3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin

[JoeyKnothead]

For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.

The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.

For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

[Purple Knight]

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.

Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

No, especially not the first one since Jesus (and perhaps the Nephalim as well) being mules before we knew why mules were mules, would actually slightly support the accounts. If I see a description of a scientific fact that we know about now, from a time before that fact was known, it makes me think that if someone was making it up, they got incredibly lucky. The Nephalim are a great example of a hybrid race that may have been sterile and certainly had hybrid vigor. That said I think Jesus is supposed to be an incarnation, not a hybrid.

To better illustrate, let's say we have an account from before Mendelian inheritance was discovered. It's just some Egyptian guy writing on papyrus about his cats. He finds a grey cat, but he can only find one. He breeds it to a regular, non-grey cat, and none of the babies are grey. He breeds the babies to each other, and finds that about 1/4 of them come up grey. He breeds one F1 baby back to the original grey and finds half grey. He also notes that when he breeds two grey cats together, all of the babies are always grey. Imma say he ain't making it up. The Nephalim account is not this strong however.

For 2 and 3, I have to ask how you could show or even indicate such a thing or 2 and 3 are not falsifiable.

Of course, there's no reason to simply believe these claims either.

[Difflugia]

In the other thread, the problem is presented as a challenge to prove that the Shroud is not the burial shroud of Jesus.

This is a debate, you can't just claim the shroud image is not Jesus and not have an alternative. If you have none, then you likewise cannot claim it was not Jesus depicted on the shroud.

But, if anyone else believes it is a fake, then they likewise need to provide evidence.

This is standard apologetics. Stated another way, it's possible that the Shroud is legitimate. The evidence presented so far is that the ¹⁴C data might be wrong or contaminated, so the Shroud might date earlier than the thirteenth century AD. If we don't know who created it, it might be genuine rather than an artistic piece or a forgery.

According to the evidence presented, the Shroud might also be the sacred bathmat of Santa Claus with exactly the same probability ("prove that it's not"). That's also the same probability that, in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live character Wayne, "monkeys might fly out of my butt." Actually, there's probably more chance of that because monkeys and I have been demonstrated to exist.

As far as I can tell from the evidence so far in that thread, the Shroud is probably from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century AD. Aside from any other evidence yet to be presented, that means it's overwhelmingly unlikely to be from the first century. Even if absolutely everything otseng has written is true, all that would mean is that the turn of the fourteenth century date is wrong. That still doesn't offer any evidence for what date is right. The claim otseng is making is that the opportunities for contamination and error mean that the ¹⁴C dates aren't good evidence for the reported date or any other date. So according to otseng, his strongest argument so far is that the best evidence we have isn't very good. Given that, absent other evidence, the probability that a random burial shroud or objet d'art dates to the first century is effectivly nil.

As far as I can tell, otseng's argument so far is that since the ¹⁴C data might be wrong, his lack of evidence wins the debate.

Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

That said, this is an interesting question for an entirely different reason: what does otseng mean by "Jesus" versus what you mean by "the biblical Jesus?" Are we looking for a mundane burial shroud of a mundane Jesus upon whom the biblical Jesus is loosely modeled? Are we seeking a demigod whose divine radiance imprinted his image into a piece of perfumed linen?

If the former, your three facts are largely irrelevant. What is relevant is the number of first century burial shrouds that have survived. If nonzero, how many of those have retained the imprint of the deceased? While otseng is correct that no other respondents have presented a means of producing an artwork or forgery, neither has he provided a mechanism for a burial shroud to retain an imprint of the deceased.

If the latter, then your three facts are spot on. The probability that a supernatural Jesus existed rounds to zero to at least a few decimal places for your reasons and others. If Yahweh didn't appear to Mary as a particularly handsome goose or white bull or whatever, no magic Jesus. No magic Jesus, no dead magic Jesus. No dead magic Jesus, no burial shroud of dead magic Jesus.

[JoeyKnothead]

No, especially not the first one since Jesus (and perhaps the Nephalim as well) being mules before we knew why mules were mules, would actually slightly support the accounts.

I'm too literally minded, pease clarify.

If I see a description of a scientific fact that we know about now, from a time before that fact was known, it makes me think that if someone was making it up, they got incredibly lucky. The Nephalim are a great example of a hybrid race that may have been sterile and certainly had hybrid vigor. That said I think Jesus is supposed to be an incarnation, not a hybrid.

Doesn't an incarnation kinda negate the need for a human mother?

To better illustrate, let's say we have an account from before Mendelian inheritance was discovered. It's just some Egyptian guy writing on papyrus about his cats. He finds a grey cat, but he can only find one. He breeds it to a regular, non-grey cat, and none of the babies are grey. He breeds the babies to each other, and finds that about 1/4 of them come up grey. He breeds one F1 baby back to the original grey and finds half grey. He also notes that when he breeds two grey cats together, all of the babies are always grey. Imma say he ain't making it up. The Nephalim account is not this strong however.

We're looking for a specific gray cat, though tracing the lineage is a good start.

For 2 and 3, I have to ask how you could show or even indicate such a thing or 2 and 3 are not falsifiable.

Producing Jesus' blood and image for analysis.

Of course, there's no reason to simply believe these claims either.

Of course not.

As always, I appreciate your neutral approach in these debates.

[brunumb]

Are we looking for a mundane burial shroud of a mundane Jesus upon whom the biblical Jesus is loosely modeled?

Was it a common practice to simply lay a body on a long piece of cloth and then fold the cloth over to lay on top of the body. I always thought that the body was wrapped. The Bible also talks about strips of cloth. My brain hurts.

[JoeyKnothead]

In the other thread, the problem is presented as a challenge to prove that the Shroud is not the burial shroud of Jesus.

I tried that, and got admonitions for presenting these three facts to show there's reason to reject it as claimed.

This is standard apologetics. Stated another way, it's possible that the Shroud is legitimate. The evidence presented so far is that the ¹⁴C data might be wrong or contaminated, so the Shroud might date earlier than the thirteenth century AD. If we don't know who created it, it might be genuine rather than an artistic piece or a forgery.

That too. brunumb's doing a good job from this angle.

According to the evidence presented, the Shroud might also be the sacred bathmat of Santa Claus with exactly the same probability ("prove that it's not"). That's also the same probability that, in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live character Wayne, "monkeys might fly out of my butt." Actually, there's probably more chance of that because monkeys and I have been demonstrated to exist.

Lomfpoc

As far as I can tell from the evidence so far in that thread, the Shroud is probably from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century AD. Aside from any other evidence yet to be presented, that means it's overwhelmingly unlikely to be from the first century. Even if absolutely everything otseng has written is true, all that would mean is that the turn of the fourteenth century date is wrong. That still doesn't offer any evidence for what date is right. The claim otseng is making is that the opportunities for contamination and error mean that the ¹⁴C dates aren't good evidence for the reported date or any other date. So according to otseng, his strongest argument so far is that the best evidence we have isn't very good. Given that, absent other evidence, the probability that a random burial shroud or objet d'art dates to the first century is effectivly nil.

That's kinda the problem when we can invoke the supernatural. Gods don't care about facts.

As far as I can tell, otseng's argument so far is that since the ¹⁴C data might be wrong, his lack of evidence wins the debate.

As above, the gods ignore the facts when we can invoke the supernatural.

Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

That said, this is an interesting question for an entirely different reason: what does otseng mean by "Jesus" versus what you mean by "the biblical Jesus?" Are we looking for a mundane burial shroud of a mundane Jesus upon whom the biblical Jesus is loosely modeled? Are we seeking a demigod whose divine radiance imprinted his image into a piece of perfumed linen?

If the former, your three facts are largely irrelevant. What is relevant is the number of first century burial shrouds that have survived. If nonzero, how many of those have retained the imprint of the deceased? While otseng is correct that no other respondents have presented a means of producing an artwork or forgery, neither has he provided a mechanism for a burial shroud to retain an imprint of the deceased.

If the latter, then your three facts are spot on. The probability that a supernatural Jesus existed rounds to zero to at least a few decimal places for your reasons and others. If Yahweh didn't appear to Mary as a particularly handsome goose or white bull or whatever, no magic Jesus. No magic Jesus, no dead magic Jesus. No dead magic Jesus, no burial shroud of dead magic Jesus.

Of course it's about the biblical Jesus. Saying it's just a random dude named Jesus doesn't fit the Christian narrative.

[TRANSPONDER]

Are we looking for a mundane burial shroud of a mundane Jesus upon whom the biblical Jesus is loosely modeled?

Was it a common practice to simply lay a body on a long piece of cloth and then fold the cloth over to lay on top of the body. I always thought that the body was wrapped. The Bible also talks about strips of cloth. My brain hurts.

Yes. The shroud looks very convincing at first sight. It convinced me, at first. It was realising (from a shroud apologetics book) that it was a flat image and not a wrap-around one that made me think it wasn't right. I already knew that John contradicted the synoptics (as he often does) in having body -bands instead of a shroud like the synoptics. The recent discussion added more problems with the 'x -ray' claim showing that the arms and hands are actually too long whether regarded as x- rayed finger -bones or some kind of contact print. The arm that goes under the other even shows a kind of fade - out at the wrist like there was a shadow effect going on, and that comes from the upper right side in the positive image. I debunked the 'mercator -projection' argument for the distortion as there would be none for the arms where even a wrap-around shroud would be fairly flat, but it would be distorted at the sides if wrapped around, but it is more like it is stretched over the image like a canvas, the Object painting its' image onto it.

How, is anybody's guess, but what is, is plain to be seen and does NOT fit with a genuine shroud - burial,though possibly it might fit with a strictly temporary one.

And that's my take on the shroud, aside from doubts about the bloodstains.

[Shem Yoshi]

For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.

The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.

For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

I do not believe that the "facts" do "irreparable harm" to the claims that the shroud was draped over Jesus, for this reason... Every "fact" you stated could be true all the while the shroud could be actually true...

Everything you stated just says you havent been convinced yourself... But just because you havent been convinced doesnt mean it is not true.

[TRANSPONDER]

For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.

The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.

For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

I do not believe that the "facts" do "irreparable harm" to the claims that the shroud was draped over Jesus, for this reason... Every "fact" you stated could be true all the while the shroud could be actually true...

Everything you stated just says you havent been convinced yourself... But just because you havent been convinced doesnt mean it is not true.

I certainly don't favor arguments that smack of the 'miracles don't happen'apologetic. ("People don't rise from the dead so the shroud can't really prove a resurrection"). But there's the thing - it might prove a real Jesus, but does it prove a resurrection? In fact, no, even though right from the start there was an effort to argue for this very curious image being caused by the 'Resurrection event'. But even when I thought the shroud was 'Real' I didn't see a radiation - burst as working as it would be all -over, but is more like a near or contact chemical effect.

Plenty of room for discussion but it isn't over as yet, either way.

[Athetotheist]

Don't know how many of you are old enough to remember this but you may want to take a look, paying particular attention to 13:48-17:00.



Also.....

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
(1Corinthians 11:14)

Would the author of those words have considered the Shroud of Turin genuine?