tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post5591731111639258735..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: The Shroud of Turin: 2.4. The wounds Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-91432667821848772662023-04-25T00:11:35.212+08:002023-04-25T00:11:35.212+08:00Roy
>THANKS !!
I nearly gave up my belief in J...Roy<br /><br />>THANKS !!<br />I nearly gave up my belief in Jesus as my saviour, until after a long struggle I found "The Shroud of Turin and Oviedo", first on YouTube and then all the documents I found on your blog! <br /><br />Fantastic!<br /><br />>I was "the one ship that was lost and was found" due to your blog, which lit a new fire in my life! Now I look at Jesus ( The Shrouds face of Jesus, now hanging in a frame on my office wall!<br />I just wanted to thank you for saving my life from drowning!!<br />Roy<br /><br />Wow!<br /><br />Thanks for your feedback. <br /><br />I am just now posting about the Sudarium in my "<a href="https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2023/03/chronology-of-turin-shroud-twentieth.html" rel="nofollow">Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twentieth century (6)</a>," but I might not finish it tonight. Here is quote from Mark Guscin in his 1997 "<a href="https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm" rel="nofollow">The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin</a>":<br /><br />"3: Coincidence with the Shroud The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin. The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB. The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud. If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement. A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence. The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud. Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud"!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-3455291446081536152023-04-24T17:31:05.460+08:002023-04-24T17:31:05.460+08:00THANKS !!
I nearly gave up my belief in Jesus as m...THANKS !!<br />I nearly gave up my belief in Jesus as my saviour, until after a long struggle I found "The Shroud of Turin and Oviedo", first on YouTube and then all the documents I found on your blog! I was "the one ship that was lost and was found" due to your blog, which lit a new fire in my life! Now I look at Jesus ( The Shrouds face of Jesus, now hanging in a frame on my office wall!<br />I just wanted to thank you for saving my life from drowning!!<br />Roy10nd missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719720108704958006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-66145107206639650152013-03-23T22:50:33.130+08:002013-03-23T22:50:33.130+08:00Hugh Farey
Whether by accident or design you made...Hugh Farey<br /><br />Whether by accident or design you made a comment on 23 Mar 13 (GMT +8:00) about the `poker holes' under this "The Wounds" post.<br /><br />As this post says nothing about the `poker holes' your comment would have been off-topic under it.<br /><br />So I have copied your comment to under my post, "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/the-shroud-of-turin-26-other-marks-2.html" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes</a>" and responded to it there. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-82289648010545050072013-02-13T04:29:08.048+08:002013-02-13T04:29:08.048+08:00Nomadenseele
>Am I allowed to use the grapic o...Nomadenseele<br /><br />>Am I allowed to use the grapic on my literature blog? Its in German, but here is the link: http://nomasliteraturblog.wordpress.com/<br /><br />Sorry, but not on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. Blogger only allows graphics on posts, not comments, and I don't allow others to post here to my blog.<br /><br />>I want to write a citique of the book *The Sign. The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection* by Thomas de Wesselow <br /><br />Again, I don't allow others to post to this blog, so you could not post your critique here.<br /><br />If you wish to briefly comment on de Wesselow's book here, to be not "substandard" (see policies below) it would have to be in English, and to be "on topic" it would have to be under one of my posts about the book:<br /><br />01-May-12: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bczn2n2" rel="nofollow">Combined Review of: "The Sign" by Thomas de Wesselow and "Resurrected or Revived?" by Helmut Felzmann</a> <br />10-Apr-12: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bgpobhj" rel="nofollow">`De Wesselow fails to answer the reasons why rational people accept the Shroud is a fake'</a><br />29-Mar-12: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/aako2ru" rel="nofollow">My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #2</a> <br />28-Mar-12: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/a9xxgtr" rel="nofollow">My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #1</a>. <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-----------------------------------<br /><b>Comments</b> are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. 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-45989350383750500742013-02-13T03:41:33.901+08:002013-02-13T03:41:33.901+08:00Am I allowed to use the grapic on my literature bl...Am I allowed to use the grapic on my literature blog? Its in German, but here is the link: http://nomasliteraturblog.wordpress.com/<br /><br />I want to write a citique of the book *The Sign. The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection* by Thomas de Wesselow Nomadenseelehttp://nomasliteraturblog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-2910813927188725832013-01-19T07:53:08.366+08:002013-01-19T07:53:08.366+08:00The Deuce
>Thanks for another great post, Stev...The Deuce<br /><br />>Thanks for another great post, Steve!<br /><br />Thanks, and good to hear from you again.<br /><br />>I've said this before, but what really gives away the Shroud skeptics' inability to look the Shroud rationally is that if they really thought it was a work of art, they'd be trumping it's status as one of the great wonders of the world, and as the most extraordinary piece of art by the most extraordinary artist in all of human history, past or present!<br /><br />Great point. That was Walsh's bottom line:<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., "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, 1963, pp.xi-xii).<br /><br />Yet the Shroud `sceptics' (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's <i>in</i>authenticity) in dismissing the Shroud as a 14th century forgery, show by their ignoring of it thereafter, that they don't REALLY believe the Shroud is a 14th century forgery!<br /><br />>For a Medieval artist (or even a modern one for that matter) to have made it would almost be more miraculous than the actual miracle that did create it. <br /><br />Agreed. The fact is that no one yet has been able to come EVEN CLOSE to making a faithful replica of the Shroud, complete with its major features of photographic negativity, three dimensionality, extreme superficiality, non-directionality, etc, and all with the knowledge and technology available in the 14th century.<br /><br />>The reality is, the skeptics don't do that because they don't want to think realistically about how the Shroud could have come into existence at all. The very topic makes them uncomfortable, and they just want to be able to dismiss it as quickly as possible and not have to worry about it any further.<br /><br />Agreed. Their own `body language' betrays them. It shows that they know in their heart of hearts that the Shroud really is (or at least could be) the very burial sheet of Jesus Christ, complete with the imprint of His crucified, buried and RESURRECTED body. But they also know for them, as atheist/agnostics, to even seriously consider that the Shroud is (or even could be) authentic, would start them on the slippery slope (actually upward incline!) to becoming Christians.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-----------------------------------<br /><b>Comments</b> are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. 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-18192043264773212442013-01-19T02:05:34.141+08:002013-01-19T02:05:34.141+08:00Thanks for another great post, Steve!
I've sa...Thanks for another great post, Steve!<br /><br />I've said this before, but what really gives away the Shroud skeptics' inability to look the Shroud rationally is that if they really thought it was a work of art, they'd be trumping it's status as one of the great wonders of the world, and as the most extraordinary piece of art by the most extraordinary artist in all of human history, past or present! For a Medieval artist (or even a modern one for that matter) to have made it would almost be more miraculous than the actual miracle that did create it. The reality is, the skeptics don't do that because they don't want to think realistically about how the Shroud could have come into existence at all. The very topic makes them uncomfortable, and they just want to be able to dismiss it as quickly as possible and not have to worry about it any further.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.com