tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post7711947464763564870..comments2024-03-15T08:49:39.930+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Shroud of Turin News, January 2012Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-36900864242290144642012-02-24T08:31:20.676+08:002012-02-24T08:31:20.676+08:00Cool post. Could some one any one provide a li nk ...Cool post. Could some one any one provide a li nk to this paper "Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography of the Shroud of Turin” written by Vern Miller and Sam Pellicori" If anyone can thanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-32314252421008072522012-02-14T06:27:17.765+08:002012-02-14T06:27:17.765+08:00Anonymous
>This may be speculation but after o...Anonymous<br /><br />>This may be speculation but after observing Petrus Soon's websites there appears to be an image of the triangle. <br /><br />Thanks for that information. Let me know in a further comment here if that is confirmed. <br /><br />Preferably with the web link to an image on Petrus Soon's website which shows the triangle in the Man's foot.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-28733708098866470522012-02-14T04:00:52.629+08:002012-02-14T04:00:52.629+08:00WOW interesting. Soon after i read the pdf article...WOW interesting. Soon after i read the pdf article i reasoned that there should be a triangular image on the back side of the foot. This may be speculation but after observing Petrus Soon's websites there appears to be an image of the triangle. Tjis needs further research.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-29508181562890864972012-02-11T11:59:21.692+08:002012-02-11T11:59:21.692+08:00Anonymous
>i don't get what the triangle m...Anonymous<br /><br />>i don't get what the triangle means <br /><br />Click on the link "<a href="http://www.sudariumchristi.com/img/thoughts/jean_carmignac_en.pdf" rel="nofollow">A new detail observed on the Shroud of Turin</a>," and read the original PDF article.<br /><br />Basically Roman nails (or spikes) were triangular in cross-section.<br /><br />Therefore the triangular shape in the image of the foot of the Man in the Shroud is the space left after the nail was removed.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<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-32349068959873497082012-02-10T23:31:22.435+08:002012-02-10T23:31:22.435+08:00i don't get what the triangle meansi don't get what the triangle meansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-47126173211246174472012-02-06T22:25:13.759+08:002012-02-06T22:25:13.759+08:00The Deuce
>Steve, thanks for another good arti...The Deuce<br /><br />>Steve, thanks for another good article (still in progress?)! I really appreciate your blog.<br /><br />Thanks. With the latest article about what appears to be a triangular cross-section space of where a large Roman nail (or spike) was through the right foot of the Man on the Shroud, I have now finished my <i>Shroud of Turin News</i> for January.<br /><br />>Having observed the degree of sophistry secularists will resort to in philosophy ... rather than accept theism ...<br /><br />I saw that first-hand when I debated Creation-Evolution against all-comers between 1994-2005.<br /><br />>and watching the knots they tie themselves in and the deliberate ignorance they embrace regarding the Shroud of Turin, <br /><br />Here is an example from a yet-to-be published BSTS Newsletter:<br /><br />"Therefore it is not without justification that I bring before you some of the considerations which make me more and more sceptical as time goes on. Firstly the attitude of one of those 1988 scientists, Professor 'Teddy' Hall, was in my eyes starkly unobjective. He said something like, "It's finished, finished! No one will have any further interest in the Shroud of Turin". Setting aside the fact, unconcealed by him, that he is an atheist (and might therefore have an axe of his own to grind) I really must tell of his reaction when I questioned him on these words of his. "Surely, Professor Hall", I asked him, "if your result shows that the image was not produced miraculously by God the Father, will not scientists now be more interested in it, to find out how man did this thing?" His incredible reply was, "I don't believe in God the Father, old boy"! At that moment of breath-taking non sequitur I wrote him off as a thinker. 'The Fool hath said in his heart ...'" (Dr. Michael Clift "Carbon Dating - What Some of Us Think Now," <i>BSTS Newsletter</i>, No. 33, February 1993, p.5).<br /><br />>I have become more and more convinced that the Christian view of the unregenerated human heart is exactly right. They are at with with God in their hearts and they will not see, despite having no excuse not to, without the grace of God. <br /><br />Agreed. When Paul wrote his critique of paganism (<a rel="nofollow">Rom 1:18-32</a>) in c. AD57, he was probably in his late 50s and had been debating with pagans for nearly a quarter-century. So what he wrote about "their foolish hearts were darkened" was <i>empirical fact</i>.<br /><br />>No amount of evidence, empirical or logical, can break through on its own.<br /><br />Not if they don't <i>want</i> to follow the evidence <i>wherever</i> it leads, but would rather believe a Naturalistic lie than the Supernaturalistic truth.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-90797770674741984912012-02-06T21:33:43.114+08:002012-02-06T21:33:43.114+08:00Steve, thanks for another good article (still in p...Steve, thanks for another good article (still in progress?)! I really appreciate your blog.<br /><br /><i>So why do those who dismiss it as a forgery, not argue for its listing among the world's greatest art treasures? Because their real agenda (perhaps uconscious) is to insulate themselves from being touched by the Shroud, because they know deep down it would change their lives.<br /><br />But then theirs is the fallacy of the ostrich with its head in the sand, saying, "If I don't see it, then it's not really there"!</i><br /><br />Having observed the degree of sophistry secularists will resort to in philosophy (even embracing outright absurdity and going so far as to deny reason itself rather than accept theism), and watching the knots they tie themselves in and the deliberate ignorance they embrace regarding the Shroud of Turin, I have become more and more convinced that the Christian view of the unregenerated human heart is exactly right. They are at with with God in their hearts and they <i>will not see</i>, despite having no excuse not to, without the grace of God. No amount of evidence, empirical or logical, can break through on its own.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-51338327422947055102012-02-06T12:26:40.510+08:002012-02-06T12:26:40.510+08:00Anonymous
>Nice Post stephen
Thanks.
>unf...Anonymous<br /><br />>Nice Post stephen<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>unfortunately despite all the evidence some will never be persuaded. <br /><br />Yes. See my previous comment that they <i>don't want</i> the Shroud to be authentic, because it would change their lives.<br /><br />Proof of this is that those who claim the Shroud is a forgery, if they were consistent, should be demanding it be listed as the greatest artwork, by the greatest artist, who ever lived.<br /><br />But even Picknett & Prince don't <i>really</i> believe their own `Leonardo did it' theory, because if they did, they would be demanding the Shroud be listed as Leonardo's greatest masterpiece. <br /><br />>BTW have you read the article on Shroud.com "New detail observed on the SHroud." <br /><br />I hadn't but I now have read: "<a href="http://www.sudariumchristi.com/img/thoughts/jean_carmignac_en.pdf" rel="nofollow">A new detail observed on the Shroud of Turin</a>" (PDF) which shows a triangular cross-section of where the large Roman nail was in Jesus' feet.<br /><br />>This article shows precisely why the image Had to come from a real body. From reading the article I know for a fact The shroud is practically unforgeable<br /><br />Agreed. This is the final nail in the coffin of Shroud inauthenticity (pun intended)! I will post it to my <i>Shroud of Turin News</i>. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-68724471705849525292012-02-06T11:57:11.127+08:002012-02-06T11:57:11.127+08:00Anonymous
>no evidence is ever conclusive unle...Anonymous<br /><br />>no evidence is ever conclusive unless you and I have seen and touched and understood.<br /><br />Yes. But you have to <i>want</i> to see, understand and be touched.<br /><br />I was thinking only this morning that for those who dismiss the Shroud as not authentic, the only viable alternative is that the Shroud's image is the greatest work of art by the greatest artist who has ever lived:<br /><br />"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., "The Shroud," 1963, pp.xi-xii).<br /><br />So why do those who dismiss it as a forgery, not argue for its listing among the world's greatest art treasures? Because their <i>real</i> agenda (perhaps uconscious) is to insulate themselves from being touched by the Shroud, because they know deep down it would change their lives.<br /><br />But then theirs is the fallacy of the ostrich with its head in the sand, saying, "If I don't see it, then it's not really there"!<br /><br />>... we have the testimony of those who saw Him .. out of the grave and ascend to Heaven. They willingly suffered to be murdered than deny what they saw. They never wavered.<br /><br />This is an important point. Subsequent followers of a false religion can die for it, because they <i>wrongly believe</i> it to be true. But the first disciples of Christianity <i>would know</i> it to be false that Jesus arose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, if it was false. But in fact there us no record of <i>any </i>of the original disciples recanting, even under pressure of torture and an agonising death.<br /><br />>The testimony of scientists is weaker in this regard because they will never have to face such a test to give credence to their observations.<br /><br />One reason is that no scientific theory can ever be final. A key principle of science is that a theory must be <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability" rel="nofollow">falsifiable</a></i>, i.e. it must be <i>able</i> to be proved false by a test or observation.<br /><br />>So in the end for most of all humanity it is the strength of testimony that leads all to consider the truth of many things ...<br /><br />This is true of science also. The vast majority of scientists have to take on faith the testimony of other scientists. In a Philosophy of Science unit in my Biology degree, one of the more memorable teachings was that the founder of experimental science, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle" rel="nofollow">Robert Boyle (1627-1691)</a>, <i>an evangelical Christian</i>, regarded the desciption of a scientific experiment in a science journal, as a "virtual witnessing," i.e. it should be as though the reader was in the laboratory watching the experiment:<br /><br />"Robert Boyle's experimental programme had as its end-product the generation of indisputable matters of fact. In this paper I analyze the resources used to produce these matters of fact, paying particular attention to linguistic practices. Experimental reports rich in circumstantial detail were designed to enable readers of the text to create a mental image of an experimental scene they did not directly witness. I call this `virtual witnessing', and its importance was as a means of enlarging the witnessing public. The notion of a `public' for experimental science is, I argue, essential to our understanding of how facts are generated and validated. In these episodes, circumstantial reporting was a technique for creating a public and for constituting authentic knowledge." (Steven Shapin, "<a href="http://sss.sagepub.com/content/14/4/481.abstract" rel="nofollow">Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology</a>," <i>Social Studies of Science</i>, November 1984, Vol. 14 no. 4, pp.481-520)<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-28657268507197410312012-02-06T06:42:33.346+08:002012-02-06T06:42:33.346+08:00Nice Post stephen, unfortunately despite all the e...Nice Post stephen, unfortunately despite all the evidence some will never be persuaded. BTW have you read the article on Shroud.com "New detail observed on the SHroud." This article shows precisely why the image Had to come from a real body. From reading the article I know for a fact The shroud is practically unforgeableAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-2153482303107403572012-02-05T22:25:45.501+08:002012-02-05T22:25:45.501+08:00Stephen, very nice post. One thought always crosse...Stephen, very nice post. One thought always crosses my mind: no evidence is ever conclusive unless you and I have seen and touched and understood. Otherwise, we rely on the testimony of all the scientific minds as to what they have observed. In similar fashion we have the testimony of those who saw Him walk out of the grave and ascend to Heaven. They willingly suffered to be murdered than deny what they saw. They never wavered. The testimony of scientists is weaker in this regard because they will never have to face such a test to give credence to their observations. So in the end for most of all humanity it is the strength of testimony that leads all to consider the truth of many things. This is at the core basis of all human relationships. Reflecting on this always make me realize the depth of Christ’s words to Thomas regarding those who have not seen and yet believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-70942456523682543572012-02-05T20:27:25.517+08:002012-02-05T20:27:25.517+08:00Dan
>Bravo. Nice comments.
Thanks Dan.
Steph...Dan<br /><br />>Bravo. Nice comments.<br /><br />Thanks Dan.<br /><br />StephenStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-33324129697174703032012-02-05T19:40:45.143+08:002012-02-05T19:40:45.143+08:00Bravo. Nice comments.
Dan PorterBravo. Nice comments.<br /><br />Dan PorterDan Porterhttp://shroudblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-46807318676729648102012-02-05T12:20:31.687+08:002012-02-05T12:20:31.687+08:00Gio
>Very nice post.
Thanks.
>I read the...Gio<br /><br />>Very nice post. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>I read the article on Dawkins' site and found it even worse than Tom Chivers'. <br /><br />Yes. Dawkins is no scholar, even though he had a Professorship at Oxford (<a href="http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2246" rel="nofollow">bought for him by Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi</a>). Dawkins' actual degree is in Animal Behaviour, i.e. Ethology, not even in Evolution. <br /><br />Even what Dawkins writes on Evolution needs to be taken with a grain of salt. He is a gifted <i>writer</i> and he has made <i>millions</i> in that field. But when Dawkins pontificates on Christianity he simply doesn't know what he is talking about.<br /><br />>No knowledge of the study's implications, blatant ignorance of the evidence against the Carbon Dating, and no knowledge of historical methodology.<br /><br />Agreed. Dawkins is a prime example of believing what one <i>wants</i> to be true, when it isn't. <br /><br />If Dawkins doesn't repent, he is going to find out the hard way that Christianity is true. <i>Everyone</i> will have to confess, willingly or unwillingly that "Jesus is Lord" (i.e. Yahweh - Paul is quoting <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2045:23&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Isa 45:23</a>):<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Php%202:10-11&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Php 2:10-11</a>. 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-51857804696022352452012-02-05T03:19:07.293+08:002012-02-05T03:19:07.293+08:00Very nice post. I read the article on Dawkins'...Very nice post. I read the article on Dawkins' site and found it even worse than Tom Chivers'. No knowledge of the study's implications, blatant ignorance of the evidence against the Carbon Dating, and no knowledge of historical methodology.Giohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538159578771079797noreply@blogger.com