leonarde

Posted by Scientiae: That is a nonsequitur: you introduced the phrase "reasonable
doubt". My mathematic calculations on another thread, indeed on another website, had to do with
my PERSONAL evaluation of the evidence. If anyone
wants to change MY PERSONAL EVALUATION of the likelihood of authenticity, then good luck! but the burden of proof will be on YOU since you would
then be trying to convince ME.
Cheers!

leonarde

Scientiae,
Next time you give a source please give a name
at least and if possible a URL.
Cheers!

Principia

Then it is obvious you have no clue what is entailed by burden of proof. Are you now saying that 'near 100% authenticity' is not the same as authenticity 'without a doubt?' Or perhaps you are avoiding the burden now by defining your assertion as mere 'PERSONAL OPINION' (capital letters and all)? What exactly is personal opinion worth in this discussion anyway compared to presentation and analysis of evidence? There is no such thing as a jury of one in these matters, leonard(e), and we do not have to convince you per se. Quite the contrary, it is your claim that is on trial:

As for my sources, they are all ones you should be familiar with. Let me know which is unclear.

SC

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

leonarde

Duly noted: SC refused to give source of last
citation. Too bad.

leonarde

Partial post by SC: Notice the slight of hand here: SC has gone from "reasonable doubt" which he introduced
here in his first post this page to "without a doubt". They are not the same. Either he is intellectually sloppy or he is being dishonest.
After about 2 months of dealing with him and his
alter egos, I find for the latter. Since he cannot be honest or name his sources, I will go
on to other matters in subsequent posts.
Cheers!

Principia

If you say so.

SC

Principia

Let's try again. I don't mind actually, because after 2 months of dealing with leonard(e), I know just the amount of patience required to explain simple arguments to people like him.

So, here we go one more time:

Leonard(e) asserts that the Shroud is 'near 100% authentic.' In other words, his argument is that there is little doubt, about its authenticity. Consequently, one only needs to provide evidence that provides a resonable doubt in order to discredit him. Now, either leonard(e) is making a valiant effort to restate his assertion as a 'PERSONAL EVALUATION' or his Shroud is not actually 100% authentic.

Read carefully. It is essential for making cogent arguments, leonard(e).

SC

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Principia

For more active participants about the authenticity of the Shroud, I would recommend reading the analyses at <a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.turin-shroud" target="_blank">alt.turin-shroud</a>, in addition to (nay, if I may be so bold, in place of) leonard(e)'s mindless repetition of less than convincing 'evidence.'

In particular, I refer to the discussion <a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&threadm=3C23E83E.755FEE2A%40accuc omm.net&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26group%3Dalt. turin-shroud%26start%3D75" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&threadm=5UCF883/IARc088yn%40world.std.com&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26group%3Dalt. turin-shroud%26start%3D75" target="_blank">here</a> for further discussion about Zugibe and Wilson. The level of certainty about the Shroud's authenticity that leonard(e) would have us believe is, in fact, illusory.

SC

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

leonarde

Another site which I recently discovered is here:
<a href="http://www.ariadne.org/studio/michelli/shroud8thc.html" target="_blank">http://www.ariadne.org/studio/michelli/shroud8thc.html</a>

It concerns a International Botanical Conference
held in 1999 during which, among other things, the
floral images and pollen found in the Shroud were
discussed.
Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, what a shock. I go away for the weekend and leonarde proves to be the propagandist I suspected all along.

I will afford you a courtesy you are, apparently, incapable of returning by addressing all of your arguments point-by-point in the (deliberately disjointed) order they were presented, accept for one.

Yes I was on the debate team. I was a five time State Gold medallist, resulting in competing on the National level two years in a row, finishing 32nd in the Nation in Cross-Examination debate. I am well conversant with the process as I demonstrate with every single post I make. Point-by-point argumentation and counter-argumentation is something you are incapable of doing so I wonder why it is you've asked me about my own experience?

If you do know anything about debate, you would know that my position is called the "negative" position; yours would be the "affirmative," but since this is just another pointless sidetrack non-issue, I'll summarily ignore it.

On to your posts in chronological order.

Please don't use terminology you don't comprehend. I did indeed refute the arguments you made and attributed to somebody else in several different ways.

<ol type="1">[*] pointed out that you did not quote anyone to support your argument; the one quote you did provide said nothing specific, only that "different funerary arrangements" would be applied. It was you who told us what those "different" arrangements involved, not your source.[*] I asked you to provide a definition directly from your source as to what constitutes a "violent death," which you did not.[/list=a]

That is your assertion, not your source's declaration or direct quote!

YOU NEVER DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS WAS A FACT! You claimed this was what Wilson was stating, but provided no direct quotes supporting this assertion nor a direct quote defining what a "violent death" constituted.

I also argued that a "violent death" would necessarily have to mean something along the lines of the person killed was involved in some sort of violence and/or was a criminal in order for the basic burial traditions to be subverted, since anyone who did not die in their sleep would therefore, arguably, have died a "violent death."

Which is why I requested you provide Wilson's own words and not yours attributed to Wilson.

You did not, thereby conclusively demonstrating yet again that your scholarship is untrustworthy.

Here's more evidence from the same post:
You presented no sources who said this! You were the one who said it and attributed it to others.

Another example of your disingenuous scholarship is posted just prior to these points in the same post, where you state:

Beyond not being true, since your whole position on this point hinges on the definition of what it or is not considered a "violent death" and more specifically, whether or not Jesus' death would have been considered a "violent death" accordingly and the burial customs you allege would therefore necessarily be changed, it is incumbent upon you to directly quote a source proving your point, which you did not do previously and did not do again here, even after I specifically pointed this requirement out to you.

You keep asserting that a crucifixion is a "violent death" in the same manner as you claim your source states that it is, yet the only quote you provided in support of this argument said nothing at all specific and did not define why and how Jesus' death would be theologically classified as a "violent death" and therefore fall under the alleged burial guidelines accordingly.

Do you understand the distinction here? You claimed your sources established something, but provided no direct quote establishing that something and have now just pretended that your sources did in fact establish this point!

Once again, you have demonstrated yourself to be nothing more than a biased propagandist and not an honest scholar intent on seriously debating the evidence at hand.

Conversely, I presented not just the theological philosophy behind ancient Jewish burial traditions--wherein all Jews regardless of level of orthodoxy are to be afforded the tahara (ritual cleansing, anointing, burial clothing), because it is considered to be their last "Yom Kippur"--but also very serious questions and observations on the disingenuous manner in which you presented your argument (focusing especially upon what was omitted by you), to which you have only responded by providing further lies.

Not to mention the fact that the points you raise here (attributed to others, but not demonstrated by others) contradict everything you have posted prior regarding the washing of the body and the use of the "napkin" that you keep asserting is the Sudarium of Oviedo!

All of which goes directly to your untrustworthy scholarship and obvious propagandizing. The point of deconstruction (and my OP) was to pinpoint the available evidence and investigate its veracity, not deliberately misconstrue it and offer up your "shrapnel" approach to scholarship.

So, once again, please provide the Judaic definition of what constitutes a "violent death" and then demonstrate how Jesus could possibly have been considered to fall under these guidelines.

Do you think you could address the argument, leonarde, instead of making pointless, rhetorical questions?

There is absolutely nothing miraculous whatsoever about a man sitting in an empty tomb. In fact, the conclusion that this unknown, unnamed man simply moved the body as part of the scam you claimed Roman guards were posted in order to stop is inescapable to anyone using deductive logic as you claimed was one of your criterion.

Where were the soldiers in Mark, the first story? How did this man get past the soldiers to (a) open the tomb, and (b) sit in the tomb awaiting somebody to come along? Why would the man be sitting there awaiting people to come along? Did God tell him to sit there just in case somebody came along? If so, who was this guy? Why are there no details regarding who this guy was? Remember, he is not an angel, just a man. There are no Roman soldiers guarding the open tomb and no mention of anything happening until the two Marys show up to an already opened tomb!

These questions all destroy any possible claims you have of Roman soldiers somehow being conscripted to guard a Jewish grave as well as prove that the tomb was not empty at all! That a very logical and obvious fraud was perpetrated and admitted to indirectly by Mark with these details, contradicting everything you stated was the case involving the Romans and the manner in which the passion narrative played out.

Instead of addressing any of these arguments, your response was typical, transparent evasion.

And addressed none of it, just as you are here doing.

Instead, you pretend it doesn't exist by trying to dismiss it all with childish non-responses like:
My style may certainly be abrasive, but no one can accuse me of not presenting my arguments and my reasoning in detail for anyone to address. You never do.

What does that say regarding both your position and your scholarship?

Worthless, untrue, non-argument.

Worthless, untrue, non-argument.

Will you ever present anything remotely resembling either an argument or a counter-argument, because this transparent soapboxing is just appalling. What is your argument?

Again, what is your argument? I have already proven myself interested in deconstructing all of the evidence available and have done so repeatedly so what is your argument? So far, you have neither addressed my posts nor presented any relevant argument at all!

YOU HAVE NEVER ESTABLISHED THIS AS FACT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!

You are, unquestionably, the most dishonest propagandist I've yet encountered here.

Never mention the other thread again. It is irrelevant.

As for you posting Whanger's response to Lombattis, I will quote Whanger directly once again:

End of the coins issue.

Regarding your Whanger quote:

Good for him. This means nothing and tells us nothing, other than a number of coins were found inside a tomb, "which had been used over many years."

Again, this tells us nothing at all about any custom in the first century of putting coins over corpse's eyes. In fact, using the simplest of logic applicable, this shows us that the coins were provided in some other ritual having nothing at all to do with the use of coins to keep eyes shut during rigor mortis, which would have been absolutely unnecessary anyway, since according to you leonarde, somebody had placed a head shroud on Jesus' face in order to hide his "ghastly expression."

Not "identified," hypothesized and these coins were not found covering any corpse's eyes, rather they were found at the foot of the body and in its middle, clearly demonstrating some sort of ritual offering.

Note also that there is no mention of whether or not these "remains" were necessarily Jewish remains.

Once again, it is what is omitted that is the most damning to your lack of scholarship, leonarde.

NONE of which contradicts Whanger's own admission quoted previously and none of which prove that placing coins over Jewish corpse's eyes was ever a custom of 1st century burials.

This is a perfect example of your disingenuous scholarship, leonarde, since none of this supports any of your arguments; it just keeps plates spinning so that there appears to be remaining questions regarding coins as part and parcel of first century Jewish burial customs.

Remember, the question is to what was the traditional burial custom in the first century, not what was possibly the case as speculated by someone trying to reconcile what is found on the Shroud!

You (and your sources) are doing everything possible to force esoteric possibilities to fit the Shroud, which is the worst form of investigation imaginable! It is assuming the very fact in contention!

As Whanger admits, there was no such custom and since the question is "what was the custom?" We can immediately dismiss all of this nonsense as pointless, ancillary "noise."

What was the custom? Not to put coins on the eyes.

What was found on the Shroud? (Allegedly) coins on the eyes.

DEductive conclusion? The Shroud does not fit first century burial customs!

Fucking hell.

Gladly. Now let's see you focus on the sponge and the hasta images also found by Dr. Whanger...

Yes, you were wrong as well as once again redirecting away from anything salient regarding my arguments still left untouched by you from my very first post.

ADDRESS MY ARGUMENTS DIRECTLY INSTEAD OF ASKING POINTLESS RHETORICAL QUESTIONS THAT SERVE NO PURPOSE!

Nothing but links. Still waiting relevant counter-arguments to my posts; will never get them.

Oh joy...

A "number?" The entire "trial" follows no known Roman legal procedure, especially the result, which was to declare publicly that Jesus was not guilty and a free man!

In other words, acquitted publicly of all crimes and declared free only to then be executed in the worst punishment known to Roman jurisprudence, reserved for seditionists against the Roman state and/or murderers!

Do you understand what that means? Pilate goes to the bother of conducting an actual trial (at the insistence of the Jews involving a Jew in a matter for Jewish law--blasphemy--and not Roman law as he declared repeatedly, allegedly, throughout) to then conclude innocent of all Roman crimes

Non-sequitur, but even more importantly, it provides more than reasonable doubt that it did not happen in that way, which is all the "negative" position need show in debate regardless of your ignorance on this matter.

Never in American history has there ever been a trial that concluded with, "this man is officially innocent of all crimes, he is therefore to be set free...no wait, execute him because the audience might get unruly if we don't."

In order to invoke capital punishment as an official sentence at a trial, one must be found guilty of a capital punishment offense, which Jesus was not!

DEDUCTIVE LOGIC IF YOU PLEASE!

AIRNT! Wrong answer! They needed no trial for stoning a blasphemer.

This makes no sense. The Jews are the ones (allegedly) that forced Pilate to try Jesus, which he found not guilty and publicly declared this finding three times.

Are you arguing that the Sanhedrin had to present Jesus before a Roman court in order to do anything about him, because if so, the bible proves you are wrong (and so does Jesus) as the quotes I provided regarding the fact that they already tried to stone him for blasphemy and somehow failed prove.

Not nearly as much as it indicates obvious pro-Roman, apologetic, revisionist fantasy on behalf of the second century author of this myth.

Except for the fact that Jesus broke no Roman law for them to turn him over and such a "cover story" was instantly and irrevocably blown the second Pilate tells them to take it before Herod, who then sends them back to Pilate.

Which would have counted for even less as my Native American Indian analogy demonstrated (would Custer have given a shit if an Osage medicine man had gone around calling himself the President of the Indians? No).

Romans would not have cared at all what some Jew called himself. They knew he was not a King.

A demonstrably hollow and worthless threat, since Caesar would never have considered such a label to be true coming as it would have from Jews that Pilate was there to control and subdue!

Regardless, Pilate obviously was not in the slightest bit concerned with such a threat, since he publicly and repeatedly declared Jesus to be innocent of all crimes against Rome and set him free!

INNOCENT, FREE MEN ARE NOT THEN EXECUTED BY THE STATE, even if that State is the Roman state and Pilate the mass murderer history declares he was.

No such trial would have taken place. Jesus, if he was actually crucified by the Romans, would have been tried by the Romans and sentenced according to Roman law because he broke Roman law!

The story as told does not coincide with the customs of the day, which is a leit motif for my entire position, you might say.

Nothing you have posted coincides with actual customs and that's the point.

I'll have to address the rest of your little pointless propaganda hit and runs later.

Chasing after your non-arguments for any possible relevant counter-argument to my posts is getting just too infuriating to keep going without spiraling into the invective boiling beneath my surface and I'm trying to keep such immaturity in check as much as possible.

You are making it exceedingly difficult, however, with your insistence on posting these sidetrack non-arguments that have little to nothing to do with the central argument; that nothing you have presented adds up to any coherent, logically consistent whole.

You're presenting incoherent disparate pieces that serve only to keep the idea alive, instead of actually focusing on what the evidence actually amounts to.

More later. Even though you won't follow my requests because you are a propagandist, not a scholar, please do not post a response until I can finish addressing your other posts.


(edited for dyslexia - Koy)

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>