tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post6104004821206811339..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Water stains #28: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-48169066227751967852018-05-07T23:47:12.960+08:002018-05-07T23:47:12.960+08:00Anonymous
>>I also expected from you a furt...Anonymous<br /><br />>>I also expected from you a further argument this makes for problems with the forgery theory. For the relic to have ever been stored in such a way, and presuming the possessor appreciated it as holy, suggests that it was in peril.<br /><br />>I deliberately did not speculate why the ancient earthenware jar containing the Shroud, at some point in time had been partly filled with water, because no one knows. It most likely was the result of an accident, because partly filling the jar would not have hidden the Shroud.<br /><br />I later read in Barbara Frale's 2012 book, "The Templars and the Shroud of Christ," that "Whoever raised the lid [of such an earthenware jar] would not have seen anything but a featureless mass of cloth, too tightly turned in on itself to show even the abundant marks of blood":<br /><br />"Rather, it was a container designed for other purposes, where the Shroud was perhaps only provisionally housed. The shape of the object is exactly like that of the terra-cotta amphoras found in Qumran, which held the 800 or more manuscripts of the Essene library. In effect, amphoras were very versatile containers in which anything could and would be stored, from oil to grain to books. At the very bottom of that container there must have been some water, a small amount but enough to dampen the lower part of the cloth. This reconstruction seems to open a new and promising path of research. No doubt that kind of earthenware container was a highly commonplace object, made all over the Middle East and certainly not only in Qumran, but the community that lived in isolation on the Dead Sea shore had several features that might have made it a safe refuge for the earliest Christians, persecuted by the Jerusalem authorities almost from the time of Jesus's death. At any rate, if Salcito and Guerreschi's reconstruction is correct, it argues for a phase in the Shroud's history in which this object was not exhibited to the veneration of the faithful, but, on the contrary, hidden: Whoever raised the lid would not have seen anything but a featureless mass of cloth, too tightly turned in on itself to show even the abundant marks of blood. As is known, Jewish tradition held blood in horror and saw it as necessary to destroy anything that had come into contact with corpses, being in the highest degree impure and able to pollute people, things, and places." (Frale, B., 2012, "The Templars and the Shroud of Christ," Skyhorse Publishing: New York NY, p.171)<br /><br />I then realised that I had missed your point, thinking only of the water, not the fact that this would indeed suggest that the Shroud was stored folded tightly in an earthenware jar at a time when "it was in peril," namely in the early first century when the tiny Christian church was being persecuted by its far more numerous enemies, the Jews (<a href="https://goo.gl/q7ZFRj" rel="nofollow">Acts 8:1-3; 11:19; 12:1-3</a>)."<br /><br />I have posted this correction under the "<a href="https://goo.gl/nTBFVX" rel="nofollow">Comments</a>" section of my April 2018, <i>Shroud of Turin News</i>.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-8091031887261333452018-04-16T22:31:21.486+08:002018-04-16T22:31:21.486+08:00Anonymous
>I also expected from you a further ...Anonymous<br /><br />>I also expected from you a further argument this makes for problems with the forgery theory. For the relic to have ever been stored in such a way, and presuming the possessor appreciated it as holy, suggests that it was in peril. <br /><br />I deliberately did not speculate why the ancient earthenware jar containing the Shroud, at some point in time had been partly filled with water, because no one knows. <br /><br />It most likely was the result of an accident, because partly filling the jar would not have hidden the Shroud.<br /><br />>Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that post-Lirey, France, there is no documented evidence of any threat the shroud that would require such ends for its preservation. <br /><br />Agreed. But see above that partly filling a water jar containing the Shroud would not have hidden it from a threat.<br /><br />>Therefore it must pre-date the carbon dating.<br /><br />The large water stains definitely predate the 1988 radiocarbon dating, since they are evident on Enrie's 1931 photographs of the Shroud. In fact the Shroud sample was cut from one of the large water stains. See the first photo above where the bottom left large water stain covers the area from where the 1988 carbon dating sample was cut.<br /><br />Also, Guerreschi and Salcito point out that they must predate the Holland Cloth backing cloth sewn onto the Shroud in 1534 after the 1532 fire, because the large water stains would be on that too, but aren't.<br /><br />That the large water stains <i>perfectly fit</i> an earthenware jar of a type common in the first century Middle East is evidence that the Shroud was stored in such a jar in the Middle East in the first or early centuries. <br /><br />There is a 10th century Constantinople <i>Official History</i> that from 544 in Edessa to at least 944 in Constantinople the Shroud was mounted on a board, and it is most unlikely (to put it mildly) it was ever after that stored in a Middle Eastern earthenware jar.<br /><br />The burden of proof is on anti-authenticists to explain how a late medieval (1260-1390) Shroud has water stains that <i>perfectly fit</i> it having been stored in a first century Middle Eastern earthenware jar!<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 one Shroud-related topic without being off-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-9539036453177056612018-04-16T21:14:18.525+08:002018-04-16T21:14:18.525+08:00I also expected from you a further argument this m...I also expected from you a further argument this makes for problems with the forgery theory. For the relic to have ever been stored in such a way, and presuming the possessor appreciated it as holy, suggests that it was in peril. Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that post-Lirey, France, there is no documented evidence of any threat to the shroud that would require such ends for its preservation. Therefore it must pre-date the carbon dating.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com