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?

[JoeyKnothead]

Replying to your edited post...

For any readers interested, this thread was spawned off that other'n cause I got threatened with sanctions for trying to present these facts.

I absolutely reject this "clap on the back" dooficity, as I sought, doggedly, to have these facts considered within that thread.

I absolutely reject the notion these facts are "frivolous".

What is it about these three facts the Christian is too afraid to even consider, much less debate?

These are not "facts", these are "claims". And it is the burden of those who make the claim to provide evidence to support that claim. You have not provided any evidence to support these claims, but instead repeatedly post the same thing over and over (I lost count when it hit a dozen).

It's Christians who claim their god impregnated a human female. Such a hybrid union has not been shown, by Christians or anyone else, to produce viable offspring.

I realize many Christians think shifting the burden of proof is some sort of 'gotcha', but it's their burden.

I say "clap on the back" because in the short time you created this thread, numerous skeptics have participated in your thread, but few participate in mine. And who in this thread is arguing for the authenticity of the shroud?

Considering your refusal to address these facts when they were put to you, why should they expect a debate with you, in "your thread" to be productive?

"Frivolous" because of the usage "human / god hybrid in question". Who are you talking about? Jesus?

I'm unaware of any instance where shroud promoters were saying it was Santa Claus on that shroud.

What Christian uses the phrase "human / god hybrid"? If nobody, then it's a frivolous description at a minimum, but can more accurately be described as mocking.

Who got Mary pregnant?

I realize many Christians prefer not to consider their claims too deeply, lest the flaws in their thinking / claims be exposed.

Who's afraid to actually debate on the shroud? I'll let the readers judge.

When folks are threatened with sanctions for exposing facts the Christian seeks to avoid or dismiss out of hand, I think it's obvious who's doing them the fretting.

[Purple Knight]

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

Not necessarily because I'm thinking the body had to be one of the Chosen People. God cares about lineage.

Producing Jesus' blood and image for analysis.

I don't think you're going to get anything meaningful off something thousands of years old. We'd have to wait for better techniques in the future. And even then, even if this is all true, what the Christians will likely say is, well, of course the DNA was human; the body was human. This isn't an ad hoc they would merely invent on the spot - this is their actual lore they've had since before DNA testing existed.

So in this case I don't think either side can be proven or disproven based on DNA evidence.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

Not necessarily because I'm thinking the body had to be one of the Chosen People. God cares about lineage.

Producing Jesus' blood and image for analysis.

I don't think you're going to get anything meaningful off something thousands of years old. We'd have to wait for better techniques in the future. And even then, even if this is all true, what the Christians will likely say is, well, of course the DNA was human; the body was human. This isn't an ad hoc they would merely invent on the spot - this is their actual lore they've had since before DNA testing existed.

So in this case I don't think either side can be proven or disproven based on DNA evidence.

I hear ya.

I just like to point out the errors in the claim.

Of course the theist will always find comfort in such as, "It's all supernatural, it's hard to explain it unless ya believe it, and if ya believe it, ya don't need it explained to ya."

I note that in the thread from which this OP was spawned, these facts were called "silly claims". Never mind they're facts derived from from the Christian's whole center of being and of course claims surrounding the shroud.

[Purple Knight]

Of course the theist will always find comfort in such as, "It's all supernatural, it's hard to explain it unless ya believe it, and if ya believe it, ya don't need it explained to ya."

I like the version that appears in Chronicles of Narnia better, though I don't actually believe any of it.

In Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Lucy finds a spell to make the invisible, visible. She uses it.

Aslan appears. Lucy is shocked that a mere spell would work on Aslan. Surely he could have the spell not work on him, if he wanted.

Aslan is like, what, do you think I would break my own rules?

+1 to C.S. Lewis.

[brunumb]

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

I still maintain that discussion of the shroud is actually a derailing of the thread "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" and should have its own thread. There is a tentative connection but I don't think that it focuses on the main idea of inerrancy in the Bible and trust in its content. My 3 cents, taking inflation into account.

[otseng]

I realize many Christians think shifting the burden of proof is some sort of 'gotcha', but it's their burden.

Of course it's my burden to provide evidence to show the shroud is authentic. That is what I've been doing all along. Whereas you have yet to produce a single evidence in any of your posts. So, who's the one that's actually debating?

Considering your refusal to address these facts when they were put to you, why should they expect a debate with you, in "your thread" to be productive?

What facts? You mean your claims?

What Christian uses the phrase "human / god hybrid"? If nobody, then it's a frivolous description at a minimum, but can more accurately be described as mocking.

Who got Mary pregnant?

Again, you fail to answer the basic question - What Christian uses the phrase "human / god hybrid"?

When folks are threatened with sanctions for exposing facts the Christian seeks to avoid or dismiss out of hand, I think it's obvious who's doing them the fretting.

Umm, the sanctions were issued to you by atheists. And it's for your continual spamming/ranting/repetitive postings. Given that you are on probation, were warned and then continued to violate the warning, why should you not be banned permanently?

[otseng]

I still maintain that discussion of the shroud is actually a derailing of the thread "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" and should have its own thread. There is a tentative connection but I don't think that it focuses on the main idea of inerrancy in the Bible and trust in its content. My 3 cents, taking inflation into account.

I explained it when I started the section on the TS... (also, the thread has nothing to do with discussing the inerrancy of the Bible)

The resurrection of Jesus is claimed to be a historical event and is not a make believe event that we should accept by blind faith. And if it is a historical event, then it should be able to be validated like any other historical event.

For any historical event, there are two main methods to demonstrate its historicity - artifacts and written records. We had talked about the account in the Bible of Sennacherib attacking Jerusalem. Without any artifacts or written records, there would be no corroborating evidence to support the Biblical claim. Then in 1830, Colonel Taylor discovered Sennacherib's Prism which is a written account that remarkably matches the Biblical account from the Assyrian perspective. So, there is no now doubt among historians that the Jerusalem siege actually occurred.

Like all arguments I've made in this thread, I'm not out to prove Jesus was resurrected, but I will attempt to show there are evidence to support it and that it is a reasonable position to hold.

The TS is an artifact that we can objectively analyze and I argue it is authentic and confirms the veracity of the gospel accounts.

[JoeyKnothead]

I realize many Christians think shifting the burden of proof is some sort of 'gotcha', but it's their burden.

Of course it's my burden to provide evidence to show the shroud is authentic. That is what I've been doing all along. Whereas you have yet to produce a single evidence in any of your posts. So, who's the one that's actually debating?

I've presented what I consider to be 3 facts regarding claims of the biblical Jesus being the source of data on the shroud in a new OP specifically because I was told these facts weren't welcome in that other thread.

I contend they are facts because there is no confirmable evidence or rational argument I'm aware of that puts my position in error.

The shroud is held by many to be the literal cloth that was draped over a literal half human / half god -um- entity, by the name of Jesus.

It's my contention that argument fails specifically because the biblical Jesus has not been shown to be the literal son of the literal God and the literal human, nor has the blood, or the image, been shown to belong to that literal Jesus.

Considering your refusal to address these facts when they were put to you, why should they expect a debate with you, in "your thread" to be productive?

What facts? You mean your claims?

I'm content in having the observer decide if my position stands up to scrutiny.

What Christian uses the phrase "human / god hybrid"? If nobody, then it's a frivolous description at a minimum, but can more accurately be described as mocking.

Who got Mary pregnant?

Again, you fail to answer the basic question - What Christian uses the phrase "human / god hybrid"?

I answered the question in a common rhetorical style called "answering a question with a question".

By doing so, I refer folks specifically to the Christian biblical claim of a god impregnating a woman named Mary, thereby producing a half human / half god child commonly referred to by the name of Jesus.

It's a pretty well understood notion in biology that when crossing two critters of a different type / genera / species, that a hybrid is the result.

I point this hybridization out specifically so those less aware can see the absurdity of the claim.

When folks are threatened with sanctions for exposing facts the Christian seeks to avoid or dismiss out of hand, I think it's obvious who's doing them the fretting.

Umm, the sanctions were issued to you by atheists.

I never said anything about the sanction being biased.

I contend I was doggedly trying to get you, and to a lesser extent the observer, to consider facts that are pertinent to the issue.

Having been told these facts ain't welcome in that thread, I fetched me on over to a new thread where those who don't wish to fuss about these facts can just not open up the thread.

And it's for your continual spamming/ranting/repetitive postings.

I don't doubt many folks consider a dogged determination to consider facts is "spamming", or "ranting".

So I present these facts in a separate thread where folks who do wanna fuss about em can do so without feeling the need to crawl into a hole to do it.

Given that you are on probation, were warned and then continued to violate the warning, why should you not be banned permanently?

I created this thread specifically so folks who do wanna fuss about what I contend are facts have em a place to do it. I done had one tell me I was wrong, and I'm gnawing on it, trying to figure if they got them the better of it, or me. I even thanked em for it. Now I gotta figure on if it's crow for dinner, or can I defend my position.

If that's such a crime, I don't know what to tell ya.

[otseng]

I realize many Christians think shifting the burden of proof is some sort of 'gotcha', but it's their burden.

Of course it's my burden to provide evidence to show the shroud is authentic. That is what I've been doing all along. Whereas you have yet to produce a single evidence in any of your posts. So, who's the one that's actually debating?

I've presented what I consider to be 3 facts regarding claims of the biblical Jesus being the source of data on the shroud in a new OP specifically because I was told these facts weren't welcome in that other thread.

I don't know how many times it's necessary to tell you this, but you have not provided any evidence to back up your claims. They are not facts, but claims. Out of all the numerous pages you've posted, can you point to a single evidence you've posted to back up your claims? Can anybody point out a single piece of evidence? This coupled with repeating the same thing over and over in a mocking tone is simply ranting. We've had people banned from the forum for less than what you've been doing.

1. You are free to attack any belief or position on this forum. However, you must do so in a civil and respectful fashion.

2. Merely offering your opinion on a position has little to no value in debates. Rather, you are expected to offer a position and be able to justify it with argumentation and with evidence.

3. Avoid posting rants that have no bearing on the debate topic.

4. Avoid posting blanket -- particularly unsubstantiated derogatory -- statements against any belief system or group of people.

I contend they are facts because there is no confirmable evidence or rational argument I'm aware of that puts my position in error.

You made the claim, you need to back it up. I've repeatedly asked you for this since you've been posting your "3 facts". Yet you consistently just post the same thing over and over as if simply repeating the same claim makes your point more valid. It's the opposite. It reveals you have no justification for your claims.

It's my contention that argument fails specifically because the biblical Jesus has not been shown to be the literal son of the literal God and the literal human, nor has the blood, or the image, been shown to belong to that literal Jesus.

I've also pointed out your argument of the virgin birth is a non-sequitur.

Can you stop saying "human / god hybrid in question"? I'm not even arguing the image is actually the body of Jesus yet. And even if it was Jesus, it's a non-sequitur to reject Jesus was depicted on the shroud because the virgin birth cannot be proven.

All that is being argued for is the resurrection of Jesus, not the virgin birth. The TS has nothing to do with the claim of the virgin birth. It would be a totally separate line of argument for the virgin birth.

If you are referring to Jesus when you say "human / god hybrid in question", then why can't you simply say Jesus? Why the continual mocking? Why make up something that no Christian uses to describe Jesus?

What if people keep referring to evolution as "the goo to zoo to you theory in question"? Would any evolutionist take that person seriously? Why should anybody take what you say seriously?

As for "nor has the blood, or the image, been shown to belong to that literal Jesus", I have not even started to provide for the evidence that it's Jesus. But since it is you claiming it's not Jesus, and you have not provided any evidence, again, it's just a baseless unsupported assertion.

I'm content in having the observer decide if my position stands up to scrutiny.

What is there to scrutinize? Let's put it this way. Suppose I were to compile all my arguments I've presented so far into a paper and you were to compile all yours into a paper. We submit our papers to a refereed secular journal. Which one would be accepted and which would be rejected? And I seriously mean this. I'm willing to put all my arguments so far and write it up as a paper to submit to a journal. Would you be willing to do that also?

I answered the question in a common rhetorical style called "answering a question with a question".

And we have to ask why is it so hard to answer such a basic question - What Christian uses the phrase "human / god hybrid"?

Why can't you simply use the name "Jesus" instead? The answer is clearly so you can mock instead.

It's a pretty well understood notion in biology that when crossing two critters of a different type / genera / species, that a hybrid is the result.

Your implication is that Jesus is half god and half man when you say hybrid.

One also has to wonder why the goal shifting of trying to move the argument from the resurrection to the virgin birth. The topic we are talking about is the resurrection and the TS supporting the resurrection. Nobody except you is bringing up the virgin birth.

Having been told these facts ain't welcome in that thread, I fetched me on over to a new thread where those who don't wish to fuss about these facts can just not open up the thread.

Ranting is not allowed in any thread.

I don't doubt many folks consider a dogged determination to consider facts is "spamming", or "ranting".

But you don't consider it spamming or ranting?

Now I gotta figure on if it's crow for dinner, or can I defend my position.

If you cannot produce any evidence, then you are not defending your position.

Since this is your thread to assert these "3 facts", produce your evidence.

If that's such a crime, I don't know what to tell ya.

Here's the crime...

Unfortunately, I was warned of sanctions for trying to discuss some of the facts surrounding the shroud. All I feel safe replying here is...

1.
2.
3.

By your testimony, you were warned you'd get sanctioned if you persist in ranting, yet you continued to do it. This is clear indication you think you are somehow above the rules and can disregard moderator warnings. You of all people should know better since you have been banned before and know the process of banishment.

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't understand why this line of inquiry is so problematic, and I ain't trying to be disruptive, so I'm gonna hafta bow out of the discussion before I get into more trouble than I'm already in.

Y'all be good.