tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.comments2024-03-15T08:49:39.930+08:00The Shroud of TurinStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1913125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-32418840888986875362024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:002024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Anonymous
>Hi Stephen , Great to learn that yo...Anonymous<br /><br />>Hi Stephen , Great to learn that your book is progressing . <br /><br />Thank you. It is progressing almost every single day, including my blog posts. But the amount to be covered is so vast, that it now looks unlikely it will be published before a Shroud exposition in 2025. But to date, as far as I am aware, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?-b-d&q=Turin+Shroud+exposition+2025" rel="nofollow">there are only tourist websites</a> saying, "no specific date has yet been announced as to when the Shroud will be displayed":<br /><br />"Currently, no specific date has yet been announced as to when the Shroud will be displayed. However, the exhibition is likely to happen sometime between May – June 2025. 206 Tours will share updates as they become available. "<br /><br />If there is an exposition of the Shroud in 2025, I plan to go to Turin to see it. There will be an advantage in my book not having been published by then, because I an include in it my personal experience of seeing the Shroud.<br /><br />>I can't wait to hold it in my hands or read it online !<br /><br />Nor can I wait to hold it in my hands! But it won't be online. I plan to self-publish the book through an Australian book publisher. <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Tim+2%3A23%3B+Titus+3%3A9&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9</a>), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-21004089785170241492024-03-12T21:37:40.920+08:002024-03-12T21:37:40.920+08:00Hi Stephen , Great to learn that your book is prog...Hi Stephen , Great to learn that your book is progressing . I can't wait to hold it in my hands or read it online !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-42028592168721553052024-02-15T08:07:41.303+08:002024-02-15T08:07:41.303+08:00Unknown
>Thank you so much. I was wonderfully ...Unknown<br /><br />>Thank you so much. I was wonderfully impressed.<br /><br />Thank you. Although you probably won't see his because my publishing of it is ~6 years late!<br /><br />Blogger does not always notify me by email that I have comments pending, and I am working through my backlog of same.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Tim+2%3A23%3B+Titus+3%3A9&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9</a>), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-57892602730998604502024-02-11T16:37:49.378+08:002024-02-11T16:37:49.378+08:00The Deuce
Since I am not being notified by Blogg...The Deuce <br /><br />Since I am not being notified by Blogger if I have a comment pending, I will now check Comments when I look at my New Posts page.<br /><br />>Another problem with the photograph method (besides the light directionality and lack of 3D effect): The idea requires that the forger coated the Shroud in a silver nitrate emulsion. If that had happened, you'd have obvious chemical traces of that today.<br /><br />Agreed, that was a problem, that STURP found no silver in its chemical analysis of Shroud. From memory Allen claimed it was washed off, but ALL of it wouldn't have been.<br /><br />I will be covering Allen's Medieval Photograph theory in Chapter 17, "How was the Image Formed?" and I will include the lack of silver on the Shroud.<br /><br />>Also, there would also be much more penetration of the image into the fibers than there is, it wouldn't have the Shroud's halftone effect, and the depth of image penetration wouldn't be nearly as even as it is.<br /><br />Ok.<br /><br />Another big problem of Allen's Medieval Photograph theory, apart from what would happen to a corpse hanging out in full sunlight for several days each side, is the blood was on the Shroud before the image, and Allen applied the blood, or red paint, after his solargraph image was formed.<br /><br />The importance of Allen's Medieval Photograph theory is that it is the only claimed Shroud replication that replicates (sort of) the entire full-length Shroud, front and back.<br /><br />And yet it fails, DISMALLY! <br /><br />PS. There seems to be no prospect that Allen will admit that his theory has failed, and therefore the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet. In his writings Allen mentioned that he was a Roman Catholic in his youth but he has since written a virulently anti-Christian book, "<a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Jesus-Fallacy-Greatest-Ever-Told/dp/B0BF2TNC8F" rel="nofollow">The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told</a>."<br /><br />StephenStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-66718774598676040142024-02-08T05:36:25.735+08:002024-02-08T05:36:25.735+08:00Another problem with the photograph method (beside...Another problem with the photograph method (besides the light directionality and lack of 3D effect): The idea requires that the forger coated the Shroud in a silver nitrate emulsion. If that had happened, you'd have obvious chemical traces of that today.<br /><br />Also, there would also be much more penetration of the image into the fibers than there is, it wouldn't have the Shroud's halftone effect, and the depth of image penetration wouldn't be nearly as even as it is.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-59133293780895590422024-02-06T21:52:56.409+08:002024-02-06T21:52:56.409+08:00[continued]
>Scorch and rub theories come clos...[continued]<br /><br />>Scorch and rub theories come closest to partly addressing the inverse nature of the image, its non-directionality, and its topographical 3D nature, but they cannot account at all for its level of detail, superficiality, or the placement of the blood.<br /><br />In Chapter 17, 17. How was the Image Formed?, I have:<br /><br />_Major features_ Any explanation of how the Shroudman's image was formed must explain _all_ the Shroud's major features (see "The man's image")[SB00]. Claimed replications of the Shroud which do not include _each and every_ major feature of the Shroud, are a type of `straw man' fallacy[SMW]. That is, they present a claimed replication of the Shroud which does not truly replicate it, and then claim that they have replicated the Shroud[RTB]! Major features of the Shroud include: #1 Double body image[RTB]; #2 Negative[RTB]; #3 Three-dimensional[RTB]; #4 Non-directional[RTB]; #5 Superficial[RTB]; #6 Uniform colour[RTB]; #7 Faint[RTB]; #8 Not painted[RTB]; #9 Blood is real and human[RTB], and #10. Blood was on the cloth before the image[RTB].<br /><br />I then compare each claimed replication against those criteria. All fail, some dismally.<br /><br /><br />>The photographic theories come closest to partly addressing the level of detail of the Shroud, the non-directionality of the image itself, and its superficiality, but they cannot account at all for the placement of the blood, the non-directionality of the light source, or thr topographical 3D effect of the image.<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />>And of course none of the theories address how an even the narrow range of properties they only partially address could have been produced by medieval technology, much less how or why a forger could have or would have produced an image with details that couldn't even be seen until the invention of modern photography over 600 years later.<br /><br />McCrone's point is unanswerable: A medieval forger would have painted the Shroud:<br /><br />"Many mechanisms have already been proposed. Some say it was draped wet over a bas-relief to which it was shaped then dabbed with powder or a paint. Some say a painting was prepared and transferred to a cloth in contact with it by pressure. However, I see no reason to doubt that an artist like Simone Martini simply took up his brush and a dilute red ochre watercolor paint based on scraps of parchment as the vehicle and proceeded to paint the "Shroud." Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption; Occam's Razor applies here ..." (McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.122).<br /><br />>When you put ALL the puzzling aspects of the Shroud image together, we don't have the technology to duplicate it today, even with the ability to see our work.<br /><br />Agreed. The problem is prior prejudice. Non-Christians (to the extent they think about the Shroud at all) assume that there must be an answer to all these problems.<br /><br />Since Christianity is false (they wrongly believe) the Shroud simply CANNOT be Jesus' burial shroud!<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Tim+2%3A23%3B+Titus+3%3A9&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9</a>), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-58175616566845452202024-02-06T21:50:12.394+08:002024-02-06T21:50:12.394+08:00The Deuce.
I only discovered today (6 Feb 24) th...The Deuce. <br /><br />I only discovered today (6 Feb 24) that Blogger is not always emailing me when there is a comment pending.<br /><br />>What all forgery theories have in common is that they only even address one narrow aspect of the Shroud, and only partially do so at that, while actually serving to highlight all the aspects they don't address at all.<br /><br />In my book, in Chapter 18, "Sceptics and the Shroud," it will have:<br /><br />---<br />_No general theory_ Sceptics have no general theory which positively explains the medieval origin of the Shroud and negatively plausibly explains away the evidence for the Shroud's existence since the first century[RTB]. So they make isolated `pot shot' attacks on various aspects of the Shroud but offer no credible, comprehensive explanation of their own[RTB].<br /><br />_Positively_ By contrast, even if they do not call it a general theory, most Shroudies positively explain the origin of the Shroud as the "linen shroud" in which the Gospels record that Jesus' dead body was buried[Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53]. The Shroud's `missing years' from the first to the fifth century are because it was hidden due to persecution from Christianity's more numerous and powerful enemies, the Jews and Romans[RTB]. Then from the fifth to the tenth century the Shroud existed as the Image of Edessa, folded eight times, with only the face one-eighth visible in landscape aspect[RTB]. Then in tenth century Constantinople the Shroud's full length was unfolded and revealed[RTB]. The Shroud was then taken from Constantinople to France where it was exhibited in c. 1355 at Lirey, by Geoffroy I de Charny and his wife Jeanne de Vergy[RTB]. <br /><br />_Negatively_ Shroudies plausibly and comprehensibly explain away sceptics' attacks on the Shroud[RTB], as I am doing in this book.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Bibliography<br />...<br />RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.<br /><br />---<br /><br />>For instance, paint theories probably come closest to paetly addressing the placement of the blood, but they can't account at all for the non-directionality, superficiality, inverse detail, or topographical 3D effect of the Shroud.<br /><br />From Chapter 5 of my book:<br /><br />_Not painted_ It has been known since at least the 1930s that the Shroudman's image is not painted[RTB]. By examining the Shroud with a magnifying glass during the 1931 exposition, English Roman Catholic prelate Arthur Barnes (1861-1936), could see individual threads in the image area with no colouring matter covering them (Pl. 5.1)[RTB]. <br /><br />Sceptics now admit that the man's image was not painted[RTB]. Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001), then Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, when in 1988 collecting his laboratory's Shroud sample, examined the Shroud with a magnifying glass and satisfied himself that the image was not painted[WI98, 198]. Sceptic Joe Nickell (1944-) has admitted that, "...convincing evidence for any painting medium (that is, oil, egg tempera, etc.) on shroud image fibers is lacking"[NJ87, 99]. Former _Nature_ editor Phillip Ball(1962-), likewise conceded, "the shroud ... does not seem to have been painted ..." [BP05]. The Shroud of Turin Project (STURP) confirmed in 1978 that no paint, pigment, or dye constitutes the man's image[RTB] …<br /><br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-45054758990697953832024-02-06T18:54:18.657+08:002024-02-06T18:54:18.657+08:00Mark Fisher
>Thank you for this wonderful arti...Mark Fisher<br /><br />>Thank you for this wonderful article.<br /><br />Thank you. I only discovered today (6 Feb 24) that Blogger is not always emailing me when there is a comment pending.<br /><br />>I have a question regarding one of the photos. Where you mention: "Note the wound (circled in red) which corresponds to the incision of a Roman lancea..." Is the red circled area correct? The circled area seems more vertical than angled with the horizontal.<br /><br />It is vertical because the incision lancea's incision mark is almost vertical.<br /><br />Stephen<br /><br /> Please review and let me know if I am not seeing this correctly?<br /><br /> Thank you,<br /><br /> Mark Fisher<br /><br /><br />Mark Fisher said...<br /><br /> Steven,<br /><br /> Thank you for this wonderful article.<br /><br /> I have a question regarding one of the photos. Where you mention: "Note the wound (circled in red) which corresponds to the incision of a Roman lancea..." Is the red circled area correct? The circled area seems more vertical than angled with the horizontal.<br /><br /> Please review and let me know if I am not seeing this correctly?<br /><br /> Thank you,<br /><br /> Mark FisherStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-54633143048069544552024-02-06T18:47:13.419+08:002024-02-06T18:47:13.419+08:00The Deuce
>Hi Steve, just wanted to let you kn...The Deuce<br /><br />>Hi Steve, just wanted to let you know that I still read your blog and love the work you do.<br /><br />Thanks. I only today (6 Feb 24) discovered that Blogger is not emailing me when there is a comment pending.<br /><br />StephenStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-16988355953528538532024-01-31T00:02:34.858+08:002024-01-31T00:02:34.858+08:00What all forgery theories have in common is that t...What all forgery theories have in common is that they only even address one narrow aspect of the Shroud, and only partially do so at that, while actually serving to highlight all the aspects they don't address at all.<br /><br />For instance, paint theories probably come closest to paetly addressing the placement of the blood, but they can't account at all for the non-directionality, superficiality, inverse detail, or topographical 3D effect of the Shroud.<br /><br />Scorch and rub theories come closest to partly addressing the inverse nature of the image, its non-directionality, and its topographical 3D nature, but they cannot account at all for its level of detail, superficiality, or the placement of the blood.<br /><br />The photographic theories come closest to partly addressing the level of detail of the Shroud, the non-directionality of the image itself, and its superficiality, but they cannot account at all for the placement of the blood, the non-directionality of the light source, or thr topographical 3D effect of the image.<br /><br />And of course none of the theories address how an even the narrow range of properties they only partially address could have been produced by medieval technology, much less how or why a forger could have or would have produced an image with details that couldn't even be seen until the invention of modern photography over 600 years later.<br /><br />When you put ALL the puzzling aspects of the Shroud image together, we don't have the technology to duplicate it today, even with the ability to see our work.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-37982054839882446272024-01-22T00:40:56.144+08:002024-01-22T00:40:56.144+08:00Prof. Allen.
I have replied to your comment abov...Prof. Allen. <br /><br />I have replied to your comment above in a separate post, "<a href="https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2024/01/my-reply-to-prof-nicholas-allen-assumed.html" rel="nofollow">My reply to Prof. Nicholas Allen (assumed) #2</a>."<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-41804199738325317892024-01-03T09:35:28.192+08:002024-01-03T09:35:28.192+08:00Prof. Allen (assumed).
I will reply to your comme...Prof. Allen (assumed).<br /><br />I will reply to your comment in a separate post.<br /><br />However, as I have just started a new series, "<a href="https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2024/01/prehistory-of-shroud-1-44-evidence-is.html" rel="nofollow">Prehistory of the Shroud (1) #44</a>," it will be when that part (1) of that series ends, which will be a long time.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />By way of guidance as to what I mean by `offensive' and `sub-standard,' I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is `offensive' and/or `sub-standard,' then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' comments that are pro-authenticist. `Sub-standard' includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By `off-topic' I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for under the then current post).Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-14728838702381706832024-01-02T14:44:30.203+08:002024-01-02T14:44:30.203+08:00Your objection to Dr Allen’s use of a quartz lens ...Your objection to Dr Allen’s use of a quartz lens is meaningless. Da Vinci would have used a camera obscura to create the shroud. Allen’s use of the lens only speeds the process by allowing a much wider aperture. The only critical question is whether his technique replicates physical details of the shroud, because da Vinci's ability to project focused images onto paper (or linen) are well known. He described them in his writings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-721159763381007232023-12-22T09:34:36.701+08:002023-12-22T09:34:36.701+08:00Anonymous
>The other cloth quoted in Jn:20:07 ...Anonymous<br /><br />>The other cloth quoted in Jn:20:07 forensically cross references with the Turin so much so that the proposed faker was a miracle worker. One way or the other we are into the amazing. The two witnesses corroborate.<br /><br />Agreed. That is the "face cloth" which is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo" rel="nofollow">Sudarium of Oviedo</a><br /><br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Tim+2%3A23%3B+Titus+3%3A9&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9</a>), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-33182830786504810922023-12-22T08:53:16.904+08:002023-12-22T08:53:16.904+08:00The other cloth quoted in Jn:20:07 forensically cr...The other cloth quoted in Jn:20:07 forensically cross references with the Turin so much so that the proposed faker was a miracle worker. One way or the other we are into the amazing. The two witnesses corroborate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-24883425517651984602023-11-17T08:21:35.871+08:002023-11-17T08:21:35.871+08:00Antero
>Dear Dr. Stephen Jones
Still only pla...Antero<br /><br />>Dear Dr. Stephen Jones<br /><br />Still only plain Mr!<br /><br />>I praise this great post.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />>Besides Gospel narrative of Jesus Resurrection which unfortunately can be questioned by atheist skepics, the Shroud orovides material evidence that something unusual happened inside the tomb.<br /><br />Yes. Since <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondo_Pia" rel="nofollow">Secondo Pia proved in 1898 that the Shroud image is a photographic negative</a>, it is science itself which has been discovering material evidence in the Shroud that Jesus was indeed raised from certain death! The Shroud is a time capsule that was designed by God to be opened in our sceptical, scientific age.<br /><br />Jesus demands of modern-day doubting Thommases to, as it were, "Put your finger here, and examine my hands; and reach out your hand, and put it into my side. <i>Do not continue in unbelief, but believe</i>” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020%3A27&version=MOUNCE" rel="nofollow">John 20:27</a>).<br /><br />>As you pointed out Shroud's bloodstains appear undisturbed which means that a mechanically removal of Jesus Body is precluded.<br /><br />The most obvious one is the large, thick, <a href="https://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml?zl=11&image=5&lon=2341.0&lat=1665.0" rel="nofollow">reversed 3</a>, bloodstain on the man's forehead. How could that have remained intact when the cloth separated from the body? <br /><br />And even the anti-Christian Michael Tite, when he closely examined the Shroud while presiding over the radiocarbon dating laboratories' sample distribution in 1988, admitted, "I don't believe it was the Shroud [of Jesus], but <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1287791/bible-breakthrough-shroud-turin-jesus-christ-body-crucifixion-catholic-church-spt" rel="nofollow">I believe it is highly probable that there was a body in there</a> ...'<br /><br />>So if Jesus Body disappeared from inside the cloth and left on it the marks of His Passion and most important the naked image of His Body which till now no scientist was able to reproduce, what else can prove that Christ's Resurection was a real physical event that happened in Palestine about 2000 years ago?<br /><br />The Shroud is God's answer to the atheists who, like Bertrand Russell, claim that there is, "<a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Bertrand+Russell+not+enough+evidence+God" rel="nofollow">Not enough evidence, God!</a>" The problem, as always, is not the lack of evidence for Christianity being true, but sinners' unwillingness to accept it. <br /><br />>The Shroud is indeed the proof of the most important tenet of Christian faith<br /><br />Agreed. In the Shroud God has put the ball squarely in the non-Christian's court! But, as Jesus himself said, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+16%3A19-31&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Lk 16:19-31</a>).<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Tim+2%3A23%3B+Titus+3%3A9&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9</a>), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-19094992702242171252023-08-28T09:40:39.372+08:002023-08-28T09:40:39.372+08:00Having read about the Shroud for a long time now, ...Having read about the Shroud for a long time now, there are only two objections that I believe hold any weight whatsoever: thumb. C-14 date and the observation that the blood is more reddish than expected for ancient blood.<br /><br />The C-14 date is the more serious of the two, but we now know that protocol wasn't followed, the sample was too small and all from one area, and there is evidence of newer cotton woven in. And it's not unheard of for C-14 dates to be far off from known real dates for whatever reason.<br /><br />As for the bloodstained, the objection is totally obviate by the fact that blood with high bilirubin content has been experimentally shown to retain a reddish color after exposure to sunlight. And in any event, it's been tested and shown to be real blood, so the objection is moot.<br /><br />Everything else speaks to the Shroud's authenticity. We know it's not a painting because of the lack of directionally and extreme superficiality of the image. We know that it must have been formed by a 3D object because of the topographical properties of the image. We know it wasn't a scorch because of the lack of luminescence and we know it isn't a rub because the image doesn't come off in fire or water. We know it must have been formed by a real human body who was tortured because of the detailed anatomically correct features like the blood flows and scourge wounds, and the bone features seen through the skin like teeth, finger bones, and thumb.<br /><br />We know that nobody could have deliberately forged the image as we have it, because nobody in or before the 13th century could have possibly intended to make an image that would only reveal its detail in high-contrast photographic negative that was hundreds of years away from being invented, and because we still to this day have no clue how to form such an image from a human body.<br /><br />Finally, the image is clearly Jesus, as it fits the gospels so well and nobody else was crucified with the crown of thorns, the pierced side, the scourging with Roman whips and so forth. And yet, it also contains details that subvert artistic expectations but mesh well with the gospel acconts nonetheless, such as the crown of thorns being a cap, the nails going through the wrists, and the scourging being done with a barbelled Roman whip that medieval people had no knowledge of. <br /><br />Put together, there's no real explanation that accounts for it all but this being the burial cloth of Christ with his image miraculously imprinted on it.<br /><br />There are more factors (eg the Sudarium of Oviedo) but I think I got tge main stuff.The Deucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-51837148822967857902023-07-22T05:36:42.544+08:002023-07-22T05:36:42.544+08:00Not only did weaves like the Shroud's exist at...Not only did weaves like the Shroud's exist at the time of Jesus, but his burial cloths would most likely have been provided by Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea like the rest of his burial arrangements, and so probably would have been of rich-guy quality.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-62023606976087944122023-07-09T04:39:09.823+08:002023-07-09T04:39:09.823+08:00Steven,
Thank you for this wonderful article.
I ...Steven,<br /><br />Thank you for this wonderful article.<br /><br />I have a question regarding one of the photos. Where you mention: "Note the wound (circled in red) which corresponds to the incision of a Roman lancea..." Is the red circled area correct? The circled area seems more vertical than angled with the horizontal.<br /><br />Please review and let me know if I am not seeing this correctly?<br /><br />Thank you,<br /><br />Mark Fisher<br /><br />Mark Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519954557782144261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-36793911086516900822023-06-18T18:22:14.107+08:002023-06-18T18:22:14.107+08:00>The Deuce said...
>
>To me it boils down...>The Deuce said...<br />><br />>To me it boils down to the following:<br />><br />>1) If the Shroud is not a forgery, then the man on the Shroud is really Jesus (and that's really his blood, etc) and the Shroud is his burial cloth.<br /><br />Agreed. Most chapters of my book will have a section "Questions of the Forgery Theory" summarising the problems of the forgery theory in that chapter. Then my book will have a chapter on "Problems of the Forgery Theory," bringing together all those questions as statements.<br /><br />>2) It's impossible for the Shroud to have been forged. It couldn't be forged today, and it certainly couldn't be forged in the 13th century. Therefore the man on the Shroud is Jesus and the Shroud is his burial cloth.<br /><br />Agreed again.<br /><br />>4) It is extremely unlikely that an unforgeable image of the one man in history for whom we have good independent reason to believe was bodily resurrected and seen by many would just happen to be on his burial cloth unless the image was itself miraculously created in connection with the resurrection miracle itself. Therefore, the Shroud and the Resurrection both reinforce each other.<br /><br />Ditto!<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Tim+2%3A23%3B+Titus+3%3A9&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9</a>), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-78408765233169040352023-06-18T10:46:08.307+08:002023-06-18T10:46:08.307+08:00To me it boils down to the following:
1) If the S...To me it boils down to the following:<br /><br />1) If the Shroud is not a forgery, then the man on the Shroud is really Jesus (and that's really his blood, etc) and the Shroud is his burial cloth.<br /><br />2) It's impossible for the Shroud to have been forged. It couldn't be forged today, and it certainly couldn't be forged in the 13th century. Therefore the man on the Shroud is Jesus and the Shroud is his burial cloth.<br /><br />4) It is extremely unlikely that an unforgeable image of the one man in history for whom we have good independent reason to believe was bodily resurrected and seen by many would just happen to be on his burial cloth unless the image was itself miraculously created in connection with the resurrection miracle itself. Therefore, the Shroud and the Resurrection both reinforce each other.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-91177928859702497192023-06-18T10:29:06.090+08:002023-06-18T10:29:06.090+08:00Hi Steve, just wanted to let you know that I still...Hi Steve, just wanted to let you know that I still read your blog and love the work you do.The Deucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-53805271406292081972023-05-03T23:17:34.538+08:002023-05-03T23:17:34.538+08:00Anonymous
>" Alan Adler, John Jackson, Dr...Anonymous<br /><br />>" Alan Adler, John Jackson, Dr. Alan Whanger and Ian Wilson[WI96a]. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg "<br />><br />>Only Alan Whanger receives the Doctor title , but from what I read on the internet , all of these people , except Ian Wilson , had or have a Doctor title.<br /><br />It is deliberate. In the Glossary of my book that I am writing, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!", is:<br /><br />"Dr: Medical doctor. Not PhD."<br /><br />It would be a huge waste of precious space in my book prefacing every PhD with the title "Dr". And there is the problem of not knowing if a scholar has a PhD. <br /><br />So in my book, I am only going to preface medical doctors' names with "Dr".<br /><br />And, as my blog posts are now resource materials for my book, I am adopting that convention in my blog posts.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-69870539533979959772023-05-03T18:25:17.012+08:002023-05-03T18:25:17.012+08:00" Alan Adler, John Jackson, Dr. Alan Whanger ..." Alan Adler, John Jackson, Dr. Alan Whanger and Ian Wilson[WI96a]. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg "<br /><br />Only Alan Whanger receives the Doctor title , but from what I read on the internet , all of these people , except Ian Wilson , had or have a Doctor title.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-27614871084698586932023-05-02T08:20:30.726+08:002023-05-02T08:20:30.726+08:00Unknown
>This article is about the left wrist ...Unknown<br /><br />>This article is about the left wrist wound because of the many questionable theories that have been developed after P. Barbet. The article is in French and you are quoted in it quite obviously. How can I send it to you?<br /><br />Thanks. I am too busy writing my book, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" to read articles.<br /><br />You could summarise it briefly in a comment below.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com