H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
It certainly would, if it were true. Do you know any of these independent witnesses, or what they said?
Solid, eh? Bold words. Can you substantiate that?
Really? Can you substantiate that?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Aulef
Guest
I already gave the source for this. Ian Wilson.
You go and read it. Then you come back with your thoughts.
The burdain of proof is yours. He already presented his work. Since you think its false, then you prove why it is. ; )
You go and read it. Then you come back with your thoughts.
The burdain of proof is yours. He already presented his work. Since you think its false, then you prove why it is. ; )
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Aulef, Ian Wilson is a man I deeply respect, as I believe he has done more to encourage the study of the Shroud than almost anybody else, with the possible exception, in our digital age, of Barrie Schwortz. However, he is not a “source” of medieval information. He is a purveyor of it. He is certainly not a 6th century independent witness. If you know who any of the witnesses he mentions are, or what they said, I will be happy to tell you why I disagree that they are so.I already gave the source for this. Ian Wilson.
You go and read it. Then you come back with your thoughts.
The burdain of proof is yours. He already presented his work. Since you think its false, then you prove why it is. ; )
A
Aulef
Guest
His works have a complete list of these independent witnesses.
Just read it. I hope you enjoy it. I’m done here for now
Just read it. I hope you enjoy it. I’m done here for now
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
What’s stopping you from mentioning some of them?
U
undead_rat
Guest
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Does this mean that you are not prepared substantiate your claim? Well, fair enough. Hardly an argument for anything, but if it suits you, fine. It doesn’t persuade me at all.His works have a complete list of these independent witnesses.
Just read it. I hope you enjoy it. I’m done here for now
How kind. What was the point of that?A list of author’s from Shroud.com
A
Aulef
Guest
As I said. The burden of proof is on you. I’m sitting and waiting.
A
Aulef
Guest
He is not acting as a serious person who is willing to research. I hope he proves me wrong and read what I suggested and bring the list and arguments here so we can discuss about them.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
You can sit and wait. You claimed that the Shroud had been documented by many independent witnesses since the 6th century. You will not produce these witnesses, nor what they said. Your claim is worthless.As I said. The burden of proof is on you. I’m sitting and waiting.
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
You’re the one making a claim, so its on you to substantiate it. You didn’t, you instead claimed another author had substantiated it, but without citation. A few names on that list would have sufficed.
All you need to do is open the book by him, cite a few of the names, nothing harder is asked of you.
All you need to do is open the book by him, cite a few of the names, nothing harder is asked of you.
A
Aulef
Guest
Show me where I claimed it. And remember that citing a source is different from claiming.
A
Aulef
Guest
Read my message above
Last edited:
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
You made this specific claim Aulef, barely 3 hours ago.
"The Shroud have been documented by many independent witnesses since the 6th century. This alone disproves the Medieval theory.
What you could dispute is the near 500 years period is had been hidden, between the 2nd and the 6th century. However, the theory that fills this gap is solid."
So you’re claiming that there are many independent witnesses to the Shroud, though I presume you’re talking about the Image of Edessa (which I don’t consider to the be the Shroud). Then later you give a reference to a book by Ian Wilson, and said you wouldn’t reply anymore. Then we asked for the names of any of these eye witnesses, and you’ve been evading ever since.
"The Shroud have been documented by many independent witnesses since the 6th century. This alone disproves the Medieval theory.
What you could dispute is the near 500 years period is had been hidden, between the 2nd and the 6th century. However, the theory that fills this gap is solid."
So you’re claiming that there are many independent witnesses to the Shroud, though I presume you’re talking about the Image of Edessa (which I don’t consider to the be the Shroud). Then later you give a reference to a book by Ian Wilson, and said you wouldn’t reply anymore. Then we asked for the names of any of these eye witnesses, and you’ve been evading ever since.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Aulef, your have made a claim that you will not substantiate. Your claim is worthless.Your claim was:
“The Shroud have been documented by many independent witnesses since the 6th century.”
“The Shroud have been documented by many independent witnesses since the 6th century.”
Last edited:
I am very interested in the Shroud .. When it comes to the Shroud most of those who poured energy into reading the actual documents, and not just merely hyped up books and documentaries by enthusiasts, rarely set aside the time to make websites about it.
I have read books and watched documentaries by “enthusiasts” ,
I am 99% certain that the Shroud is the burial cloth in which the dead body of Jesus was wrapped .
I would like to read “the actual documents” you refer to . What are they and how can I read them ?
H
HolySpirit1
Guest
from what i remember, tests have only been allowed to be done on the outter sections of the shroud, and that test shows who knows what that still leaves things open to skeptism is im sure all that it has done.
I think the Church wont allow proper testing to be done on the actual main image because there is probably fear that it could just be a piece of art work or considered a forgery when it was intended to be art… if the tests showed it didnt date to the correct time frame.
An then if it turned out to be scientifically proven to be from the correct point in history, then some may cry foul that it has been tampered with and desecrated and so forth, or perhaps some could be worried that there is actual DNA left in the material that could be done who knows what with and then if there was any DNA in the actual image material, then an entire new debate has to be brought forward to figure out what to do if anything.
It is just easier to leave it a mystery and let it inspire people than it is to find the truth about it. Is how I look at it.
Same for any historical artificat i suppose, it is just better to keep things under lock and key than to have items free to be inspected by the public eye, due to fears of the item in question being irrepariablly damaged or abused.
I think the Church wont allow proper testing to be done on the actual main image because there is probably fear that it could just be a piece of art work or considered a forgery when it was intended to be art… if the tests showed it didnt date to the correct time frame.
An then if it turned out to be scientifically proven to be from the correct point in history, then some may cry foul that it has been tampered with and desecrated and so forth, or perhaps some could be worried that there is actual DNA left in the material that could be done who knows what with and then if there was any DNA in the actual image material, then an entire new debate has to be brought forward to figure out what to do if anything.
It is just easier to leave it a mystery and let it inspire people than it is to find the truth about it. Is how I look at it.
Same for any historical artificat i suppose, it is just better to keep things under lock and key than to have items free to be inspected by the public eye, due to fears of the item in question being irrepariablly damaged or abused.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Hi Rob,
There are hundreds of original documents, articles, papers and books online, so particular instances are not always easy to find, but here’s a start.
The STuRP team’s scientific papers are all available at Shroud.com, as is the paper in Nature describing the radiocarbon date, the complete run of Shroud Spectrum International and an almost up-to-date complete run of the BSTS Newsletter.
The original examination of the STuRP sticky tapes was carried out by Walter McCrone and is documented in his book Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin.
Various original studies, including Francis Filas’s coin paper and the aragonite studies, are at Holyshroudguild.org.
There is also some original work at Sindonology.org.
Most of the historical books upon which Aulef bases his claim (above) are on Archive.org or even Googlebooks.
Navigating your way through all this takes time and is frequently frustrating, but if you want to find out why somebody believes something particular about the Shroud, you really ought to find his source, and then read it to check if it says what he says it says! Quite often it doesn’t.
Good luck.
There are hundreds of original documents, articles, papers and books online, so particular instances are not always easy to find, but here’s a start.
The STuRP team’s scientific papers are all available at Shroud.com, as is the paper in Nature describing the radiocarbon date, the complete run of Shroud Spectrum International and an almost up-to-date complete run of the BSTS Newsletter.
The original examination of the STuRP sticky tapes was carried out by Walter McCrone and is documented in his book Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin.
Various original studies, including Francis Filas’s coin paper and the aragonite studies, are at Holyshroudguild.org.
There is also some original work at Sindonology.org.
Most of the historical books upon which Aulef bases his claim (above) are on Archive.org or even Googlebooks.
Navigating your way through all this takes time and is frequently frustrating, but if you want to find out why somebody believes something particular about the Shroud, you really ought to find his source, and then read it to check if it says what he says it says! Quite often it doesn’t.
Good luck.
R
resolute
Guest
I believe it to be real. I believe the image is of Jesus.
F
Feanor2
Guest
If the 1988 testing was flawed why haven’t they tested it again?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.