it being a medieval fake and arguing for being a first century burial cloth of Jesus, so it's not an argument from ignorance. Further, I've studied all the major claims of the skeptics that I've been able to find and have a rebuttal to all of them. And all the evidence I've presented for the authenticity has not been refuted.
Your argument against medieval fakery is an argument from ignorance. You assume that no natural process can explain the image because you assume that there can be no natural processes left.
"The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably
set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the
crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha."
If the scourging had produced appreciable blood loss and the body wasn't washed before burial, we should see a massive blood smear across the back rather than the clear, individual scourge marks we supposedly see. This would indicate that the body was washed before burial, but if that's the case then the blood rivulets elsewhere should have been removed as well.
The overall indication, therefore, is that we're not looking at an actual image of the crucified Jesus.
