Shroud of Turin

The Geogeer Code Introduction I'll just be offering rebuttals for round 2 and will address round 3 in the following round. My opponent weaves an amazing tale. It involves myths about Jesus mixed with religion, history, symbols, intriguing mysteries. We chase a Relic hidden in the walls of a city, stolen by Muslims, the Knights Templar get involved, it was almost lost to multiple fires. This fantastic tale sounds reminiscent of another famous tale. Check out the video. http://www.youtube.com... Wow, truly heart pounding edge of your seat stuff. Timeline of the Shroud My opponent is focused on the timeline of the shroud to verify it can be linked directly back to Jesus Christ. This whole timeline is extremely shaky circumstantial evidence. Some of these jumps between points in the timeline, connecting the shroud from one spot to the next, take a bit of a leap in faith to accept. When all this small leaps in faith connecting different points in the timeline add up, it equals a huge jump in faith. Starting at the End A burial cloth of Jesus is mentioned in the bible quite a few times, as me and my opponent point out. I showed evidence of the shroud being a piece of art, intended to fool people (I will answer my opponents rebuttals of this, in the next round). You can bet the artist and his purchaser was aware of these stories of a burial cloth in the bible. So of course the artist faked a relic that could be identified with easier. If any other shroud out of the 40 or so others survived until today, we'd be having this same debate, using almost the same evidence. Many Faces We know just from this debate, that people love faking religous artifacts. If just 1 in 40 of those shrouds in the 1350s was real, that would mean the shroud has a 1 in 40 chance of being real. That is a 2.5% chance of being legitimate. We're only talking about, out and out fraud when discussing this shroud here, but other shrouds mentioned (before those 40) that we don't have current access to might not even be fraud. It could just be people seeing Jesus, where they want to see him. This phenomenon is called pareidolia. People just love seeing patterns in things. Particularly when they have religious meanings. Check out these 2 Wikipedia articles that give a brief explanation of these types of phenomenon. These articles are accurate, click on the article's sources if you're skeptical. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... The first mention of the Shroud The gospels talk of a burial cloth (or more accurately strips of burial cloth) at least 30 years after Jesus's death and probably later. I don't want to isolate Christian voters, so let's assume the gospels are reasonably accurate when portraying the life and death of Jesus. I've already addressed how, the descriptions of Jesus's burial conflicts with the Shroud of Turin. Let's add another point to show how the burial cloth mentioned in the bible doesn't match up with the Shroud if Turin. "There is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. Thus the cloth was never used to wrap a body. If the image had been formed when the cloth was around Jesus' corpse it would have been distorted when the cloth was straightened out. The image would be wider and you would have an imprint of the sides of the body, not just the front and back. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs."( taken from the following source) http://www.sillybeliefs.com... The Gospel of Thomas My opponent uses the gospel of Thomas and specifically a hymn from it as evidence that Jesus is referencing a burial garment with his image. You won't find many, if any historians who use this gospel to understand the historical Jesus. The gospel just isn't reliable as any sort of historical evidence. There is a reason it was left out of the bible. The event listed in that document isn't referring to a burial garment. Jesus mentions shedding his old clothes and putting on, new superior garments. Here is a few quotes from the gospel of Thomas that also describe that fabric. Gospel of Thomas chapter 17 "The Glorious Robe all-bespangled With sparkling splendour of colours: With Gold and also with Beryls, Chalcedonies, iris-hued [Opals?], With Sards of varying colours. To match its grandeur [?], moreover, it had been completed: With adamantine jewels All of its seams were off-fastened. [Moreover] the King of Kings" Image Was depicted entirely all o"er it; And as with Sapphires above Was it wrought in a motley of colour." http://gnosis.org... This hymm isn't even meant to be taken literally. You can tell by the way it's written that, the author using a story to convey a message and get the reader to meditate on what it means. The Image of Edessa The image of Edessa is actually irrelevant. The image of Edessa isn't the shroud of Turin. The image of Edessa was widely copied as well. Funny enough, every single image copied was considered to be legitimate. People thought the image could magically just replicate it's self. A forger could just keep selling images. All these competing images is probably an explanation for some of the conflicting evidence that suggests it could be a whole body image. It's pretty much a consensus, that it was just a facial image, though. http://www.csicop.org... The Image of Edessa was not a funeral cloth. How do I know? In 1201, when the image of Edessa was in Constantinople, it was in the Pharos chapel beside tons of other religious artifacts. Here is quote from the source I list for all the facts in this paragraph. " In 1201 it was still there listed alongside other relics. One of these, recorded in the list of 1201, was no less than the "funerary sheets (sindones, in the plural) of Christ, they are of cheap and easy-to find material" and "still smell of myrrh". So these cloths are clearly not the Turin Shroud" http://www.llanoestacado.org... The Knights Templar A lot of believers in the Shroud of Turin being linked to were criticized in part by the shroud's missing medieval years. Somebody by the name Dr. Frale overcame this objection by supposedly finding a document in the Vatican archives of a witness to a secret initiation rite. If we ignore the fact that Dr. Drake is the only one to see this document, several problems still exist. http://www.west.net... Here is a statement from one of my opponents sources, "Rumours about the secret initiation ceremonies of the Templar order and the allegation of idolatry, specifically the worship of images of bearded men, were crucial in 1307 when hundreds of knights were arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and then burned at the stake.". http://www.telegraph.co.uk... A confession, extracted from torture isn't reliable. Particularly a confession that conforms to what the torturer wants to hear. Pray Codex "1) It shows the body of Jesus with only 4 fingers on each hand, just as on the shroud." Nearly everyone in that picture only has 4 fingers. This isn't an artist that is trying to draw an accurate portrayal of Christ's image on the shroud. This is just an artist that sucks at drawing thumbs. "2) We an see that the shroud is long in that it wraps around the neck and shoulders of the man on the upper left." Refer to what, I wrote about pareidolia. "3) We see the red crosses artistically denoting Christ's blood." Who knows, what that's representing. That interpretation is really subjective. Even if the interpretation is correct it means nothing. "4) The herringbone pattern of the cloth is noted" It's a design that's pretty common. I don't see any herringbone pattern on the shroud. I'm sure you'll explain this. If you're referring to the stitching, then you might be, being a little silly. I think all stitching has some variation of a herringbone pattern. Especially in that time period. "5) The L shape burn holed (below the extended arm of the leftmost woman in the bottom panel) is consistent with burn marks that predate the larger burn marks created by in a fire in 1532." Those are similar. It's probably just coincidence. I can't see how the artist would be so intent on getting that detail right and yet screw up on so many important details. Details such as hands being in the wrong position, no wounds in wrist or ankles, and no facial hair. Why would the artist go through so much trouble to get those holes right, but screw up everything else? Conclusion Pro has provided, extremely weak circumstantial evidence. This evidence isn't compelling in the least, while I've provided scientific evidence of the shroud's date. I've given strong evidence of when it first originated not Da Vinci Code style, speculation. I look forward to counter rebuttals in the next round and turn the floor over to Dan Brown.