Saturday, December 26, 2015

The man on the Shroud #8: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is "The man on the Shroud," part #8, of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" This page is a sub-index to topics under the heading, "The man on the Shroud." Each topic will be a page containing items of evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, under that topic heading. Each of those pages will be linked back to this sub-index and it in turn will be linked back to the Main index. See that Main index for more information about this series.

[Right (enlarge): The man on the Shroud[2].]

The order of topics in this "The man on the Shroud," section is from the perspective of what I imagine a person looking at the Shroud would notice first, such as: the man is naked, it is a double image, etc., grading into features of the man's image that are less obvious, such as no paint, pigment or dye accounts for the image, etc.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Yarn #7] [Next: Naked #9]

  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Naked #9
    2. Double image #10
    3. Faint #11
    4. Colour #12
    5. Non-traditional #13
    6. No outline #14
    7. No paint, etc. #15
    8. No style #16
    9. Non-directional #17
    10. Superficial #18
    11. Negative #19
    12. Three-dimensional #20
    13. No decomposition #21
    14. X-rays #22
    15. Real human blood #23
    16. Blood clots intact #24
    17. No image under blood #25

Continued in part #9 of this series.

1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), [return]

Posted: 26 December 2015. Updated: 5 November 2017.


Bob Mullins said...

Stephen... youclaim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture which surely must be the final authoratative evidence. The shoroud is a complete body image, that is, in direct contact with the body... but Scripture indicates this cannot possibly be the case as the body of Jesus was wrapped in TWO seperate pieces of cloth, one described as linen, which was wrapped around the torso & legs, the other a 'cloth' wrapped around the head. according to John 20:7 (NIV) 'as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.'
Some versions decribe the body cloth as 'bandages' or strips... not one continuous peice of cloth as the shroud is.
Having personally seen the shroud in Turin a few years ago i can agree that it is a fascinating artefact. but NOT the shroud of Jesus... They dont even know where the real tomb is.... and NOTHING pertinent to the crucifixion or the Burial has survived. Anyway it is totally irrelevant.... as the Anges said, 'He is not here...He is risen' and that initself is far more important and relevant than any piece of cloth. how is the Shoud in any way relevant to the Gospel.? Focus on Jesus. 'The Author & finisher of our Faith' Keep the main thing.... the main thing.
Blessings! BobM.

Stephen E. Jones said...


Thanks for your comment. I am very busy with my current post, so I will reply to your comment when I have time.

In the meantime, see my post of 11 July 2012: "`according to John chapter 20, Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural) ... If Scripture is correct ... lets throw out the shroud'" in response to a comment of 31 May 2012 under my post, "My critique of `The Pray Codex,' Wikipedia, 1 May 2011," where a reader made the same logical error as you, that if there were two (or more cloths) in the Tomb, one of them cannot be the Shroud.

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 current post can be on any one Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Stephen E. Jones said...


I decided to respond to your comment as a separate post.

See under the "Comments" section of my April 2018 Shroud of Turin News.

The first installment of the post should appear tomorrow, 8th May 2018, under the title, "`you claim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture'"

I will confirm below with a link to it when that first installment it is posted.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

>I will confirm below with a link to it when that first installment ... is posted.

Bob, here is the link to my reply post, "'you claim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture'," to your comment above.

Any comments on this should now be under that post.

Stephen E. Jones