You sounded so sure and so...cemented...to the idea that
But it won't be any science we don't know. No chemistry, no physics we don't know. Just the recipe.
Science is a matter of observing, thinking, finding out, etc., yes? And that means that scientists (wonderful as they are) don't know everything. They re-evaluate the ideas and information they have, and sometimes find new ways to look at it; things they need to adjust or even drop; and gobsmackingly-stunning unknown things that turn everything they thought was fixed upside down.
So...I don't know if there are other branches of science that haven't been discovered or even thought of yet. But to assert what I quoted seems unscientifically close-minded and arrogant.
BTW, I'm referring to what you said, not to who you are.
I think the usual multiple authorship theory for John is that the bulk is the work of one person, but that Chapters 15, 16, 17 (after Jesus says 'rise, let us be on our way') are interpolated, Chapter 21 is tacked on the end, and the bit with the women taken in adultery has been put in from somewhere else entirely (possibly after being left out of Luke) by someone who thought it should be recorded somewhere.
But it won't be any science we don't know. No chemistry, no physics we don't know. Just the recipe.
Science is a matter of observing, thinking, finding out, etc., yes? And that means that scientists (wonderful as they are) don't know everything. They re-evaluate the ideas and information they have, and sometimes find new ways to look at it; things they need to adjust or even drop; and gobsmackingly-stunning unknown things that turn everything they thought was fixed upside down.
Well, yes and no. We certainly don't know everything (it would make a career of filling in the gaps in our knowledge somewhat unfulfilling), and a good scientist is always willing to re-examine their views in the light of new information.
The problem is that in this case the 'science' under discussion is on very shaky foundations. The Shroud has a medieval age by 14C dating. But, there are people who still regard it as the actual burial cloth of Jesus which should have a date of 30AD (give or take a few years). Someone notes that the age would be too young if there was more 14C in the shroud than would be the case for any other cloth of that age. Also, someone notes that a means of producing 14C is by neutron irradiation ... and therefore it's stated that the Resurrection produced a massive burst of neutrons making the Shroud appear younger by 14C dating than it is. There are massive gaps in the argument:
1. We have no evidence at all about what Resurrection does physically, nothing to suggest there should be a neutron burst - though nothing to suggest there wouldn't be either.
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
3. for this to happen in the short time available I can't see any option but to also require a massively accelerated microbiological action (not unprecedented ... turning water into wine is a massive acceleration of the growing of grapes and yeast action on grape juice ... but is pushing things IMO).
Alternatively, you go with the simple solution to the 14C date, and say that the fabric of the cloth is medieval.
Indeed. The essence of a miracle, in the sense of an action of God without any accompanying secondary (scientifically explicable) causation, it seems to me, is that there's no accompanying scientifically explicable causation. Not that there is a physical process we don't understand yet producing bursts of radiation.
@Alan Cresswell 1. Yes we do. Talitha. Tabitha. Eutychus. Any more? Observed at the moment of resurrection? With no lightning bolts or other invisible means of neutron flux.
And I thought you'd said that all the handling (objectively, not a lot in a silver box, until the fire repairs and the C19th display) over two thousand years could account for 14C making The Shroud™ look 1300 years younger? Particularly since 1945?
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
I had assumed the hypothesis was that the neutrons from the burst increased the atomic weight of the 12C atoms that were already in the shroud, converting them to 14C directly.
I presume the one is all things considered of the same order of likelihood as the other.
God could simply have turned the C12 into C14 by adding neutrons directly to the atoms, presumably for the express purpose of mucking up the dating of the Shroud. Probably he put the dinosaur fossils in the rocks at the same time.
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
I had assumed the hypothesis was that the neutrons from the burst increased the atomic weight of the 12C atoms that were already in the shroud, converting them to 14C directly.
There's a small amount of 13C, but the neutron capture cross section is very small so it's not going to be a significant production route. Capture of two neutrons from 12C->13C->14C is even less likely. 14C is produced from nitrogen, 14N+n -> 14C+p. There's a small amount of nitrogen in proteins, but not much protein in linen. The biggest source is air, so you'll get 14C produced in the air within the tomb (assuming neutrons from resurrection) but not much directly within the fabric.
. . . as I keep banging on (!), nothing proves that it was Jesus' shroud.
Verdict on the Shroud, Stevenson/Habermas, 1981, pages 124 to 128:
The authors list eight factors known from the Shroud to determine a probability that its corpse was that of Jesus. Their conclusion is that;
"...we have a 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus." (pg. 128)
The factors are:
1. The beating and scourging. Not normal for a crucifixion sentence as the scourging is often fatal. A 1 in 2 probability. (To low in my opinion.)
2. Crown of thorns. 1 in 400.
3. Nailed rather than tied. 1 in 2. (I would disregard this one.)
4. Legs not broken. 1 in 3. (Disregard again. Leg breaking was done to hasten death and not normally employed.)
5. A stab wound in the side. 1 in 27.
6. Burial in a very expensive linen cloth. 1 in 8. (This is way to low in my opinion. Most crucifixion victims were either left on their cross or thrown into a refuse pit. I would go with 1 in 1000 or more.)
7. A hasty burial. 1 in 8.
8. Corpse not showing any sign of decay. 1 in 10.
In my opinion the authors' conclusion is too conservative.
Numbers extracted from the anus do not a valid estimate of probability make.
And unless I'm missing something here, doesn't all that evidence still leave open the possibility that the body resembles that of Jesus because a hoaxer deliberately followed the biblical account?
Just to clarify: I'm *not* defending the Shroud. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't know what it is or not, and I don't need it for faith or history.
My difficulty, as I tried to state to Martin, was with one particular thing he said about science, which I quoted.
. . . as I keep banging on (!), nothing proves that it was Jesus' shroud.
Verdict on the Shroud, Stevenson/Habermas, 1981, pages 124 to 128:
The authors list eight factors known from the Shroud to determine a probability that its corpse was that of Jesus. Their conclusion is that;
"...we have a 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus." (pg. 128)
The factors are:
1. The beating and scourging. Not normal for a crucifixion sentence as the scourging is often fatal. A 1 in 2 probability. (To low in my opinion.)
2. Crown of thorns. 1 in 400.
3. Nailed rather than tied. 1 in 2. (I would disregard this one.)
4. Legs not broken. 1 in 3. (Disregard again. Leg breaking was done to hasten death and not normally employed.)
5. A stab wound in the side. 1 in 27.
6. Burial in a very expensive linen cloth. 1 in 8. (This is way to low in my opinion. Most crucifixion victims were either left on their cross or thrown into a refuse pit. I would go with 1 in 1000 or more.)
7. A hasty burial. 1 in 8.
8. Corpse not showing any sign of decay. 1 in 10.
In my opinion the authors' conclusion is too conservative.
What's your figure? Despite the shroud actually dating from 1000 AD at the earliest? Taking the maximum possible 14C contamination in to account. Is this a quantum superpositioned event? Both are true?
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
Alternatively, you go with the simple solution to the 14C [evidence], and say that the fabric of the cloth is medieval.
Thanks for the post and interest from a real scientist. Linen fibers actually contain a small percentage of nitrogen some of which would be converted into 14C if irradiated with slow neutrons. Of course the CO2 in the surrounding air would also be a source of 14C and this has been considered. That 14CO2 would be fully dissipated after about six years. The 14C that was formally nitrogen in the linen fibers would remain as part of their chemical structure and would not be removed by the usual pretreatments.
See: Neutron Radiation on Linen Fibers, Antonacci, Lind, et al.
The "simple solution" to the Shroud's 14C evidence is actually not so simple. That evidence does not pass certain mathematical tests that are normally required to certify a date. This evidence is, however, compatible with the hypothesis that the Shroud has been subjected to a neutron flux.
See: Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New evidence from the Raw Data,
Archaeometry, 2019, Casabianca, Marinelli, et al.
@Alan Cresswell 1. Yes we do. Talitha. Tabitha. Eutychus. Any more? Observed at the moment of resurrection? With no lightning bolts or other invisible means of neutron flux.
What we are dealing with here is not, technically, a deceased person being brought back to life, but, rather, with the vanishing of a corpse as is confirmed both by the legend of the Gospel of Matthew and by the forensic evidence found on the Shroud.
Do you really think we've all got the time and energy to look up these erudite works you keep on mentioning? NOT ONE of them can prove that the Body In The Shroud was that of Jesus Christ, though I accept that the scientific evidence might prove that there was a body...
@Alan Cresswell 1. Yes we do. Talitha. Tabitha. Eutychus. Any more? Observed at the moment of resurrection? With no lightning bolts or other invisible means of neutron flux.
What we are dealing with here is not, technically, a deceased person being brought back to life, but, rather, with the vanishing of a corpse as is confirmed both by the legend of the Gospel of Matthew and by the forensic evidence found on the Shroud.
The 1000 AD Shroud™ never had a corpse in it to vanish, or even an artist's model according to some critics. Nothing about it indicates a vanishing from within without being unwrapped. But when and how did Jesus vanish from his cloth strips and face cloth/holy hanky? You know, according to The Bible? Technically?
And unless I'm missing something here, doesn't all that evidence still leave open the possibility that the body resembles that of Jesus because a hoaxer deliberately followed the biblical account?
The "hoaxer" would have needed to use an actual crucifixion victim, find a linen cloth ( of a weave not being made in medieval Europe) and make sure that the corpse had facial features that were congruent with the facial features found on sixth century Byzantine gold coins (not extant in the 14th century) and with the features of the Jesus Pantocrator icon at St. Catherine's Monastery (also not available then.) Not to mention the dirt and pollen that trace to Jerusalem and Palestine.
Then we have the minor problem that there is no known way to make a corpse transfer its image onto its burial cloth.
Do you really think we've all got the time and energy to look up these erudite works you keep on mentioning? NOT ONE of them can prove that the Body In The Shroud was that of Jesus Christ, though I accept that the scientific evidence might prove that there was a body...
The 1000 AD Shroud™ never had a corpse in it to vanish, or even an artist's model according to some critics. Nothing about it indicates a vanishing from within without being unwrapped. But when and how did Jesus vanish from his cloth strips and face cloth/holy hanky? You know, according to The Bible? Technically?
If you want to say that the conclusions of STuRP were not valid, that's quite a proposition.
Their conclusions are that the Shroud had been in contact with a corpse which had been subjected to scourging and crucifixion. Also noticed was that the corpse had been removed before putrefaction had set in and that, in this removal, neither the linen fibers nor the blood clots had been disturbed.
The Gospel of Matthew explicitly states that His sealed tomb was found empty when it was opened.
The "hoaxer" would have needed to use an actual crucifixion victim, find a linen cloth ( of a weave not being made in medieval Europe) and make sure that the corpse had facial features that were congruent with the facial features found on sixth century Byzantine gold coins (not extant in the 14th century) and with the features of the Jesus Pantocrator icon at St. Catherine's Monastery (also not available then.) Not to mention the dirt and pollen that trace to Jerusalem and Palestine.
The artist could have easily been in Palestine, maybe even Jerusalem, there's no reason to assume it was created in Europe when it could have very easily been taken to Europe by any number of Crusaders and pilgrim. We don't know of Byzantine coins with that image in circulation after the 6th century, but coins did circulate for centuries. And the image could have been on any number of works of art subsequently lost. Why shouldn't the Christ Pantocrator have been known? It's a 6th century icon, though it appears to have been painted over in the 13th century it would have been visible prior to then. There were periods when St Catherine's would have been inaccessible from Jerusalem, times when it would have been, depending on the particular phases of the Crusader wars. There's no reason why an artist in the 12th or 13th century Jerusalem couldn't know of one or more images of Christ similar to those coins and icons, and used that as an inspiration.
The 1000 AD Shroud™ never had a corpse in it to vanish, or even an artist's model according to some critics. Nothing about it indicates a vanishing from within without being unwrapped. But when and how did Jesus vanish from his cloth strips and face cloth/holy hanky? You know, according to The Bible? Technically?
If you want to say that the conclusions of STuRP were not valid, that's quite a proposition.
Their conclusions are that the Shroud had been in contact with a corpse which had been subjected to scourging and crucifixion. Also noticed was that the corpse had been removed before putrefaction had set in and that, in this removal, neither the linen fibers nor the blood clots had been disturbed.
The Gospel of Matthew explicitly states that His sealed tomb was found empty when it was opened.
Where does STuRP say corpse?
Where does the STuRP report say that the object in the shroud dematerialized on the basis of blood clots and linen fibres?
Quote Matthew on that. In the Greek. It doesn't say that and none of the other gospels do either. If you make it say it, you must make the others do too.
Thanks for the informed post, Alan. I think that the fact that the alleged maker needed a corpse whose facial features matched those on the coins and icons says something.
Fanti's 2nd edition is about half devoted to exploring the question of the facial images of Christ on Byzantine gold coins and makes the conclusion that those images depend on the face we find on the Shroud, and not the other way around. It's an expensive book, but worth the money if you are really interested the proof of a date for the Shroud.
You use the word "artist," but STuRP concluded that the image on the Shroud is not a painting and is not the work of an artist.
You use the word "artist," but STuRP concluded that the image on the Shroud is not a painting and is not the work of an artist.
Artists are more than painters.
If the Shroud is something produced in 12th or 13th century then however the effect was achieved, it's worthy of being described as a work of art, and whoever created it is an artist.
Thanks for the informed post, Alan. I think that the fact that the alleged maker needed a corpse whose facial features matched those on the coins and icons says something.
Fanti's 2nd edition is about half devoted to exploring the question of the facial images of Christ on Byzantine gold coins and makes the conclusion that those images depend on the face we find on the Shroud, and not the other way around. It's an expensive book, but worth the money if you are really interested the proof of a date for the Shroud.
You use the word "artist," but STuRP concluded that the image on the Shroud is not a painting and is not the work of an artist.
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
I had assumed the hypothesis was that the neutrons from the burst increased the atomic weight of the 12C atoms that were already in the shroud, converting them to 14C directly.
There's a small amount of 13C, but the neutron capture cross section is very small so it's not going to be a significant production route. Capture of two neutrons from 12C->13C->14C is even less likely. 14C is produced from nitrogen, 14N+n -> 14C+p. There's a small amount of nitrogen in proteins, but not much protein in linen. The biggest source is air, so you'll get 14C produced in the air within the tomb (assuming neutrons from resurrection) but not much directly within the fabric.
If the direct route be less efficient, it but still may be sufficient; God only knows how many neutrons are given off when a corpse dematerializes.
On this type of cloth not being woven in medieval Europe, I note that some have argued the contrary; that the type was not being done in first century Palestine.
In particular that the type of errors in the weave show it was made on a four-shaft loom and most likely one with heddles. These do not seem to have existed in the first century in the Roman Empire or adjacent areas (they did exist in China but for weaving silk not linen).
which concludes "My test results, as I have described them in this article, tells me that the Shroud of Turin cannot have been woven on a warp-weighted loom. The Shroud of Turin must have been woven on a treadle loom."
and
Freeman, Charles. 2014. “The Origins of the Shroud of Turin.” History Today 64 (11).
who also feels it was treadle woven and that it was an example of a prop for a particular Easter ritual.
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
I had assumed the hypothesis was that the neutrons from the burst increased the atomic weight of the 12C atoms that were already in the shroud, converting them to 14C directly.
There's a small amount of 13C, but the neutron capture cross section is very small so it's not going to be a significant production route. Capture of two neutrons from 12C->13C->14C is even less likely. 14C is produced from nitrogen, 14N+n -> 14C+p. There's a small amount of nitrogen in proteins, but not much protein in linen. The biggest source is air, so you'll get 14C produced in the air within the tomb (assuming neutrons from resurrection) but not much directly within the fabric.
If the direct route be less efficient, it but still may be sufficient; God only knows how many neutrons are given off when a corpse dematerializes.
So Jesus was transmogrified dead? His corpse went up the fourth dimension from within His windings? Losing weight as He went. What effect would instantaneously creating 65l of pure vacuum inside the windings have on them? I asked this initially because the OP writer was assuming it and realised it's not orthodox; it's not in the text, it's not inferable from the text. That's quite an implosion. Wouldn't it burst in to flames? Or was a Star Trek matter transmitter used?
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
I had assumed the hypothesis was that the neutrons from the burst increased the atomic weight of the 12C atoms that were already in the shroud, converting them to 14C directly.
There's a small amount of 13C, but the neutron capture cross section is very small so it's not going to be a significant production route. Capture of two neutrons from 12C->13C->14C is even less likely. 14C is produced from nitrogen, 14N+n -> 14C+p. There's a small amount of nitrogen in proteins, but not much protein in linen. The biggest source is air, so you'll get 14C produced in the air within the tomb (assuming neutrons from resurrection) but not much directly within the fabric.
If the direct route be less efficient, it but still may be sufficient; God only knows how many neutrons are given off when a corpse dematerializes.
I assume there's an upper limit on that. The neutron burst couldn't be too great, otherwise the guards outside the tomb would have collapsed from radiation sickness and Peter got ill from the radiation inside the tomb when he recklessly burst in. I could probably work out what that would be if I could be bothered and didn't need to get into work this morning.
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
I had assumed the hypothesis was that the neutrons from the burst increased the atomic weight of the 12C atoms that were already in the shroud, converting them to 14C directly.
There's a small amount of 13C, but the neutron capture cross section is very small so it's not going to be a significant production route. Capture of two neutrons from 12C->13C->14C is even less likely. 14C is produced from nitrogen, 14N+n -> 14C+p. There's a small amount of nitrogen in proteins, but not much protein in linen. The biggest source is air, so you'll get 14C produced in the air within the tomb (assuming neutrons from resurrection) but not much directly within the fabric.
If the direct route be less efficient, it but still may be sufficient; God only knows how many neutrons are given off when a corpse dematerializes.
I assume there's an upper limit on that. The neutron burst couldn't be too great, otherwise the guards outside the tomb would have collapsed from radiation sickness and Peter got ill from the radiation inside the tomb when he recklessly burst in. I could probably work out what that would be if I could be bothered and didn't need to get into work this morning.
Surely not Alan, the guards were protected by rock, unless they were standing by the now open door, assuming that happened before the beaming up. Are we talking (γ,n) photodisintegration here? Or what? If the former then why the gamma rays? And what residual radiation would there be in the tomb for Peter to encounter? If the door opening and the resurrection were simultaneous then admittedly Peter was on the scene in a few minutes. Would the fast neutrons knocked out of the windings, air and rock be captured by atoms of the same and create unstable radioactive isotopes in turn, of N, O, C, Ca, Mg, S etc? Inquiring minds need to know.
The rock in front of the tomb was small enough that it could be moved by a couple of guys. Therefore, probably not very thick - if it covered a small entrance (let's say 1m x 1m) then a 50cm thick stone would weigh a tonne (ish). Nuclear reactors are surrounded by several m of concrete, and there's still a neutron and secondary radiation dose outside that (enough that those areas are restricted to essential access only, for a power reactor ... I've been that distance from research reactors for no reason but to look through an observation port and admire the glow). The neutron flux from a reactor would generate a dangerous dose if there was <1m of rock between it and people outside, but probably not immediately lethal or evident. So, if the guards were stationed at the stone there would be an upper limit to any neutron emission based on how much radiation would penetrate that modest shielding. Ideally, neutron shielding would need material with low mass atom (water is a good example) or high capture cross section (eg: boron). Neutron absorption creates secondary radiation - of most significance gamma rays that will also be highly penetrating.
A neutron source within the tomb would result in activation of the rock of the tomb, which will then decay emitting beta and gamma radiation over a period of hours to days. Assuming Peter dived in within a few hours of the resurrection there would still be a lot of that radiation present, which again adds an upper limit to that neutron pulse. Of course, the resurrected Jesus would be in the tomb even earlier than Peter, and experience an even greater dose.
An additional limiting factor would be hydrogen. 14C production in the air (which must occur, even if the activation of 13C and transmutation of 14N in the fibres is the main boost to 14C in the Shroud) produces protons which will rapidly combine to form hydrogen gas. At some point this will become an explosive mixture ... obviously an explosion that blasts the stone into piece across the garden and incinerates the content of the tomb is a limit.
Bugger me Alan! Who'd have thought the Resurrection was so fraught with danger! But as Jesus was instantaneously transmogrified up the 4thD, He wouldn't have suffered from any gamma exposure hopefully. But if He was dead it doesn't matter as He was healed of everything except His holes.
But as Jesus was instantaneously transmogrified up the 4thD
Probably better to say "if" rather than "as". We don't have a big data set, but based on the evidence we do have that seems unlikely. There are various accounts of people being raised back to life, several miracles by Jesus, a few by the apostles and OT prophets. In all these cases the dead person comes back to life exactly where they are; they are touched by Jesus and sit up as though they've just woken up from a sleep etc. The closest example we have is Lazarus, who walked out of his tomb still wrapped in the burial shroud, and indeed needed help to get out of it. What basis would there be to say that Jesus' resurrection didn't follow the same pattern? That He simply "wakes up" and gets out of the shroud and opens the tomb door to walk out passed the terrified guards (with help from attending angels, who one hopes also brought a set of clothing so He could be decent).
I have always been taught though that Jesus's resurrection is qualitatively different from e.g. the raising of Lazarus - in that Lazarus is restored to his former life, with a perishable body the same as it was in his former life, whereas Jesus is raised to new life, with a body that is now imperishable.
But as Jesus was instantaneously transmogrified up the 4thD
Probably better to say "if" rather than "as". We don't have a big data set, but based on the evidence we do have that seems unlikely. There are various accounts of people being raised back to life, several miracles by Jesus, a few by the apostles and OT prophets. In all these cases the dead person comes back to life exactly where they are; they are touched by Jesus and sit up as though they've just woken up from a sleep etc. The closest example we have is Lazarus, who walked out of his tomb still wrapped in the burial shroud, and indeed needed help to get out of it. What basis would there be to say that Jesus' resurrection didn't follow the same pattern? That He simply "wakes up" and gets out of the shroud and opens the tomb door to walk out passed the terrified guards (with help from attending angels, who one hopes also brought a set of clothing so He could be decent).
I would suggest that the Gospels give strong indication that Christ's resurrection was of a different character, what with him being able to enter locked rooms, vanish at will and disguise himself. Then we have Paul calling him "the first fruits of those who sleep", implying again a difference in kind. Lastly Lazarus, by tradition, died again.
But as Jesus was instantaneously transmogrified up the 4thD
Probably better to say "if" rather than "as". We don't have a big data set, but based on the evidence we do have that seems unlikely. There are various accounts of people being raised back to life, several miracles by Jesus, a few by the apostles and OT prophets. In all these cases the dead person comes back to life exactly where they are; they are touched by Jesus and sit up as though they've just woken up from a sleep etc. The closest example we have is Lazarus, who walked out of his tomb still wrapped in the burial shroud, and indeed needed help to get out of it. What basis would there be to say that Jesus' resurrection didn't follow the same pattern? That He simply "wakes up" and gets out of the shroud and opens the tomb door to walk out passed the terrified guards (with help from attending angels, who one hopes also brought a set of clothing so He could be decent).
You know that, and I know that Alan. But @undead_rat for sure and possibly @Dave W don't.
Maybe that's why He appeared behind Mary Magdalene outside the cave, He'd just been to the shops. Wait a minute, where'd He get the money?! From the mouth of a passing halibut?
OTOH, if he were an angelic or divine spirit in human form (as Dualists believe, and which seems eminently reasonable), he would emerge automatically clothed in angelic robes (toned down a bit) after the disappearance of his human-style body.
This would prove that the whole Shroud business is a clever fake, I think. I don't say it's true - I put it forward as a (an?) hypothesis.
OTOH, if he were an angelic or divine spirit in human form (as Dualists believe, and which seems eminently reasonable), he would emerge automatically clothed in angelic robes (toned down a bit) after the disappearance of his human-style body.
This would prove that the whole Shroud business is a clever fake, I think. I don't say it's true - I put it forward as a (an?) hypothesis.
No, no, no, no, no. Eminently reasonable damnable heresy. Emerge from what, where, when? His dead body was reanimated, He'd have had a badly soiled loin cloth unless that was resurrected too. Seriously (HAH!), I latch on to the ultimate explanation when none else are possible: by the Spirit. 4D capable bodies are a nice clean upgrade and come gift wrapped.
Comments
You sounded so sure and so...cemented...to the idea that
Science is a matter of observing, thinking, finding out, etc., yes? And that means that scientists (wonderful as they are) don't know everything. They re-evaluate the ideas and information they have, and sometimes find new ways to look at it; things they need to adjust or even drop; and gobsmackingly-stunning unknown things that turn everything they thought was fixed upside down.
So...I don't know if there are other branches of science that haven't been discovered or even thought of yet. But to assert what I quoted seems unscientifically close-minded and arrogant.
BTW, I'm referring to what you said, not to who you are.
YMMV, etc.
I think the usual multiple authorship theory for John is that the bulk is the work of one person, but that Chapters 15, 16, 17 (after Jesus says 'rise, let us be on our way') are interpolated, Chapter 21 is tacked on the end, and the bit with the women taken in adultery has been put in from somewhere else entirely (possibly after being left out of Luke) by someone who thought it should be recorded somewhere.
And @Arethosemyfeet's take is good and real and would apply to a group of 80% Greek 20% Jewish liberal intellectuals.
The problem is that in this case the 'science' under discussion is on very shaky foundations. The Shroud has a medieval age by 14C dating. But, there are people who still regard it as the actual burial cloth of Jesus which should have a date of 30AD (give or take a few years). Someone notes that the age would be too young if there was more 14C in the shroud than would be the case for any other cloth of that age. Also, someone notes that a means of producing 14C is by neutron irradiation ... and therefore it's stated that the Resurrection produced a massive burst of neutrons making the Shroud appear younger by 14C dating than it is. There are massive gaps in the argument:
1. We have no evidence at all about what Resurrection does physically, nothing to suggest there should be a neutron burst - though nothing to suggest there wouldn't be either.
2. Even if there was a neutron burst that doesn't necessarily explain the excess 14C, because there would also need to be a mechanism for that to get into the fabric. The 14C that would have been present before the Resurrection would be produced in the upper atmosphere, incorporated into CO2 and taken up by the plants the Shroud was made from by photosynthesis. The extra 14C would need to be incorporated by some other mechanism - if that was a natural process there'd still need to be a CO2 production, and then some form of microbiological action to take that CO2 and fix it in the fabric - all in a short period of time before the tomb is opened and the 14C rich atmosphere mixes with the rest of the garden.
3. for this to happen in the short time available I can't see any option but to also require a massively accelerated microbiological action (not unprecedented ... turning water into wine is a massive acceleration of the growing of grapes and yeast action on grape juice ... but is pushing things IMO).
Alternatively, you go with the simple solution to the 14C date, and say that the fabric of the cloth is medieval.
And I thought you'd said that all the handling (objectively, not a lot in a silver box, until the fire repairs and the C19th display) over two thousand years could account for 14C making The Shroud™ look 1300 years younger? Particularly since 1945?
God could simply have turned the C12 into C14 by adding neutrons directly to the atoms, presumably for the express purpose of mucking up the dating of the Shroud. Probably he put the dinosaur fossils in the rocks at the same time.
Verdict on the Shroud, Stevenson/Habermas, 1981, pages 124 to 128:
The authors list eight factors known from the Shroud to determine a probability that its corpse was that of Jesus. Their conclusion is that;
"...we have a 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus." (pg. 128)
The factors are:
1. The beating and scourging. Not normal for a crucifixion sentence as the scourging is often fatal. A 1 in 2 probability. (To low in my opinion.)
2. Crown of thorns. 1 in 400.
3. Nailed rather than tied. 1 in 2. (I would disregard this one.)
4. Legs not broken. 1 in 3. (Disregard again. Leg breaking was done to hasten death and not normally employed.)
5. A stab wound in the side. 1 in 27.
6. Burial in a very expensive linen cloth. 1 in 8. (This is way to low in my opinion. Most crucifixion victims were either left on their cross or thrown into a refuse pit. I would go with 1 in 1000 or more.)
7. A hasty burial. 1 in 8.
8. Corpse not showing any sign of decay. 1 in 10.
In my opinion the authors' conclusion is too conservative.
And unless I'm missing something here, doesn't all that evidence still leave open the possibility that the body resembles that of Jesus because a hoaxer deliberately followed the biblical account?
Just to clarify: I'm *not* defending the Shroud. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't know what it is or not, and I don't need it for faith or history.
My difficulty, as I tried to state to Martin, was with one particular thing he said about science, which I quoted.
FWIW.
What's your figure? Despite the shroud actually dating from 1000 AD at the earliest? Taking the maximum possible 14C contamination in to account. Is this a quantum superpositioned event? Both are true?
Thanks for the post and interest from a real scientist. Linen fibers actually contain a small percentage of nitrogen some of which would be converted into 14C if irradiated with slow neutrons. Of course the CO2 in the surrounding air would also be a source of 14C and this has been considered. That 14CO2 would be fully dissipated after about six years. The 14C that was formally nitrogen in the linen fibers would remain as part of their chemical structure and would not be removed by the usual pretreatments.
See: Neutron Radiation on Linen Fibers, Antonacci, Lind, et al.
The "simple solution" to the Shroud's 14C evidence is actually not so simple. That evidence does not pass certain mathematical tests that are normally required to certify a date. This evidence is, however, compatible with the hypothesis that the Shroud has been subjected to a neutron flux.
See: Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New evidence from the Raw Data,
Archaeometry, 2019, Casabianca, Marinelli, et al.
and
shroudresearch.net
Do you really think we've all got the time and energy to look up these erudite works you keep on mentioning? NOT ONE of them can prove that the Body In The Shroud was that of Jesus Christ, though I accept that the scientific evidence might prove that there was a body...
How hard is that to comprehend?
The 1000 AD Shroud™ never had a corpse in it to vanish, or even an artist's model according to some critics. Nothing about it indicates a vanishing from within without being unwrapped. But when and how did Jesus vanish from his cloth strips and face cloth/holy hanky? You know, according to The Bible? Technically?
The "hoaxer" would have needed to use an actual crucifixion victim, find a linen cloth ( of a weave not being made in medieval Europe) and make sure that the corpse had facial features that were congruent with the facial features found on sixth century Byzantine gold coins (not extant in the 14th century) and with the features of the Jesus Pantocrator icon at St. Catherine's Monastery (also not available then.) Not to mention the dirt and pollen that trace to Jerusalem and Palestine.
Then we have the minor problem that there is no known way to make a corpse transfer its image onto its burial cloth.
https://academicjournals.org/journal/SRE/article-full-text-pdf/CC774D029455
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Production-of-Radiocarbon-by-Neutron-Radiation-on-Lind-Antonacci/61ec4a8c6ed72fec1cde5cf124368dc0bf089344
http://www.shroudresearch.net/
If the figure of 1 in 300 million is not good enough for you, then i don't know what is.
A DNA match? Unlikely, I know...
If you want to say that the conclusions of STuRP were not valid, that's quite a proposition.
Their conclusions are that the Shroud had been in contact with a corpse which had been subjected to scourging and crucifixion. Also noticed was that the corpse had been removed before putrefaction had set in and that, in this removal, neither the linen fibers nor the blood clots had been disturbed.
The Gospel of Matthew explicitly states that His sealed tomb was found empty when it was opened.
Where does STuRP say corpse?
Where does the STuRP report say that the object in the shroud dematerialized on the basis of blood clots and linen fibres?
Quote Matthew on that. In the Greek. It doesn't say that and none of the other gospels do either. If you make it say it, you must make the others do too.
Fanti's 2nd edition is about half devoted to exploring the question of the facial images of Christ on Byzantine gold coins and makes the conclusion that those images depend on the face we find on the Shroud, and not the other way around. It's an expensive book, but worth the money if you are really interested the proof of a date for the Shroud.
You use the word "artist," but STuRP concluded that the image on the Shroud is not a painting and is not the work of an artist.
If the Shroud is something produced in 12th or 13th century then however the effect was achieved, it's worthy of being described as a work of art, and whoever created it is an artist.
What corpse?
In particular that the type of errors in the weave show it was made on a four-shaft loom and most likely one with heddles. These do not seem to have existed in the first century in the Roman Empire or adjacent areas (they did exist in China but for weaving silk not linen).
Farey, Hugh. 2019. “The Medieval Weave.” The Medieval Shroud (blog). September 13, 2019. https://medievalshroud.com/the-medieval-weave/.
And
Olsen, Antoinette Merete. 2020. “The Shroud of Turin and the Extra Sheds of Warping Threads. How Hard Can It Be to Set up a 3/1 Chevron Twill, Herringbone on a Warp-Weighted Loom?” EXARC 2020 (4). https://exarc.net/issue-2020-4/at/shroud-turin-and-extra-sheds-warping-threads.
which concludes "My test results, as I have described them in this article, tells me that the Shroud of Turin cannot have been woven on a warp-weighted loom. The Shroud of Turin must have been woven on a treadle loom."
and
Freeman, Charles. 2014. “The Origins of the Shroud of Turin.” History Today 64 (11).
who also feels it was treadle woven and that it was an example of a prop for a particular Easter ritual.
So Jesus was transmogrified dead? His corpse went up the fourth dimension from within His windings? Losing weight as He went. What effect would instantaneously creating 65l of pure vacuum inside the windings have on them? I asked this initially because the OP writer was assuming it and realised it's not orthodox; it's not in the text, it's not inferable from the text. That's quite an implosion. Wouldn't it burst in to flames? Or was a Star Trek matter transmitter used?
Surely not Alan, the guards were protected by rock, unless they were standing by the now open door, assuming that happened before the beaming up. Are we talking (γ,n) photodisintegration here? Or what? If the former then why the gamma rays? And what residual radiation would there be in the tomb for Peter to encounter? If the door opening and the resurrection were simultaneous then admittedly Peter was on the scene in a few minutes. Would the fast neutrons knocked out of the windings, air and rock be captured by atoms of the same and create unstable radioactive isotopes in turn, of N, O, C, Ca, Mg, S etc? Inquiring minds need to know.
A neutron source within the tomb would result in activation of the rock of the tomb, which will then decay emitting beta and gamma radiation over a period of hours to days. Assuming Peter dived in within a few hours of the resurrection there would still be a lot of that radiation present, which again adds an upper limit to that neutron pulse. Of course, the resurrected Jesus would be in the tomb even earlier than Peter, and experience an even greater dose.
An additional limiting factor would be hydrogen. 14C production in the air (which must occur, even if the activation of 13C and transmutation of 14N in the fibres is the main boost to 14C in the Shroud) produces protons which will rapidly combine to form hydrogen gas. At some point this will become an explosive mixture ... obviously an explosion that blasts the stone into piece across the garden and incinerates the content of the tomb is a limit.
I would suggest that the Gospels give strong indication that Christ's resurrection was of a different character, what with him being able to enter locked rooms, vanish at will and disguise himself. Then we have Paul calling him "the first fruits of those who sleep", implying again a difference in kind. Lastly Lazarus, by tradition, died again.
You know that, and I know that Alan. But @undead_rat for sure and possibly @Dave W don't.
Whoops! Wrong thread.
Well, he was naked (or near enough - the soldiers took his clothes) on the cross, and left his shroud behind, so what did he wear?
Maybe that's why He appeared behind Mary Magdalene outside the cave, He'd just been to the shops. Wait a minute, where'd He get the money?! From the mouth of a passing halibut?
Bad Martin, bad. No doughnuts...
OTOH, if he were an angelic or divine spirit in human form (as Dualists believe, and which seems eminently reasonable), he would emerge automatically clothed in angelic robes (toned down a bit) after the disappearance of his human-style body.
This would prove that the whole Shroud business is a clever fake, I think. I don't say it's true - I put it forward as a (an?) hypothesis.
No, no, no, no, no. Eminently reasonable damnable heresy. Emerge from what, where, when? His dead body was reanimated, He'd have had a badly soiled loin cloth unless that was resurrected too. Seriously (HAH!), I latch on to the ultimate explanation when none else are possible: by the Spirit. 4D capable bodies are a nice clean upgrade and come gift wrapped.
(BTW, I rather like being a Reasonably Damnable Heretick. It annoys Proper Christians™ when one mentions the said Heresy)