tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post7469028517737578910..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Burial shroud proves Turin Shroud not from 1st century C.E. Jerusalem?Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-64540252607962946102015-06-14T14:09:48.961+08:002015-06-14T14:09:48.961+08:00John
>There is research information that a &qu...John<br /><br />>There is research information that a "Linen Cloth" approximately the same size as the Shroud Linen cloth, was required as a tablecloth for certain religious feast events; perhaps a Linen tablecloth was used for the burial of Jesus?<br /><br />Although <a href="http://tinyurl.com/nj8dk47" rel="nofollow">Mark 15:46</a> is translated that Joseph of Arimathea "bought a linen shroud":<br /><br />"And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb."<br /><br />(see also <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ogn9ju5" rel="nofollow">Mt 27:59; Lk 23:53</a>)<br /><br />the original Greek translated "linen shroud" is <i>sindona</i> which is just a large linen cloth, which could have been used for a variety of purposes, including a burial shroud, a bed sheet, a tablecloth, or to cut and make smaller cloths, e.g. clothes, from it.<br /><br />In <a href="http://tinyurl.com/obhnya8" rel="nofollow">Mark 14:51</a>, the same word <i>sindona</i>, is translated "linen cloth":<br /><br />"And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him,"<br /><br />and presumably was a bedsheet, a nightgown, or even a tablecloth hastily wrapped around this young man's (presumably Mark's) naked body:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/qz9j8om" rel="nofollow">Mk 14:52</a> "but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked."<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />Reader, if you like this my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin </a> blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">Google PageRank</a> number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-58648420499370814972015-06-14T10:02:10.697+08:002015-06-14T10:02:10.697+08:00There is research information that a "Linen C...There is research information that a "Linen Cloth" approximately the same size as the Shroud Linen cloth, was required as a tablecloth for certain religious feast events; perhaps a Linen tablecloth was used for the burial of Jesus? <br />John De HerreraJohn De Herrerahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11939384286580327937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-71100374591908784172012-05-26T12:43:27.141+08:002012-05-26T12:43:27.141+08:00John
Thanks for your comment.
>the Turin line...John<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />>the Turin linen features an intricate twill weave. The newly found cloth is made up of a simpler two-way weave." <br /><br />Yes, and that there was more than one style of weaving in the first century is nothing new.<br /><br />>The Jesus burial shroud was supplied by Joseph of Arimathea, who donated his own prepared tomb for the burial of Jesus. <br /><br />Which is itself an amazing proof of the overriding hand of God in the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. There `just happened' to be a rich man, who `just happened' to be a disciple of Jesus who `just happened' to own an unused tomb:<br /><br />Mt 27:57-60. 57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.<br /><br />near to the site of Jesus' crucifixion:<br /><br />John 19:38-42. 38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus ... asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. 39 Nicodemus also ... 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths ... 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.<br /><br />and who `just happened' to be a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, so he could obtain permission from Pilate to take Jesus body and bury it:<br /><br />Lk 23:50-53. 50 Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council ... 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid.<br /><br />>... Joseph was a wealthy man, traveled to distant lands, obviously the shroud was the finest he could find – not a local weave. <br /><br />It doesn't follow that the fine linen shroud which Joseph "bought" in the Jerusalem markets (Mk 15:46 "bought" is Gk. <i>agorasas</i> "bought in an <i>agora</i> - a market"), was "not a local weave". <br /><br />>He had prepared the tomb and obviously the "fine linen' cloth for his own use. <br /><br />The tomb yes, but not the cloth. Mt 27:60 says of the former that it was Joseph's "own new tomb," but none of the Gospels say that of the Shroud. And Mk 15:46 says that Joseph had "bought" the shroud but not that he had bought the tomb also. So there is a clear distinction that Joseph already owned the tomb but he had to buy the Shroud that day.<br /><br />>The fact that the recent found cloth was a 'simpler two-way weave' doesn't prove that the Turin Shroud could not be authentic???? <br /><br />Agreed. It's so fallacious it is amazing that a scholar could have said it, and that a journalist could uncritically report it.<br /><br />>In addition, perhaps the fact that the cloth was so fine/expensive, is the reason it was saved, not discarded after the resurrection???<br /><br />It may have been a factor. But the fact that it was <i>Jesus</i>' burial shroud left behind after His resurrection was a more compelling reason why the disciples did not leave Jesus' burial clothes in the now empty tomb to be taken by graverobbers.<br /><br />In support of this is the fact that another item of Jesus' graveclothes, the <a href="http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm" rel="nofollow">Sudarium of Oviedo</a>, was also saved and not discarded, and there is nothing intrinsically valuable about that. It is just a small piece of blood and fluid stained cloth.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-60170223435785364112012-05-25T11:25:47.847+08:002012-05-25T11:25:47.847+08:00the Turin linen features an intricate twill weave....the Turin linen features an intricate twill weave. The newly found cloth is made up of a simpler two-way weave." <br />The Jesus burial shroud was supplied by Joseph of Arimathea, who donated his own prepared tomb for the burial of Jesus. Joseph and Nicodemus brought abundant spices and wrapped Christ's body in a fine linen cloth. Joseph was a wealthy man, traveled to distant lands, obviously the shroud was the finest he could find – not a local weave. He had prepared the tomb and obviously the "fine linen' cloth for his own use. The fact that the recent found cloth was a 'simpler two-way weave' doesn't prove that the Turin Shroud could not be authentic???? <br />In addition, perhaps the fact that the cloth was so fine/expensive, is the reason it was saved, not discarded after the resurrection???<br />jdhJohn De Herreranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-24306220482691956712012-01-15T06:43:45.789+08:002012-01-15T06:43:45.789+08:00Anonymous
>I think the evidence Gibson has pu...Anonymous<br /> <br />>I think the evidence Gibson has put-forth actually points this burial to a NON-Jew... Two points you make in your blog; the mixture of linen and wool ... are very important...<br /><br />Agreed. But I could have made it clearer that the Old Testament prohibited Jews wearing clothes "made of two kinds of material" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2019:19&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Lev 19:19</a>); and in particular "You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2022:11&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Dt 22:11</a>); so the wearer of this shroud was most probably not a Jew.<br /><br />>Plus the fact this man suffered of the so mentioned deceases and these deceases were not common in the Jewish population of the time. <br /><br />Disagree. The Gospels record Jesus commanding His disciples to "cleanse lepers" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2010:8&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Mt 10:8</a>), which implies that leprosy was then prevalent among Jews, since at that stage His ministry was only to Jews (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2010:1&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Mt 10:1</a>).<br /><br />And Jesus' reply to John the Baptist's question whether He was the Messiah, including that "lepers are cleansed" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2011:5;%20Lk%207:22&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Mt 11:5; Lk 7:22</a>), indicates it was a major part of Jesus' healing ministry.<br /><br />>I think Gibson as you say should be ashamed of his 'Jumping to Conclusions' method of archaeology.<br /><br />Agreed. But he gained fame and no doubt fortune by it.<br /><br />>Keep up the good work Stephen! <br /><br />Thanks for the encouragement.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-36101040774642346932012-01-15T00:51:13.198+08:002012-01-15T00:51:13.198+08:00I think the evidence Gibson has put-forth actually...I think the evidence Gibson has put-forth actually points this burial to a NON-Jew...Rich maybe but not a 'pias' Jew anyways. Two points you make in your blog; the mixture of linen and wool, and the fact Jewish law stated burial linens must be of 'common' make and not elaborate are very important...Plus the fact this man suffered of the so mentioned deceases and these deceases were not common in the Jewish population of the time. I think Gibson as you say should be ashamed of his 'Jumping to Conclusions' method of archaeology.<br /><br />Keep up the good work Stephen!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-1699356541589285892011-01-30T08:26:29.274+08:002011-01-30T08:26:29.274+08:00Anonymous
>... shroud shows ... It seems I saw...Anonymous<br /><br />>... shroud shows ... It seems I saw one where they showed a painting on a cave house in Turkey or somewhere showing a nativity with the infant Jesus wrapped in herringbone swaddling clothes.<br /><br />Sorry, but I am not aware that there is any Shroud painting matching that description.<br /><br />>This show was attempting to follow the history of the shroud. Do you know the name of that show? <br /><br />I also am not aware of that show. Down here in Australia we don't get many TV Shroud documentaries.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-84699813280798840362011-01-30T05:41:35.037+08:002011-01-30T05:41:35.037+08:00I have a question for you. I've watched so man...I have a question for you. I've watched so many shroud shows I'm getting them all confused. It seems I saw one where they showed a painting on a cave house in Turkey or somewhere showing a nativity with the infant Jesus wrapped in herringbone swaddling clothes. This show was attempting to follow the history of the shroud. Do you know the name of that show? <br /><br />Thanks<br />reply to:<br />M.R.<br />greenpilgrim50@yahoo.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-49079101343742670002010-10-07T08:41:02.813+08:002010-10-07T08:41:02.813+08:00Anonymous
>The Bible bears witness against the...Anonymous<br /><br />>The Bible bears witness against the shroud and indicates it for false and a fake. <br /><br />No. The Shroud is <i>fully</i> consistent with the Bible and in fact supports the Gospels' account of Jesus suffering, death and <i>resurrection</i>. As an evangelical Christian, the Shroud would never have got to first base with me if there were major discrepencies between it and the Bible.<br /><br />There are many books on the Shroud by Christians who have pointed that out. For example, Stevenson & Habermas' "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Verdict-Shroud-Kenneth-Stevenson/dp/086683723X" rel="nofollow">Verdict on the Shroud</a>" (1981) have a whole chapter, "The New Testament and the Shroud." Their "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Controversy-Kenneth-E-Stevenson/dp/0840771746" rel="nofollow">The Shroud and the Controversy</a>" (1990) answers many other Biblical objections. Habermas is a leading Bible-believing evangelical theologian and he <i>fully</i> deals with all the Biblical issues.<br /><br />>This article points out in the light of the Bible that the shroud of Turin is a fake: <br /><br /><a href="http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.html" rel="nofollow">http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.html</a><br /><br />Thanks for the link. But the article is <i>wrong</i> on all its key points. Significantly his reference list does not include any actual <i>books</i> on the Shroud, which discuss the Biblical and Jewish issues at depth. It is typical of well-meaning but <i>uninformed</i> criticism of the Shroud by some Christians. <br /><br />Also, many of the leading Shroud advocates are Jewish, including Barrie Schwortz, the owner of the world's leading Shroud website, <a href="http://shroud.com/" rel="nofollow">Shroud.com</a>, and in online interviews he has defended the compatibility of the Shroud with both 1st century Jewish custom and the Bible. A Jewish scholar called Victor Tunkel has defended the Shroud's compatibility with 1st century Jewish burial customs. A Google search on "Shroud" and "Tunkel" together will bring up quotes by him defending the Shroud's authenticity from a Jewish perspective. See also, "<a href="http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-JewishBurial.html" rel="nofollow">Jewish Burial Practices</a>" at <i>The Shroud Report</i>.<br /><br />I may answer that webpage in detail in a separate post. Or I may deal with those issues more generally in my new series, "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2010/10/shroud-of-turin-1-introduction.html" rel="nofollow">Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!</a>" under #9 Objections.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-1208151588767970472010-10-07T00:39:01.393+08:002010-10-07T00:39:01.393+08:00Many people speak in favor of the shroud of Turin...Many people speak in favor of the shroud of Turin. Some people are against the shroud. The Bible bears witness against the shroud and indicates it for false and a fake. This article points out in the light of the Bible that the shroud of Turin is a fake:<br /><br />http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-8005989035172705922010-02-23T18:21:03.373+08:002010-02-23T18:21:03.373+08:00Thesis Writing Help
>this kind of blog always ...Thesis Writing Help<br /><br />>this kind of blog always useful for blog readers, it helps people during research. your post is one of the same for blog readers.<br /><br />Thanks. But if your poor English is an example of your thesis writing help, then it is a case of "Physician, heal yourself!" (Luke 4:23)!<br /><br />And as I told another commenter whose pseudonym contained a link to a website where students can apparently buy papers that they can then submit as though it was their own work:<br /><br />"If this is so, I regard it as a form of academic fraud and, however much I would like students to be aware of the information in my post ... I do not consent to the use of this or any information in my blog to help perpetrate academic fraud."<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-1281404493988407392009-12-29T09:22:51.078+08:002009-12-29T09:22:51.078+08:00Maria
Thanks again for your comments. My added po...Maria<br /><br />Thanks again for your comments. My added points below are for other readers, not for you, because I assume you already know them.<br /> <br />>Dear Professor Stephen Jones<br /><br />Thanks, but it's just plain old Mister!<br /><br />>If you allow me I´d like to add some textile facts that point the Shroud beeing woven in the first century.<br />Besides the stitching similar to the one found in Masada fortress clothes dating from 70 A.D. <br /><br />Yes. See "<a href="http://www.historicaljesusquest.com/linen-cloth.htm" rel="nofollow">Cloths from the Masada Fortress and their Implications in the Quest for the Historical Jesus</a>."<br /><br />>Shroud of Turin yarn has not uniform color due to chemical bleaching producing image artifacts the so called variegated pattern.In medieval times artisans after weaving the fabric used to bleach it by sunlight so it could have uniform color.<br /><br />Another good point. That `medieval forger' must have been VERY clever to think of that also! ;-)<br /><br />>Another important aspect,topmost fibers of Shroud of Turin threads have a polysaccharide layer -which by a chemical process of dehydration and oxidation changed color producing the image effect.<br />this polysacccharide layer is just the residue of washing the cloth in a saponaria officinalis solution<br /><br />Which is a plant "Common Soapwort (Saponaria officinalis) ... a common perennial plant from the carnation family ... The scientific name Saponaria is derived from the Latin sapo (stem sapon-) meaning "soap," which, like its common name, refers to its utility in cleaning. ... Soapwort's native range extends throughout Europe to western Siberia [<a href="http://flora.huji.ac.il/browse.asp?action=thread&f=3&t=560" rel="nofollow">including Israel</a>] ... As the name implies, it can be used as a very gentle soap, usually in dilute solution. It has been used to clean delicate or unique fabrics, such as the Turin shroud for example." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Soapwort" rel="nofollow">Common Soapwort</a>," Wikipedia, 8 August 2009).<br /><br />>The way the Shroud of Turin was made fits with the method described by roman historian of first century Pliny the Elder in his book Natural History.<br /><br />Yes. See "<a href="http://www.shroudstory.com/a-pliny-the-elder.htm" rel="nofollow">Pliny the Elder - Natural History</a>." How could a forger know all this? And why would he BOTHER in the 14th century (actually the <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2009/12/shroud-of-turin-is-burial-sheet-of.html#Sudarium" rel="nofollow">7th century or earlier because he would also have had to have forged the Sudarium of Oviedo</a>) when the public then would have been fooled by FAR LESS?<br /><br />>The 3:1 herringbone twill of the Shroud indicates no doubt an expensive fabric but Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy enough to afford it.<br /><br />Yes. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2027:57&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Mt 27:57</a> says that Joseph of Arimathea was "a rich man" and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mk%2015:46&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Mk 15:46</a> says he "bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock." That is, Joseph of Arimathea , who was "a disciple of Jesus" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2027:57;%20Jn%2019:38&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Mt 27:57; Jn 19:38</a>), and risked all to claim the crucified body of Jesus and then buried it in his own new tomb, would have bought the most expensive linen shroud available in Jerusalem. So in that sense the Shroud was not typical, because it was top-of-the-range 1st century Jewish. <br /><br />>Trying to disauthenticate the Shroud of Turin with such a weak claim is ludicrous.<br /><br />Agreed. All these claims are so weak they help confirm the Shroud IS what it appears to be: the burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His crucified and RESURRECTED body!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-53734196676921608442009-12-29T06:23:56.415+08:002009-12-29T06:23:56.415+08:00Dear Professor Stephen Jones
Thanks for your kind ...Dear Professor Stephen Jones<br />Thanks for your kind words.<br />If you allow me I´d like to add some textile facts that point the Shroud beeing woven in the first century.<br />Besides the stitching similar to the one found in Masada fortress clothes dating from 70 A.D. Shroud of Turin yarn has not uniform color due to chemical bleaching producing image artifacts the so called variegated pattern.In medieval times artisans after weaving the fabric used to bleach it by sunlight so it could have uniform color.<br />Another important aspect,topmost fibers of Shroud of Turin threads have a polysaccharide layer -which by a chemical process of dehydration and oxidation changed color producing the image effect.<br />this polysacccharide layer is just the residue of washing the cloth in a saponaria officinalis solution<br />The way the Shroud of Turin was made fits with the method described by roman historian of first century Pliny the Elder in his book Natural History.<br />The 3:1 herringbone twill of the Shroud indicates no doubt an expensive fabric but Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy enough to afford it.<br />Trying to disauthenticate the Shroud of Turin with such a weak claim is ludicrous.<br /><br />best regards<br />Maria da Glória<br />CENTRO PORTUGUÊS DE SINDONOLOGIAMaria da Glórianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-63134551665290568582009-12-28T10:57:12.855+08:002009-12-28T10:57:12.855+08:00George
>I have also been able to share this wi...George<br /><br />>I have also been able to share this with many Christians... often I receive rather strange looks when I talk about it. It seems as though many Christians today of a variety of camps, think that something so fantastic is very questionable. <br /><br />We are all infected to varying degrees with the dominant philosophy of our age, Naturalism, i.e. nature is all there is, there is no supernatural.<br /><br />I have debated with Christians who are almost practical atheists, i.e. they live almost as though there is no God.<br /><br />Then there are Protestant Christians who are opposed to the Shroud because it is Roman Catholic, not realising there were no Protestants until 1517 and the RC church did not own the Shroud until 1983 and it has always hedged its bets on the Shroud's authenticity. <br /><br />A quote in historian Robert Drews' (a non-Christian who accepts the Shroud is 1st century and of Jesus but it is a form of imprinting now lost to us) book hits the nail on the head, why even most Christians (including me until 2005) dismiss the Shroud out of hand as a fake, "The Shroud ... is obviously too good to be true."<br /><br />"That the scholarly world has been so reluctant to turn its attention to the Shroud may at first glance seem puzzling, but is explicable all the same. The Shroud is a sheet of linen bearing frontal and dorsal images of a body said to be the crucified body of Jesus Christ. This sensational, or even preposterous, claim is itself an explanation for the indifference of scholarly historians: an object touted as a memento from the crucifixion of Jesus, and so from the central episode in Western history, is obviously too good to be true." (Drews, R., "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, 1984, p.2).<br /><br />>But from my viewpoint, the same Lord that was raised to life, could certainly allow for such a blessing to be deposited in a physical form. He is just that wonderful to us!<br /><br />Yes. But we Christians often forget that we worship a God "who is able to do IMMEASURABLY MORE than all we ask or IMAGINE" (Eph 3:20)!<br /><br />>Still others do receive it well, and it is so enjoyable to see their eyes light up.<br /><br />Great! Interest in the Shroud is definitely picking up. The news stories about the supposed debunkings only create more interest in it, as the public increasingly asks, "why all these continuing new claims to debunk the Shroud when it was supposedly proven to be a fake over 20 years ago?"<br /><br />The 2010 exposition of the Shroud should create even greater interest in it. It will be for us Shroudies a VERY Happy New Year!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-63440996454979294022009-12-28T03:37:13.324+08:002009-12-28T03:37:13.324+08:00Stephen, I have also been able to share this with ...Stephen, I have also been able to share this with many Christians... often I receive rather strange looks when I talk about it. It seems as though many Christians today of a variety of camps, think that something so fantastic is very questionable. But from my viewpoint, the same Lord that was raised to life, could certainly allow for such a blessing to be deposited in a physical form. He is just that wonderful to us!<br /><br />Still others do receive it well, and it is so enjoyable to see their eyes light up. This item is good to think on. With all the overwhelming evidence, it only furthers the delight I have in Christ. He is worthy of our praises!<br /><br />Blessings and peace,<br />-g-George Weishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632714882132276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-10458961733506275982009-12-27T11:55:26.149+08:002009-12-27T11:55:26.149+08:00George
>Well done Stephen!
>
>I thank y...George<br /> <br />>Well done Stephen!<br />><br />>I thank you for continuing this work.<br /><br />Thanks again for your comment.<br /><br />>Your collection of knowledge on this subject is wonderful, and I have used it more than one time to talk about Christ.<br /><br />Thanks for this encouragement, which is very much appreciated.<br /><br />>Again, this is not the basis of my own faith, but it is what I like to think of as a nice little evidence trail pointing to the Messiah.<br /><br />Same here. I was a Christian for nearly 40 years before I discovered the Shroud. So if the Shroud was a fake, it would not affect my Christian faith. There are also many (if not most) Christians who, either through ignorance or prejudice, like I did, just assume the Shroud <i>cannot</i> be authentic.<br /><br />But for the majority of non-Christians, if they thought the Shroud was genuine, it <i>would</i> affect their faith in non-Christianity! Although it has to be conceded that there are a minority of non-Christians who do accept that the Shroud is authentic, because the evidence for it being Jesus' burial sheet is overwhelming, and they are somehow able to reconcile their non-Christianity with it. <br /><br />>Belated Christmas blessings to you and yours,<br /><br />Thanks. And the same to you and yours.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-70162718204491945212009-12-27T10:24:00.648+08:002009-12-27T10:24:00.648+08:00Well done Stephen!
I thank you for continuing thi...Well done Stephen!<br /><br />I thank you for continuing this work.<br />Your collection of knowledge on this subject is wonderful, and I have used it more than one time to talk about Christ. Again, this is not the basis of my own faith, but it is what I like to think of as a nice little evidence trail pointing to the Messiah.<br /><br />Belated Christmas blessings to you and yours,<br /><br />-g-George Weishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632714882132276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-39927950642379241752009-12-27T05:59:45.463+08:002009-12-27T05:59:45.463+08:00Maria
Thanks for your comment. And for your other...Maria<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. And for your other comments in defence of the Shroud that I have read on the Internet. <br /> <br />>I guess this claim is absolutely preposterous how can the discovery of shroud fragment with a kind of twill prove that another shroud was not weaved in same period?<br /><br />Yes. It is so preposterous that as a scientist Gibson surely could not believe it, so I assume he must have an ulterior motive, like money.<br /><br />>Experts in ancient textiles concluded that the Shroud of Turin was weaved in an middle east loom and textile expert Dr.Mechtild-Fleury Lembert stated that the Shroud of Turin had a kind of stitching similar to the ones found in Masada fortress<br /><br />Yes. Being made partly of wool and having been imported from the Mediterranean, as claimed by Gibson in the <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy.html" rel="nofollow">National Geographic</a> article, it is Gibson's shroud that is not representative.<br /><br />>In the name of all Shroudies I thank you for your quick rebuttal<br /><br />Thanks for your feedback, which is much appreciated.<br /><br />>CENTRO PORTUGÊS DE SINDONOLOGIA<br /><br />I found your blog <a href="http://www.santosudariodeturim.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Centro Português de Sindonologia</a> but I cannot read Portuguese. Your English is so good, as are your defences of the Shroud (e.g. on <a href="http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud-rc.html" rel="nofollow">Silly Beliefs</a>), I would encourage you to consider a parallel English translation of your blog.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-68434982463424123042009-12-27T03:57:46.777+08:002009-12-27T03:57:46.777+08:00I guess this claim is absolutely preposterous how ...I guess this claim is absolutely preposterous how can the discovery of shroud fragment with a kind of twill prove that another shroud was not weaved in same period?<br />Experts in ancient textiles concluded that the Shroud of Turin was weaved in an middle east loom and textile expert Dr.Mechtild-Fleury Lembert stated that the Shroud of Turin had a kind of stitching similar to the ones found in Masada fortress<br />In the name of all Shroudies I thank you for your quick rebuttal<br /><br />Maria da Glória<br /><br />CENTRO PORTUGÊS DE SINDONOLOGIAmaria da glórianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-73001348331433008552009-12-18T07:54:03.343+08:002009-12-18T07:54:03.343+08:00gabirol
>Thank you for your quick response to ...gabirol<br /><br />>Thank you for your quick response to that unscientific claim.<br /><br />Thanks for comment. I regard it as important to rapidly counter any misinformation about the Shroud. <br /><br />Most of the major Shroud sites are just too slow in responding to rapidly breaking news about the Shroud. This is a comparative advantage in me being a private blogger who is semi-retired.<br /><br />>I completely agree with you. The Gibson claim, as you say, is statistically fallacious at all. I think that it is totally absurd.<br /><br />Yes. It is so absurd that as a scientist Gibson surely cannot actually believe it? Especially when he admits that his shroud is not even Jewish, but was imported from elsewhere in the Mediterranean!<br /><br />I therefore suspect it is an attempt by Gibson and/or National Geographic to make money by a book and/or TV documentary.<br /><br />>Curiously (and suspiciously), all these “news” are being released just before the forthcoming shroud exhibition at Turin. <br /><br />Yes. But actually it might have the reverse effect and make more people interested in the Shroud! As per the old Hollywood maxim: "there is no such thing as bad publicity"!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-4385616981107853672009-12-18T02:31:38.178+08:002009-12-18T02:31:38.178+08:00Thank you for your quick response to that unscient...Thank you for your quick response to that unscientific claim.<br /><br />I completely agree with you. The Gibson claim, as you say, is statistically fallacious at all. I think that it is totally absurd.<br /><br />Curiously (and suspiciously), all these “news” are being released just before the forthcoming shroud exhibition at Turin. <br /><br /> Thank you once more.gabirolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14928355799314618158noreply@blogger.com