Sunday, April 6, 2014

Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?

This is my response to the latest Easter sensationalist report about the Shroud of Turin, this time by Shroud sceptics (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's non-authenticity), Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli, that the Shroud reveals that Jesus was crucified on a Y-shaped cross, reported in an article: "Shroud of Turin depicts Y-shaped crucifixion," New Scientist, Linda Geddes, 2 April 2014.

First, it would not affect the authenticity of the Shroud, or indeed the truth of Biblical Christianity, if Jesus was crucified on a Y-shaped cross. The Gospels do not describe the shape of Jesus' cross. But having said that, the evidence is against Jesus' cross having been Y-shaped.

Artists have depicted Jesus crucified on a Y-shaped cross, such as this one in the Iglesia de Santiago church in Puente la Reina, Spain.

[Right: This Y-shaped crucifix in the church of Santiago in Puente la Reina, Spain, is said to have been a gift from a German pilgrim in the 14th century: "Annie's Simple Life" blog.]

But as can be seen, a Y-shaped cross would be structurally weak if it was made from three pieces of timber. It would be stronger if made from a two-branched tree (as above), but the Gospels record that Jesus' cross was carried, first by Jesus:

Jn 19:17. Carrying his own cross, he [Jesus] went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
and then by Simon of Cyrene:
Mt 27:32. cf. Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26. As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
While a crucifixion victim, weakened by scourging, as Jesus had been (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15) could have with difficulty carried his horizontal crossbeam (patibulum), there is no way he could have carried a Y-shaped section of tree, or a three-piece Y-shaped cross.

Moreover, while the Romans probably would occasionally have used an in situ tree, living or dead, to crucify victims (which didn't apply to Jesus who carried His cross), there is, as far as I am aware, no evidence that the Romans used a Y-shaped cross made out of three pieces of wood. The 16th-17th century Belgian-Dutch scholar, Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) depicted the different types of crosses that the Romans used, and the nearest to a Y-shaped Roman cross was an

[Left: X-shaped cross in Volume III of Lipsius' Opera Omnia, page 649: Photo taken by me in 2008 at the Victorian State Library in Melbourne.]

X-shaped cross (crux decussata or St. Andrew's cross). This would have been structurally strong, but it clearly would have been impossible for a scourged crucifixion victim to carry to the site of his execution.

The Shroud man has bloodflows on his arms, which are consistent with

[Above: Bloodflows on the arms of the man on the Shroud: Shroud Scope]

him having been alternately in a slumped and then briefly raised positions on either a traditional †-shaped Roman cross (crux immissa) or a T-shaped cross (crux commissa), but not an X-shaped cross (crux decussata), nor a Y-shaped cross (crux furca?).

[Above: Bloodflows on the left arm of the man on the Shroud, flipped horizontally and then rotated 90 degrees, showing how the blood dripped off the arm vertically under gravity. Because of the limitations of my software, the main bloodflows are not exactly vertical, as they would have been in reality.]

As reported by Ian Wilson, according to Pierre Barbet and other expert medical opinion, the bloodflows on the man on the Shroud's arms are consistent with a raised position of 55 degrees and a slumped position of 65 degrees, both from the vertical (see illustration below):

"We are now drawn to the wounds of the crucifixion itself. First we must establish that we can be quite confident we are dealing with a crucifixion victim. The principal evidence for this lies in the flows of blood from the wound in the left wrist. One of the most important aspects is the angle of the two streams of blood closest to the hand, flowing toward the inner border of the forearm. Other, interrupted streams run along the length of the arm as far as the elbow, dripping toward the edge of the arm at angles similar to the original flows. The first two flows are about ten degrees apart, the somewhat thinner one at an angle of about fifty-five degrees from the axis of the arm and the broader one closer to the hand at about sixty-five degrees. This enables us to do two things: (1) to compute that at the time the blood flowed, the arms must have been raised at positions varying between fifty-five and sixty-five degrees from the vertical, i.e., clearly a crucifixion position; (2) to compute that because of the ten-degree difference the crucified man must have assumed two slightly different positions on the cross, that at sixty-five degrees representing full suspension of the body, that at fifty-five degrees a slightly more acute angle of the forearm produced by flexing the elbow to raise the body. We are enabled to deduce then that the crucifixion forced on the victim an up-and-down or seesaw motion on the cross-perhaps, according to one school of thought, in order to breathe, the arms in that position taking a tension equal to nearly twice the weight of the body, inducing near-suffocation if there was no crutch support; perhaps, according to another school of thought, by the victim attempting to relieve himself of one unbearable agony, the pain in his wrists, by raising himself, at the price of yet more pain, on the living wounds in his feet." (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," pp.25-26).

[Above (click to enlarge): The caption reads:
"The angle of the arms at crucifixion, deducible from the Shroud by determining the path of the blood flows in following the course of gravity. The main angle appears to have been 65 degrees, but there is evidence that at some stages the forearms were at 55 degrees, indicating that the man of the Shroud sought to raise himself; probably continually, during crucifixion." (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," p.50L).

Other reasons why Borrini and Garlaschelli's Y-shaped cross claim is wrong, include:

• Christian tradition has from the earliest times depicted Jesus' cross as a Roman cross (†). For example, one of the earliest (if not the earliest) examples of a Christian cross yet found, is that which is part of a rock sculpture of a fountain in ancient Edessa (modern Sanliurfa), and is

[Above: A stone lion, the symbol of the Abgar dynasty, over which is a tradition †-shaped Christian cross, in Sanliurfa (ancient Edessa), which must have been erected before the end of Edessa's Abgar kings' Lion dynasty in AD 215: Wilson, 2010, plate 15b.]

clearly a Roman crux immissa (†), which must be dated no later than AD 215:

"A third nugget is an archaic-looking sculpted stone lion (p1. 15b) that stands forlornly in the open-air, outdoor section of Sanliurfa's present-day museum, typically with no accompanying explanatory information. Judging by the hole drilled in the animal's mouth it clearly once served as a city fountain; but our interest is in what stands on top of its head: an unmistakable sculpted Christian cross, an all-too-rare sight in present-day Sanliurfa. In Syriac, the word for `lion' is aryu - the name of Edessa's ruling dynasty. This fountain has to have stood in Edessa when the city was ruled by a Christian king of the Abgars' Aryu dynasty, a line that ended for ever when the Romans took over in AD 215. We can therefore say with some confidence that Christianity arrived in Edessa while the city was ruled by members of the Abgar line, that one of these kings definitely adopted Christianity, and that this most likely happened before AD 192, because of the Abgar VIII/Commodus coin. But was Abgar VIII the first or the second of his dynasty to adopt the new religion? That is, was the Abgar of the story of the Image of Edessa's arrival in the city Abgar VIII, for whose acceptance of Christianity we have some definite supportive evidence, or was it Abgar V, Jesus's direct contemporary, as attested by Eusebius and the Doctrine of Addai manuscript, but otherwise unsubstantiated? Strongly favouring the latter is the fact that the known circumstances of Abgar VIII's reign and its immediate aftermath simply do not `fit' the Doctrine of Addai's account of events after the `wonderful vision' episode and King Abgar's conversion." (Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," pp.119-120).

• The charge was placed "over his [Jesus'] head" (Mt 27:37) which best fits a Roman †-shaped cross, but not a Y-shaped cross.

• Garlaschelli, at least, claims that the Shroud is a medieval forgery:

"An Italian scientist says he has reproduced one of the world's most famous Catholic relics, the Shroud of Turin, to support his belief it is a medieval fake, not the cloth Jesus was buried in." ("Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake," CNN, Richard Allen Greene, October 7, 2009).
But a medieval forger would have depicted the traditional Roman cross (†) not a non-traditional Y-shaped cross, amongst other things:
"The forger working in France or thereabouts around or before 1350 would have to have been either an overzealous monk whose piety got the better of him or an arrogant swindler who wanted to make a bundle in the underground relic market. Both of these possibilities strike me as unlikely, since the portrayal of Jesus on the shroud is nontraditional, non-European; details like the cap or miter of thorns, the nails through the wrists instead of through the palms, and the nakedness of the loins would not inspire the devotional or artistic sensibilities of fourteenth-century Europe; rather they would have gotten the forger burned at the stake. Moreover, the accuracy of details like these would not be common knowledge to a potential forger for centuries to come." (Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," pp.170-171).

26 comments:

Bippy123 said...

Thank you so much for the response Stephen. I will post it on the godandscience forum. Lots of people were wondering about it there .

Will go through it after I come back from an appointment to get my health insurance approves.

How did the elections go Stephen?
God bless and thank you so much again all the hard work you do in countering all the misinformation and sensationalism that goes on with the shroud online.
Bippy123

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

>Thank you so much for the response Stephen.

Thanks for your thanks.

>I will post it on the godandscience forum. Lots of people were wondering about it there .

Thanks again.

>Will go through it after I come back from an appointment to get my health insurance approves.

OK. I will pray that you are healed of your problem.

>How did the elections go Stephen?

Tiring! It was probably my last, as I will be 70 when the next election occurs.

>God bless and thank you so much again all the hard work you do in countering all the misinformation and sensationalism that goes on with the shroud online.

Thanks again. But it probably makes little or no difference to the Shroud sceptics (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's NON-authenticity). Which includes most journalists.

Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.

Bippy123 said...

Your right Stephen,it won't make much of a difference to the media because they don't want the facts or the truth to come out.

But it makes it that much easier for us both to discuss the shroud with newbies who are being bombarded by the media with half truths .

Sooner or later these newbies will finally get the idea that they are being lied to and will eventually become angry and distrustful of the media.

I started researching the shroud in 2009 when the Luigi replica came out and atheists came on our forum on catholic answers screaming and yelling that the shroud was replicated and that proved it was a fraud.

I was thinking " what the heck is the shroud of turin and why were these atheists jumping up and down with such glee.

When I started researching it I started to understand why . It was the thorn in the atheists side that they couldn't get out.

That made me even more interested in it if it could cause that much stress and agony to these pseudo skeptics :)

And this is what eventually lead me to your blog.
They say God works in mysterious ways. The shroud is living proof of that .

I recently had an email discussion with another atheist about the shroud . After the second email he left and never emailed me back. I wonder why lol ;)

Thank you again Stephen for your tireless efforts ,the seeds planted here are producing more then We can ever imagine.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

>Your right Stephen,it won't make much of a difference to the media because they don't want the facts or the truth to come out.

The problem is that they think that the Shroud is a fake IS the truth.

>But it makes it that much easier for us both to discuss the shroud with newbies who are being bombarded by the media with half truths .

Agreed. That atheist/agnostics CAN be persuaded of the truth of the Shroud's authenticity is demonstrated by Thomas de Wesselow.

De Wesselow has not (yet) become a Christian but Ian Wilson is an example of an agnostic being persuaded of the Shroud's authenticity and then becoming a Christian.

>Sooner or later these newbies will finally get the idea that they are being lied to and will eventually become angry and distrustful of the media.

A FEW of them might.

>I started researching the shroud in 2009 when the Luigi replica came out and atheists came on our forum on catholic answers screaming and yelling that the shroud was replicated and that proved it was a fraud.

For starters Garlaschelli only `replicated' the Shroud FACE, not the entire 4.4 x 1.1 metre double image. It may be possible to reproduce PART of something but impossible to reproduce the WHOLE of that something.

And as I pointed out in my 2009 post, "Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin Garlaschelli added the blood AFTER the image but the blood was on the Shroud BEFORE the image.

>I was thinking " what the heck is the shroud of turin and why were these atheists jumping up and down with such glee.
>

The same happened with me. When in 2005 on my now closed CreationEvolutionDesign Yahoo discussion group (which I just discovered I can no longer access) I mentioned that I tentatively accepted that the Shroud of Turin was authentic after reading Stevenson & Habermas' 1981 (pre-C14 dating) book, "Verdict on the Shroud." Some of the atheists on that group immediately started attacking the Shroud based on the C14 dating which at that stage I knew nothing about.

>When I started researching it I started to understand why . It was the thorn in the atheists side that they couldn't get out.
>
>That made me even more interested in it if it could cause that much stress and agony to these pseudo skeptics :)

Yes. In an atheist universe, an authentic Shroud CANNOT exist.

>And this is what eventually lead me to your blog.
They say God works in mysterious ways. The shroud is living proof of that .

Great!

>I recently had an email discussion with another atheist about the shroud . After the second email he left and never emailed me back. I wonder why lol ;)

See above on that to an atheist, an authentic Shroud CANNOT exist. So it can simply be ignored.

>Thank you again Stephen for your tireless efforts ,the seeds planted here are producing more then We can ever imagine.

Thanks again for your encouragement.

Stephen E. Jones

The Deuce said...

The reasoning in that New Scientist article is utterly stupid:

***They found that the marks on the shroud did correspond to a crucifixion, but only if the arms were placed above the head in a "Y" position, rather than in the classic "T" depiction.***

Huh? Classic depictions have ALWAYS shown Jesus in a Y position! Of course your arms are going to be at an angle above you when you're hanging from them. Every single description of Roman crucifixion I've ever heard describes exactly the suffocation the authors describe.

How is this even news? Did these idiots confuse the Christian belief in a T-shaped cross with Jesus' arms being in a T-shaped position or something? Did they not actually look at any popular depictions of Jesus on the cross?

Stephen E. Jones said...

The Deuce

>The reasoning in that New Scientist article is utterly stupid:

Agreed.

>***They found that the marks on the shroud did correspond to a crucifixion, but only if the arms were placed above the head in a "Y" position, rather than in the classic "T" depiction.***

This actually is FALSE. The Y-position would not explain the 10 degrees difference in the bloodflows on the arms of the Man on the Shroud, i.e. 65 degrees from the vertical in a slumped position and 55 degrees in a raised.

The claim that a Y-position would be more painful is also FALSE. The Y-position would be LESS painful.

As anyone who has ever hung on a monkey bar would know, hanging from the arms above one's head is far less painful than trying to hang with one's arms horizontal.

>Huh? Classic depictions have ALWAYS shown Jesus in a Y position! Of course your arms are going to be at an angle above you when you're hanging from them.

Yes.

>Every single description of Roman crucifixion I've ever heard describes exactly the suffocation the authors describe.

Yes.

>How is this even news? Did these idiots confuse the Christian belief in a T-shaped cross with Jesus' arms being in a T-shaped position or something?

They are motivated (by Satan Rev 12:17) to attack traditional Christianity. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses who falsely claim that Jesus was executed on a single beam stake.

>Did they not actually look at any popular depictions of Jesus on the cross?

Probably not.

This raises an important point about these Shroud sceptics, i.e. true believers in the Shroud's NON-authenticity: how many books on the Shroud do they own/have read? Probably few or NONE.

They are simply IGNORANT of all the research that has gone into the Shroud since 1898.

New Scientist should be ASHAMED at publishing such junk science!

Stephen E. Jones

OrthodoxApologia92 said...

Hi Stephen. There are a lot of people who say that the UV test does not rule out the possibility of the Image being a scorch on the Holy Shroud. Sceptics say that some medieval european used the pinhole camera concept to create the Image and that flax was common in Europe. My mind is becoming more and more sceptical and I now have a great inrush of thoughts that I'm unable to get rid of. I'm Christian but as of late I'm getting strange disturbing thoughts about my Lord Jesus. I'm sitting, doing own stuff, all of a sudden a thought penetrated my mind: "Jesus is imaginary" The more I try to get rid of the thought is the more it penetrates my heart and mind. I've heard about the "Christ Myth Theory" before but I took such a theory for granted and always said in my mind "Of course Jesus is real, the Bible says so" and now the thought of those atheists being right is plaguing me. No I haven't been reading their material but the thought just penetrated my heart and mind. Moreover the Bible says that strips of linen was used and not a long Shroud. Also the man in the Shroud has long hair and the Apostle Paul said that long hair is a shame to man. How would you respond to such a claim? Thanks. I always had looked to the Shroud as Jesus Image but now I don't feel the same. I'm willing to believe once more that the Shroud is the burial cloth of a Jesus. Can you please help me put my mind at ease? Thank you.

Stephen E. Jones said...

OrthodoxApologia92

>There are a lot of people who say that the UV test does not rule out the possibility of the Image being a scorch on the Holy Shroud.

The image on the Shroud does indeed have properties SIMILAR to a scorch:

"Theory: The Image Is a Scorch The scientific team arrived in Turin in 1978 already suspecting that the image on the Shroud could well be some kind of scorch. The scorch theory had become the leading candidate for image formation partly because other theories seemed improbable and partly because the image looked like a scorch in photographs available before 1978. Cellulose yellows in the first stages of burning. If the heat and timing are carefully controlled, an experimental scorch can [91] yellow cellulose fibers the way those on the Shroud are yellowed. Furthermore, a known scorch-the burns from the 1532 fire-lay right on the cloth, and the image resembled it. Analysis of color photographs prior to 1978 indicated that the image and the fire scorch have similar optical properties. A scorch has several other properties which the Shroud image also possesses. The image was not affected by the heat of the 1532 fire or by the water thrown on the Shroud to extinguish it. Neither heat nor water would affect a scorch in any way. The 1978 observations largely confirmed this pre-1978 theorizing. The ultraviolet and visible light reflectance tests showed that the image and the fire scorches reflected light in a similar way. ... The image and the scorch areas also reduced the background fluorescence of the cloth at a similar rate. However, the optical properties of the Shroud image and the fire scorches are not identical. The fire scorches are visually redder than the body image, and the two areas of the cloth fluoresce somewhat differently under ultraviolet light. The team thought that these differences would be present if scorches had occurred under different conditions. In 1532, the Shroud was burned while sealed inside a metal box. Such a scorch, occurring in a substantially oxygen-free environment, would be visibly redder and would have different fluorescent properties than a scorch which occurred in the presence of oxygen. Indeed, Vernon Miller and Samuel Pellicori demonstrated this fact experimentally. They burned cellulose in an oxygen-depleted environment, and the scorch this experiment produced fluoresced in a way similar to those of the fire-damaged areas of the Shroud. It thus seemed probable to many members of the team that the image on the Shroud is a scorch, slightly different than the known scorches on the Shroud, but a scorch nonetheless." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud," pp.90-91).

But that does not mean that the image on the Shroud IS a scorch caused by HEAT, let alone that the image was FORGED by using a hot statue or bas relief method.

There is a principle in science called "equifinality" - "different processes can lead to similar end-forms":

"The problems of explanation in physical geography caused by the number of factors involved and their interaction, by the difficulties of scale, by the frequency of change and by the problem of deciphering the role of man as against that of nature are heightened by the fact that different processes can lead to similar end-forms - the problem of equifinality. When seeking an explanation for a particular phenomenon it is important to remember that, although certain phenomena appear to be broadly similar in type, their form may be an inadequate guide to their origin." (Goudie, A., 1993, "The Nature of the Environment," p.370).

Thus the Shroud image can have SIMILAR PROPERTIES to a heat scorch, yet have been formed by a completely DIFFERENT PROCESS, e.g. radiation emitted as a by-product of the resurrection of Christ (see Jackson's "Cloth collapse theory").

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

Fanti, et al., found that the closest match to the Shroud's image on linen was obtained by subjecting linen to high energy, high frequency ultraviolet light from an excimer laser:

"Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe," The Telegraph Nick Squires, Rome, 19 Dec 2011 ... Italian scientists have conducted a series of advanced experiments which, they claim, show that the marks on the shroud – purportedly left by the imprint of Christ's body – could not possibly have been faked with technology that was available in the medieval period. ... The new study is the latest intriguing piece of a puzzle which has baffled scientists for centuries ... experts from Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development [ENEA]. ... set out to `identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a colour similar to that of the image on the Shroud.' They concluded that THE EXACT SHADE, TEXTURE AND DEPTH OF THE IMPRINTS ON THE CLOTH COULD ONLY BE PRODUCED WITH THE AID OF ULTRAVIOLET LASERS – technology that was clearly not available in medieval times. The scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth. They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by `some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength).' Although they stopped short of offering a non-scientific explanation for the phenomenon, their findings will be embraced by those who believe that the marks on the shroud were miraculously created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection. "

It is a fallacy to think that the authenticity of the Shroud stands or falls on ONE feature alone. Shroud sceptics (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's NON-authenticity) typically take pot-shots at individual features of the Shroud, and if they THINK that they have won on ONE individual point, they can declare victory for the forgery theory.

But what the Shroud sceptics need to do is propose a COMPREHENSIVE AND INTERNALLY CONSISTENT forgery theory, which:

1) POSITIVELY explains plausibly how the image on the Shroud was formed in a way that is inconsistent with the Shroud's authenticity, including not only HOW the image was formed, but WHEN it was formed, and WHO formed it;

and

2) NEGATIVELY plausibly explains away ALL the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity.

That there is NO such comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, is itself evidence that the Shroud is NOT a forgery. In my "The Shroud of Turin" series, I am collecting problems of the forgery theory which I will eventually post as "Problems of the forgery theory." Then it will be seen that the problems of the Shroud authenticity theory are NOTHING compared to the problems of the forgery theory.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

>Sceptics say that some medieval european used the pinhole camera concept to create the Image and that flax was common in Europe.

That the pinhole CAMERA OBSCURA was used in medieval times to make DRAWINGS, is one thing. But the CAMERA, i.e. the forming of an image on a LIGHT-SENSITIVE MEDIUM is another thing entirely and was not invented until the 19th century.

>My mind is becoming more and more sceptical and I now have a great inrush of thoughts that I'm unable to get rid of. I'm Christian but as of late I'm getting strange disturbing thoughts about my Lord Jesus. I'm sitting, doing own stuff, all of a sudden a thought penetrated my mind: "Jesus is imaginary" The more I try to get rid of the thought is the more it penetrates my heart and mind.

Sounds like an attack of Satan. Are you regularly attending a Bible-believing church? Are you having a regular `quiet time' of Bible reading and prayer?

When I was involved in the creation/evolution debate a Christian sought my help because he was haunted by the thought that Genesis 1-3 was false, and therefore Christ was wrong about it being true:

Mt 19:4-6. 4 He [Jesus] answered, `Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female[Gn 1:27], and said, `Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' [Gn 2:24]? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'"

and therefore Christ was not God and Christianity was false.

I first suggested he seek help from his Pastor, but he may not have had one. I tried to answer his question, but nothing I wrote worked.

So I recommend to him to set aside the Genesis 1-3 question and do what I did from the late 1980s when I had become increasingly secular in my thinking and was going through a spiritual crisis. I started going for nightly walks listening to a Christian radio program on my Walkman radio. One night the speaker, Chuck Swindoll recommended that Christians should have a mentor. But if they don't have a mentor, he said, "Jesus can be your mentor!" I resolved that night that in my morning `quiet time', I would read only the words of Jesus in the Gospels, and apply each one of them personally to me, asking for His help and forgiveness where I fell short (which was most times). Even though I used a harmony of the gospels, and had my morning `quiet time' most days, it still took me about EIGHT YEARS to complete it.

But it CHANGED MY LIFE. Even though I had been a committed Christian for about 20 years when I started the project, I only dimly understood what it meant to have a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with Jesus. But increasingly through my mostly daily reading and prayer based on reading only the words of Jesus and applying them to myself, Jesus spoke personally to my heart and I discovered what it meant to have a PERSONAL relationship with HIM.

So I recommended that to that Christian in the creation/evolution debate that he cease debating creation/evolution on the Internet until he do what I did until he KNEW that he had a personal relationship with Jesus.

Then when he got back to the Genesis 1-3 question, he would see it in perspective.

And I RECOMMEND THAT TO YOU also, after first seeing your Pastor. But as far as I know the person worried about Genesis did not take my advice. So evidently, although he CLAIMED to be desperate for my help, he was not prepared to pay the price of inconveniencing himself so that he could gain "the SURPASSING WORTH of knowing Christ Jesus" (Php 3:8) Are YOU?

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>I've heard about the "Christ Myth Theory" before but I took such a theory for granted and always said in my mind "Of course Jesus is real, the Bible says so" and now the thought of those atheists being right is plaguing me. No I haven't been reading their material but the thought just penetrated my heart and mind.

See above. It sounds like you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus, because if you did you could not think that Christ is a myth. In which case you might be among the "many" who THINK they are Christians but will find out, too late, when Jesus returns, that they WERE NOT:

Mt 7:22-23. "22 On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, `I NEVER KNEW YOU; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

>Moreover the Bible says that strips of linen was used and not a long Shroud.

It says that in some older ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS, but not in the original Greek. Modern translations like the English Standard Version, correctly translate the Gk. sindon as "shroud":

Mt 27:59. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen SHROUD

Mk 15:46. And Joseph bought a linen SHROUD, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

Lk 23:53. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen SHROUD and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid.

And in Jn 20:7-9, where the Gk. word is not sindon but othonia, the ESV correctly translates that as "linen cloths" (the Shroud and the other linen burial strips):

7 and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the LINEN CLOTHS but folded up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.

That othonia "linen cloths" includes the Shroud is evident by comparing Lk 24:12:

"But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia] by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened" with Lk 23:53 above which specifically mentions the "linen shroud" [sindon] included in those linen cloths [othonia].

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>Also the man in the Shroud has long hair and the Apostle Paul said that long hair is a shame to man. How would you respond to such a claim?

The same way that Stevenson and Habermas do, by pointing out that "long" is NOT AN OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT but is CULTURALLY CONDITIONED, that as a Jew Paul himself would probably have had shoulder-length hair, and what Paul probably meant by "long hair" is effeminate hair styles:

"In 1 Corinthians 11:14, the Apostle Paul declares that long hair is a disgrace to men, yet the man of the Shroud apparently has shoulder-length hair. ... though the question of long hair seems overly naive, it is frequently asked. Our concept of what Paul meant by `long hair' is usually affected by our own views of what constitutes long hair. While Paul was speaking of effeminate men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women, Paul himself would probably have worn shoulder-length hair in keeping with the hairstyle of the other orthodox Jews of his day. As a matter of fact, the traditional style for an orthodox Jewish man of two thousand years ago is much the same for him today: a ponytail of hair and sidelocks-precisely what we see on the Shroud." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," pp.150-151)

>Thanks. I always had looked to the Shroud as Jesus Image but now I don't feel the same. I'm willing to believe once more that the Shroud is the burial cloth of a Jesus. Can you please help me put my mind at ease? Thank you.

You seem out of your depth as a self-styled Christian apologist. I have been a Christian for nearly 50 years, and in that time I have accumulated over a thousand Christian (mostly evangelical Bible-believing) books, I can read Greek and Hebrew aided by a Greek and Hebrew interlinear translations and Greek and Hebrew lexicons of which I have about 10; as well as over 80 books on the Shroud.

Jesus had been preparing me for nearly 30 years before He called me to be an apologist for Him. You can CALL YOURSELF "OrthodoxApologia92" but that doesn't mean you ARE. All the TRUE apologists call themselves by their REAL NAME. Prepare yourself by doing the hard yards and MAYBE Jesus will call you as one of His apologists.

So my advice is to: 1) get to know Jesus PERSONALLY, then you won't entertain the thought that He is a "myth"; 2) realise that Satan is real and if you fill your mind with anti-Christian thoughts you will become anti-Christian in your thinking, without realising it. Eph 4:27 (NIV) warns, "do not give the devil a foothold"; and 3) cease debating on the Internet if the questions that anti-Christian sceptics (who are Satan's agents without them realising it) raise in your mind are making "shipwreck of [your] faith" (1Tim 1:19), or are making you realise that you don't yet have a GENUINE Christian faith.

My long multi-part comment in response to yours is not an invitation to debate. As per my stated policies: "...I concluded that Internet debates were largely a waste of time ... So I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts."

However, I will allow you one more comment, if you wish, to ask any follow-up questions of my reply above.

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

Hi Stephen. I've been looking for an actual Bible based church with an anointed pastor for a long while. I'm not looking to debate you. I'm seeking Christian help. Is this truly an attack or is this just anxiety? I've told by another friend that "this is anxiety, just keep serving Jesus regardless" I've been having disturbing thoughts in March too: "There's no God" but I've gotten over that thought but the "un-real" thoughts have now shifted to Jesus being "un-real" and that the the disciples were "cooking up stories." I feel horrible now. Maybe you're right, maybe I was not a true Christian for the past 4 years. Maybe this is a wake up call for me. Maybe I took for granted that I was serving Jesus for the past 4 years. I'm starting to doubt my salvation. Please, I don't want to be fooling myself and be left behind when Jesus comes. Most of the time I read the Bible by myself and prayed and I felt confident witnessing to other people on the bus, other friends, etc. I even recited a monologue of the Nativity to people on the bus when Christmas time rolled around. But now I feel strange and condemned when I come to the quotes of Jesus in the Gospels like before Abraham was I AM. Thoughts like the disciples made that up entered my head. A Jehovah's Witness I met said that the occasion of the condemned adulteress is an addition to Scripture. I was introduced to Jesus as the Saviour of the world in 2009 after I graduated from high school. Before that I used to view Him as some spiritual man that went to India to learn wisdom. I grew up in a Hindu family but I was not very religious. My father is still a practising Hindu and I still live with my parents. Could it be that because two opposing religions existing in I go by O.A.92 for sake of the orthodox views I hold like Jesus is God, The Trinity, virgin birth, but I guess I shouldn't have done that. I'm young, actually but I guess I have a lot to learn still. I haven't been baptised yet and I fellowship with a few non-denominational people who believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, baptism of belief, but I didn't believe in other people praying for me because I viewed such as a Catholic idea. So I always prayed for myself because my Bible believing friends always told me there's only One mediator between God and man, the Man, Jesus Christ. So I didn't bother to do such because Catholics did such. I was never a true "open" person.

Could it be that I'm plagued with the same type of mindset that the Genesis 1-3 guy had? Sudden disturbing un-real thoughts. Seems like he had anxiety too. I now realise that although the Bible mentions Jugdment as an individual thing, salvation seems to be "group work" i.e. strengthening each other in Christ. Is the SDA church a good church? For the sake of "starting over" I won't refer to myself as an apologist and I'll cut down on debating people. Please, can I continue this conversation via e-mail if it doesn't bother you? I'm really concerned. Thank you for your time.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>I've been looking for an actual Bible based church with an anointed pastor for a long while.

Great. That you are not attending a Bible-based church is likely to be a large part of your problem.

>I'm not looking to debate you. I'm seeking Christian help.

OK. I had to say it because I have been hoaxed before by someone who pretended he wanted help but he turned out to be an atheism who was on a `mission' from Satan to deliberately waste my time so I couldn't post as much.

>Is this truly an attack or is this just anxiety? I've told by another friend that "this is anxiety, just keep serving Jesus regardless"

It could be either or both.

>I've been having disturbing thoughts in March too: "There's no God" but I've gotten over that thought but the "un-real" thoughts have now shifted to Jesus being "un-real" and that the the disciples were "cooking up stories."

In my early Christian life I used to hear anti-Christian thoughts in my head, which I later realised were from Satan. I heard a Christian Pastor say that it was common for new Christians until they learned to recognise the "still, small, voice" of God the Holy Spirit:

1Ki 19:11-15 (NKJV) God's Revelation to Elijah 11 Then He said, "Go out, and stand on the mountain before the Lord." And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; 12 and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire A STILL SMALL VOICE. 13 So it was, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave. Suddenly a voice came to him, and said, "What are you doing here, Elijah?" 14 And he said, "I have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life." 15 Then THE LORD SAID TO HIM: "Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria.

Another thing I heard a Pastor say was that if it is an accusing voice it is not the Holy Spirit, but Satan, who is "the accuser" of Christians:

Rev 12:10. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

Those two truths helped me to tune out the voice of Satan and tune in to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

>I feel horrible now. Maybe you're right, maybe I was not a true Christian for the past 4 years. Maybe this is a wake up call for me. Maybe I took for granted that I was serving Jesus for the past 4 years. I'm starting to doubt my salvation.

I had to be cruel to be kind. But if you are doubting your salvation that is the first and necessary step to making your calling and election sure in your own heart and mind:

2Pet 1:10 (NKJV). Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;

And also some Christians, because of their psychological make-up are more prone to thoughts that they are not saved. The great Christian hymn-writer, William Cowper, was plagued by the thought that he had committed the unpardonable sin, the sin against the Holy Spirit:

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

Mt 12:31-32. "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

"William Cowper ... 1731 – ... 1800 ... was an English poet and hymnodist. .. Although after being institutionalised for insanity in the period 1763–65, Cowper found refuge in a fervent evangelical Christianity, the inspiration behind his much-loved hymns, he often experienced doubt and after a dream in 1773 believed that he was doomed to eternal damnation. Later, he would recover and write more religious hymns." ("William Cowper," Wikipedia, 21 April 2014).

But his Christian Pastor reassured him, that the fact that he was worried about having committed the unpardonable sin is a sure sign that he hadn't!

>Please, I don't want to be fooling myself and be left behind when Jesus comes.

Great. But that can only be settled between you and the Lord.

>Most of the time I read the Bible by myself and prayed and I felt confident witnessing to other people on the bus, other friends, etc. I even recited a monologue of the Nativity to people on the bus when Christmas time rolled around.

Christian activity does not make one a Christian. A notable example was Billy Graham's former associate, Charles Templeman, who conducted evangelistic crusades with Billy Graham and thousands were saved through his ministry, but through reading the spiritual poison of liberal theology he lost his faith and became an atheist.

>But now I feel strange and condemned when I come to the quotes of Jesus in the Gospels like before Abraham was I AM. Thoughts like the disciples made that up entered my head.

They would have to be the greatest theological geniuses ever. It is harder to believe that an bunch of Galilean fishermen invented Jesus, than that the Jesus of the Gospels was (and is) authentic. That is one of the advantages of the Shroud. It refutes the "reasoning in a circle" charge levied against Christians.

>A Jehovah's Witness I met said that the occasion of the condemned adulteress is an addition to Scripture.

As a truly great book, "The Progressive Publication of Matthew" by B. Ward Powers, 2010, convincingly shows, the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were the product of the Apostle Matthew progressively issuing, first in Aramaic/Hebrew, then later in Greek, short stories of what Jesus said and did. The rapid expansion of the early church created a huge demand for authentic words of Jesus but the Christians were too poor and persecuted to sustain a large manuscript copying industry. Matthew's Gospel was then compiled by Matthew from those stories. Mark and Luke's Gospels were based on the earlier stories issued by Matthew supplemented by their own material.

Powers uses the example of the "Woman caught in the act of adultery" (Jn 7:53–8:11) as an example of one of those authentic short stories issued by Matthew, but which was not included in Matthew's final compilation because it had later become misunderstood.

>I was introduced to Jesus as the Saviour of the world in 2009 after I graduated from high school. Before that I used to view Him as some spiritual man that went to India to learn wisdom. I grew up in a Hindu family but I was not very religious. My father is still a practising Hindu and I still live with my parents.

This might be part of your problem. There might be a real demonic presence in that house, so you need to urgently consider moving out.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>Could it be that because two opposing religions existing in I go by O.A.92 for sake of the orthodox views I hold like Jesus is God, The Trinity, virgin birth, but I guess I shouldn't have done that.

Just call yourself by your real name as I do, not even "Anonymous". Jesus said in Mt 10:32-33:

32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

You can't acknowledge Jesus hiding behind the pseudonym "Anonymous."

>I'm young, actually but I guess I have a lot to learn still. I haven't been baptised yet and I fellowship with a few non-denominational people who believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, baptism of belief, but I didn't believe in other people praying for me because I viewed such as a Catholic idea. So I always prayed for myself because my Bible believing friends always told me there's only One mediator between God and man, the Man, Jesus Christ. So I didn't bother to do such because Catholics did such. I was never a true "open" person.

Continue praying to Jesus to show you the way He wants you to follow Him. But start answering your own prayer by attending different Bible-believing churches until you find the one that you feel right about attending, starting from this Sunday.

>Could it be that I'm plagued with the same type of mindset that the Genesis 1-3 guy had? Sudden disturbing un-real thoughts. Seems like he had anxiety too.

See above.

>I now realise that although the Bible mentions Jugdment as an individual thing, salvation seems to be "group work" i.e. strengthening each other in Christ.

Salvation is individual but sanctification is group work.

>Is the SDA church a good church?

They have some strange doctrines, not only that you must worship on Saturday (when it is clear that the early Christians worshipped on Sunday-Acts 2:1; 20:7; 1Cor 16:2), and their compulsory law-keeping, but also they believe Jesus returned in 1914, which is where the Jehovah's Witnesses got the idea, since the JW founder Charles Taze Russell was an Adventist, from which the SDAs are an offshoot. I would recommend you DON'T start attending an SDA church.

>For the sake of "starting over" I won't refer to myself as an apologist and I'll cut down on debating people.

Great!

>Please, can I continue this conversation via e-mail if it doesn't bother you? I'm really concerned. Thank you for your time.

Sorry, but I don't think that is a good idea. There is only so much I can do to help you over the Internet. You need to talk with a real-life Pastor or Christian counselor. Also, my calling is the Shroud and it would take up too much of my time helping you.

So this was your last comment under this post. But feel free to comment on other Shroud-related matters under my other posts.

Stephen E. Jones

Dillon said...

Hi Stephen, thanks. I am starting to wonder if two opposing religions existing in one house could be the problem: Hinduism and Christianity. My mother also has no problem with participating in Muslim rituals as well. I always thought that those deities were non-existent but I think that my theory proved to be untrue. I'll take your advice and keep searching. Do you know Hebrew grammar? I'll probably pass by again.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Dillon

>Hi Stephen, thanks. I am starting to wonder if two opposing religions existing in one house could be the problem: Hinduism and Christianity. My mother also has no problem with participating in Muslim rituals as well. I always thought that those deities were non-existent but I think that my theory proved to be untrue.

The Bible says that behind pagan religions are very real DEMONS:

1Cor 10:20-21. "20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."

So again my advice to you is to move out. There may be a very real demonic presence in that house which is oppressing you.

[...]

That definitely was your and my last comment under this post. Any further comments under it by you won't appear. And any further comments under any of my posts, unless they are about the Shroud, won't appear either.

I must be cruel to be kind. You need real life, face-to-face Bible-believing Christian fellowship and pastoral counselling.

Stephen E. Jones

Bippy123 said...

OrthodoxApologia92 As Stephen said it could be an attack or it could be both an attack and anxiety some of the greatest theologians have gone through it. I am Catholic myself but some of the greatest Protestant theologians suffered from this .

Charles Spurgeon was one such man and so was John Bunyan. I personally think its both and attack from the father is lies and scrupulosity .

https://suite.io/kenneth-burchfiel/21pq2p0

First of all don't be so hard on yourself as it will only contribute to the anxiety . Satan also works through a persons weakness.

Here is another great article on dealing with doubt by gary habermas who is known as the resurrection man. He was 2 weeks away from explaining to his Christian Parents that he was aboit to leave Christianity and convert to Buddhism , but he decided to give it another shot and he ended up doing his phd dissertation on the resurrection which brought him back to Christianity , but not before he endured 10 years of doubt. So don't feel so bad , as Stephen said many have been through it so your not alone , and many have spilled through it.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/dealing_with_doubt/dealing_with_doubt.htm


I'm surprised that the Christ myth stuff has you flustered as it is the weakest argument t against Christ. Even the lunatic fringe Jesus Seminar Group knows the historicity of the historic Christ is just too strong to deny.

Also the historic evidence is totally against the apostles making it all up as you said.
First of all if they wanted to make it all up they never would have written that the women found the tomb first , as this story would have made them the laughing stock of their time.

This is because the testimony of a woman in 1st century Jerusalem was worth less then dirt. If the apostles were lying they definitely would never have said the women found the tomb empty first. They also would have never gone to their death for what they knew was a lie. 11 of the 12 disciples died a horrible Marty's death for their faith in Christ Crucified.

If you need to talk come to the Godandscienceforum and we can chat on the forum or in private message ok? http://discussions.godandscience.org
We also have a great shroud of turin thread there and most of the info there comes from stephen's awesome research on this blog. There are many nice and knowledgable Christians like Stephen there that could also help totally debunk the ridiculous Christ myth.

I take it that you might be from India ? One if my best friends Ashoke converted to Christianity 9 years before he unexpectedly passed away which gave me the consolation that he is with our lord and savior in heaven.

What u should also do is contact a Christian pastor that you trust in your area and have him set u up with a Christian therapist that understands scrupulosity. I have it and that the route I went. As Christ said do not be afraid. You will get through this my friend. Your not the first person to go through this and recovers me you won't be the last.

Christ loves you my friend and he isn't letting go of you ok ;)

God bless you my friend
Bippy123

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

>OrthodoxApologia92 As Stephen said it could be an attack or it could be both an attack and anxiety some of the greatest theologians have gone through it.

Wise advice, Bob. But Dillon may not read your comment, as he may have moved on.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

>I'm surprised that the Christ myth stuff has you flustered as it is the weakest argument t against Christ. Even the lunatic fringe Jesus Seminar Group knows the historicity of the historic Christ is just too strong to deny.

I meant to add that Gary Habermas makes a telling point in his online talks that in the 19th century the leading German radical critics each proposed their own naturalistic explanation of the resurrection of Christ, but then other radical critics each refuted the others' explanations.

So in the end, ALL naturalistic explanation of the resurrection of Christ had been conclusively refuted, leaving only the traditional supernatural explanation of the resurrection of Christ standing!

This is paralleled in Shroud anti- authenticity theories. They each refute the other, and none of them convinces the others.

But that does not bother unscrupulous professional anti-authenticists like Joe Nickell, who make a living out of anti-Christian and Shroud anti-authenticity scepticism.

As I pointed out in a comment the other day, Nickell has no ethical scruples against arguing for BOTH the painting theory:

"In fact, there is no mention of this particular `shroud' for some thirteen centuries; then a respected bishop reportedly uncovered an artist who confessed to having created it. In a letter of 1389 to Pope Clement VII, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis reported on an earlier investigation ... D'Arcis continued, speaking of the earlier bishop who conducted the investigation: Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed" (Nickell, J., 1993, "Looking for a Miracle," pp.25-26. Emphasis original).

AND the bas relief/statue theory:

"As an alternative to the painting hypothesis, some two years before McCrone published his findings, I reported the results of my own successful experiments in creating shroudlike `negative' images. The technique involved wet-molding cloth to a bas-relief (used instead of a fully [28] three-dimensional statue to minimize distortion), allowing it to dry, then rubbing on powdered pigment using a dauber-much as one would make a rubbing from a gravestone. This technique automatically yields 'negative' images (or rather, just like the shroud, quasi-negative images, since the hair and beard are the opposite of what would be expected). It also produces numerous other shroudlike features, including minimal depth of penetration into the threads, encoded `3-D' information, and other similarities, some of which specifically pointed to some form of imprinting technique. "
(Nickell, 1993, pp.27-28).

when they are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

The evidence FOR one is evidence AGAINST the other!

And what is equally amazing is that Nickell's `rationalist' admirers don't even notice the contradiction.

Or if they do they don't care. For such `rationalists' any argument will do, even if it is irrational, as long as it is anti-authenticity!

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

I am posting this after I accidentally hit "Delete" instead of "Publish" on my smartphone.

-----------------------------------

Anonymous

The post made on May 1, 2014 at 9:07 PM about Jesus's hair I will explain. Jesus was a Nazarene, those were holy individuals in the Jewish Custom who would forego shaving or cutting their hair till the promise to God is fulfilled. If you recall the scripture of the men (apostles) on the road to Emmaus did not reconize Jesus until he disappeared at the table when he was dividing the bread in an familiar way. More than likely they did not reconize Jesus's without his long hair and beard.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>The post made on May 1, 2014 at 9:07 PM about Jesus's hair I will explain. Jesus was a Nazarene, those were holy individuals in the Jewish Custom who would forego shaving or cutting their hair till the promise to God is fulfilled.

You are confusing "Nazarene" (an inhabitant of Nazareth):

"Nazarene, an inhabitant of Nazareth. This appellative is applied to Jesus in many passages in the New Testament. This name, made striking in so many ways, and which, if first given in scorn, was adopted and gloried in by the disciples, we are told in (Matthew 2:23) possesses a prophetic significance. Its application to Jesus, in consequence of the providential arrangements by which his Parents were led to take up their abode in Nazareth, was the filling out of the predictions in which the promised Messiah is described as a netser i.e. a shoot, sprout , of Jesse, a humble and despised descendant of the decayed royal family. Once, (Acts 24:5) the term Nazarenes is applied to the followers of Jesus by way of contempt. The name still exists in Arabic as the ordinary designation of Christians." ("Nazarene," in Smith, W., 1901, "Smith's Bible Dictionary").

with "Nazirite" or "Nazarite" (an Israelite who took a vow to not cut his hair, amongst other things):

"Nazarite, more properly Nazirite (one separated), one of either sex who was bound by a vow of a peculiar kind to be set apart from others for the service of God. The obligation was either for life or for a defined time. ... The Nazarite, during-the term of has consecration, was bound to abstain from wine grapes, with every production of the vine and from every kind of intoxicating drink. He was forbidden to cut the hair of his head, or to approach any dead body, even that of his nearest relation. ..." [see Num 6:1-2, 13, 18-21; Jdg 13:5, 7; 16:17].("Nazarite," in "Smith's Bible Dictionary").

Apart from them being two different words, clearly Jesus was not "bound to abstain from wine" because when He was accused of being "A glutton and a drunkard," Jesus admitted that he had "come eating and drinking" (Mt 11:19; Lk 7:34) i.e. He did eat food and drink wine but not in excess.

Jesus therefore was not a Nazirite and so he was not bound by a Nazirite vow not to cut his hair.

>If you recall the scripture of the men (apostles) on the road to Emmaus did not reconize Jesus until he disappeared at the table when he was dividing the bread in an familiar way. More than likely they did not reconize Jesus's without his long hair and beard.

Luke 24:15-16 states why the disciples did not recognise Jesus, "their eyes were KEPT [Gk. ekratounto="continued being held"] from recognizing him":

"15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him."

You no doubt mean well, but you should take great care to get your basic facts right, before you presume to teach others on the Bible. Remember the warning of James 3:1:

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

Stephen E. Jones

Daryl said...

Why would Jesus have violated the 2nd commandment regarding religious images? Wasn't Jesus wrapped like a mummy like Lazarus? Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave? So how is it that blood is present? He was wrapped in more than on cloths. Is it possible that the shroud is not of God seeing that the enemy can "replicate" God's work and deceive the nations? http://bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2011/03/shroud-of-turin-hoax-or-real.html

Stephen E. Jones said...

Daryl

>Why would Jesus have violated the 2nd commandment regarding religious images? Wasn't Jesus wrapped like a mummy like Lazarus? Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave? So how is it that blood is present? He was wrapped in more than on cloths. Is it possible that the shroud is not of God seeing that the enemy can "replicate" God's work and deceive the nations? http://bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2011/03/shroud-of-turin-hoax-or-real.html

Thank you for your comment. I will respond to it in a separate post, when I have finished my current multi-installment post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #3."

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Daryl

>I will respond to it in a separate post, ...

I have posted the first, "Why would Jesus have violated the 2nd commandment regarding religious images?", of a series of posts, responding to your above comment.

Any further comments on this topic should be under the appropriate one of those posts.

Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.