7 ms·

I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't everyone at that time get a shroud.

fsckboy 2y ago
your family has been passing down a family bible for many years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your great-great-great-great grandfather's, he brought it from the old country, and it has the names of all the babies born into the family back then. you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and lots of kids back then" and you throw it away. you're right, no way to prove it was his and you can live your life unencumbered by the past, no point in looking for meaning.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "no point in looking for meaning." You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure. But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning. It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the limited time we have on looking for meaning.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hluska 2y ago
    Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.” If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter? We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybody being overbearing and constantly back-seat driving and interfering in other people's business. We need room to breathe, including believing in stuff. However. It would not be a really great world without criticism. It would be a world even more full of conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts about the government engineering hurricanes or archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters because indulgently anti-reason people don't limit it to what "works" for them, they go around pressuring other people to be similarly stupid. By the way, what does "works" really mean here? It's something like a need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine, I think, even vital, but only in private. Bring those weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then they should be criticized, otherwise we're heading toward folie à deux territory.
      - User23 2y ago
        Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of course we don’t really know how to define what life even is satisfactorily. And then, still for no reason at all, except apparently some built in drive to replicate (why? No reason of course) that life evolved over billions of years into something that fancies itself rational, for no reason at all. It’s quite a puzzle!
        card_zero 2y ago
        I like this point. But what's the issue with defining life? I don't mean "which things are hard to categorize", viruses are, but it's beside the point, isn't it? If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing the Scholastics would have done.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Go back and read the parent . What I was responding to was the sentiment of doubling down on mysticism. "My parents beliefs are my beliefs, and that is correct, and so that's what I'm going to believe, and then teach my kids". No opportunity to grow. Was pointing out that, a lot of people really spend a lot of years going in weird directions, so why not pause, look around, and figure out a better way forward. Really, this seems to be the kind of response I get when others want the "freedom means free as long as they agree with me". But suggest thinking differently, and boom, can't have that kind of stuff happening, "not that kind of freedom". Like if someone was a Satan worshiper. And I suggested reading the bible. Then that is good, people should be free to suggest that, and to change. But if someone is evangelical. And I suggest that Satan might have made some good points, or the Bible actually allows for abortion. Then boom, that isn't freedom, you are corrupting people, we have to stop that.
- atombender 2y ago
  This is of course a false analogy. We don't have a record of ownership at all; there is no such list. The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were circulating at the same time. When written sources start talking about the current one, they don't say where it came crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B, who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got it from...". It just appears suddenly.
  - ted_dunning 2y ago
    Furthermore, there are records that the pope of the time required that the shroud be labelled as a replication, not an authentic artifact.
- Maken 2y ago
  Well, to make that metaphor work with the Shroud, you have to add a couple of extra details: 1. Your father got it from your granpa, who really liked to boast about family treasures and often made up stories about his parents and grandparents. 2. The bible clearly says "Printed in 1956" in the back matter. But of course, you are free to believe whatever you want.
mrkstu 2y ago
Unconnected to whom it actually is, the mystery of how the image was generated is enough of a mystery to keep digging for answers.
lisper 2y ago
There was never a time in which "everyone" got a shroud. Even in Jesus's time, burying someone in a shroud was a distinctly Jewish custom, and using linen did not become fashionable until after Jesus's death [1] [2]. Furthermore, for a crucifixion victim to be buried at all, let alone in a shroud, would be extremely unusual. It was generally part of the punishment for the body to be left on the cross after death to be displayed and consumed by scavengers. When the remains were finally removed they were generally disposed of in mass graves. [3] [1] https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5282847/jewish/Why-Are-Jews-Buried-in-White-Linen-Shrouds.htm https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5282847/jewis... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel [3] https://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/upsa/crucifixion.htm https://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/upsa/crucifixion.htm
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Sure. Not everyone globally, just everyone in the "distinctly Jewish" culture
  - lisper 2y ago
    OK, for that definition of "everyone" then yes, it's probably mostly true under normal circumstances. (Poor Jews may have been buried without shrouds, I don't know.) But 1) being crucified was not a "normal circumstance" and 2) linen did not become common as a material for burial shrouds until many years after Jesus died.
tsimionescu 2y ago
First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certainly didn't paint those shrouds.
- appguy 2y ago
  Scientists have recently used a new x-ray imaging technique to date The Shroud to the 1st century. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/amp/scientists-discovery-jesus-cloth-buried-shroud-turin.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/amp...
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed journal with a very low impact factor, Heritage. Additionally, their findings suggests the shroud was kept within a very narrow range of temperatures to support the 1st century hypothesis, which makes it even more suspect. Additionally, their findings contradict a very well established C14 dating technique, in an extremely well documented and thought out study, using 8 different world class laboratories, for which their only explanation is "contamination" (ignoring the fact that the sample is pristine by comparison with many artifacts routinely dated using C14). Also, if you want to cite a study, maybe find the link to the study, not a Daily Mail article. [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47 https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47
    - wrzuteczka 2y ago
      These 8 laboratories shared the same sample collected from a corner of the shroud. The priests handling the shroud would always hold it by its corners. So the explanation is not as weak as it may sound.
      - 2y ago
appguy 2y ago
The wounds on the man on The Shroud match those of Jesus Christ in the Bible. The crown of thorns, scourging, crucifixion, piercing on the side.
- hulitu 2y ago
  Do you have a bible with photos ? I only have one with text. /s
  - graemep 2y ago
    A text that mentions scourging, a crown of thorns and a spear thrust in the side of the body. It does not prove anything either way with regard to it being genuine or not, as a later forger/artist would have followed that, but if it is shown to be a genuine shroud with genuine marks then it makes it probable it was Jesus's.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- atombender 2y ago
  Whoever manufactured the shroud was following the story in the Bible and made sure the image adhered the description of the crucifixion.

your family has been passing down a family bible for many years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your great-great-great-great grandfather's, he brought it from the old country, and it has the names of all the babies born into the family back then. you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and lots of kids back then" and you throw it away. you're right, no way to prove it was his and you can live your life unencumbered by the past, no point in looking for meaning.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"no point in looking for meaning." You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure. But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning. It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the limited time we have on looking for meaning.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hluska 2y ago
  Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.” If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter? We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybody being overbearing and constantly back-seat driving and interfering in other people's business. We need room to breathe, including believing in stuff. However. It would not be a really great world without criticism. It would be a world even more full of conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts about the government engineering hurricanes or archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters because indulgently anti-reason people don't limit it to what "works" for them, they go around pressuring other people to be similarly stupid. By the way, what does "works" really mean here? It's something like a need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine, I think, even vital, but only in private. Bring those weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then they should be criticized, otherwise we're heading toward folie à deux territory.
    - User23 2y ago
      Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of course we don’t really know how to define what life even is satisfactorily. And then, still for no reason at all, except apparently some built in drive to replicate (why? No reason of course) that life evolved over billions of years into something that fancies itself rational, for no reason at all. It’s quite a puzzle!
      - card_zero 2y ago
        I like this point. But what's the issue with defining life? I don't mean "which things are hard to categorize", viruses are, but it's beside the point, isn't it? If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing the Scholastics would have done.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Go back and read the parent . What I was responding to was the sentiment of doubling down on mysticism. "My parents beliefs are my beliefs, and that is correct, and so that's what I'm going to believe, and then teach my kids". No opportunity to grow. Was pointing out that, a lot of people really spend a lot of years going in weird directions, so why not pause, look around, and figure out a better way forward. Really, this seems to be the kind of response I get when others want the "freedom means free as long as they agree with me". But suggest thinking differently, and boom, can't have that kind of stuff happening, "not that kind of freedom". Like if someone was a Satan worshiper. And I suggested reading the bible. Then that is good, people should be free to suggest that, and to change. But if someone is evangelical. And I suggest that Satan might have made some good points, or the Bible actually allows for abortion. Then boom, that isn't freedom, you are corrupting people, we have to stop that.
atombender 2y ago
This is of course a false analogy. We don't have a record of ownership at all; there is no such list. The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were circulating at the same time. When written sources start talking about the current one, they don't say where it came crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B, who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got it from...". It just appears suddenly.
- ted_dunning 2y ago
  Furthermore, there are records that the pope of the time required that the shroud be labelled as a replication, not an authentic artifact.
Maken 2y ago
Well, to make that metaphor work with the Shroud, you have to add a couple of extra details: 1. Your father got it from your granpa, who really liked to boast about family treasures and often made up stories about his parents and grandparents. 2. The bible clearly says "Printed in 1956" in the back matter. But of course, you are free to believe whatever you want.

mrkstu 2y ago

Unconnected to whom it actually is, the mystery of how the image was generated is enough of a mystery to keep digging for answers.

lisper 2y ago

There was never a time in which "everyone" got a shroud. Even in Jesus's time, burying someone in a shroud was a distinctly Jewish custom, and using linen did not become fashionable until after Jesus's death [1] [2]. Furthermore, for a crucifixion victim to be buried at all, let alone in a shroud, would be extremely unusual. It was generally part of the punishment for the body to be left on the cross after death to be displayed and consumed by scavengers. When the remains were finally removed they were generally disposed of in mass graves. [3] [1] https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5282847/jewish/Why-Are-Jews-Buried-in-White-Linen-Shrouds.htm https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5282847/jewis... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel [3] https://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/upsa/crucifixion.htm https://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/upsa/crucifixion.htm

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Sure. Not everyone globally, just everyone in the "distinctly Jewish" culture
- lisper 2y ago
  OK, for that definition of "everyone" then yes, it's probably mostly true under normal circumstances. (Poor Jews may have been buried without shrouds, I don't know.) But 1) being crucified was not a "normal circumstance" and 2) linen did not become common as a material for burial shrouds until many years after Jesus died.

tsimionescu 2y ago

First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certainly didn't paint those shrouds.

appguy 2y ago
Scientists have recently used a new x-ray imaging technique to date The Shroud to the 1st century. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/amp/scientists-discovery-jesus-cloth-buried-shroud-turin.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/amp...
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed journal with a very low impact factor, Heritage. Additionally, their findings suggests the shroud was kept within a very narrow range of temperatures to support the 1st century hypothesis, which makes it even more suspect. Additionally, their findings contradict a very well established C14 dating technique, in an extremely well documented and thought out study, using 8 different world class laboratories, for which their only explanation is "contamination" (ignoring the fact that the sample is pristine by comparison with many artifacts routinely dated using C14). Also, if you want to cite a study, maybe find the link to the study, not a Daily Mail article. [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47 https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47
  - wrzuteczka 2y ago
    These 8 laboratories shared the same sample collected from a corner of the shroud. The priests handling the shroud would always hold it by its corners. So the explanation is not as weak as it may sound.
    - 2y ago

appguy 2y ago

The wounds on the man on The Shroud match those of Jesus Christ in the Bible. The crown of thorns, scourging, crucifixion, piercing on the side.

hulitu 2y ago
Do you have a bible with photos ? I only have one with text. /s
- graemep 2y ago
  A text that mentions scourging, a crown of thorns and a spear thrust in the side of the body. It does not prove anything either way with regard to it being genuine or not, as a later forger/artist would have followed that, but if it is shown to be a genuine shroud with genuine marks then it makes it probable it was Jesus's.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
atombender 2y ago
Whoever manufactured the shroud was following the story in the Bible and made sure the image adhered the description of the crucifixion.