My Historian Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Should historians be searching for Jesus' bones?

 

[Colter]

Should historians be searching for Jesus' bones?

No, they were dematerialized before the apparent resurrection, before Jesus returned in a likeness of his former mortal body. And how would they know? While Jesus had brothers and sisters, we don't know who their descendants are to make a comparison.

 

[Mountainmike]

Should historians be searching for Jesus' bones?

That of course is a significant issue.
Even the very earliest christians treasured relics- take those of Polycarp of Smyrna who was a disciple of John the apostle, it is noted that his relics were indeed venerated , and this in documents only a century after the time of Christ. Therefore the practice of relics was well established even with early christians.

It is therefore very significant that neither the relics of Jesus, nor indeed of Mary are noted as existing anywhere...although there is substantial support for the presence of Mary at Ephesus , where she travelled with John the apostle, indeed for her house located there. Off topic, but the meryemana devi is a fascinating piece of archeology!

 

[rockytopva]

When I opened this thread the first thing I looked for was the no option.

 

[Mountainmike]

When I opened this thread the first thing I looked for was the no option.

Which do you mean?
No as in shouldn't look, or... No as in never found, ( coming to which No as in no history hints at the relics, so no leads to follow?)

 

[rockytopva]

Which do you mean?
No as in shouldn't look, or... No as in never found, ( coming to which No as in no history hints at the relics, so no leads to follow?)

All that is left physically of the Lord Jesus on this earth is a shroud.

 

[Goonie]

Should historians be searching for Jesus' bones?

Why? If they cannot locate the bones of julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, the odds of them finding the bones of some little known(in his lifetime) preacher from Galilee are infinitesimal. If there were bones to be found they could never be identified, and unlike the relics of the saints his followers had every reason to ensure this was so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All that is left physically of the Lord Jesus on this earth is a shroud.

If you are talking about the Shroud of Turin that was shown to be a hoax. That does not affect the Jesus story at all. It only affects the status of what now is a glorified rag.

 

[Goonie]

All that is left physically of the Lord Jesus on this earth is a shroud.

The first mention of the shroud in the historical record is that of a Bishop declaring it to be a hoax.

 

[quatona]

Should historians be searching for Jesus' bones?

In New Jersey?

 

[Mountainmike]

All that is left physically of the Lord Jesus on this earth is a shroud.

I agree..but having historians saying that, as a result of searching/failing is clearly a good thing!

 

[Mountainmike]

It certainly was not shown to be a hoax!
All the real science ( read Fanti et Al points at first century real.

And the only way to make similar mark is high energy UV laser!
How was that done by hoaxers?

Only schoolboy errors by discredited AMS daters ever said any different, who failed in scientific process to check why their results were not consistent with other evidence, and they were shown up as incompetent

If you are talking about the Shroud of Turin that was shown to be a hoax. That does not affect the Jesus story at all. It only affects the status of what now is a glorified rag.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now study real evidence, not the hearsay of an annoyed bishop, who discovered pilgrims going elsewhere than his diocese!

It annoys me when illinformed people like you comment.


!

The first mention of the shroud in the historical record is that of a Bishop declaring it to be a hoax.

 

[Goonie]

Now study real evidence, not the hearsay of an annoyed bishop, who discovered pilgrims going elsewhere than his diocese!

It annoys me when illinformed people like you comment.


!

Oh I'm quite informed, that the first historical defences to the shroud date to the 14th century labelling it a hoax. Radiocarbon dating sanctioned by the Church dates it to the 14th century.

Dismissing the real evidence by hand waving does not cut it.

 

[Mountainmike]

You clearly have not researched it enough to see the thorough debunking of that test, the schoolboy errors made in sampling, where even they noted that they avoided some parts of the sample because it looked different, and even the chemical composition was an outlier. In short they tested a mend composed of different textile! All accepted science now.

The date was always B/S any competent shroud watcher knew it.. pictures in a codex that predated it many years showed the damage marks to it!

The forensic correspondence to the sudarium whose chain of custody predates it by hundreds of years is a slamdunk evidence discrediting the false RC date,.


If you are sincere, you will now read the testing, both mechanical and chemical composition. Degradation - three tests that confirm around first century date .

Please stop misleading people. Read, then apologise. You clearly know little about it.

Oh I'm quite informed, that the first historical defences to the shroud date to the 14th century labelling it a hoax. Radiocarbon dating sanctioned by the Church dates it to the 14th century.

Dismissing the real evidence by hand waving does not cut it.

 

[Mountainmike]

THis was not even a hindsight problem. They just didnt want to own up to it.
Many papers have been written about the erroneous dating.
There were lots of anomalies noted EVEN BY THE DATERS THEMSELVES, they conveniently failed to mention, because they didnt care about truth!

Here a partial list

• Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated, "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …" (emphasis mine)
  
  
• Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sampling, wrote: “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.” (emphasis mine)
  
  
• Edward (Teddy) Hall, head of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, had noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in Derbyshire concluded that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.” Derbyshire's Peter South wrote: “It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past…”
  
  
• Gilbert Raes, when later he examined some of the carbon 14 samples, noticed that cotton fibers were contained inside the threads, which could help to explain differences in fiber diameter. This may also explain why the carbon 14 samples apparently weighed much more than was as expected.
  
  
• Alan Adler at Western Connecticut State University found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. Why aluminum? That was an important question because it is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.
  
  
• The radiocarbon lab at the University of Arizona conducted eight tests. But there was a wide variance in the computed dates and so the team in Arizona combined results to produce four results thus eliminating the more outlying dates (reportedly they did so at the request of the British Museum, which was overseeing the tests). Even then, according to Remi Van Haelst, a retired industrial chemist in Belgium, the results failed to meet minimum statistical standards (chi-squared tests). Why the wide variance in the dates? Was it because of testing errors? Or was it because the sample was not sufficiently homogeneous? The latter seems very likely now, and the statistical anomaly indicates something very suspicious about the samples.
  
  
• Bryan Walsh, a statistician, examined Van Haelst’s analysis and further studied the measurements. He concluded that the divided samples used in multiple tests contained different levels of the C14 isotope. The overall cut sample was non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between the measured age of various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. Though Walsh did not suggest invisible reweaving, it is consistent with his findings.

They all knew the test was bunk. It was two decades before they owned up to it!

But thats your problem Goonie. Your atheist faith demands you find any flaw you can. It cannot be true because your faith demands it is not.
So you latch on to the faulty science, not the real science. The only ones left believing it are cuckoos like Joe Nickell. A real flat earther who does not care about evidence. He only cares about his opinions he misrepresents as "critical thinking!

Oh I'm quite informed, that the first historical defences to the shroud date to the 14th century labelling it a hoax. Radiocarbon dating sanctioned by the Church dates it to the 14th century.

Dismissing the real evidence by hand waving does not cut it.

 

[Jimmy D]

The forensic correspondence to the sudarium whose chain of custody predates it by hundreds of years is a slamdunk evidence discrediting the false RC date,.

What's this Mike? Any links?

 

[Mountainmike]

What's this Mike? Any links?

My recommendation as a starter on this is get Janice Bennets book "sacred blood, sacred image" which focusses on the forensic correspondence between sudarium and shroud, specifically as evidence of the age of the shroud. (and references / includes the forensic lab reports). I recollect the madrid reports themselves are out there on the web as PDF, but It would take a while to dig them up.

The sudarium chain of custody , is still not back to first century, but is way way older than the shroud, many hundreds of years. And the question is, why keep a blood stained cloth (no image) , if it were not a significant historic victim? doesnt make sense.

The kicker is there are at least 50 points of correspondence, which as they note would be "beyond reasonable doubt" were this a criminal court matter.

It is also worth looking at from a point of view of describing the process of crucifixion...how the sudarium was wrapped round the head to stop post mortem nosebleed, and has fluids both pre and post mortem pathology.

There is also a book by Guscin, but it is way expensive!

The objective scientific shroud dating is in Fanti et Al. Three methods, with proper controls, and error bars. Point at around first century.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Even if the resurrection wasn't true, it would be waste of time since there's no way to identify the bones considering they wouldn't be in the tomb.

 

[Jimmy D]

My recommendation as a starter on this is get Janice Bennets book "sacred blood, sacred image" which focusses on the forensic correspondence between sudarium and shroud, specifically as evidence of the age of the shroud. (and references / includes the forensic lab reports). I recollect the madrid reports themselves are out there on the web as PDF, but It would take a while to dig them up.

The sudarium chain of custody , is still not back to first century, but is way way older than the shroud, many hundreds of years. And the question is, why keep a blood stained cloth (no image) , if it were not a significant historic victim? doesnt make sense.

The kicker is there are at least 50 points of correspondence, which as they note would be "beyond reasonable doubt" were this a criminal court matter.

It is also worth looking at from a point of view of describing the process of crucifixion...how the sudarium was wrapped round the head to stop post mortem nosebleed, and has fluids both pre and post mortem pathology.

There is also a book by Guscin, but it is way expensive!

The objective scientific shroud dating is in Fanti et Al. Three methods, with proper controls, and error bars. Point at around first century.

Cheers Mike. I'm cynical but I do find it interesting.