tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post319899738963663343..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourth century Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-24645268699022230332023-03-25T01:38:52.247+08:002023-03-25T01:38:52.247+08:00Helmut Felzmann
>Very interesting. Concerning ...Helmut Felzmann<br /><br />>Very interesting. Concerning the image of Jesus in the Catacomb: Isn't it also possible that the mandylion was walled in the city walls of Edessa as written in other sources <br /><br />See my post <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2016/12/chronology-of-turin-shroud-sixth-century.html#0525" rel="nofollow">07Dec16</a>:<br /><br />"However this story of the Mandylion/Shroud having been hidden in Edessa's wall, completely forgotten, for almost 500 years, contains multiple implausibilities [see "60"]. Likewise Ian Wilson's theory, based on that `Official History' story, that the Mandylion/Shroud was discovered in, or soon after 525, during the rebuilding of Edessa's flood damaged wall, suffers from the same multiple implausibilities and it does not even have the support of the `Official History' that the Mandylion/ Shroud was discovered during the Persian siege of Edessa" in 544.<br /><br />>and the information about what Jesus looked like came to Rome from another source? That would then be a further indication of the authenticity of the shroud. <br /><br />Since the the Mandylion/Shroud was not "walled in the city walls of Edessa," there is no reason why the Shroud-like 4th century fresco in the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter was not based, directly, indirectly, on the Shroud.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />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 (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Tim+2%3A23%3B+Titus+3%3A9&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9</a>), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-92091744871700613562023-03-23T21:35:01.057+08:002023-03-23T21:35:01.057+08:00Very interesting. Concerning the image of Jesus in...Very interesting. Concerning the image of Jesus in the Catacomb: Isn't it also possible that the mandylion was walled in the city walls of Edessa as written in other sources and the information about what Jesus looked like came to Rome from another source? That would then be a further indication of the authenticity of the shroud. <br />Helmut Felzmannhttp://shroud.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-57055100594885690792016-10-06T13:30:53.052+08:002016-10-06T13:30:53.052+08:00Steve
>You do such excellent research! The Shr...Steve<br /><br />>You do such excellent research! The Shroud Chronology is getting more and more interesting. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>Under 315 you wrote, "alone the lines" and I think you meant to write, "along the lines". <br /><br />Thanks. Now fixed.<br /><br />>Thank you for this wealth of information on the Holy Shroud.<br /><br />Thanks for your thanks.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-75395305887783462492016-10-06T08:30:04.736+08:002016-10-06T08:30:04.736+08:00Dear Mr Jones,
You do such excellent research! T...Dear Mr Jones,<br /><br />You do such excellent research! The Shroud Chronology is getting more and more interesting. Under 315 you wrote, "alone the lines" and I think you meant to write, "along the lines". Thank you for this wealth of information on the Holy Shroud.<br /><br />SteveIvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08073646543319151044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-28053889227544693562016-10-06T07:28:05.085+08:002016-10-06T07:28:05.085+08:00Kyle
>Can you elaborate on the details of cruc...Kyle<br /><br />>Can you elaborate on the details of crucifixion that are present on the shroud but are not mentioned in the Bible?<br /><br />Sorry, but I don't have the time to answer readers' questions on the Shroud that they could answer themselves. <br /><br />For example, by Googling "Shroud Stephen Jones crucifixion Bible" without the quotes. <br /><br />As <a href="https://goo.gl/Kf54bX" rel="nofollow">I replied to another reader</a> who wanted me to do his research for him, "A commenter's question could take a minute to ask and a day (or longer) for me to research the answer":<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------<br />>I may have to come back to you for more info, as soon as I know what part of your article to add,<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />>as I now see you have done so much wonderful research, and am confused to know which to use.<br /><br />Sorry about that! :-) But it is only by restricting comments as above, that I have time to do such research. A commenter's question could take a minute to ask and a day (or longer) for me to research the answer.<br /><br />There is a link to an "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/tsotblgx.html" rel="nofollow">Index to this blog's posts</a>" which, although it is only in date order, not topic order, may help.<br />------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />"By way of guidance as to what I mean by `offensive' and `sub-standard,' I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' comments that are pro-authenticist. `Sub-standard' includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a block of text of the commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By `off-topic' I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for the latest post-see above)." [<a href="http://goo.gl/smuIaD" rel="nofollow">05Jan16</a>]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-58215333111119013592016-10-06T00:57:47.785+08:002016-10-06T00:57:47.785+08:00Can you elaborate on the details of crucifixion th...Can you elaborate on the details of crucifixion that are present on the shroud but are not mentioned in the Bible? Kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-56795822135346964892016-10-04T22:27:33.773+08:002016-10-04T22:27:33.773+08:00Anonymous
>You posted the same thing twice.
T...Anonymous<br /><br />>You posted the same thing twice.<br /><br />Thanks. I have now deleted that second draft copy of the above post.<br /><br />Your comment was under that deleted post, so it was deleted too, hence my copying of it.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />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. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com