I'm not the least bit surprised to find out that he's a Shroud Shit.

(July 20, 2015 at 6:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, dude. The fact that there is a painting of the shroud that is older than the flawed C-14 dating suggests for the age of the shroud is an inconvenient fact that you cannot explain.

So... in a response to my pointing out your argument from ignorance, you opt to go for a second argument from ignorance? "You can't explain this, therefore I'm right," is no better than "science can't explain this, therefore I'm right."

Besides, I did explain it: you've got a picture of a shroud, that you're convinced is the shroud... for no readily apparent reason. Or did you think human silhouettes on cloth are unique to the shroud of turin? Hey, my grandparents have an old cloth they use for their projector back home: if they project a human image on it, is that the shroud of turin too?

Or do you have room in your heart for more silhouettes on cloth in every other circumstance but this one?

Quote:What I'm hanging MY hat on is that science has looked at this piece of linen again and again and again...and still has no explanation for how a 3-D image was created on it. Oh, but "science of the gaps": "We will figure it out eventually."

Even if we never find out- and I'm prepared to accept that as a distinct possibility, given the severely underwhelming evidence it would represent even if it were genuine, so you can stow that "science of the gaps" childishness right now- a mystery still doesn't mean you're right. Pointing to an unknown and asserting that it's evidence for your position is, yes, an argument from ignorance.

Quote:Maybe so...but till then...there is this enigmatic image on a cloth indicating wounds that bear a striking resemblance to the description of the events of Jesus' scourging and death. Either it is the real deal or an amazing icon that testifies to the extraordinary faith of the artist who chose to express his faith in God by creating it.

That's a win for believers either way.

Hey, if you're happy with fallacy laden reasoning like that, why bother with this whole "I'mma do evidence at you!" thing that you're doing in this thread? If "here's an old cloth, mighta been Jesus what was under there, you don't know so therefore it was, therefore Jesus," is sufficient for you, then you really have no business telling anyone else that what they won't accept from you is good evidence. Clearly, you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you right on the epistemology.

FACT:

If one were to wrap a body in a shroud and assuming the shroud took on the facial structure and hair, once the shroud is removed and observed, the 'face' in the shroud would be extremely distorted. The shroud of turin is not extremely distorted, therefore is was never wrapped around a body to achieve the end result.

(July 20, 2015 at 6:16 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 20, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Spooky Wrote: Anybody else find it ironic how much scientific effort is used in order to prove a myth?

Not really. Christians have NOTHING to fear from science since our God created everything that science is capable of studying.

What is ironic is that the deeper science looks at the Shroud, the less it appears likely that it was created by human hands.

Lying for jesus again are you? Did you lay on the ground as I asked and try to cover your genitals as the shroud does? What did you discover?

Why was there no seepage or other evidence of the burial spices the bible claimed was used?  Did the bible lie about that too?

Why does the catholic church harbor liars and fraudsters in the same way they protect child molesters?

If you really investigate the shroud, it's not only a fake, it's a shabby fake. You have to stretch credible belief to ridiculous lengths to buy into it, when a precursory examination of the shroud's image features and dimensions prove it to be nonsense. Well, unless you wish to postulate that jesus was a chimpanzee with exaggerated arm length and birth defects galore, with uneven arm lengths, missing ears, and such.

How is it that you will learn of it's obvious fakery from a website and not from the catholic church?

Here's some good reading for you.

Quote:Strong evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:

• Respected, trusted and very reliable scientific carbon dating has placed the shroud's origin around the 14th century, specifically between 1260 and 1390 CE.
  
• The provenance or history of the shroud can only be traced back to the 14th century. The earliest written record of the shroud is a Catholic bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, and that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it". In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not to be claimed that it was the true burial cloth of Jesus.
  
• The Bible gives clear details of Jesus' burial cloth — linen strips and a separate cloth for the head — that clearly conflicts with the shroud, which is one large rectangular piece.
  'Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.' [Jn 19:40] 'So Peter... reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter... went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.' [Jn 20:3-7] 'Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves...' [Lk 24:12]
  
• Note also that Jesus was wrapped buried 'in accordance with Jewish burial customs'. Jesus was not the only person in the Bible to rise from the dead, so did Lazarus, and following Jewish burial customs he was also wrapped in strips of linen:
  'The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."' [Jn 11:44]
  
• The Bible described 75 to 100 pounds of spices being wrapped in the burial cloth. No traces of spices have been found on the shroud. [Jn 19:40]
  
• The Bible quotes Jesus as saying there are nail holes in his hands from the crucifixion. By contrast the shroud image has no wounds in his hands but one in his wrist. [Jn 20:24-27]
  
• No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century. However the weave was used in Europe in the Middle Ages, coincidentally when the shroud first appeared.
  
• The clear implication of all three synoptic gospels is that the material was bound tightly round the body, yet the Shroud of Turin shows an image made by simply lying a linen shroud on top of the front of the body, over the head and down the back. There is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. Thus the cloth was never used to wrap a body as described in the Bible. If the image had been formed when the cloth was around Jesus' corpse it would have been distorted when the cloth was flattened out.
  
• There are serious anatomical problems with the image, such as the height of the body, length of limbs, ears missing, front and back images not matching, hair hanging the wrong way etc. (More details further in the article.)
  
• There is no blood on the shroud: all the forensic tests specific for blood, and only blood, have failed. There is no trace of sodium, chlorine or potassium, which blood contains in high amounts and which would have been present if the stains were truly blood. The alleged bloodstains are unnaturally picture-like. Real blood spreads in cloth and mats on hair, and does not form perfect rivulets and spiral flows. Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The alleged blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age. All the wounds, made at different times according to the Gospel accounts, appear as if still bleeding, even though blood does not generally flow after death. A corpse does not bleed, however it can leak blood through an open wound due to gravity. This could explain some blood but not all the bleeding wounds or the unexpected detail in the blood flow.
  
• The Bible [John 19:40] indicates that Jesus' burial followed Jewish customs. Thus, Joseph of Arimethea would have washed the body. Since he had time to wrap in the spices, he would have had time to wash it. The body shown in the shroud was not washed.
  
• Microscopic analysis showes significant traces of what could be paint pigment on image areas.
  

Circumstantial evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:

• The shroud surfaced in France exactly at the height of the 'holy relic' craze, the collection of patently false relics relating to Jesus. Not one such relic has ever been proved to be genuine, and the faking of relics was rife at this time. There were at least between 26 and 40 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin was just one. One source writes that 'In medieval Europe alone, there were "at least forty-three 'True Shrouds"' (Humber 1978, 78)'.
  
• There is no mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in the New Testament or any early Christian writings. Surely, given the desire for miraculous proof of the divine nature of Jesus, such a relic would have rated a mention? The image on the cloth would presumably have been at its brightest and most obvious. So why don't the gospels, who mentioned the linen used to wrap the body, bother to mention this miraculous image? The most obvious answer is that you can't write about an image that isn't there.
  
• The image on the shroud has his hands neatly folded across his genitals. A real body lying limp could not have this posture. Your arms are not long enough to cross your hands over your pelvis while keeping your shoulders on the floor. To achieve this the body can not lie flat, yet Jewish burial tradition did not dictate that a body must be hunched up so as to cover the genitals before wrapping in the shroud. The most obvious answer is that the artist knew the image would be displayed and didn't want to offend his audience or have to guess what the genitals of Jesus would look like. A dead body wrapped from head to toe in an opaque cloth wouldn't be concerned with modesty since he wasn't actually naked. He was well covered.
  
• The Vatican, the one organization with a vested interest in its authenticity, refuses to say the shroud is authentic. The Vatican has performed more tests on it than any other group, it has more documentary evidence on its history than any other group and it also has the Pope, God's representative here on earth. Surely he could ask God if it's a fake? Perhaps he has. Perhaps the Vatican's silence on this matter is telling? Actually Pope John Paul II is on record as saying, "The Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate". Say what now? "No specific competence" to have an opinion on the origin of a dirty piece of cloth, but you can't shut them up regarding the origin of the universe and life. The conservative Catholic Encyclopedia actually argues that the shroud is probably not authentic.
  

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html

Quote:• The image on the back shows a full bloody footprint, requiring the knee to be bent. The front image shows the leg straight. The legs are disproportionately long.
• The hair and blood flow straight downward instead of toward the back, as when a body is lying down. The blood is not running into the hair and matting it but flowing over it.
• Read Looking for a Miracle by Joe Nickell and see how easy it is to create a “Shroud” image. Making a fake Shroud was no problem for a medieval artist.

http://atheistsforhumanrights.com/sanity/?p=26

Quote:It has long been noted that there are anatomical curiosities. The neck, arms and hands appear too long for a normally proportioned human; there is no navel; the buttocks (probably the heaviest part of the body allegedly to have come into contact with the Shroud) are very poorly defined; the feet are badly delineated. With some of these discrepancies, obvious solutions can be suggested. The arms and hands have been extended artificially to cover the genitals: it would be inconceivable for a medieval artist to depict the genitalia of the crucified Jesus (it was acceptable in pictures of the baby Jesus, though). The buttocks are given summary treatment for similar reasons of prudery. Moreover, unless the arms were tied together at the wrists, the arms should have dropped to rest on the elbows, either side of the body; there is no trace of ties (and this despite claims that the image is so prefect that one can make out letters on the coins allegedly place over the eyes following a distinctly pagan practice). The navel is not depicted because of a medieval theological controversy over whether Jesus (like Adam and Eve) would have had one; indeed, as the “second Adam”, Jesus was expected to be similar.
Another problem concerns the top of the head: it simply isn’t there. This is very difficult to explain if the Shroud had been wrapped around a real human body. Either it went tightly round the crown of the head, in which case the image of the front would merge seamlessly with the back, or there was a gap at the top, in which case the cloth would have dropped over the top of the head, attaching an image of the crown to the image of the front. Instead, we just see a gap between front and back images. This is completely implausible for an image formed by unknown means from a body wrapped in the Shroud, but entirely feasible for the work of a skillful artist.

Quote:In conclusion
When those who wish to promote the Turin Shroud as a genuine artefact of first-century CE date, they must explain:

• how Bishop Henri of Troyes was fooled in the mid 1350s by someone who claimed to have painted the Shroud;
  
• why Bishop Pierre II of Troyes, the Avignon Pope Clement II and the de Charnay family accepted that the Lirey Shroud was an image and not the actual burial cloth of Jesus;
  
• how the alleged contaminants in the fibres submitted for radiocarbon dating have produced dates that match so well the date of the Bishop’s alleged artist;
  
• why there are traces of vermillion and madder on the cloth in sufficient concentrations to produce an image using the medieval technique of grisaille;
  
• the role of the natron found on the cloth;
  
• why the image on the cloth is anatomically impossible (the neck is too long, the legs are too long, the arms have not flopped to the side – which would have had the unfortunate effect of exposing the body’s genitalia);
  
• why the cloth has not draped itself around the sides of the body but remained miraculously on a single plane for the imprint of the image;
  
• why the weave of the cloth is one common in the European Middle Ages but not found on the only definite burial cloth of first century CE date to have been identified;
  
• why the Gospels refer not to a single cloth but to ὀθόνια, ‘small strips of linen’ (Luke XXIV.12 and John XX.5).
  

These issues (and more) need be addressed if the Turin Shroud is to be demonstrated anything other than a medieval fake.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pla...in_shroud/

Quote:
Stephen T-B
Senior Member
Where are the wrikles?
How can a piece of material by wrapped around an irregularly-shaped object, such as a human head and body, without creases and wrinkles forming?
The image on the Shroud appears to have been transferred onto flat surfaces, as though the material were stretched tightly across a frame.
Try this: coat your face with shoe polish and attempt to take an impression of your features with a white sheet pressed against it.
The result of that image transfer would be very different, I think, from what appears on the Shroud.

http://forum.bible-discussion.com/showth...fake/page3

Quote:Deke Brodie on 6 November 2011 at 8:53 pm
One additional killer fact points directly to the shroud’s fakery, unmentioned above. It concerns the odd length of leg on the Turin image. You can see this easily enough on any full-length photo. The legs are simply too long for its body.
The explanation is a simple but interesting one. The same extravagant leg length is visible on medieval statues on the sides of Gothic churches. It was the then-current aesthetic when it came to artists representing the human body. Like the Cottingley Fairies with their 1920s fashions, or 1940s UFO photos with their post-deco curves, no fake can ever free itself from the very human hand (and eye, and aesthetic sense) that shaped it.

The shroud as it looks today.



Now, the earliest mention of this thing in history is

Quote:The first time we hear of the Turin Shroud is in 1389×90, when Pierre d’Arcis (or d’Arcy, Bishop Pierre II of Troyes 1377-1395) wrote a letter to Pope Clement VII (1342-1394, elected Pope at Avignon in 1378, in opposition to Pope Urban VI). He objected to an exposition of the shroud in the collegiate church at Lirey on the grounds that it was being done by a landowner, who “falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore”.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pla...in_shroud/

Modern shroud nuttiness begins when someone took a photo and looked at the negative and "Mama Mia...THERE'S FUCKING JESUS!!!"  But I rather doubt that Bishop Pierre would have been impressed by the current shroud enough to call it "cunningly painted."  This suggests that it was painted and faded (badly) over the centuries because no one had any fucking idea how to conserve it.

(July 20, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Randy, do you honestly think that a painting containing A shroud- that you preume based on nothing to be THE shroud- some data that suggests that the C14 dating MIGHT be off- that you presume to be so based on nothing- and an argument from ignorance- "science can't explain this!"- are evidence at all for the shroud's authenticity, sufficient to believe that? Really?

People who believe that the shroud is authentic have goat shit for brains.  For it to be real the following events would have to have happened.

1.  The body gets wrapped in the fashion that resulted in the images.
2.  The zombie rises.
3.  Someone sees the shroud and thinks that it will make a nifty souvenir.  So that person takes it home to show the local yokels.
4.  About 35 years later Jerusalem gets sacked and some Roman trooper finds the shroud in some dusty hovel.  It seems to be fancy with some guy's corpse image on it so he puts it in his poke as a war trophy.
5.  Later on the trooper returns to Italy and shows it to his buddies in his home town.  It stays in the family for centuries while Rome and Italy is sacked by invaders.  
6.  Over 1,200 years later some monk hears about the rag and steals it for his monastery.  
7.  And whammo!  Here it is in 2015 and the superstitious twits swear that it's real.  
8.  I once met a guy who claimed that he walked all the way from the moon. I asked how he was able to do that.  He said that he walked on the moon beams during the full moon.

I keep saying that if people don't care about logical fallacies, no one here will take them seriously.

I think it's falling on deaf ears.

(July 21, 2015 at 2:08 am)robvalue Wrote: I keep saying that if people don't care about logical fallacies, no one here will take them seriously.

I think it's falling on deaf ears.

Yes, Randy and others like him act as if there is no problem with the church straddling the fences on hoaxes that they think further the christian cause. The church has made no honest effort to get and publicize the scientific truth for fear of alienating the on-going hoax perpetrators. They believe lying for jesus is acceptable.

I guess their god is the father of deceit. You really have to stretch the interpretations of god as the perfect embodiment of good, truth, and light to support deceit, hoaxes, and false witness. Heck, I seem to recall a commandment against it too. But, I guess if you drink enough jesus kool-aid you can make yourself think any evil is ok.

(July 20, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The shroud as it looks today.



Now, the earliest mention of this thing in history is

Quote:The first time we hear of the Turin Shroud is in 1389×90, when Pierre d’Arcis (or d’Arcy, Bishop Pierre II of Troyes 1377-1395) wrote a letter to Pope Clement VII (1342-1394, elected Pope at Avignon in 1378, in opposition to Pope Urban VI). He objected to an exposition of the shroud in the collegiate church at Lirey on the grounds that it was being done by a landowner, who “falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore”.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pla...in_shroud/

Modern shroud nuttiness begins when someone took a photo and looked at the negative and "Mama Mia...THERE'S FUCKING JESUS!!!"  But I rather doubt that Bishop Pierre would have been impressed by the current shroud enough to call it "cunningly painted."  This suggests that it was painted and faded (badly) over the centuries because no one had any fucking idea how to conserve it.

Oh they know how to "preserve" them alright, take the Tilma (a type of Aztec Tunic) over in Mexico bearing the image of "Our Lady of Guadalupe"



There's similar fanaticism over this object as there is of the Shroud. Supposedly negatives have revealed what is thought to be either St. Juan Diego (an Aztec man to whom this shroud belongs, you'll see some irony with the name there more than suggestive of an everyman myth) or the Bishop of Cordoba.



I personally think this later point is a bit of a stretch, but there is one key point that even the RC has admitted in regards to this Tilma which has supposedly not aged, nor could even be destroyed by a fire in the basilica where it was previously kept; It's been painted over at least once that we know of for certain.



The virgin standing on a black moon looks more death metal than sanctified doesn't it? There's a reason for that, it was painted over in a silver-infused paint that has since tarnished. Supposedly this image was not created with paint or by any process currently known to man, so why did people need to paint over it to freshen it up?

They're very clever the way they handle and present things like this. Supposedly all of the blood relics of Jesus they've had tested too all reveal the same blood type, but I would be interested to know how many out of their thousands they actually tested and how many were hand picked to back the theory. I'd also love to know if one of them was the foreskin they abducted from Spain which nobody has seen since

(July 20, 2015 at 4:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(July 20, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Metis Wrote: I'm a seminary mdiv graduate who teaches thomastic theology to undergrad students. That's right, I'm just as qualified as your parish priest and were I a thiest I would have been ordained one.

You want to talk about Aquinas? Come on then, wow me with you arcane wisdom that during several years of theological study I couldn't uncover for myself. I hope you know your Church fathers well though because Ido.

Wonderful! Then we should engage in a formal debate within the Debate Area subforum. Due the complexities I suggest that we focus primarily on Aquinas's First Way before tackling the other four.

I'll be more than happy to tackle all five eventually, even though it's only the first three that are considered by Catholics and other Christians who have drawn from his works to be conclusive proof of God.

Before I ask one of the admins about the debate area, will it just be you or perhaps Randy, Catholic_Lady or one of your other fellow believers would like to join in as well?

(July 20, 2015 at 12:35 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: No one who actually understands the arguments Aquinas of this forum so its not surprising that they reflexively belief Wikipedia entries that have been edited by equally ignorant militant skeptics.

Good show, Randy.