tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post7211824668929855168..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: My critique of Charles Freeman's claim that the Turin Shroud was made for a medieval Easter ritualStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-21370157312497883392014-11-04T06:43:49.036+08:002014-11-04T06:43:49.036+08:00>I haven't read The Fence-Sitter's blog...>I haven't read The Fence-Sitter's blog since 8th May, ...<br /><br />The Lord spoke to me in my quiet time this morning, that I should cease mentioning Dan Porter (aka "The Fence-Sitter"), and his blog, in my blog.<br /><br />He can attack me all he likes, but I will from now on ignore him and his blog, unless he or any of his blog's members make comments on this my blog.<br /><br />So mentioning of Dan Porter, and his blog, and his blog's members in connection with Porter's blog, is henceforth off-topic on my blog.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-18646727686697216772014-11-03T23:29:12.138+08:002014-11-03T23:29:12.138+08:00[continued]
"Yet less than two decades since...[continued]<br /><br />"Yet less than two decades since the Shroud came into the Church's ownership, and less than a decade since radiocarbon dating declared the Shroud a fake, the Church has begun to behave as if it has the genuine article, against all the odds, including a determined attempt to destroy that article (for all THE LATEST FINDINGS SUGGEST THAT THE CHAPEL FIRE WAS INDEED ARSON). So why this sudden volte-face? Does the Church have some very good reason for believing that the radiocarbon dating was wrong and that the Shroud may be genuine after all?" (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," p.12).<br /><br />"The Guarini Chapel, totally guttered by fire, was left a smoldering, blackened ruin, and its entry wall adjoining the rear of the Cathedral was extensively damaged. Although the fire could have been caused by a short circuit, POLICE INVESTIGATORS SAID IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ARSON. A mystery telephone caller had given a warning a half an hour before the blaze that there `might be a fire in the cathedral'. A petrol can was found later in the gardens. Whatever the cause of the fire, Cardinal Saldarini said the rescue of the Shroud was `a miracle'." (Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," p.176)<br /><br />>Thanks and God bless <br /><br />You're welcome. But according to my, "normally ... only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" (see above) this has been your last comment under this post.<br /><br />I am hoping to post tomorrow the next entry #9 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia on "The Servant of the Priest." It mightn't sound like much but it (or rather they, since it is so long I have had to split it into two) will be among the most important posts I have posted, or ever will post. I was going to give more details here but that could generate comments, and I want any comments to be under that next post. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-59731653325231361362014-11-03T23:22:52.029+08:002014-11-03T23:22:52.029+08:00bippy123
>"'And in fact Chevalier'...bippy123<br /><br />>"'And in fact Chevalier's intellectual dishonesty regarding the Shroud, was much worse than that. He forged a crucial heading to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis 1389 Memorandum that wasn't there. ...<br />><br />>Fr Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) was another Roman Catholic leading opponent of the Shroud ...<br /><br />>Wow thanks Stephen for these 2 examples .I knew there were some Catholics that were against the shroud but I never knew the extent that they went to to try to discredit it.<br /><br />From what I have read, before <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bp3qdhv" rel="nofollow">Secondo Pia's 1898 photos of the Shroud</a> which revealed it was a photographic negative, such that even a leading agnostic scientist like <a href="http://tinyurl.com/oq6bvyn" rel="nofollow">Yves Delage</a>, due to the LIES of Chevalier and Thurston, even most Catholics thought the Shroud was a fake. >One more question Stephen. Have you ever done a blog post on the fire in 1997 that almost destroyed the shroud.<br /><br />No I haven't done post on the 1997 fire that nearly destroyed the Shroud. But there is a Shroud.com article by Barrie Schwortz on it: "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/lok9z5p" rel="nofollow">The 1997 Fire</a>" with photos and links to news articles about it.<br /><br />>was there any information gleaned by the local turin authorities as to who was involved in that arson?<br /><br />From memory, arson was suspected, but not proved. However, Wilson in 1998 (see below) says the 1997 fire was arson. Here are quotes about the 1997 fire on my system mentioning "arson" (my emphases below):<br /><br />"Then, in the hour before the midnight of April 11, came the highly publicised fire. Although the Shroud itself was saved, all that had been its environs during the last four hundred years lay a tangled, blackened and water-drenched mess. The once gleaming bullet-proof display case had had to be most energetically smashed in order for the Shroud to be rescued. Where once there had been a three hundred year old wall of glass separating the Royal Chapel from the main body of the Cathedral there was now empty space. The Royal Chapel's dome was now in a far more dangerous state than before the restoration work began. Worst affected of all was the actual lining of the walls of the Royal Chapel. Likewise the adjoining part of the Royal Palace where STURP did its testing work in 1978, much of its splendid baroque ornament and valuable paintings having been ruined beyond repair. And BEHIND THE WHOLE EPISODE LAY THE DARK SPECTRE OF ARSON and sabotage on the part of as yet unidentified enemies of the Shroud, the Church and all that these represent. ... <i>The Cause of the fire</i>. According to the latest available information, as given at a Press Conference on 24 April, the exact cause of the fire is not yet known. However an overloading of the Palace electrical circuits has been ruled out, and ARSON SEEMS STRONGLY SUSPECTED. Some reports have spoken of a cryptic telephoned warning shortly beforehand, also signs that it started seemingly in two separate places at the same time (i) in wooden and aluminium scaffolding just above the roof of the passageway connecting the palace with the Royal Chapel, and (ii) inside the Chapel itself. The finding of a discarded petrol can has also been mentioned. The difficulty lies choosing between the several plausible categories of possible suspects. ... Whoever was responsible, if the fire was arson, then it will certainly not have been the first attempt to destroy the Shroud is this way. There was another in 1972, in which an intruder broke into the Royal Chapel after climbing over the Palace roof." (Wilson, I., 1997, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ojt4lh8" rel="nofollow">Editorial: When Everything Seems Against You...</a>," <i>BSTS Newsletter,</i> No: 45, June/July).<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-86074024313509193052014-11-03T20:58:17.396+08:002014-11-03T20:58:17.396+08:00[continued]
>Hughes slandering posts and then ...[continued]<br /><br />>Hughes slandering posts and then his inability to back them up just smacks of hidden intentions and diversionary tactics.<br /><br />I presume you mean Hugh Farey? I haven't read The Fence-Sitter's blog since 8th May, so I am blissfully ignorant of any "slandering posts" against me on that site, since then.<br /><br />They might consider that if the Shroud is authentic (as the evidence OVERWHELMING indicates), and bears the RESURRECTED image of Jesus, then Satan might be using them to try to silence my witness to that fact.<br /><br />But of course they will probably scoff at that, because, being anti-supernaturalists, they probably wouldn't believe in the reality of Satan, let alone that he could be using THEM. But:<br /><br />"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." (McQuarrie C., 1996, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kx6vmhq" rel="nofollow">The Usual Suspects</a>," Faber & Faber: London, p.89)!<br /><br />>I usually see these tactics by pseudo skeptics not from believers.<br /><br />What makes you think they are CHRISTIAN "believers"? Again, "don't believe what people SAY. Believe only in what they DO."<br /><br />And what they DO is act like anti-Christian "skeptics" as you noted.<br /><br />And oppose me, who seeks to be a consistent Biblical Christian, in my support of the authenticity of the Shroud, and they support ANTI-Christians like Charles Freeman.<br /><br />Jesus warned that there would be MANY on the Day of Judgement who THOUGHT they were Christians but WERE NOT:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/ljt74se" rel="nofollow">Mt 7:21-23</a>. "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven. 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.'" (my emphasis).<br /><br />Who are those "many" if it does not include them? Was Jesus wrong? Or did the Apostle Matthew wrongly report what Jesus said? <br /><br />But they will probably just scoff at that too. In particular, The Fence-Sitter will probably dismiss it yet another "metaphor"!<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />Reader, if you like this my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin </a> blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">Google PageRank</a> number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-18997000227690786932014-11-03T20:43:01.417+08:002014-11-03T20:43:01.417+08:00Bippy123
>Stephen, good points. I really thin...Bippy123<br /> <br />>Stephen, good points. I really think what we have here are 2 possibilities .<br />><br />>1. They have a very liberal theology kind of stance towards the supernatural or<br /><br />From what I have read of Chevalier and Thurston, they were `progressive' Catholics who sought to rid the Catholic Church of its links with `embarrassing' medieval relics.<br /><br />They had their contemporary counterparts in liberal Protestant theologians who wanted to rid the Protestant Church of links to `embarrassing' Biblical miracles.<br /><br />I don't disagree that most RC relics are fakes and it is dishonest that the Vatican refuses to state which relics are authentic, like the Shroud, and which are fakes. <br /><br />But the problem with Chevalier and Thurston is that they sought to `throw out the baby with the bathwater." Indeed, they LIED in order to discredit the Shroud, which shows that concern for truth was not what motivated them.<br /><br />>2. They are afraid of being embarrassed in front of their materialistically leaning colleagues .<br /><br />That may have been true at the beginning of their careers, but so powerful is the indoctrination in Naturalism in Science, and Academia generally (including many theological colleges), that from my experience of over a decade (1984-2005) debating Creation/Evolution, these `Theistic Naturalists' are VERY enthusiastic in denying the supernatural, even Biblical miracles.<br /><br />>It's clear that something emotional is motivating this anti authenticity or anti super naturalism bias of theirs.<br /><br />The emotion probably comes from the inner tension of trying to serve two incompatible masters. <br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/og7tuqm" rel="nofollow">Mt 6:24</a>: "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."<br /><br />in this case supernatural Biblical Christianity and <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ynzpwh" rel="nofollow">Naturalism</a> ("nature is all there is: there is no supernatural").<br /><br />And so Christians like me, who try to be consistent supernaturalists (i.e. accept supernatural causation when the evidence points to it and naturalistic explanations don't work), presumably make them feel guilty deep-down, which is why the Fence-Sitter and his `Christian' ilk are so opposed to me, and tolerant of, if not actually on the side of, Anti-Christians like Charles Freeman.<br /><br />It doesn't bother me, indeed on the contrary it confirms to me that I am on the right track:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/mrm3b8t" rel="nofollow">Jn 15:18-20</a>: 18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: `A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours."<br /><br />And I know that if they don't repent, the Lord with repay them for any evil:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/m2qc57g" rel="nofollow">Rom 12:19</a>. "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, `Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"<br /><br />they have directed at me for simply seeking to serve Jesus as the Man on the Shroud.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-51664874908259036982014-11-03T16:41:15.933+08:002014-11-03T16:41:15.933+08:00"'And in fact Chevalier's intellectua..."'And in fact Chevalier's intellectual dishonesty regarding the Shroud, was much worse than that. He forged a crucial heading to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis 1389 Memorandum that wasn't there. Read Markwardt, J., 2001, "The Conspiracy Against the Shroud," BSTS Newsletter, No. 55, June 2002).<br /><br />Fr Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) was another Roman Catholic leading opponent of the Shroud, although Wikipedia doesn't say much about that:"'<br /><br />Wow thanks Stephen for these 2 examples .I knew there were some Catholics that were against the shroud but I never knew the extent that they went to to try to discredit it.<br /><br />One more question Stephen. Have you ever done a blog post on the fire in 1997 that almost destroyed the shroud.was there any information gleaned by the local turin authorities as to who was involved in that arson?<br /><br />Thanks and God blessbippy123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-15546633554771064262014-11-03T16:26:58.266+08:002014-11-03T16:26:58.266+08:00Stephen, good points. I really think what we have ...Stephen, good points. I really think what we have here are 2 possibilities .<br /><br />1. They have a very liberal theology kind of stance towards the supernatural or <br />2. They are afraid of being embarrassed in front of their materialistically leaning colleagues .<br /><br />It's clear that something emotional is motivating this anti authenticity or anti super naturalism bias of theirs.<br /><br />Hughes slandering posts and then his inability to back them up just smacks of hidden intentions and diversionary tactics.<br /><br />I usually see these tactics by pseudo skeptics not from believers.<br /><br /><br /><br />Bippy123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-81224231153161650002014-10-31T21:41:17.171+08:002014-10-31T21:41:17.171+08:00[continued]
>I am also, but there are also som...[continued]<br /><br />>I am also, but there are also some that desperately want the shroud to be a forgery. I have encountered them not only in evangelical circles but in Catholic circles as will and it seems.that they are motivates by emotions then the evidences .<br /><br />It is understandable that Protestants may be opposed to the authenticity of the Shroud as part of a general opposition to Roman Catholic relics. But what seems surprising is that some Roman Catholics are also opposed to the authenticity of the Shroud, and two in particular were among the most zealous (if not fanatical) opponents of the authenticity of the Shroud.<br /><br />Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923) who "In the controversy on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin ... he worked by tracing back the history of the cloth, which was undoubtedly used as a shroud, but he argued was not produced before the 14th century and was probably no older" but "In 2006 French historian Emmanuel Poulle wrote in a peer-reviewed journal that Ulysse Chevalier showed in this case intellectual dishonesty. According to Poulle, Chevalier deliberately did not correctly mention the Papal bulls of antipope Clement VII issued in 1390. In fact Clement VII never opted for the forgery thesis." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c6pvn8s" rel="nofollow">Ulysse Chevalier</a>," Wikipedia, 2 June 2014). <br /><br />And in fact Chevalier's intellectual dishonesty regarding the Shroud, was much worse than that. He forged a crucial heading to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis 1389 <i>Memorandum</i> that wasn't there. Read Markwardt, J., 2001, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ka36jlb" rel="nofollow">The Conspiracy Against the Shroud</a>," <i>BSTS Newsletter</i>, No. 55, June 2002).<br /><br />Fr Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) was another Roman Catholic leading opponent of the Shroud, although Wikipedia doesn't say much about that:<br /><br />"Fr. Herbert Henry Charles Thurston, S.J. (15 November 1856 – 3 November 1939) was an English priest of the Roman Catholic Church, a member of the Jesuit order, and a prolific scholar on liturgical, literary, historical, and spiritual matters. ... In his day, he was considered something of an expert on spiritualism. ... Thurston wrote more than 150 articles for the <i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i> (1907-1914) [including the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/dfg2da" rel="nofollow">online article on the Shroud of Turin</a>]... He was a close friend of the Modernist theologian, Father George Tyrrell, who was harshly sanctioned by the Church. Many of Thurston's articles show a skeptical attitude ... about holy relics [especially the Shroud of Turin] and his treatment of spiritualism and the paranormal was regarded as `too sympathetic' by some sections of the Catholic community." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ccg9lla" rel="nofollow">Herbert Thurston</a>," Wikipedia, 8 October 2014. My words in square brackets)<br /><br />Read Markwardt BSTS article above for details of Thurston's intellectual dishonesty also in further `improving' on Chevalier's already `improved' d'Arcis <i>Memorandum</i>.<br /><br />>I never knew about the shroud until 2009 and I found out about it from atheists of all people . Oh the irony<br /><br />When I `discovered' the Shroud in 2005 and posted a comment to a news article about it shortly after, on my now closed CreationEvolutionDesign Yahoo group, I found the atheists in the group knew a lot about it. Having only read Stevenson & Habermas' 1981 "Verdict on the Shroud" I didn't know anything about the Shroud's 1988 C14 dating, but I was in the midst of my Bachelor of Science degree, so I answered them using what I knew about C14 dating in general, until I could catch up on my reading about that.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-72410604681475461652014-10-31T21:35:22.146+08:002014-10-31T21:35:22.146+08:00Bippy123
>">As long as you don't t...Bippy123<br /><br />>">As long as you don't think that the Catholic Church's 'dishonesty' is Satanically inspired I can live with that. ""<br /><br />>That is surely one of the most bizarre posts I have seen .<br />Stephen never alluded to anything such as this . What I can't understand is why even allude to this ?<br /><br />In an attempt to get Farey to reflect on his what might be underlying his extreme antipathy to the Shroud's authenticity, and in particular his antipathy towards me, a Shroud pro-authenticist, on Porter's blog, I confronted him with:<br /><br />1. "Not only the stream of defamatory comments from you against me, even touching on my alleged mental state." <br /><br />2. "But also forwarding without my permission my early comments on Porter's blog, about my hacker theory, to Profs Jull and Ramsey, and then posting their replies under the heading (from memory) `Let's hope this is the end of it.'" <br /><br />and<br /><br />3 "Not to mention the outright LIE by you that I linked the Pope with Satan in one of my blog posts."<br /><br />But Farey simply ignored the first two, as though they had never happened, and all he said about the third was the above, which he had already said on Porter's blog.<br /><br />This confirms that Farey has little or no insight into his Shroud anti-authenticity motives.<br /><br />If so, that is even more reason why <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mx4dw8b" rel="nofollow">Farey should not be the Editor of the <i>BSTS Newsletter</i></a>. But it appears that no one in the BSTS cares. Expect a guest article in the BSTN by Joe Nickell, in the interests of `being fair to both sides'!<br /><br />>I'm a Catholic myself Hugh and I see in Stephen someone who is passionately pursuing the truth, and he isn't the only one that is persuaded by the evidence for the shroud's authenticity .<br /><br />Farey's problem is not "evidence". His opposition to the Shroud is clearly non-rational. Indeed, he declines to even offer a rational defence of it.<br /><br />It may be that Farey, like Porter, is a `Christian' who is opposed to the supernatural. I encountered many `Christians' like that in my Creation/Evolution Internet debates. Indeed, they existed even in the first century:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/kt4thg7" rel="nofollow">2Tim 3:5</a>: "having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people."<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-72758024772499857992014-10-31T15:08:43.189+08:002014-10-31T15:08:43.189+08:00"">As long as you don't think tha..."">As long as you don't think that the Catholic Church's 'dishonesty' is Satanically inspired I can live with that. ""<br /><br />That is surely one of the most bizarre posts I have seen .<br />Stephen never alluded to anything such as this . What I can't understand is why even allude to this ?<br /><br />I'm a Catholic myself Hugh and I see in Stephen someone who is passionately pursuing the truth, and he isn't the only one that is persuaded by the evidence for the shroud's authenticity . <br /><br />I am also, but there are also some that desperately want the shroud to be a forgery. I have encountered them not only in evangelical circles but in Catholic circles as will and it seems.that they are motivates by emotions then the evidences .<br /><br />I never knew about the shroud until 2009 and I found out about it from atheists of all people . Oh the irony Bippy123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-32951750716070670722014-10-31T08:51:21.424+08:002014-10-31T08:51:21.424+08:00Hugh Farey
>Thank you for replying, and, inde...Hugh Farey <br /><br />>Thank you for replying, and, indeed, for forgiving. <br /><br />Thanks for your thanks.<br /><br />>You're still wrong about my opinions, but that's OK. <br /><br />You clearly have little or no insight into your motives that are behind your EXTREME anti-authenticist views and actions.<br /><br />But that is your problem, not mine. If the Shroud is authentic, as the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY indicates, then you will need to give account to Jesus (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/nvkerdq" rel="nofollow">Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5</a>) for your antagonism towards His Shroud, and towards me His servant who is only seeking to serve Him in this. <br /><br />>As long as you don't think that the Catholic Church's 'dishonesty' is Satanically inspired I can live with that. <br /><br />That you even THOUGHT that of me, when my post, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/lllv7rq" rel="nofollow">Shroud of Turin News, October 2013</a>" clearly did not say it, is just another symptom of your underlying anti-Shroud authenticity (and anti-Shroud authenticist) problem. <br /><br />But again, that is your problem, not mine.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-87172728817210638082014-10-31T08:13:21.701+08:002014-10-31T08:13:21.701+08:00Thank you for replying, and, indeed, for forgiving...Thank you for replying, and, indeed, for forgiving. You're still wrong about my opinions, but that's OK. As long as you don't think that the Catholic Church's 'dishonesty' is Satanically inspired I can live with that.Hugh Fareyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09889354931447395305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-86058789942951233422014-10-31T00:47:11.460+08:002014-10-31T00:47:11.460+08:00>Microscopic and ultraviolet, etc, examinations...>Microscopic and ultraviolet, etc, examinations of the Shroud by STURP, and others, have failed to find any evidence of an original image on the Shroud, and they would have found evidence of it if it had been there.<br /><br />By "original image" I mean the "some other image" in Farey's "... the image as we see it today [on the Shroud] is the accidental result of the passage of time on some other image ...".<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-2626887997056005932014-10-31T00:30:50.929+08:002014-10-31T00:30:50.929+08:00[continued]
>d) You. "united only in thei...[continued]<br /><br />>d) You. "united only in their antipathy towards the authenticity of the Shroud!" I cannot speak for Freeman, who seems to have drifted away from Catholicism, but I certainly have no antipathy towards the authenticity of the Shroud, nor to those who think it authentic. I look forward to the day when a definitive identification can be made, authentic or otherwise.<br /><br />Again, I don't believe you when you write that: "I ... have no antipathy towards the authenticity of the Shroud." I can only go by what you DO, not what you SAY.<br /><br />And you certainly had an antipathy towards ME who argued for "the authenticity of the Shroud" on Porter's blog.<br /><br />Not only the stream of defamatory comments from you against me, even touching on my alleged mental state. But also forwarding without my permission my early comments on Porter's blog, about my hacker theory, to Profs Jull and Ramsey, and then posting their replies under the heading (from memory) "Let's hope this is the end of it." Not to mention the outright LIE by you that I linked the Pope with Satan in one of my blog posts.<br /><br />These were the ACTIONS of an extreme Shroud anti-authenticist, who felt THREATENED by my arguments and evidence that the Shroud is authentic.<br /><br />However, I can accept that you may be self-deceived and don't understand your own motives in this area.<br /><br />But in the end it is the same thing. Your ACTIONS make you an extreme Shroud anti-authenticist, whatever you SAY.<br /><br />>Best wishes<br />Hugh<br /><br />Nevertheless I have forgiven Porter and you for your non-Christian treatment of me on Porter's blog, which I presume is still happening, although I haven't read Porter's blog or comments under it for over 5 months now. But forgiving is not the same as forgetting. I will leave it to Jesus to repay any evil (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/m9smmjx" rel="nofollow">Romans 12:17-19</a>) directed at me on Porter's blog, because of my seeking to serve Jesus in this way. You and your ilk might want to think about that.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES ... <b>Debates</b> After over a decade (1994-2005) debating creation/ evolution/ design on Internet discussion groups, I concluded that Internet debates were largely a waste of time, so I ceased debating and started blogging. Therefore I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-37617633346936525482014-10-31T00:23:50.274+08:002014-10-31T00:23:50.274+08:00Hugh Farey
>I don't comment on your blog, ...Hugh Farey<br /><br />>I don't comment on your blog, as you know, but recent comments perhaps need some contradiction as they are untrue.<br /><br />>a) Bippy123 "hugh Farey who just want the shroud to be a fake." For the record, I do not want the Shroud to be a fake. I would much rather it was authentic. I just do not find the evidence in favour of authenticity sufficiently convincing. I know you find it overwhelming, and I respect that, but I don't.<br /><br />You forget Hugh, that I was on the receiving end of a stream of defamatory and false comments by you on Dan Porter's blog, which Porter did not lift a finger to moderate, despite my protests, and which caused me to leave Porter's blog.<br /><br />Also you wasted no time in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mx4dw8b" rel="nofollow">writing falsehoods about me and my blog in the December 2013 <i>BSST Newsletter</i></a>.<br /><br />As I have said before, I go by the wise words of one of my university lecturers: <br /><br />"Don't believe what people SAY. Believe only what they DO!"<br /><br />And what you (and Porter) DO is Shroud anti-authenticity. So I DON'T BELIEVE you when you claim, "I do not want the Shroud to be a fake." Although I accept that it is possible you are self-deluded in this, and are not aware of your own motives.<br /><br />>b) Bippy123 again. "people like farey and others totally confuse me.Its like there is a hidden bias already in there apriori before they even look at the evidences." I do not mind if Bippy is confused, but I can assure him, and you, that there is no hidden bias.<br /><br />If you really think you have "no hidden bias" against the Shroud, then I agree with you-it is not "hidden" but PLAIN to see! But if you claim that you have "no bias" against the Shroud at all, then in my opinion you ARE self-deceived in this.<br /><br />>c) You. "Farey with his "an accidental 14th century origin" of the Shroud" Yes, you've had a lot of fun with that. Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words. <br /><br />It was what you wrote in a <i>BSTS Newsletter</i> Editorial. I cannot accept that you didn't mean it, but I can understand that you now regret writing it.<br /><br />>By accidental, I do not, of course, mean that the image arrived wholly by chance. I think it possible that the image as we see it today is the accidental result of the passage of time on some other image, which I wholly agree was not acccidental at all when it was made.<br /><br />Same difference. It is still PREPOSTEROUS that the Shroud's image could have resulted from "the accidental result of the passage of time on some other image."<br /><br />Microscopic and ultraviolet, etc, examinations of the Shroud by STURP, and others, have failed to find any evidence of an original image on the Shroud, and they would have found evidence of it if it had been there.<br /><br />Also you simply ignore all the historical and artistic evidence for the Shroud's existence well before the 14th century and all the way back to the 1st century.<br /><br />You HAVE TO be biased against the Shroud's authenticity to do that.<br /><br />The evidence is so strong for the Shroud's authenticity that even agnostics like Thomas de Wesselow and Ian Wilson, have been forced by that evidence to accept that the Shroud is authentic. <br /><br />And I myself, an evangelical Protestant, who had no reason to believe a `Roman Catholic medieval relic,' as I regarded the Shroud to be, was authentic, was also forced by the evidence to accept that it is. <br /><br />And do you really think that Jesus, who is ruling over all (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/lgx8lj5" rel="nofollow">Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9</a>), would allow millions of Christians down through the ages (including me) to be fooled by such a convincing "accident"?<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-43224886697531368352014-10-30T22:33:21.344+08:002014-10-30T22:33:21.344+08:00Hi Stephen.
I don't comment on your blog, as ...Hi Stephen.<br /><br />I don't comment on your blog, as you know, but recent comments perhaps need some contradiction as they are untrue.<br /><br />a) Bippy123 "hugh Farey who just want the shroud to be a fake." For the record, I do not want the Shroud to be a fake. I would much rather it was authentic. I just do not find the evidence in favour of authenticity sufficiently convincing. I know you find it overwhelming, and I respect that, but I don't.<br /><br />b) Bippy123 again. "people like farey and others totally confuse me.Its like there is a hidden bias already in there apriori before they even look at the evidences." I do not mind if Bippy is confused, but I can assure him, and you, that there is no hidden bias.<br /><br />c) You. "Farey with his "an accidental 14th century origin" of the Shroud" Yes, you've had a lot of fun with that. Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words. By accidental, I do not, of course, mean that the image arrived wholly by chance. I think it possible that the image as we see it today is the accidental result of the passage of time on some other image, which I wholly agree was not acccidental at all when it was made.<br /><br />d) You. "united only in their antipathy towards the authenticity of the Shroud!" I cannot speak for Freeman, who seems to have drifted away from Catholicism, but I certainly have no antipathy towards the authenticity of the Shroud, nor to those who think it authentic. I look forward to the day when a definitive identification can be made, authentic or otherwise.<br /><br />Best wishes<br />Hugh<br /><br />Hugh Fareyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09889354931447395305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-1722303294000954102014-10-30T09:32:37.544+08:002014-10-30T09:32:37.544+08:00[continued]
>as for this
>alanborky
>&...[continued]<br /><br />>as for this<br /><br />>alanborky<br /><br />>"Whether or not any o' this's true what amazes me's how readily an' unquestioningly many members o' both sides o' the argument rush t' embrace an' promote any "intense and sometimes absurd speculation" which claims t'confirm their preciously held beliefs."""<br /><br />I wasn't sure if Borky was trying to set me up. It's an old rhetorical trick, declaring oneself to be in the middle and everyone else on either side is an extremist (which could even include me if that was Borky's intent). <br /><br />That is basically the Fence-Sitter's tactic. He sits on his fence, claiming not to believe the Shroud is, or is not, authentic, so he can criticise all sides as he sees fit.<br /><br />That's why I answered Borky's "members o' both sides o' the argument ..." (has he got a keyboard problem where his "f" key returns an apostrophe?), by pointing out it was a "sweeping generalisation," too general to be useful. It is the EVIDENCE that matters.<br /><br />>It took me 2 years to even consider having an opinion on the shroud, and when I first studied it I made myself only visit anti authenticist shroud sites to make sure I wasn't wasting my time researching the shroud. <br /><br />It took Shroud.com's Barrie Schwortz 17 years:<br /><br />"Mr Schwortz referred to the scientific evidence that is `the basis for my opinion that the shroud cannot be an artwork. STURP's data provided empirical evidence to that effect, although the sceptics of the world continue to deny it'. He continued: `Remember that I am Jewish (not Messianic), and it took nearly 17 years after our direct examination of the cloth before the scientific evidence actually convinced me of the shroud's authenticity. It was the science that did it." (Barrett, D.V., "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/pgp24b7" rel="nofollow">Expert dismisses historian's claim that Turin Shroud was made for medieval ritual</a>," <i>Catholic Herald</i>, 29 October 2014).<br /><br />>So no, not all people on both sides embrace any theory as true.<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />>Im sure it took Stephen jones even longer to come to a conclusion on the shroud, not without much research and contemplation. <br /><br />Actually, after I was midway through reading Stevenson & Habermas' book, "Verdict on the Shroud" (1981), in January 2005, which only took a few days, I provisionally accepted the Shroud was authentic, subject to it passing the tests of further evidence. <br /><br />Which is still my position today. Except that after 9 years of continually exposing myself to all the evidence for and against the Shroud, and it passing all tests with flying colours, it is extremely unlikely that there is any evidence out there that would negate the MOUNTAIN of evidence for the Shroud's authenticity that I now know.<br /><br />Indeed, the WEAKNESS of the LEADING anti-authenticist's (like Freeman) evidence and arguments is itself evidence that the Shroud is authentic. They are these days just a RABBLE of mutually CONTRADICTORY theories (e.g. Freeman's 14th century painter and Farey's 14th century accident), who are united only in their antipathy towards the authenticity of the Shroud!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-29982832041722672912014-10-30T08:59:57.054+08:002014-10-30T08:59:57.054+08:00bippy123
>Great Post again Stephen. My guess ...bippy123 <br /><br />>Great Post again Stephen. My guess is that this medieval easter ritual theory is being acclaimed highly by people like hugh Farey who just want the shroud to be a fake, despite all the evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />Thanks. I presume so. But I haven't read Dan Porter's blog since 8 May, now over 5 months.<br /><br />>I was recently going through some old posts there and I happened to come across an old post by Yannick Clement and he theorizes that because God made himself known in a very subtle way twice to Yannick that the shroud couldn't be authentic because God couldn't have made his presence known in such a powerful and obvious way, and only makes himself known to everyone in the same exact way he did for Yannick.<br /><br />Since the Shroud IS authentic, then Clement must be deluded on that matter (if you are correctly reporting him). Ruling out massive objective evidence for the Shroud's authenticity on the basis of one's own private visions is just self-delusion, or worse.<br /><br />>This is ridiculous because Christ made himself known in a very powerful way when he appeared post resurrection to his disciples and 500 people.<br /><br />That wouldn't preclude Christ making Himself known to people thereafter - indeed the New Testament contains several examples: the Ascension (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ohcvoxe" rel="nofollow">Acts 1:6</a> - unless that was the appearance to the 500 brothers); Stephen (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/khmd62a" rel="nofollow">Acts 7:55-56</a>); Paul (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/qdtaquk" rel="nofollow">Acts 9:4; 1Cor 15:8</a>), Peter (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/m974pnw" rel="nofollow"> Acts 10:9-16</a>), John (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ptzabuv" rel="nofollow">Rev 1:12-17</a>) - up to and including today. But whether He did so in any individual case is another matter.<br /><br />>I can understand why freeman and his ilk would want the shroud to be fake to the point of ignoring other strong evidences for its authenticity but people like farey and others totally confuse me.<br /><br />Is there any difference? Except that Farey with his "an accidental 14th century origin" of the Shroud:<br /><br />"Unlike my predecessors, whom I think are more or less committed to a pro-authenticity point of view, I myself currently incline more towards an accidental 14th century origin for the cloth now preserved in Turin." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/mjnw5u7" rel="nofollow">Editorial - by Hugh Farey</a>," <i>BSTS Newsletter</i> No. 78 - December 2013)<br /><br />is even more an extreme anti-authenticist than Freeman, who at least believes that the Shroud was forged by an unknown 14th century painter. <br /><br />Albeit without paint, pigment, dye or stain, because there is none on the Shroud that comprises its image!<br /><br />>Its like there is a hidden bias already in there apriori before they even look at the evidences.<br /><br />Agreed, they and their anti-authenticist ilk are afflicted with "invincible ignorance":<br /><br />"The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply REFUSES TO BELIEVE THE ARGUMENT, IGNORING ANY EVIDENCE GIVEN. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to MAKE ASSERTIONS WITH NO CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/35v2ndg" rel="nofollow">Invincible ignorance fallacy</a>," Wikipedia, 8 September 2014. My emphasis).<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-43046238563055979922014-10-30T07:16:00.841+08:002014-10-30T07:16:00.841+08:00Great Post again Stephen. My guess is that this me...Great Post again Stephen. My guess is that this medieval easter ritual theory is being acclaimed highly by people like hugh Farey who just want the shroud to be a fake, despite all the evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />I was recently going through some old posts there and I happened to come across an old post by Yannick Clement and he theorizes that because God made himself known in a very subtle way twice to Yannick that the shroud couldn't be authentic because God couldn't have made his presence known in such a powerful and obvious way, and only makes himself known to everyone in the same exact way he did for Yannick.<br /><br />This is ridiculous because Christ made himself known in a very powerful way when he appeared post resurrection to his disciples and 500 people.<br /><br />I can understand why freeman and his ilk would want the shroud to be fake to the point of ignoring other strong evidences for its authenticity but people like farey and others totally confuse me.<br /><br />Its like there is a hidden bias already in there apriori before they even look at the evidences.<br /><br />as for this<br /><br />alanborky<br /><br />"Whether or not any o' this's true what amazes me's how readily an' unquestioningly many members o' both sides o' the argument rush t' embrace an' promote any "intense and sometimes absurd speculation" which claims t'confirm their preciously held beliefs."""<br /><br />It took me 2 years to even consider having an opinion on the shroud, and when I first studied it I made myself only visit anti authenticist shroud sites to make sure I wasn't wasting my time researching the shroud. <br /><br />So no, not all people on both sides embrace any theory as true.<br />Im sure it took Stephen jones even longer to come to a conclusion on the shroud, not without much research and contemplation.<br /><br /><br />bippy123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-78418585920924938892014-10-29T09:03:45.148+08:002014-10-29T09:03:45.148+08:00Nabber
>Stephen, Excellent post.
Thanks.
&g...Nabber<br /><br />>Stephen, Excellent post. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>There is certainly more that could be pointed out about Freeman's deceptiveness, <br /><br />Agreed. I did so in my unfinished series, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/bm9blu9" rel="nofollow">My critique of Charles Freeman's `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey</a>.'" <br /><br />>and I hope you will do so at some point. <br /><br />Sorry, but I have bigger fish to fry than Freeman. <br /><br />My focus will be on: 1) finishing my series, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/mmwukyr" rel="nofollow">My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker</a>";<br /><br />2) continuing with my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," by completing entry #9 "The Servant of the Priest," which is unexpectedly <i>very important</i>) (e.g the Shroud (<i>sindon</i>) was not in the empty tomb but the risen Jesus took it with Him and gave it to "the servant of the priest," as recorded in the early 2nd century "Gospel of the Hebrews, who was either: a) Malchus (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/p7zlgmd" rel="nofollow">Jn 18:10</a>); b) Peter (confused by a copyist error); or <i>more likely</i> c) John (who tradition records was a priest and is supported by the New Testament but too complex to give in this comment), and is supported by John knowing the name of the High Priest's servant Malchus (see above), and being known to the High Priest, the High Priest's servant girl and having easy and authoritative entry into the High Priest's house (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/lz42edz" rel="nofollow">Jn 18:15-16</a>); and therefore John may have even been a servant in the High Priest's household, and his code name (in that early era of persecution was "the servant of the priest).<br /><br />And 3) Continuing with my series, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kwwjf6u" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin</a>".<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />Reader, if you like this my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin </a> blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">Google PageRank</a> number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-41417240493389014172014-10-29T07:21:58.491+08:002014-10-29T07:21:58.491+08:00alanborky
>I suspect what this author may'...alanborky<br /><br />>I suspect what this author may've done's confuse for scourge marks blood clots etc a very careful attempt on the engraver's part t'capture just how intensely the image itself an' the weave an' the knotting etc of the fabric're intertwined.<br /><br />Certainly Freeman has failed to consider that flagellation marks on the 437 x 111 cms linen Shroud cannot possibly be represented accurately on a 64 x 46 cms engraving.<br /><br />>From the point o' view o' many artists one o' the most fascinating things about the shroud's how much it's nearly entirely bare *canvas* makin' its hypothetical creator arguably a direct ancestor o' many modern especi'ly abstract artists.<br /><br />I doubt that the Shroud has had any influence on modern abstract artists. Art historian Thomas de Wesselow says in his book, "The Sign" (2012) that the modern art world simply ignores the Shroud, as though it doesn't exist. <br /><br />But as John Walsh pointed out, the Shroud is either authentic, or it is the greatest work of art of all time:<br /><br />" Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground." (Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," pp.xi-xii)<br /><br />>Whether or not any o' this's true what amazes me's how readily an' unquestioningly many members o' both sides o' the argument rush t' embrace an' promote any "intense and sometimes absurd speculation" which claims t'confirm their preciously held beliefs.<br /><br />This is too sweeping a generalisation. <br /><br />But it certainly is true of Freeman in regards to the Shroud. In Freeman's atheist/agnostic worldview the Shroud simply MUST be a fake and so ANY argument, no matter how weak, against the Shroud's authenticity will suffice! <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES <b>Comments</b> 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 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-65588955944242328722014-10-29T04:03:06.392+08:002014-10-29T04:03:06.392+08:00Stephen, Excellent post. There is certainly more ...Stephen, Excellent post. There is certainly more that could be pointed out about Freeman's deceptiveness, and I hope you will do so at some point.Nabbernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-90976189870408460922014-10-29T03:19:00.267+08:002014-10-29T03:19:00.267+08:00I suspect what this author may've done's c...I suspect what this author may've done's confuse for scourge marks blood clots etc a very careful attempt on the engraver's part t'capture just how intensely the image itself an' the weave an' the knotting etc of the fabric're intertwined.<br /><br />From the point o' view o' many artists one o' the most fascinating things about the shroud's how much it's nearly entirely bare *canvas* makin' its hypothetical creator arguably a direct ancestor o' many modern especi'ly abstract artists.<br /><br />Whether or not any o' this's true what amazes me's how readily an' unquestioningly many members o' both sides o' the argument rush t' embrace an' promote any "intense and sometimes absurd speculation" which claims t'confirm their preciously held beliefs.alanborkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333017272673090593noreply@blogger.com