Tom Paine

  • ***
  • 3081 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2020, 06:49:52 am »
...then I think the burden is on the person  claiming it is an historical fact and the gospel narratives IMO don't even come close to being good enough evidence.

But, we also have the Shroud?

What about the shroud

Quote from: wikipedia
The existence of the shroud was first securely attested in 1389 or 1390 when a local bishop wrote that an unnamed artist had confessed that it was a forgery. Radiocarbon dating of a sample of the fabric is consistent with this date of origin.

Why would a bishop have lied about it being forgery?




1

Harvey

  • *****
  • 23136 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2020, 07:41:27 am »
Why would a bishop have lied about it being forgery?

The ecclesiastical competition was immense, so by lying and not naming the artist they could damage the reputation of the Shroud without having to prove anything.

2

Fred

  • ****
  • 5279 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2020, 08:08:38 am »
To me, things get way too messy when you open the floodgates of interpretation, and get away from the literal meaning of the words. 
I think just the opposite. It is the vagueness and ambiguity that makes it timeless. It is a bit like the I Ching.
 
Fred

3

noncontingent

  • **
  • 232 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2020, 09:50:55 am »
To me, things get way too messy when you open the floodgates of interpretation, and get away from the literal meaning of the words. 
I think just the opposite. It is the vagueness and ambiguity that makes it timeless. It is a bit like the I Ching.
 

How are you not simply internally inspired by such an approach?

4

Fred

  • ****
  • 5279 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2020, 11:13:37 am »
To me, things get way too messy when you open the floodgates of interpretation, and get away from the literal meaning of the words. 
I think just the opposite. It is the vagueness and ambiguity that makes it timeless. It is a bit like the I Ching.
 

How are you not simply internally inspired by such an approach?
I don't understand what you're saying, but my point is that the vagueness and ambiguity enables individuals to read things into the text. 
Fred

5

Tom Paine

  • ***
  • 3081 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2020, 01:46:43 pm »
Why would a bishop have lied about it being forgery?

The ecclesiastical competition was immense, so by lying and not naming the artist they could damage the reputation of the Shroud without having to prove anything.

Why would a local Bishop want to damage the reputation of a relic that would likely draw pilgrims and their $? Wouldn't that be like the Bishop of Lourde's claiming the healings are all fake?

Was there more than one Bishop in Turin? I don't know about back then, but now Turin is an archdiocese.  I suppose your argument could possibly have merit, but it seems spurious and I wonder if you have any reason to think this was the case or whether it is just an attempt at an ad hoc rescue.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 01:51:39 pm by Tom Paine »

6

noncontingent

  • **
  • 232 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2020, 02:05:00 pm »
To me, things get way too messy when you open the floodgates of interpretation, and get away from the literal meaning of the words. 
I think just the opposite. It is the vagueness and ambiguity that makes it timeless. It is a bit like the I Ching.
 

How are you not simply internally inspired by such an approach?
I don't understand what you're saying, but my point is that the vagueness and ambiguity enables individuals to read things into the text.

Could you give me an example of biblical vagueness?

7

Harvey

  • *****
  • 23136 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2020, 02:27:16 pm »
Why would a local Bishop want to damage the reputation of a relic that would likely draw pilgrims and their $? Wouldn't that be like the Bishop of Lourde's claiming the healings are all fake?

The quote saying it was fake is from Bishop d’Arcis he said in writing to Pope Clement VII:

Quote
The Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man...

So, it wasn't under his jurisdiction.

Quote from: Tom
I don't know about back then, but now Turin is an archdiocese.  I suppose your argument could possibly have merit, but it seems spurious and I wonder if you have any reason to think this was the case or whether it is just an attempt at an ad hoc rescue.

There's way too much science involved for it to be an artistic forgery from the 14th century. If we look at art work from that century there are many details that couldn't have been known. For example, in the 14th century they couldn't produce 3D topographic negative photographs. The fact is that even today we cannot reproduce the shroud. There are attempts by skeptics, of course, but none of them capture the full details. We know it's not art. We have a lot of evidence to say it represents real forensic evidence of a man who was tortured and died before being stabbed in the side. There are also misconceptions that I believe all of the artwork depicted in the 14th century. For example, Jesus' palms were depicted as being the location where the nails are driven in. But, that is not feasible because the nails wouldn't have held the hands/body on the cross. It would have torn through the tendons. The Shroud doesn't make that mistake. In the 14th century they thought Jesus was flogged with a small whip, but today we know they used flagellation with a small handheld whip having at the tips small pieces of bone or metal. We know that there were two men who whipped the man in the shroud. One was taller and one was left handed. The taller man was more vicious. That's forensic science. No 14th century artist could do it. We know that the only thing to create the image on the shroud that science has so far created is a high intensity UV-C light. The energy is greater than what we can produce. And, it occurred from inside the shroud after the blood had already been applied.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 02:47:57 pm by Harvey »

8

noncontingent

  • **
  • 232 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2020, 02:46:50 pm »
To me all the shroud mania seems like an episode of Ancient Aliens - entertaining, but unconvincing at the end.

First of all  it seems to me that if God resurrected Jesus, which I think he did, if the shroud was a thing, it would have been mentioned somewhere in the NT.

As it is it isn't given a moments notice. I mean you have people like Paul being mentioned w/artifacts healing people, but none w/regard to any shroud.

"God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and the diseases and evil spirits left them." - Acts 19:11-12

If the shroud was a thing and this sort of thing was important, you'd have someone drag it out and use it. As it is you don't read about it.


9

Harvey

  • *****
  • 23136 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2020, 02:56:51 pm »
...if the shroud was a thing, it would have been mentioned somewhere in the NT.

I very much doubt that. While we might not think anything of parading and analyzing a used burial cloth, in reality it would be seen as an unclean object that should be buried or burned by sundown. Keeping it, let alone mentioning it even privately to other Christians would have been risky. In my opinion, it is likely that someone kept it and no one knew about it.

Quote from: NC
If the shroud was a thing and this sort of thing was important, you'd have someone drag it out and use it. As it is you don't read about it.

People would likely have stoned them if they did so. We just don't have a sense how grotesque it would be to keep such a thing in early Judaism. I think only a Muslim from a very traditional country would appreciate this Near East view of burial cloths.

10

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14835 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2020, 03:19:32 pm »
...then I think the burden is on the person  claiming it is an historical fact and the gospel narratives IMO don't even come close to being good enough evidence.

But, we also have the Shroud.

And here I thought you were joking.
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

11

Harvey

  • *****
  • 23136 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2020, 06:41:17 pm »
And here I thought you were joking.

Whatever. I can only assume you get your news from atheist propaganda. You can do better.

12

Fred

  • ****
  • 5279 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2020, 11:05:38 pm »
To me, things get way too messy when you open the floodgates of interpretation, and get away from the literal meaning of the words. 
I think just the opposite. It is the vagueness and ambiguity that makes it timeless. It is a bit like the I Ching.
 

How are you not simply internally inspired by such an approach?
I don't understand what you're saying, but my point is that the vagueness and ambiguity enables individuals to read things into the text.

Could you give me an example of biblical vagueness?
Slavery is a good example. There's nothing explicit in the Bible that condemns it, and much that seems to accept it as the way of the  world.  People decided for themselves slavery was wrong, not because they read it in the Bible.  After deciding that, they they found verses to support that view. The Bible can be mined to add support to any novel moral views.  That's the sort of vagueness I'm referring to.
Fred

13

kurros

  • *****
  • 11614 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2020, 05:25:25 am »
Surely this is only a big deal if you accept Biblical inerrancy? If not, then there seems to be no serious problem....

If you're a Christian who rejects Biblical inerrancy, I guess the only question is why God's main message to humanity would be full of errors.

For skeptics and non-Christians, of course it's no surprise that the gospels are contradictory. I still think it would be interesting to talk about those contradictions to determine whether they were accidental changes or changes made on purpose to support a literary point.

Why is it suddenly full of errors? The point is that for Christian scriptures bear witness to Christ and his message. Given that they are a confluence of divine inspiration and human will, they see to have the potential for factual error (people could get things wrong, they could misremember). Besides which most of the contradiction are in more or less minor details, which does mean that you cannot get a sufficient detailed theology from the text. Moreover, the idea of Biblical Inerrancy only arose after the Protest Reformation and as a reaction to secular rationalism. It was not an idea that was espoused by the the Church Fathers at all, for thousands of years people had no problem with possible factual errors. Of course, it is better if there were none, but hey they are possible.

Yeah it seems obvious that the authors would forget exactly what happened after a few decades had passed, or that details would get accidentally (or intentionally...) altered in various retellings before a canonical account was settled upon.

14

noncontingent

  • **
  • 232 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bible Contradictions -- What's at stake?
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2020, 07:23:35 am »
...if the shroud was a thing, it would have been mentioned somewhere in the NT.

I very much doubt that. While we might not think anything of parading and analyzing a used burial cloth, in reality it would be seen as an unclean object that should be buried or burned by sundown. Keeping it, let alone mentioning it even privately to other Christians would have been risky. In my opinion, it is likely that someone kept it and no one knew about it.

Quote from: NC
If the shroud was a thing and this sort of thing was important, you'd have someone drag it out and use it. As it is you don't read about it.

People would likely have stoned them if they did so. We just don't have a sense how grotesque it would be to keep such a thing in early Judaism. I think only a Muslim from a very traditional country would appreciate this Near East view of burial cloths.


According to your argument, someone didn't take the NE view of burial cloths. As regards stoning, once the disciples got motivated post-resurrection confirmation, they weren't cowed by threats of stoning.  You have a lot to explain how no one in the NT or among the Christians in the 1st-2nd centuries mentioned this at all. They mentioned less important things, but according to you this was a conspiracy of silence.