tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post6421435294131886538..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Combined Review of: “The Sign” by Thomas de Wesselow and “Resurrected or Revived?” by Helmut FelzmannStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-24945349943154266192012-07-05T14:14:34.579+08:002012-07-05T14:14:34.579+08:00Patrick
>I forgot to tell you, although I don...Patrick<br /> <br />>I forgot to tell you, although I don't agree with what you say, I do appreciate your blog.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-15033977910473326222012-07-05T14:13:38.296+08:002012-07-05T14:13:38.296+08:00Anonymous
>Here's a link
>
>http://w...Anonymous<br /><br />>Here's a link<br />><br />>http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/assets/docs/qs58p30.pdf<br /><br />Sorry, but I don't accept bare links as a substitute for argument. Although I haven't yet made this an explicit policy, it was my long-standing policy on my now closed Yahoo discussion group. <br /><br />I have in the past deleted comments here as "substandard" when they were basically a bare link and I nearly deleted yours for the same reason. <br /><br />One reason is that I want those who comment to state THEIR argument even if it is a quote.<br /><br />Another is both I and my readers should not all have to go off and look at a third-party site because a commenter is too lazy (or whatever) to state here the point he is actually making.<br /><br />>It's in french, <br /><br />Especially if it's in a foreign language! Do you expect all of US who don't speak French to have to, in addition, use Google translate to help you make YOUR argument?<br /><br />>I can translate the parts where the author writes about the image being very less pale in the past if you wish.<br /><br />Please yourself. It's YOUR argument, not mine.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-----------------------------------<br /><b>Comments</b> are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. 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-63793260031780181682012-07-05T13:46:45.783+08:002012-07-05T13:46:45.783+08:00I forgot to tell you, although I don't agree w...I forgot to tell you, although I don't agree with what you say, I do appreciate your blog.<br /><br />PatrickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-46734341522688585842012-07-05T13:45:10.092+08:002012-07-05T13:45:10.092+08:00Here's a link
http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/ass...Here's a link<br /><br />http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/assets/docs/qs58p30.pdf<br /><br />It's in french, I can translate the parts where the author writes about the image being very less pale in the past if you wish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-91081821442212576282012-07-05T06:13:11.078+08:002012-07-05T06:13:11.078+08:00Anonymous
>>" the Man on the Shroud ha...Anonymous<br /><br />>>" the Man on the Shroud has only a faint beard and moustache. But this is hardly a "significant difference"! Indeed this faint `negative' image is what the PM's artist would have seen, only fainter because photography tends to enhance the Shroud's image. So far from it being a problem, the lightness of the PM's beard and no moustache is actually more evidence that the PM was copied directly from the Shroud!"<br /><br />>No, you get it wrong. The shroud's image was all but faint in medieval times. <br /><br />Please cite the evidence for your assertion. Thanks.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-----------------------------------<br /><b>Comments</b> are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. 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-11007519260797194392012-07-05T00:21:45.103+08:002012-07-05T00:21:45.103+08:00" the Man on the Shroud has only a faint bear..." the Man on the Shroud has only a faint beard and moustache. But this is hardly a "significant difference"! Indeed this faint `negative' image is what the PM's artist would have seen, only fainter because photography tends to enhance the Shroud's image. So far from it being a problem, the lightness of the PM's beard and no moustache is actually more evidence that the PM was copied directly from the Shroud!"<br /><br />No, you get it wrong. The shroud's image was all but faint in medieval times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-61054422263289766132012-05-24T23:11:18.152+08:002012-05-24T23:11:18.152+08:00[continued]
>That was my point in highlighting...[continued]<br /><br />>That was my point in highlighting the parallel with traditional Indian religions which practice idol worship. How those present day practitioners who also live in our modern world manage the internal conflict I do not know. But the world was very different 2000 years ago.<br /><br />It is a <i>false</i> comparison between "traditional Indian religions which practice idol worship" and the inhabitants of the great Jewish, Greek and Roman cities "2000 years ago" and their surrounding civilisations.<br /><br />That world wasn't as different from ours as you think. In our universities students still study the great classical authors of that period for insights into our modern world. And every Sunday in Christian churches around the world the "2000 years ago" writings of the New Testament are expounded and applied to hundreds of millions of modern lives.<br /><br />And again, even an Indian who practices idol worship can tell the difference between a real person, standing before him, <i>speaking</i> to him, and asking him to <i>feel his body</i>, and the faint, monochrome <i>dead</i> image of that person on a linen sheet!<br /><br />Ayla, see above my policy that to avoid me becoming entangled in endless Internet debates, which in my experience usually go nowhere and are therefore a waste of time, I usually only allow each person one comment under each of my post. So you have had your last comment under this post. But if you want to comment further under my other posts about de Wesselow's theory you may. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-30033066287441048702012-05-24T23:08:31.506+08:002012-05-24T23:08:31.506+08:00[continued]
And both Luke's (Lk 24:12) and Jo...[continued]<br /><br />And both Luke's (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2024:12&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Lk 24:12</a>) and John's Gospels records that Jesus' linen burial clothes were left behind in the tomb. Here is John's account:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2020:6-8&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Jn 20:6-8</a>. "6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 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;"<br /><br />If de Wesselow conceals that from his readers then he is deliberately <i>misleading</i> them. <br /><br />>I don't have an agenda, I really just wanted to express that this man is "spreading the word" that the shroud is real, and it is reaching people like me. We can tell the difference between the 2 parts of his book - scientific and theoretical. <br /><br />As I said, "great" that people like yourself who otherwise would not believe the Shroud was authentic, do so after reading de Wesselow's book.<br /><br />But not "great" if they also believe de Wesselow's claim in the second part of his book, that Jesus' resurrection <i>was</i> the Shroud.<br /><br />>I do think it is a possibility though, as de Wesselow suggests, that there is a huge difference in the way the minds of unsophisticated people from those times operated and the way ours do today, we who are so used to seeing visual representations everywhere. <br /><br />The Jewish, Greek and Roman people in those great civilisations of Jesus' day were <i>not</i> "unsophisticated." They just didn't have our <i>technology</i>. <br /><br />And they were <i>more</i> used to "seeing visual representations everywhere" than we are. As I pointed out in my two part critique of de Wesselow's theory, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17:16&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Acts 17:16</a> records that Athens was "full of idols."<br /><br />"Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.<br /><br />And the disciples would not have needed to be sophisticated to tell the difference between a faint, monochrome image on linen, and the real, resurrected Jesus who appears in a locked room, <i>speaks to them</i> and invites one of their number to <i>feel His wounds</i>:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2020:26-30&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Jn 20:26-30</a> "26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, `Peace be with you.' 27 Then he said to Thomas, `Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.' 28 Thomas answered him, `My Lord and my God!' 29 Jesus said to him, `Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'<br /><br />The fact is that de Wesselow is <i>deceiving</i> both himself and his readers. It would be more honest of him to come right out and state what he is <i>really</i> saying, that the accounts of Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament are just a pack of lies, told by a bunch of unsophisticates who removed the burial cloth off their crucified leader's body, noticed his image on it, and then imagined that the image on the burial cloth <i>was</i> him resurrected!<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-15808319583459329972012-05-24T22:55:22.213+08:002012-05-24T22:55:22.213+08:00Ayla
>Good reply, thanks.
You're welcome....Ayla<br /><br />>Good reply, thanks.<br /><br />You're welcome.<br /><br />>I apologise for the putdown, <br /><br />Apology accepted.<br /><br />>but I really can't get my head around the radiation/Xray theory. <br /><br />If a physical body changes state, it emits radiation, which can include xrays. Paul tells us (indirectly) that Jesus' resurrected body changed state, from "perishable" to "imperishable":<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%2015:42,50-53&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">1Cor 15:42,50-53</a>. "42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. ... 50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality."<br /><br />While Paul is talking about the resurrection of Christians, elsewhere he makes it clear that the resurrection body of Christians is going to be the same as that of Jesus:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+3:20-21&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Php 3:20-21</a>. "20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."<br /><br />>"The reason I have become interested in this is that as a result of hearing the interview with de Wesselow, I do now believe that the shroud is that of Jesus.<br /><br />Great!<br /><br />>Why else would such a thing have been kept?<br /><br />Agreed! Why would the disciples <i>leave behind</i> for grave robbers, Jesus' Shroud in the now open tomb? The Shroud through which He had been resurrected!<br /><br />>As to why it might have been taken off the dead body, apparently that is explained in the book as follows: <br />>A very hurried burial was done on the Friday night, as this activity was not permitted on the Sabbath. <br />><br />>There had been no time to do the traditional practices of annointing the body. This was what the women returned to the tomb to do, necessitating the removal of the shroud.<br /><br />De Wesselow is using `cafeteria theology'. Selecting those parts of the Bible he likes and rejecting those he doesn't.<br /><br />All four Gospels (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2028:2-8;%20Mk%2016:2-8;%20Lk%2024:1-11;%20Jn%2020:1-2&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Mt 28:2-8; Mk 16:2-8; Lk 24:1-11; Jn 20:1-2</a>) state that when the women got to the tomb to do the anointing, the stone had been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb, Jesus' body was not there, and in His place there was an angel telling them that Jesus had risen. <br /><br />Here is Mark's account:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mk%2016:2-8&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Mk 16:2-8</a>. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to one another, `Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?' 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back- it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, `Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-26308022100409441012012-05-24T19:13:36.611+08:002012-05-24T19:13:36.611+08:00Good reply, thanks.
I apologise for the putdown, b...Good reply, thanks.<br />I apologise for the putdown, but I really can't get my head around the radiation/Xray theory. <br />The reason I have become interested in this is that as a result of hearing the interview with de Wesselow, I do now believe that the shroud is that of Jesus. Why else would such a thing have been kept?<br />As to why it might have been taken off the dead body, apparently that is explained in the book as follows: <br />A very hurried burial was done on the Friday night, as this activity was not permitted on the Sabbath. There had been no time to do the traditional practices of annointing the body. This was what the women returned to the tomb to do, necessitating the removal of the shroud.<br />I don't have an agenda, I really just wanted to express that this man is "spreading the word" that the shroud is real, and it is reaching people like me. We can tell the difference between the 2 parts of his book - scientific and theoretical. <br />I do think it is a possibility though, as de Wesselow suggests, that there is a huge difference in the way the minds of unsophisticated people from those times operated and the way ours do today, we who are so used to seeing visual representations everywhere. That was my point in highlighting the parallel with traditional Indian religions which practice idol worship. How those present day practitioners who also live in our modern world manage the internal conflict I do not know. But the world was very different 2000 years ago.<br />Ayla.Aylahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878398508389511074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-71921909203599847742012-05-24T16:03:06.982+08:002012-05-24T16:03:06.982+08:00[continued]
>Yes I did read Mark's review ...[continued]<br /><br />>Yes I did read Mark's review and most of the discussion above and I understand there is much challenge to de Wesselow's theory of how the image was produced. <br /><br />Indeed there <i>is</i>. As I pointed out in my abovementioned <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/my-comments-on-telegraph-article-about.html" rel="nofollow">two-part critique</a> of de Wesselow's theory: 1) Why would there even <i>be</i> an image on the Shroud if Jesus was not resurrected? There aren't any other similar images on the thousands of burial shrouds known to archaeology;<br /><br />2) Even if there was an image imprinted on Jesus' shroud, it would be <i>on the inside</i> next to Jesus' body and the disciples, being devout Jews for whom to touch a dead body was "unclean" would have no reason to remove the shroud from Jesus' body to see if there was an image on its inside surface; <br /><br />3) The disciples could not remove the Shroud from Jesus' bloodstained body without breaking the blood clots adhering to both His body and the Shroud, yet the blood clots on the Shroud are unbroken.<br /><br />>But for those of us trained in science the truth is usually the simplest explanation, and I find your explanation extremely way out!<br /><br />Your attempt at a scientific put-down is noted, but it is misplaced. I am "trained in science" also, having a B.Sc. (Biological Sciences) degree and am a part-time Science/Maths teacher.<br /><br />You are also misstating "in science the truth is usually the simplest explanation," i.e. Ockham's Razor. That is only a <i>tie-breaker</i> to be used to decide between two or more theories <i>equally well-supported</i> by the evidence. But it is the scientific evidence that in fact is a major part of the <i>support</i> for the Shroud's authenticity!<br /><br />But your problem is not "science" but your prior philosophical/theological position of "agnostic" which biases you against giving weight to, and accepting the <i>overwhelming</i> evidence for, that Christianity is true and that the Shroud of Turin bears the image of the Founder of Christianity's crucified and <i>resurrected</i> body!<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.<br />-----------------------------------<br /><b>Comments</b> are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-149229807594032342012-05-24T16:01:13.636+08:002012-05-24T16:01:13.636+08:00[continued]
So the only alternative left for de W...[continued]<br /><br />So the only alternative left for de Wesselow was to somehow explain away the resurrection of Jesus, and that the image on the Shroud <i>was</i> Jesus' resurrection was de Wesselow's personal resolution of his conflict. <br /><br />>As the gospels were not written until after the time of the appearances, I can well imagine the image containing God and the resurrected body would be viewed as one and the same. <br /><br />You are confusing the first Christian eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection with the final writing of the Gospels in their current form.<br /><br />But that there were proto-Gospels from the beginning, composed by some of those eye-witnesses is evident in: 1) The Apostle Peter's embedded speech in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:14-41&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Acts 2:14-41</a> delivered only <i>50 days</i> after Jesus' resurrection and proclaiming it (referring to Jesus empty tomb as proof which de Wesselow claims had Jesus' body, not Jesus' image on the Shroud); and <br /><br />2) the Apostle Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth (AD 53-55), in which he refers to him having told them previously, and in which he uses the technical scribal language of receiving a written tradition ("delivered ... received"), and which contains within it (a Greek document) an old Aramaic name for the Apostle Peter "Cephas," indicating it originated in the earliest Jerusalem church probably within a decade of Jesus' resurrection in AD 30-33:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:1-9&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">1 Corinthian 15:1-9</a> "15 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."<br /><br />Note that that same earliest written Christian record also details the names and numbers of the earliest Christians who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Two of them, James and Paul himself were <i>opposed</i> to Christianity; indeed Paul "persecuted the church of God." <br /><br />That they are all <i>really</i> referring to Jesus image on the Shroud when they claimed, "that Christ died .... he was buried, that he was raised on the third day ... and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive ..." is simply <i>absurd</i>! <br /><br />It is on a par with the absurd claim by an scholar of yesteryear who claimed that Christianity was based on the the worship of a "sacred mushroom"!<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-18379486543644174562012-05-24T15:48:13.297+08:002012-05-24T15:48:13.297+08:00Ayla
Thanks for your comment. After I clicked th...Ayla <br /><br />Thanks for your comment. After I clicked the Moderate link on my email notification, I could not find it on my Blogger Awaiting Moderation page. Then I checked my Spam Blogger page and there were both of your presumably identical messages. So after marking them both Not Spam, I deleted the first copy and published this second copy. I have no idea why Blogger put your comments in Spam. It wasn't my doing since as far as I know these are the only two comments I have had from you. <br /><br />>I recently heard an interview with Thomas de Wesselow on the radio here in New Zealand (search www.radionz.co.nz to listen) and I found him very impressive. <br /><br />I have never heard de Wesselow speak (I have ordered his book) but I have no doubt that to those who know little about the Shroud and/or Christianity, he could appear to be "very impressive." <br /><br />But presumably he was not "very impressive" enough even for you, as you don't say that you now accept that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?<br /><br />>As an agnostic, I would have thought someone who spent 7 years scientific study to come up with the conclusion that the shroud was from Jerusalem in the 1st century and therefore probably that of Jesus, would please Christians.<br /><br />Most Christians in my experience don't know or care about the Shroud. Therefore they would have taken little or no notice of de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic, but Jesus was not bodily resurrected, the image on the Shroud <i>being</i> Jesus' `resurrection'.<br /><br />Speaking for those Christians like me who are persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud is authentic, I would expect that like me they are: 1) pleased that an agnostic art historian has, on art history grounds alone, come to the conclusion that the Shroud cannot be a medieval or earlier forgery and therefore it must be authentic; but (2) bemused by de Wesselow's absurd claim that the earliest Christians mistook the appearances of the resurrected Jesus recorded in the Gospels and Acts for Jesus' image on the Shroud. <br /><br />See my two-part critique of de Wesselow's theory beginning with "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/my-comments-on-telegraph-article-about.html" rel="nofollow">My comments on a <i>Telegraph</i> article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #1</a>". <br /><br />>The personal theory regarding the resurrection which he follows this study up with is interesting. I can relate to it as I know someone even in this millenium who, as a result of belonging to a traditional Indian religion, does believe that an image contains God.<br /><br />You contradict yourself. You claim to be an "agnostic", in which case you should believe that we can have no knowledge of God. Yet you are quoting approvingly against me "someone" who believes "that an image contains God". <br /><br />I am well-used to this tactic employed against me by atheists/agnostics in the ~11 years (1994-2005) that I debated Creation/Evolution/Design on the Internet. They would often quote another religions' claim as evidence against Christianity. My standard answer to them was (and to you is): "Why should I accept as true an argument from you that <i>you</i> don't even accept as true?"<br /><br />Your (and de Wesselow's) problem is that as agnostics, who believe that we cannot even know that God exists, you cannot accept that Jesus really was bodily resurrected by God from the dead, and that the image on the Shroud is tangible evidence of that, without you having to abandon your agnostic position and becoming Christians. So you must find some alternative explanation for the image on the Shroud. <br /><br />Most atheist/agnostic simply dismiss the Shroud as not authentic (as presumably you do) but to de Wesselow's credit, as an art historian,he could not do that. <br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-2463263710613547442012-05-24T09:47:11.380+08:002012-05-24T09:47:11.380+08:00Hi Stephen,
I recently heard an interview with Th...Hi Stephen, <br />I recently heard an interview with Thomas de Wesselow on the radio here in New Zealand (search www.radionz.co.nz to listen) and I found him very impressive. As an agnostic, I would have thought someone who spent 7 years scientific study to come up with the conclusion that the shroud was from Jerusalem in the 1st century and therefore probably that of Jesus, would please Christians. The personal theory regarding the resurrection which he follows this study up with is interesting. I can relate to it as I know someone even in this millenium who, as a result of belonging to a traditional Indian religion, does believe that an image contains God.<br />As the gospels were not written until after the time of the appearances, I can well imagine the image containing God and the resurrected body would be viewed as one and the same. Yes I did read Mark's review and most of the discussion above and I understand there is much challenge to de Wesselow's theory of how the image was produced. But for those of us trained in science the truth is usually the simplest explanation, and I find your explanation extremely way out!<br />Ayla.Aylahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878398508389511074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-46017168300805070432012-05-08T23:54:57.897+08:002012-05-08T23:54:57.897+08:00Flagrum3
>Actually Steve I think the Deuce is ...Flagrum3<br /><br />>Actually Steve I think the Deuce is right; The Raes sample and the c14 samples were all taken from the 'Green' area. <br /><br />Agreed that the the Raes sample and the c14 samples were all taken from the 'Green' area<br /><br />But when Riggi cut part of the green area (as shown on the blue quad mosaic photo) from the Shroud, he kept back a "significant-size portion ... under Cardinal Ballestrero’s control as ‘reserve’" which also included "three fragments that he had trimmed away":<br /><br />"Ten years after the STURP examination, Riggi again became a key player in Shroud matters when on April 21, 1988 the Shroud was secretly taken out of its storage container for samples to be cut from it for carbon dating purposes. Besides Riggi’s arranging the only videotaping of the event – at his own personal expense – it was he who throughout much of that day was in direct charge of everything that required some direct handling of the Shroud. Closely watched by the representatives of the three appointed carbon dating laboratories, he personally cut from one corner the agreed 7 x 1 cm sliver, then divided this into the portions already agreed as sufficient for each laboratory’s needs. This left over one significant-size portion kept back under Cardinal Ballestrero’s control as ‘reserve’, and also three fragments that he had trimmed away as unsuitable for, and superfluous to, the needs of the C14 testing." ("<a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n67part9.pdf" rel="nofollow">Professor Giovanni Riggi di Numana 1935-2008</a>," <i>BSTS Newsletter</i> No. 67).<br /><br />>The drawing of the sectioned cut-out areas on Dan's page is not accurate. <br /><br />It is accurate. Check it out also on Benford & Marino's "<a href="http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf" rel="nofollow">Discrepancies</a>" paper.<br /><br />>The c14samples were taken from the area immediately beside the Raes cut-out. There should be no piece or border in between as shown in the drawing. <br /><br />There is a border piece, kept as part of the a "reserve" by Riggi, between the Raes cut out and the Holland cloth gap, and the C14 sample. <br /><br />>This can be seen clearly if one views the actual video taken that day and from the cutout drawings found in the Oxley paper.<br /><br />Oxley's paper, "<a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf" rel="nofollow">Evidence is not proof: A Response to Timothy Jull</a>" shows Riggi's sketches with the areas kept by him as "reserve" shaded dark. The top dark area in his sketch is the side area between the Holland cloth and Raes sample gaps and the C14 sample.<br /><br />>The strip was devided into 6 pieces, one large piece kept by the diocese and then 5 pieces were individually cut as one was in a triagle shape. <br /><br />Yes: "one large piece kept by the diocese" as well as "three fragments that he had trimmed away".<br /><br />>But the whole sample was adjacent to the Rae's sample taken and completely in what we view as the 'Green' area.<br /><br />Agreed if by "whole sample" you mean the total of what Riggi cut from the Shroud. It was "adjacent to the Rae's sample taken" as well as the Holland cloth missing area of the Shroud.<br /><br />But disagreed if by "whole sample" you mean the C14 sample, which was cut from the "whole sample" and then subdivided into 4 sub-samples: Arizona #1, Zurich, Oxford and Arizona #2, as well as the "reserve" sample pieces kept back by Riggi. <br /><br />In fact Riggi cut the Arizona #2 part from his "reserve" when he found that Arizona's #1 C14 sub-sample was smaller than the other two lab's sub-samples. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-11885146926225307092012-05-08T21:51:04.623+08:002012-05-08T21:51:04.623+08:00Actually Steve I think the Deuce is right; The Rae...Actually Steve I think the Deuce is right; The Raes sample and the c14 samples were all taken from the 'Green' area. The drawing of the sectioned cut-out areas on Dan's page is not accurate. The c14samples were taken from the area immediately beside the Raes cut-out. There should be no piece or border in between as shown in the drawing. This can be seen clearly if one views the actual video taken that day and from the cutout drawings found in the Oxley paper.The strip was devided into 6 pieces, one large piece kept by the diocese and then 5 pieces were individually cut as one was in a triagle shape. But the whole sample was adjacent to the Rae's sample taken and completely in what we view as the 'Green' area.<br /><br />_3Flagrum3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-35779300528971719912012-05-08T06:40:54.570+08:002012-05-08T06:40:54.570+08:00The Deuce
>Just to make sure I get it now, the...The Deuce<br /><br />>Just to make sure I get it now, the big square is the missing lower left corner of the Shroud. <br /><br />Yes, looking at the "<a href="http://www.shroud.com/group/bluemosaic.htm" rel="nofollow">blue quad mosaic</a>" photo, the large four-sided green area on the left is the Holland cloth backing where the Shroud linen is missing.<br /><br />>The Raes piece and all of the C-14 samples were taken from the greenish area surrounding the missing corner.<br /><br />No. As Dan Porter's caption under his top right hand diagram on his page "<a href="http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/raescorner.htm" rel="nofollow">The Raes Corner was an early indicator that something was wrong with the carbon 14 dating</a>," states, "Raes Corner is small white area. The large white<br />area is a missing section of the Shroud."<br /><br />On the blue quad mosaic photo, the C14 sample was taken from the green-red area to the right of the Holland cloth area and from an imaginary line between half and a quarter down it. Compare Dan Porter's diagram and the blue quad mosaic photo and you will get it.<br /><br />In fact, all the photos are in Benford & Marino's online 2008 Ohio Shroud Conference paper, "<a href="http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf" rel="nofollow">Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud</a>" so have a good long look at that.<br /><br />>*Before* the C-14 tests were done, Raes noticed that this area contained cotton threads, though he didn't realize that they were stitched into the Shroud, or that they were only in that area of the Shroud.<br /><br />Yes. From the traces of cotton Raes found in 1973 he assumed that the whole Shroud must have been woven on a loom which had also been used to weave cotton. <br /><br />>Also, *before* the C-14 tests were done, the Blue Quad Mosaic photos showed that area was chemically different from the rest of the Shroud.<br /><br />Yes, although no one took much notice of that in 1978 because they were not to know that in 1988 a C14 sample was going to be taken from that area. <br /><br />>The researchers who did the C-14 tests ignored those findings, either knowingly or out of culpable negligence (ie, they purposely ignored anyone who might have told them about them).<br /><br />Again, to be fair to the C14 labs, they had no part in the decision to take the sample from that area. It was a decision made entirely by the Church at the last minute.<br /><br />But if the C14 labs had not sidelined STURP, they might have been able to alert the labs of the potential problems of taking the sample from that particular corner. <br /><br />And it wasn't until long after the 1988 C14 dating of AD 1260-1390 that Benford and Marino in 2008 proposed their invisible reweave theory using the blue quad mosaic photo as evidence for it. <br /><br />>*After* the tests were done, Raes and Rogers both *independently* observed that the cotton threads were spliced into the the linen threads. <br /><br />Yes for Rogers but no for Raes who observed the cotton in his sample in ~1973. <br /><br />>Rogers also discovered various dyes in the cotton threads. <br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />>It was also confirmed after the C-14 tests that the rest of the Shroud does *not* contain cotton or dyes, which explains why only this area has a greenish tint in the Blue Quad Mosaic photos.<br /><br />Actually, looking at Benford & Marino's full blue quad mosaic photo in their Discrepencies paper, the greenish tinge is elsewhere, where it is unlikely that it was repaired with cotton in all those areas. So the green might be the absence of linen density, rather than the presence of cotton. <br /><br />I.e. cotton would cause the lower linen density, but so could other things, e.g. the linen being thinner in some areas and the Holland cloth showing through it. This is supported by the Holland cloth, which is very dense linen, showing as being very green on the blue quad mosaic photo. <br /><br />>Do I have all that right? <br /><br />Yes and no. See above.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-7549118707643635202012-05-08T00:33:04.915+08:002012-05-08T00:33:04.915+08:00Thanks Steve, I think that clears it up. Just to m...Thanks Steve, I think that clears it up. Just to make sure I get it now, the big square is the missing lower left corner of the Shroud. The Raes piece and all of the C-14 samples were taken from the greenish area surrounding the missing corner.<br /><br />*Before* the C-14 tests were done, Raes noticed that this area contained cotton threads, though he didn't realize that they were stitched into the Shroud, or that they were only in that area of the Shroud.<br /><br />Also, *before* the C-14 tests were done, the Blue Quad Mosaic photos showed that area was chemically different from the rest of the Shroud.<br /><br />The researchers who did the C-14 tests ignored those findings, either knowingly or out of culpable negligence (ie, they purposely ignored anyone who might have told them about them).<br /><br />*After* the tests were done, Raes and Rogers both *independently* observed that the cotton threads were spliced into the the linen threads. Rogers also discovered various dyes in the cotton threads. It was also confirmed after the C-14 tests that the rest of the Shroud does *not* contain cotton or dyes, which explains why only this area has a greenish tint in the Blue Quad Mosaic photos.<br /><br />Do I have all that right?The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-22997202046955654272012-05-06T02:03:55.288+08:002012-05-06T02:03:55.288+08:00Flagrum3
>... One of the papers in which I go...Flagrum3 <br /><br />>... One of the papers in which I got the information about the sample weights is ... <a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf" rel="nofollow">Evidence is not proof: A Response to Timothy Hull</a>. by Mark Oxley. ...<br /><br />Thanks. I had read that paper, so that is probably where I read about the Shroud samples weight mismatches.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-59363714342873592782012-05-06T01:54:12.301+08:002012-05-06T01:54:12.301+08:00The Deuce
>So in the picture here (http://www....The Deuce<br /><br />>So in the picture here (<a href="http://www.shroud.com/group/bluemosaic.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.shroud.com/group/bluemosaic.htm</a>), that blue-green area in the lower left is the corner that the C-14 samples were all taken from, right? <br /><br />Not exactly. The blue-green left-hand corner, truncated triangular shape is the Holland cloth backing where there is no Shroud at all.<br /><br />The Raes sample that had already been taken in 1973 is the small bright blue-white triangular shape point upwards. The C14 sample was taken from the greenish area to the right of the Raes sample.<br /><br />See Dan Porter's <a href="http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/raescorner.htm" rel="nofollow">Raes corner</a> page. <br /><br />It can be seen that the C14 sample is a different colour (green-red) of the red-yellow colour of the Shroud. <br /><br />The green-red colour corresponds *exactly* with what it would be if the C14 sample was comprised of both linen and another material, e.g. starched cotton, which is what Oxford found.<br /><br />>And that picture was taken before the C-14 tests, right?!<br /><br />Yes, in 1978 as part of STURP's 5-day examination of the Shroud.<br /><br />>That corner isn't just different from the rest of the Shroud. The difference is dramatic, with a very clear rectangular shape with straight edges to it! <br /><br />That's the Holland cloth backing (see above) where there is no linen, to make a corner that can be held, without further damaging the Shroud itself, which had been damaged over the centuries by it being held by that corner.<br /> <br />>I had no idea the unrepresentative nature of the Raels corner was so blindingly obvious before you showed me that!<br /><br />Ignoring the actual corner which is Holland cloth, the Raes corner of the Shroud itself was the *worst* possible site to take a representative sample of the Shroud from. <br /><br />But to be fair to the C14 labs, the Pope (who is the Owner of the Shroud) apparently overrode everyone at the last minute, to make Turin give the labs a single sample (subdivided into three) only from that site, where it already was damaged, to minimise any further damage to the Shroud. Obtaining the best C14 date was apparently a lesser priority for the Vatican! <br /><br />>Were the researchers simply unaware of this picture when they ran the C-14 tests? <br /><br />As I previously commented, the C14 labs denied STURP any involvement in the C14 dating, so they probably would not have known about that photo. Indeed STURP may not have been aware of its significance until after the 1988 C14 dating. Marino and Benford may have been the first to realise its significance as supporting their invisible reweaving theory.<br /><br />>Or were they aware of it and they just pretended it didn't exist?! <br /><br />The C14 labs staff were all physicists with little knowledge of the Shroud, and biased to believe it was merely a 14th century fake. They were going to pretreat the linen to remove any carbon contamination from it, so they presumably assumed that it wouldn't matter that the sample they were given came from the most contaminated part of the Shroud.<br /><br />>Even apart from the invisible reweave theory, the photo makes it obvious that there's something wrong with that corner. And the crisp straight edges should've been an indication that it was due to some sort of human tampering!<br /> <br />See above that you presumably are confusing the Holland cloth backing corner, where there is no linen, with the Shroud itself. Check out Dan's Raes corner page and also a full-length photo of the Shroud (e.g. <a href="http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml" rel="nofollow">ShroudScope</a>'s) to orient yourself where the C14 sample came from.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-45714292170547950852012-05-05T23:26:33.039+08:002012-05-05T23:26:33.039+08:00Hi Steve, I know you have a policy here about answ...Hi Steve, I know you have a policy here about answering to many posts but; One of the papers in which I got the information about the sample weights is on the shroud.com site, but you must look under; Scientific Papers and Articles...One paper that mentions the sample cutting, sizes, weights etc; quite well, is called; Evidence is not proof: A Response to Timothy Hull. by Mark Oxley.There are several other excellent papers you will find there on the topic, some recent ones too.<br /><br />Thanks for the great blog Steve ;-)<br /><br />_3Flagrum3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-12384267261388970142012-05-05T22:12:38.282+08:002012-05-05T22:12:38.282+08:00Flagrum3
>... in one of his papers Van Haelst ...Flagrum3<br /><br />>... in one of his papers Van Haelst shows how when the labs actually cut thier samples down even furthur, the samples did not adhere to the minimum weight required for proper AMS testing...by several milligrams! <br /><br />As I said, I have seen that somewhere, but I can't remember where. It might be in one of the old BSTS Newsletters I have scanned and sent to Barrie Schwortz for converting to PDF and posting to the BSTS part of Shroud.com.<br /><br />>This little known fact 'alone' is enough to disqualify the C14 tests done and I don't think there can be any dispute by anyone on that...as it is clear-cut.<br /><br />The problem is that there was some skullduggery by Turin's Giovanni Riggi who cut the sample from the Shroud, and subdivided the sample in three parts for each lab, and weighed each sub-sample. But it later transpired that he kept back some parts of the Shroud for himself, as revealed in Garza- Valdes' "DNA of God" (1999). <br /><br />There is also a problem in that one of more of the three labs botched their measurements and weighing as well.<br /><br />>"The science community has no choice but to accept" well I don't see them accepting R.Rogers paper of 2005!...funny how that works lol.<br /><br />I meant the wider "science community" who read the 1988 C14 _Nature_ paper. I had to delete because of space, "A scientist outside his field is just another layman." What I meant was that the 1260-1390 C14 date would be accepted by the wider science community because few scientists are not C14 specialists and even fewer know anything to the contrary about the Shroud.<br /><br />>Although they will argue the Nature report was peer-reviewed, I agree, I think it highly unlikely it was and several papers written, which point out some very basic scientific errors in the report I think proves it.<br /><br />Even on its published data in _Nature_ the C14 dating of the Shroud was a shambles. Three C14 specialist labs, all dating the same tiny 8cm x 1.2cm piece of linen, subdivided into three approximately equal parts, using the same AMS method, dated the Shroud from a minimum of 615 years old to a maximum of 780 years old: a range of 165 years, or a variance of 26.8%!<br /><br />And that is only their *best* results. Clearly something *major* was wrong. Like the labs were unwittingly dating a combination of 1st century linen plus 16th century cotton that had been invisibly rewoven into the Shroud in the area from where the C14 sample was taken. <br /><br />>I look forward to your C14 fiasco blog :-)<br /><br />Don't hold your breath. I'll get there in the end, but at my snail's pace it might not be for a year or so!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-51457074603995308712012-05-05T21:55:46.814+08:002012-05-05T21:55:46.814+08:00So in the picture here (http://www.shroud.com/grou...So in the picture here (http://www.shroud.com/group/bluemosaic.htm), that blue-green area in the lower left is the corner that the C-14 samples were all taken from, right? And that picture was taken <i>before</i> the C-14 tests, right?!<br /><br />That corner isn't just different from the rest of the Shroud. The difference is dramatic, with a very clear rectangular shape with straight edges to it! I had no idea the unrepresentative nature of the Raels corner was so blindingly obvious before you showed me that!<br /><br />Were the researchers simply unaware of this picture when they ran the C-14 tests? Or were they aware of it and they just pretended it didn't exist?! Even apart from the invisible reweave theory, the photo makes it obvious that there's something wrong with that corner. And the crisp straight edges should've been an indication that it was due to some sort of human tampering!The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-15889499048001432832012-05-04T21:48:12.532+08:002012-05-04T21:48:12.532+08:00Steve I wasn't talking about the statistical a...Steve I wasn't talking about the statistical analysis, that is common knowledge, but in one of his papers Van Haelst shows how when the labs actually cut thier samples down even furthur, the samples did not adhere to the minimum weight required for proper AMS testing...by several milligrams! This little known fact 'alone' is enough to disqualify the C14 tests done and I don't think there can be any dispute by anyone on that...as it is clear-cut. <br /><br />"The science community has no choice but to accept" well I don't see them accepting R.Rogers paper of 2005!...funny how that works lol.<br /> Although they will argue the Nature report was peer-reviewed, I agree, I think it highly unlikely it was and several papers written, which point out some very basic scientific errors in the report I think proves it.<br /><br />I look forward to your C14 fiasco blog :-)<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />_3Flagrum3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-78963815033804104582012-05-04T20:57:04.327+08:002012-05-04T20:57:04.327+08:00Flagrum3
>... you could probably right a whole...Flagrum3<br /><br />>... you could probably right a whole blog on the C14 fiasco. <br /><br />I have already replied that I would when I finish my current series: "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud <i>has</i> to be wrong!"<br /><br />>.... when one does read more into it, one wonders how people so easily excepted the results, but especially the scientific community?..<br /><br />The "scientific community" has no choice but to accept what it written in science journals.<br /><br />>It was a shameful example of science community/ naturalists bias as you say really.<br /><br />Actually it is not "shameful" from their Naturalistic perspective. Like the JWs they really believe <i>they</i> are right and <i>we</i> Christians are poor deluded fools.<br /><br />I meant to add in my comment comparing the JWs and Naturalists being `captives to a concept' that we should <i>pity</i> them (as I do). <br /><br />>... within Remi's investigation into the c14 tests he mentions a very important fact; that the actual samples the labs tested were actually 'under-weight' and did not meet the minimum weight required for 'proper' testing!!. <br /><br />Yes, I have read that somewhere. Probably in the BSTS Newsletters I have scanned and Barrie Schwortz is adding to Shroud.com. See below.<br /><br />>Now if this is true and he seems to have pretty good evidence of it, how is it possible no one has mentioned this extremely important point?! <br /><br />It has been mentioned. For example in BSST Newsletter 29 which I have sent to Barrie and should be online in his next Shroud.com update in June:<br /><br />"Episode 7. Bourcier de Carbon (1990) and Van Haelst (1990) re-worked the <i>Nature</i> statistical analysis, coming to the same conclusions as those evident in the body of the article: that the spread of the C14 measurements was greater than that allowed by the statistical analysis, the mediaeval mean thereby having no significance. Somewhere there was a variable which the statistical analysis had not taken into account, and which it was important to identify. (Van Haelst 1990). Episode 8. The laboratories persistently refused to produce their raw data or to carry out the control experiments requested. All objections were ignored, the carbon dating experts seeming interested only in the image and the identity of the forger. Episode 9. It became learned that the British Museum statistician, (who went un-named) agreed with the conclusions of the statistical analysis as re-worked by Van Haelst (letter of Dr. Tite to Van Haelst of Dec. 4th 1989 ...). Tite specifically wrote 'However the conclusions reached are essentially the same as ours, namely that the variation among the results of the Shroud was greater than that predicted on the quoted errors'." (Van Oosterwyck-Gastuche, M.C., "The Dating of the Shroud to the Middle Ages: Episodes in a game of technological bluff," <i>BSTS Newsletter</i>, 29, September 1991, pp.10-11). <br /><br />...Again one just wonders how no one questioned the quality of Nature paper results or it's 'supposed' peer-review.<br /><br />Not everything in <i>Nature</i> is peer-reviewed. And I doubt the 1989 C14 dating of the Shroud paper was. Who could do it? The world's leading experts in AMS C14 dating were involved in that dating. <br /><br />Besides, peer-review breaks down when the peers all share the same Naturalistic philosophy and what they are reviewing contradicts that philosophy.<br /><br />E.g. in the Origin of Life the evidence is <i>overwhelming</i> that non-living chemicals could never spontaneously form the first living organism. But a peer-reviewed scientific journal would never publish that because it contradicts Naturalism.<br /><br />Similarly, a peer-reviewed scientific journal would never publish a paper that concluded that the image on the Shroud was the result of Jesus' resurrection, even though the evidence <i>overwehelmingly</i> points to that being the truth! <br /><br />The problem is that to a mind taken captive by the concept of Naturalism, it <i>is</i> the Truth!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com