tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post3440553288698487055..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: "Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity": Shroud of Turin News - February 2016 Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-3682804644261935452016-10-18T01:29:02.679+08:002016-10-18T01:29:02.679+08:00Otto
>I have an observation that casts doubt o...Otto<br /><br />>I have an observation that casts doubt on the authenticity of the shroud. Jesus died around 3 PM according to the Bible, and his body was taken down from the cross shortly before sundown according to Jewish law and/or custom. <br /><br />[...]<br /><br />This comment is off-topic under this post, which does not have anything about Jesus on the cross, nor His blood.<br /><br />So I have copied it to under my <a href="https://goo.gl/iwIeg3" rel="nofollow">latest post</a> (see my policies below), where <a href="https://goo.gl/uvvr1P" rel="nofollow">I have started to respond to it</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 latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic. To avoid time-wasting debate 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-52031957071624526312016-10-17T23:26:27.921+08:002016-10-17T23:26:27.921+08:00I have an observation that casts doubt on the auth...I have an observation that casts doubt on the authenticity of the shroud. Jesus died around 3 PM according to the Bible, and his body was taken down from the cross shortly before sundown according to Jewish law and/or custom. Let's assume that he died at 3:30 PM, and was taken down from the cross at 5:30 PM. That means that his body was hanging from the cross for 2 hours. Jerusalem is in a desert, with very dry air; if there were a breeze this would have increased the rate of drying of the blood. Regardless of what the weather might have been on that exact day, it seems to me that all the blood on his body would have been dry when the shroud was placed over him and that there would have been no transfer of blood to the shroud. Further, the shroud would have been lightly placed on his body, which further militates against blood transfer to the shroud. The fact that there is blood on the shroud indicates, to me, that the person who created the shroud put blood on it in order to be sure that there was no mistake as to who it was placed over. By not considering the fact that in reality the blood would probably have dried by the time the shroud was placed over Jesus's body, the person who made the shroud inadvertently left evidence that it is not authentic.Otto M. Wildensteinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-19852324120674415532016-05-07T18:59:39.294+08:002016-05-07T18:59:39.294+08:00Anonymous
>>"OK. I will relax my "...Anonymous<br /><br />>>"OK. I will relax my "normally ... only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" policy (see below) so that you can respond to points in each installment, if you wish."<br /><br />>Did Mr. Dayvault make any more comments ? <br /><br />No.<br /><br />>It would have been interesting to read his point of view.<br /><br />Yes it would have been!<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<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 block of text of the 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 the latest post-see above)." [<a href="http://goo.gl/smuIaD" rel="nofollow">05Jan16</a>]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-79171630938375689342016-05-07T18:53:12.806+08:002016-05-07T18:53:12.806+08:00"OK. I will relax my "normally ... only ..."OK. I will relax my "normally ... only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" policy (see below) so that you can respond to points in each installment, if you wish."<br /><br />Hi Stephen,<br /> Did Mr. Dayvault make any more comments ? It would have been interesting to read his point of view.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-83168070151362020992016-03-14T07:56:53.094+08:002016-03-14T07:56:53.094+08:00Phil
>Hi Stephen-
>First of all, may I say...Phil<br /><br />>Hi Stephen-<br /><br />>First of all, may I say that I have enjoyed your blog for years and appreciate your mentioning my new book, The Keramion, Lost and Found. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>However, several points in your recent message need to be clarified.<br /><br />OK. I will relax my "normally ... only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" policy (see below) so that you can respond to points in each installment, if you wish.<br /><br />>Yes, you are correct; the descriptive words were specifically chosen and used by my publisher in their press release. After you read the book, however, you may also concur that they were good word choices.<br /><br />I doubt it (see below).<br /><br />>It was my privilege to have served as Director of the Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin, CSST, from 1994 to 2003, with the exception of an 8-month separation. The Whangers, I and several others co-founded the organization in 1994.<br /><br />OK.<br /><br />>I agree, as you said, “The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is authentic!” <br /><br />Great!<br /><br />>However, there are still many skeptics and non-believers regarding the Shroud. <br /><br />Especially on the Internet.<br /><br />>In order to provide additional and new compelling evidence, i.e., the Keramion, I wrote this book. <br /><br />If Wilson and Guscin are right that the date of the mosaic is "between the sixth and seventh centuries" (see above), and I assume that they are, since they (particularly Guscin) are world authorities on the Mandylion/Image of Edessa, then it cannot be THE Keramion, because that was "mid first century": <br /><br />"Accordingly, it would have been this same ceramic, or tile, version of Jesus's face, rather than the Image itself, as described in the <i>Story</i> [<i>of the Image of Edessa</i>], which Abgar's second son ordered to be removed from above the gate when he reverted to paganism and began persecuting Edessa's Christians. Whoever carried out this removal may have simply turned the tile around so that its 'face' side was turned inwards to the cavity behind. The clay oil lamp reportedly found in the same cavity suggests that this operation was carried out at night. And someone seems to have had the idea of using this same cavity to hide the Image/Shroud until the persecutions of Edessa's Christian community had blown over. By daybreak the gateway's brickwork would have been sealed up with mortar, no evidence of any Christ portrait remaining. If this was indeed how and where the Shroud lay hidden between the mid first century and some time in the first half of the sixth century, it would certainly have enjoyed near hermetically sealed conditions' throughout." (Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.132-133)<br /><br />>As discussed, for the Shroud to be considered authentic, it must first be shown to be from AD1st Century AND associated to Jesus Christ. The Keramion, Lost and Found confirms exactly this!<br /><br />There is already compelling evidence that the Shroud is 1st century. But if Wilson and Guscin are right (as I assume that they are), then your claim that the Sanliurfa mosaic is "<i>The</i> Keramion" is not part of that evidence.<br /><br />However, you deserve credit for discovering the Sanliurfa mosaic in 2002. <br /><br />>Thanks, Stephen, for ordering my book…I hope you enjoy the read!<br /><br />So do I.<br /><br />>Best regards,<br /><br />>Phil Dayvault<br /><br />Regards.<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 latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. 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-78724560818505067942016-03-14T01:00:59.860+08:002016-03-14T01:00:59.860+08:00Hi Stephen-
First of all, may I say that I have e...Hi Stephen-<br /><br />First of all, may I say that I have enjoyed your blog for years and appreciate your mentioning my new book, The Keramion, Lost and Found. However, several points in your recent message need to be clarified.<br /><br />Yes, you are correct; the descriptive words were specifically chosen and used by my publisher in their press release. After you read the book, however, you may also concur that they were good word choices. <br /><br />It was my privilege to have served as Director of the Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin, CSST, from 1994 to 2003, with the exception of an 8-month separation. The Whangers, I and several others co-founded the organization in 1994.<br /><br />I agree, as you said, “The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is authentic!” However, there are still many skeptics and non-believers regarding the Shroud. In order to provide additional and new compelling evidence, i.e., the Keramion, I wrote this book. As discussed, for the Shroud to be considered authentic, it must first be shown to be from AD1st Century AND associated to Jesus Christ. The Keramion, Lost and Found confirms exactly this!<br /><br />Thanks, Stephen, for ordering my book…I hope you enjoy the read!<br /><br />Best regards, <br /><br />Phil DayvaultAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com