tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post8034729107858414416..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #1Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-38173690625417176132012-04-01T14:53:48.105+08:002012-04-01T14:53:48.105+08:00Flagrum3
>There is one point that de Wesslow m...Flagrum3<br /><br />>There is one point that de Wesslow makes that I find nonsensicle...Especially from one who claims to be an Art historian...<br /><br />Given de Wesslow lack of honesty in not admitting up front to the <i>Telegraph</i> journalist that his Shroud "detective work" consisted of reading Wilson; and his claim that the resurrection appearances were just the disciples looking at Jesus' image on the Shroud is "as absurd as a scene from a Monty Python film," I also wonder what weight to give to his claim to being a Cambridge University art historian.<br /><br />>He states that 1st century Jews would not be accustomed too 'visual' stimulations, hense the reasoning for thier interpretation of the Shroud image as being a 'risen' messiah..HogWash! <br /><br />Agreed. No reputable art historian would make such an unfounded claim. 1st century people were probably more accustomed to visual art than 21st people!<br /><br />And it is indeed "hogwash" that they could not tell the difference between a resurrected Jesus and His image on cloth.<br /><br />>The Romans had been in Palestine for almost a century and were huge on 'images' such as frescos, statues, paintings etc, etc;...<br /><br />And the Greeks and Persians in the centuries before that. They were also huge on art images.<br /><br />>A first century jew would then be quite used to images and to suppose they took an image as 'proof' is rediculous. <br /><br />Agreed. de Wesselow has just made this up to support his Monty Pythonesque theory. I wonder if any art historians will contradict him?<br /><br />>I'd bet at first notice they probably just thought the impression was a secretion of sweat and blood, nothing else (as many others have in the past).<br /><br />A good point. If the disciples did not know that Jesus had been resurrected, the Shroud image (assuming: 1. it would even be there; and 2. if it was the disciples would have seen it on the hidden inside of the Shroud) would have been dismissed by them as caused by sweat, as the Veronica legend actually states.<br /><br />>Then also to assume hundreds of people were also fooled or dillusional enough to believe an image on a Shroud is the 'raised messiah' is just plain lunacy.<br /><br />Or just a way for a little known art historian to gain fame and fortune (at Christianity's expense)?<br /><br />De Wesslow and all those like Dan Brown, Picknett & Prince, Baigent & Leigh, etc, who seek to make money out of debunking Christianity, had better be right that Christianity is false. <br /><br />Because if it isn't, and Jesus <i>really did</i> rise from the dead (and the evidence is <i>overwhelming</i> that He did), then the answer is "Yes" and "Yes" to Wilson's questions:<br /><br />"For if that face, however subjectively, seems as though it has transcended two thousand years, it is as if neither time, nor the grave, have any meaning. It bespeaks the very same questions as those that wracked the pilgrims to the Veronica: `Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.189).<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-78848245957053192552012-04-01T11:55:36.064+08:002012-04-01T11:55:36.064+08:00There is one point that de Wesslow makes that I fi...There is one point that de Wesslow makes that I find nonsensicle...Especially from one who claims to be an Art historian...He states that 1st century Jews would not be accustomed too 'visual' stimulations, hense the reasoning for thier interpretation of the Shroud image as being a 'risen' messiah..HogWash! The Romans had been in Palestine for almost a century and were huge on 'images' such as frescos, statues, paintings etc, etc;...A first century jew would then be quite used to images and to suppose they took an image as 'proof' is rediculous. I'd bet at first notice they probably just thought the impression was a secretion of sweat and blood, nothing else (as many others have in the past). Then also to assume hundreds of people were also fooled or dillusional enough to believe an image on a Shroud is the 'raised messiah' is just plain lunacy.<br /><br />F3Flagrum3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-31810343997185632012-03-29T06:16:50.113+08:002012-03-29T06:16:50.113+08:00C
>If this "professor" really thinks...C<br /><br />>If this "professor" really thinks that the Shroud doesn't prove the ressurection <br /><br />As an agnostic, de Wesselow doesn't believe in God, let alone Jesus' resurrection.<br /><br />But as an art historian, he has become convinced by the evidence that the Shroud is authentic.<br /><br />So, to avoid becoming a Christian, de Wesselow he has chosen the rare, but not unknown position, that the Shroud is authentic, but Jesus was not resurrected.<br /><br />That requires de Wesselow to "twist to [his] ... own destruction" (2Pet 3:16) all the many Bible verses which make it plain that Jesus <i>was</i> resurrected and to <i>force</i> them to say that the disciples were merely looking and Jesus' image on the Shroud, and they made up (i.e. lied or were deluded) all the accounts of Jesus appearing to them.<br /><br />>can be explain the lack of putrefecation of the orfices, no decomposition stains and the fact that the blood stains are intact and the fact the serum Halos remain unbroken. <br /><br />Not having read de Wesselow's book, I would be surprised if he deals at any depth with the evidence on it that Jesus <i>was</i> resurrected.<br /><br />>More people should pay attention to the blood stains on the Shroud which is a bigger sign of the ressurection than anything else.<br /><br />Those who <i>don't want</i> to believe that Jesus was resurrected, because that would mean a huge change in their worldview and lifestyle, would prefer <i>not</i> pay attention to the signs of the ressurection on the Shroud!<br /><br />>Whether athiests like it or not that is the reality of the blood stains.<br /><br />Agreed. The historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected (and therefore for Christianity being true) was already <i>overwhelming</i> without the <i>additional</i> evidence that Jesus was resurrected on the Shroud of Turin.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-88480559016079226252012-03-29T03:17:58.175+08:002012-03-29T03:17:58.175+08:00If this "professor" really thinks that t...If this "professor" really thinks that the Shroud doesn't prove the ressurection can be explain the lack of putrefecation of the orfices, no decomposition stains and the fact that the blood stains are intact and the fact the serum Halos remain unbroken. More people should pay attention to the blood stains on the Shroud which is a bigger sign of the ressurection than anything else. Whether athiests like it or not that is the reality of the blood stains.<br />CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com