Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PopeInTheWoods · 04-02-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>Leonarde, you're disingenuousness is just appalling.

You claim on the one hand that the cause of Jesus' death is not known, then you post things like this:

...it appears likely that the mechanism of death in crucifixion was suffocation...

because you know you've got to discredit the notion of death by blood loss at all costs in order to maintain the tenuous link between Shroud of Turin and burial strips as described in the NT.

Yet you have never addressed the fact that--applying your own source's edict of going to the historical documents in order to establish identity--all of them mention the fact that Jesus spoke just before dying!

It is not possible to speak just before dying if you are dying of suffocation!
</strong>

Another lurker checking in here. Leonarde, I'm sorry, but IMHO Koy has managed to deconstruct and refute all of your arguments and evidence that any sort of objective, scientific inquiry could possibly point to the shroud as a first century burial covering for someone crucified in the same manner as the biblical Jesus.

But Koy, despite all of your fine effort, all of these evidentiary arguments can be undone by a small amount of xian question-begging. If Jesus was the son of god, and the resurrection miracle occurred, then the shroud can still be authentic. Maybe Jesus used his miracle-power to speak just before dying from asphyxiation. Maybe the resurrection permanently altered the physical properties of the shroud in a way that invalidates carbon dating. Maybe the event vaporized a large percentage of the blood that originally stained the shroud. I guess my point is the rather obvious observation that once you introduce the supernatural, all bets are off.

Andy

leonarde · 04-02-2002, 10:52 AM

Asha'man,
The problem you are posing for the foot wounds
would, again, NOT be limited to one crucifixion
victim: it would apply to ALL crucifixion victims
who had their feet nailed: literally thousands,
if not tens of thousands died like that over several centuries.
The REASON crucifixion was used as a special
form of capital punishment is: it is, almost invariably, a VERY SLOW death: a death by inches.
Though a lot of the details of crucifixion have
been lost with the end of the Roman Empire in the
5th Century, there are AMPLE records of crucifixions lasting many hours to a few days.
Cheers!

leonarde · 04-02-2002, 10:59 AM

Posted by Koy, quoting leonarde:

Quote:

.it appears likely that the mechanism of death in crucifixion was suffocation...

That is right: likely likely likely.
I almost always qualify what I say when there is
some uncertainty about it. Unlike Koy.

For Koy, the cause of death has to be blood
loss or his "milk gallon theory" goes out the window. I, by contrast, am not wedded to any
one theory: that is the sure road to self-
delusion.

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-02-2002, 11:14 AM

Posted by Pope:

Quote:

Another lurker checking in here. Leonarde, I'm sorry, but IMHO Koy has managed to deconstruct and refute all of your arguments and evidence that any sort of objective, scientific inquiry could possibly point to the shroud as a first century burial covering for someone crucified in the same manner as the biblical Jesus.

Next time there is a homicide in Brentwood you could be on the jury
too!
Cheers!

tronvillain · 04-02-2002, 12:05 PM

Judging from your response to him, it's not clear that you understood Asha'man's post at all. Perhaps you should read it again and try responding to his actual points and questions.

tronvillain · 04-02-2002, 12:34 PM

leonarde:

Quote:

That is right: likely likely likely. I almost always qualify what I say when there is some uncertainty about it. Unlike Koy.

For Koy, the cause of death has to be blood loss or his "milk gallon theory" goes out the window. I, by contrast, am not wedded to any one theory: that is the sure road to self-delusion.

The key you should not push so often: enter enter enter.

Now, you may qualify what you say, but you have yet to show how death by suffocation rather than blood loss is at all consistent with the New Testament.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-02-2002, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pope: But Koy, despite all of your fine effort, all of these evidentiary arguments can be undone by a small amount of xian question-begging. If Jesus was the son of god, and the resurrection miracle occurred, then the shroud can still be authentic. Maybe Jesus used his miracle-power to speak just before dying from asphyxiation. Maybe the resurrection permanently altered the physical properties of the shroud in a way that invalidates carbon dating. Maybe the event vaporized a large percentage of the blood that originally stained the shroud. I guess my point is the rather obvious observation that once you introduce the supernatural, all bets are off.

Excellent point, but since leonarde went to such extremes to establish a natural explanation, it was to this that I addressed my deconstruction.

And once again, leonarde, my conclusion based on everything you have presented was blood loss.

A conclusion is derived, not simply declared.

leonarde · 04-02-2002, 12:57 PM

I think the choice is stark:

1)go with Koy's milk gallon theory: hence a forgery.

2)go with EVERY SINGLE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WHO
HAS PERSONALLY EXAMINED the Shroud since 1898:
the Shroud is compatible with authenticity.

(for despite efforts here to make this a personal
struggle that is the real choice)

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-02-2002, 01:05 PM

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Who said anything about a forgery?

I demonstrated that the shroud could not possibly be Jesus, based entirely upon your own evidence.

As to what or who it may or may not be, I haven't a clue.

Try, just once, to apply some sort of critical thinking prior to typing!

For the love of god!

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

cymbalina · 04-02-2002, 01:20 PM

Hi, I'm another lurker weighing in.

Leonarde, give it up. Koy has demolished your arguments, and it won't help you a bit to flood the thread with five or six more citations as "evidence." I have Catholic sympathies, and all this thread has done for me is convince me that the Shroud could not possibly be legitimate.
Koy-- I bow to you, just for pointing out that the blood on Jesus' body would have been dried before he was even taken down. So simple, so obvious, so damning to the Shroud's authenticity...
Cymbalina

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-02-2002, 10:52 AM	#262
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Asha'man, The problem you are posing for the foot wounds would, again, NOT be limited to one crucifixion victim: it would apply to ALL crucifixion victims who had their feet nailed: literally thousands, if not tens of thousands died like that over several centuries. The REASON crucifixion was used as a special form of capital punishment is: it is, almost invariably, a VERY SLOW death: a death by inches. Though a lot of the details of crucifixion have been lost with the end of the Roman Empire in the 5th Century, there are AMPLE records of crucifixions lasting many hours to a few days. Cheers!

04-02-2002, 12:05 PM	#265
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Judging from your response to him, it's not clear that you understood Asha'man's post at all. Perhaps you should read it again and try responding to his actual points and questions.

04-02-2002, 12:57 PM	#268
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I think the choice is stark: 1)go with Koy's milk gallon theory: hence a forgery. 2)go with EVERY SINGLE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WHO HAS PERSONALLY EXAMINED the Shroud since 1898: the Shroud is compatible with authenticity. (for despite efforts here to make this a personal struggle that is the real choice) Cheers!

04-02-2002, 01:05 PM	#269
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Who said anything about a forgery? I demonstrated that the shroud could not possibly be Jesus, based entirely upon your own evidence. As to what or who it may or may not be, I haven't a clue. Try, just once, to apply some sort of critical thinking prior to typing! For the love of god! [ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

04-02-2002, 01:20 PM	#270
cymbalina Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 12	Hi, I'm another lurker weighing in. Leonarde, give it up. Koy has demolished your arguments, and it won't help you a bit to flood the thread with five or six more citations as "evidence." I have Catholic sympathies, and all this thread has done for me is convince me that the Shroud could not possibly be legitimate. Koy-- I bow to you, just for pointing out that the blood on Jesus' body would have been dried before he was even taken down. So simple, so obvious, so damning to the Shroud's authenticity... Cymbalina

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.