tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71694130796338875122024-03-08T00:45:02.167-08:00A Rather Silly Blogphyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-48372279093185348122012-08-29T13:10:00.000-07:002012-08-29T13:11:32.997-07:00Responding to Samuel Butler — Part 2<p style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 1.625em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(55, 55, 55); line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">This is the continuation of my response to Samuel Butler’s claims about Christianity. In my previous post I showed that the idea of Mithraism being an influence on Christianity was unwarranted. This time I’d like to deal with Samuel’s claims about two Papal quotes:</p><blockquote style="border: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; margin: 0px 3em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; quotes: ''; color: rgb(55, 55, 55); line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><p style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.625em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; ">…Pope Leo X (died 1521) called Christ a “Fable”. Later Pope Paul III expressed similar sentiments.</p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 1.625em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(55, 55, 55); line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Immediately I should point out that even if the two men here did indeed claim that Christianity was a fable, this does not lead logically to the falsification of Christianity. There are probably many people who will promote an ideology, whether it be secular or religious, who in the back rooms laugh and scoff at the very ideas that they promulgate, reaping their own benefits from doing so. For instance, let’s pretend that President Obama’s recent support for same-sex marriage was not based on his own convictions, but because he wanted the ‘gay vote’ and that secretly he found the idea morally incorrect.<a href="http://arathersillyblog.com/2012/08/13/responding-to-samuel-butler-part-2/#sdfootnote1sym" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(25, 130, 209); text-decoration: none; "><sup style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; height: 0px; line-height: 1; position: relative; bottom: 1ex; ">1</sup></a> Now let’s pretend that after his election this was somehow leaked out to the public. Would the LGBTQ movement feel as though their position was now incorrect since an authority figure had lied to them? Of course not. It is no difference for Christianity – not to mention that there are multiple bodies within Christendom that do not agree with the jurisdictional claims of the Pope and would eagerly use such quotes to discredit the claims of the Church of Rome.</p><p style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 1.625em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(55, 55, 55); line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><a href="http://arathersillyblog.com/2012/08/13/responding-to-samuel-butler-part-2/">Read the full article here</a></p>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-15081085696704755652012-08-29T13:08:00.002-07:002012-08-29T13:12:53.542-07:00Responding to Samuel Butler — Part 1When I was an atheist and attending undergrad, I use to go to the Freethinkers club on campus. I originally did this as a place to find like-minded people – it was little more than to go and say, ‘hey, let’s make fun of Christianity!’ Freethinkers, nevertheless, became a very important to me for multiple reasons. However, there’s one criticism that I’d like to focus on now. One of the disconcerting things that I found while in Freethinkers was that a lot of my athiest compatriots seemed to be so convinced that there was no God that they generally did not deal with apologetics beyond creationism (obviously this was not the case for everyone, though). I remember one meeting when we were discussing what topics to cover in the coming year I purposefully listed off a bunch of names and arguments one can find on the internet: the Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig, the Tautological Argument, Alvin Plantiga’s Modal Ontological Argument, etc. The response I got was a blank face followed by one poignant question: “What is <em style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-weight: 300; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(55, 55, 55); line-height: 24px; ">that</em><span style="color: rgb(55, 55, 55); font-weight: 300; line-height: 24px; font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:15px;">?”</span> <div><a href="http://arathersillyblog.com/2012/08/10/responding-to-samuel-butler-part-1/">Read the full article here</a></div>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-44273490416986931022012-08-07T13:10:00.001-07:002012-08-07T13:10:55.655-07:00Movin' on up...New blog, same silliness: <a href="www.arathersillyblog.com">www.arathersillyblog.com</a>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-43547614967857942572012-07-18T12:13:00.003-07:002012-07-18T12:14:48.624-07:00Holy Protection PostHello all,<div style="font-weight: normal; "><br /></div><div>Holy Protection (one of the blogs I follow) had asked me to do a guest post for them. You can find the result <b><a href="http://holyprotection.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/everlasting-life/#more-1665">here</a>.</b></div>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-35635623967581876202012-06-12T10:57:00.007-07:002012-07-18T12:15:07.592-07:00Shroud of Turin Lecture in Video FormatHello all,<div style="font-weight: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-weight: normal; ">Sorry for the lack of posts. My job that I have been pre-occupied with for the last 10 months has ended and I will be able to start writing more. I come to you with videos though; I have recorded myself reading my Shroud of Turin Lecture, while adding in a few notes here and there, including a brief response to collinsbarry 'scorch-o-graph' theory. Enjoy!</div><div style="font-weight: normal; "><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9095023A292663B6&feature=plcp"><b>Click here for the link</b></a></div><div style="font-weight: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-weight: normal; "><br /></div>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-51173954260311421592012-05-09T17:55:00.001-07:002012-05-09T17:55:14.118-07:00A Rather Silly TumblrBecause apparently it's the new craze among the kids. I'll be posting in both areas.<br />
<br />
Can be found <a href="http://arathersilly.tumblr.com/">here</a>.phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-17010334885402838692012-05-09T16:17:00.005-07:002012-06-06T15:25:31.759-07:00You can do it your own way...If it's done just how I say!<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">- <i>'</i><i>Eye of the Beholder' by Metallica</i></span><br /><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">I've mentioned before to those that I know how as an atheist I had reached the conclusions of bothexistential and moral nihilism. While I should get around to how I arrived at those conclusions at some point (and further justify them as I no doubt did not consult literature when deciding such things) what I had never considered was epistemic nihilism; I had always assumed the existence of the material universe as philosophy seemed to be utterly useless without such an axiomatic belief. Of course, any theist who would have criticized me on taking that on faith would be completely right in their assertion.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">More importantly, and relevant to this sketch,<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc">1</a> </sup>is the fact that I was a determinist in my view on free-will. This resulted from the philosophy class I took as a freshman, coupled with some of the science on the subject I had recalled from my high school psychology class which showed how decisions were made in the sub-conscious before being relayed to the conscious. The more I reflected on the matter, the more sense it made to me as an atheist; if I was the result of physical/material processes that functioned off of cause-and-effect, then that means every thought, action, etc, that I had was also the result of cause-and-effect and not a 'choice'. I, after all, wasn't a human being made in the image of God, but a biochemical machine.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">But I never took the denial of free-will out to its full implications.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc">2</a> </sup>To review: physicalist atheism<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc">3</a> </sup>seemed to lead to determinism since nature works via cause-and-effect. While quantum mechanics seems to contradict this, there are two important points. Firstly, quantum mechanics functions at such a micro-level that it probably has no effect on macro-level systems such as the will. Secondly, even if this is not the case, quantum mechanics shows the universe to be at a level of randomness and chaos. This is in no way synonymous with free-will as all it would mean is that our choices are either determined by the antecedent state of the universe or are completely random.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">If, then, we are the products ofcausality, this means our very beliefs, or lack thereof, are not the result of conscious deliberation and weighing of the facts. Nor are they the result of critical thinking or skepticism. They are the result of the antecedent state of the universe and nothing more. I was an atheist and am now a Christian because I had no choice <i>but </i>to be such things. The Christian who apostatizes because he feels that his religion is irrational is not doing so for rational reasons but because he had no choice but to become an atheist.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">The one retort may be that while this is all true, atheists may have more accurately perceived the world around them, they have created a better mental model. At this point I will quote from <a href="http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/the-other-side/">an article by R. M. Manion</a>:</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style=" ;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;color:black;">“Then,” I said, “if the mental models of a thing correspond to knowledge and the assessment of those models correspond to reason, we would have a paradigm for the evolution of knowledge and reason. We already have mechanical representations of this in artificial intelligence systems. We have robots that identify objects in a room from video input and make a sufficient analysis of these models to navigate around the room. If we set up an experiment where robots that ran into objects disappeared while those that successfully avoided objects reproduced with minor changes in their programming, we would eventually evolve a collection of robots with an astute knowledge oftheir environment and ability to assess and navigate it. In like manner, man has evolved the ability to form extremely detailed and accurate models of his sensory input of the world and to make sophisticated analysis of that data. Hence, man has evolved knowledge and reason. True, this system is still deterministic, and man is still a part of the natural system he has come to know. But, he knows it none the less. It is a case of nature knowing itself. A sort of feedback loop, or self-diagnostic routine.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup>4</sup></a></span></blockquote><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style=" ;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;color:black;">After pointing out the inherent dualistic language of the above, the second character of the dialogue gives the reason as to why such a feedback loop does not do us any good:</span></div><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style=" ;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;color:black;">“The robots know nothing. Simply, the ones set up to avoid obstacles, avoid obstacles, the ones that don’t, don’t. Can we say that water flows to the ocean because it knows the way? Does water that finds its’ way to the ocean know something that other water doesn’t? You see, water simply does what nature would have it do. So the robots do what their environment, sensory apparatus, and programs would have them do. Their actions are caused. They cause nothing. In like manner we believe what nature would have us believe. We do nothing. We are the repository of certain thoughts. I do not create my beliefs. I am simply a repository of belief. All of it, my beliefs, my thoughts, my reasons, even the language by which I try to explain them, are simply acts of nature.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup>5</sup></a></span></blockquote><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style=" ;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;color:black;">To transpose this, the Christian is a Christian because he was set up to be that way. The atheist is an atheist because he was set up to be that way. Their very deliberations, thoughts, analysis of evidence,and their very <i>perception</i> of evidence is all programmed. At no point can a person somehow transcend nature and peer behind its curtain to try and see whether or not its lying to us, because by adhering to physicalism we have already thrown any kind of transcendence out the door. There is nothing but the physical – that is it.</span></div><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style=" ;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;color:black;">Ultimately, this leads one to an epistemic nihilism, or that we cannot know anything. The previous quote gets at the heart of the matter, that “we are the repository of certain thoughts...I am simply arepository of belief. All of it...are simply acts of nature.” The issue is that nature is <i>everything </i>in the physicalist worldview; it is the Alpha and Omega of this brand of atheism. But the problem is that non-physicalists exist, orrather, that there are differing claims about existence. The universe is the only source of information, but it has somehow has given contradictory answers, and we have no way of knowing which one is right. Hence, we cannot know anything – epistemic nihilism.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup>6</sup></a></span></div><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style=" ;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;color:black;">Therest of the dialogue goes on to talk about the self-refuting nature of such a stance, but I am not going to do that here; this sketch was rather to bring out physicalism in regards to free-will to its logical conclusion. Again, given the rough nature of any sketch it isopen to being easily criticized, but I do invite any criticism or thoughts as long as the tone is appropriate. Oh, and read the article mentioned; it is better than anything I could type out here.</span></div><div id="sdfootnote1"><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Notes</span></b></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a> I keep saying that my works are sketches because of their very unpolished nature. My current job prevents me from sinking too much research and time into anything, especially as the job is rounding its last leg. Thankfully, I will be able to devote more time to my writings once its finished.</span></div></div><div id="sdfootnote2"><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a> I should mention now that this is merely a hackneyed version of a brilliant article posted over at Energetic Processions on metaphysical naturalism and its moral and epistemic implications. I highly suggest that one reads it in its entirety and read the comments section at the bottom of the post.</span></div></div><div id="sdfootnote3"><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a> The view that there is no God and that only physical systems exist.</span></div></div><div id="sdfootnote4"><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a> R. M. Manion, <i>The Other Side: Metaphysics and Meaning</i>. November, 1993. <a href="http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/the-other-side/">http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/the-other-side/</a> retrieved 5/7/2012.</span></div></div><div id="sdfootnote5"><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><i><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a> Ibid</i>.</span></div></div><div id="sdfootnote6"><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym">6</a> Needless to say, while I could (and probably should) go on to comment on morality and purpose, if one agrees with this conclusion then such essays are rendered rather superfluous; if we cannot have knowledge, then there is no way to ascertain morality or purpose.</span></div></div>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-3722359571553765012012-05-06T16:33:00.003-07:002012-05-06T19:33:27.677-07:00It's a Madhouse!<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When I remember my times as an atheist,
one of the disconcerting things I ran across frequently was when
atheists clearly didn't understand the argument of a Christian
apologist, and yet were content to lambast away with ad hominem in
the comments section of a YouTube video (of course I'm not applying
this universally; there are many atheists who act intelligently with
courtesy, and likewise there are many Christians who act in quite
insipid and unintelligent ways, if not anti-intellectually). What
also baffled me, and this has become more apparent the longer I've
been a Christian, is how many atheists really don't know the
Scriptures or theology well at all. How many times, whether on
YouTube or a Freethinkers meeting, have I heard this dead-horse
comment:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Well, the Bible also says you
shouldn't eat X, Y, and Z, but you don't seem to follow <i>those</i>
rules, therefore you just pick and choose what you do!</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
People,
the answer is in Acts and the epistles of St. Paul. All you have to
do is <i>read the Bible</i>
and you'd have your answer. And<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a>
I ask that you please don't see this as the ranting and raving of
some fundamentalist evangelical Protestant (whose <i>Solo
Scriptura</i> isn't even close to
what Martin Luther had in mind when he put forth <i>Sola
Scriptura</i>). I believe in
evolution, in critical thinking, in sound science, that the earth is
4.5 billion years old and that the universe is 15.4 billion years
old, that people who are gay never chose their sexuality, etc. I also
would agree that Christians, especially of the folk-evangelical ilk,
have spouted a lot of anti-science, anti-intellectual, and
anti-loving dialogue in the last decades. I'm in firm agreement with
Archbishop Lazar Puhalo that the main reason why people don't like
Christianity is because of the hypocritical and unwarranted
self-righteous attitude that many Christians have simply because they
are Christians.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The
thing is, I felt this way <i>before</i>
I had become a Christian, and long before it as well. I remember not
caring for moral arguments against the existence of God because I had
already landed myself firmly in moral nihilism, and quite frankly, if
you don't believe in morality to begin with how are you going to
lodge it as an argument against the existence of God?<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a>
People can talk about how insignificantly small the planet is
compared to the universe, the 'pale blue dot' of Carl Sagan, but the
fact of the matter is that the size and apparent insignificance of
something doesn't mean its intrinsically insignificant. Yes the Bible
is an ancient collection of books that existed before modern science,
but the age of something doesn't automatically mean that the
information contained therein is false – objective morals, dogma,
and spirituality are objectively true no matter how much time passes
by. Furthermore, the fact that there are multiple religions claiming
to have an objective truth doesn't mean that they're all false. It is
entirely logical that one could be true and all the rest are not. In
fact, that's exactly what Christianity claimed when it was preached
to the multi-religious society of the Mediterranean world. Yet
somehow we've forgotten that and the mere fact that Islam or Buddhism
exists is put forward as a kind of defeater for the Christian.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Pe<span style="font-family: inherit;">rhaps I am just insane.
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There is a point to this post; I think
that I'm going to imitate David Withun and Pious Fabrications and
start commenting more on atheism, though I want to avoid the typical
polemically charged rhetoric that is unfortunately passed around too
often.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a>
I simply want to take things to their logical conclusions and see
what people think.
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But as for the relation between the Old
Testament Law and Christianity, I leave you with Fr. Alexander
Schmemman:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 0.15in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Soon
it was no longer a question of individual conversions or exceptional
cases; now there were whole Christian communities of Gentiles. Did
the ritual prescriptions of the Old Testament, which had remained in
force among the Judeo-Christians of Jerusalem, apply to these people?
St. Paul answered this question with a flat "No!" Nor did
he see the problem in terms of the best method of converting
Gentiles; he believed this was an issue involving the very essence of
the Christian Good News. First in his Epistle to the Galatians,
written in the head of controversy, and later in a more academic
manner in his Epistle to the Romans, he developed his doctrine
concerning the relation between law and grace and the freedom of
Christians from the law. He was not in the least inclined to deny the
importance of the Old Testament. "The law is holy, and the
commandment holy and just and good" (Rom. 7:12). But the law
simply defined evil and sin, it gave no power of salvation from sin.
Even when a man knows what is good and what [is] evil, he is often
powerless to crush the latter. "For the good that I would I do
not: but the evil which I would not, that I do" (Rom. 7:19). Man
is the slave of sin and he cannot free himself from his servitude. If
the setting up of a law or norm -- the knowledge of it -- included
the power to avoid going against it, there would be no need for
salvation in Christ. But in giving man law, God reveals to him the
abnormality of evil -- a sinful violation of his will concerning the
world and mankind -- and at the same time condemns him; for sinful
man, lacking the strength to save himself from sin, lies under
judgment [hence the verses where the law is called a curse]. But He
who is without sin has taken upon Himself the whole burden of our
sins and their condemnation under the law; by His death He has
redeemed us. In Christ law died and grace ascended the throne, and
through faith in Christ and union with Him in the baptismal death man
ceases to be a slave and receives a share in His life.</span><span style="color: black;"><br /></span><span style="color: black;"></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">"Nor
has this salvation been granted to the Jews alone, but to all
mankind. St. Paul never denied that the Jews were a superior people,
God's elect, but for him they excelled other nations not because the
Word of God had been committed to them, but because through them the
way had been prepared for the advent of Christ. Any person who
believes in Christ and shares in His life and death must realize that
now there is "neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal. 3:28); if he
still thinks to obtain justification through fulfilling the ritual
injunctions of the law, let him know that "Christ is become of
no effect unto you, ...ye are fallen from grace" (Gal . 5:4).
For in love lies the whole meaning of the law, yet the law itself has
no power to give love. In Christ love is freely bestowed upon men,
and through Him and in Him the law thus becomes unnecessary. In Him
"circumcision in nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the
keeping of the commandments of God" (I Cor. 7:19).</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />Fr.
Alexander Schmemann, "The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy",
pp. 21-23 </span></span>
<br />
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<br /></div>
<div class="sdfootnote">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>You
should never begin a sentence with 'and', I know, I know...</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a>I'm
sure there may be a way, but that's not my point at the moment.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>Which
I know that I've probably failed at that here. Please, forgive me.</div>
</div>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-15568848463428501272012-02-25T07:16:00.003-08:002012-02-25T07:16:49.200-08:00Shroud of Turin LectureHello everyone,<br />
<br />
So roughly a week ago I compiled all the posts I've done on here together into a lecture format for a hopeful upcoming presentation I'll be giving on the Shroud of Turin and its acting as evidence for the Resurrection. This contains not only all the material I've done with revisions and some additions, but two new sections on the work of Walter McCrone vs Adler and Heller, but a brief reconstruction of the Shroud's journey throughout history. While it is still only in a draft form, it takes about an hour and a half for me to read out loud, which may be a little long. I'm really looking for feedback so that this can be as best as it can be. Thank you, and please look at it via the link!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/82061235/The-Argument-From-the-Shroud">The Argument From the Shroud [Lecture]</a><br />
<br />phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-42547135296852707202012-01-29T11:37:00.000-08:002012-01-29T14:08:05.017-08:00The Argument From the Shroud 3-A: 'O Death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?'<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<img border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" />
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-top: 0.17in; page-break-after: avoid;">
<br />
<br /></div>
At this point in the argument I am going to assume that the
Shroud of Turin is indeed <i>the</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> burial
shroud of Jesus Christ. The posts up to this point have largely been a
justification for this assumption. The real excitement about the Shroud is when
we start to examine it in the light of Pascha.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There already exists
voluminous studies on the Resurrection and what the apostles saw, largely in
the camps of criticism and apologetics. My contention all along is that the
Shroud adds unprecedented weight to the claims of the apologists, not only
confirming the written record of the Gospels but giving us a primary document
which supplies us with far more information than we had previously.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why then, a Resurrection?
Couldn't we just say that the image of Christ was made via a naturalistic
process and that as eerily and unique it may be (eerily perhaps <i>because</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> of it's uniqueness) it does not prove the
Resurrection? Yes and no.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes in the sense that
I am not arguing that this <i>proves</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> the
Resurrection. I don't know if I can do that, or if anyone can do that, but what
I will say is that it makes it seem logically possible. So much so to the point
where I believe that the Resurrection is a more powerful explanation for both
the events surrounding Easter and the Shroud than any naturalistic one. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
No in the sense that
even if there were to be a purely naturalistic explanation for the image, it
would be irrelevant to what I just claimed. I will elaborate on this further
when I talk about the properties of the Shroud and how they pertain to the
different image forming hypotheses. However, first we must lay the context of
the claim.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To explain the rise of
early Christian belief, there are some key factors that any hypothesis must
take into account. I will essentially be touting the typical evangelical
apologetic given by figures such as William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, etc.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Firstly, the apostles
of Christ claimed to have seen their Rabbi after His death and believed that He
was truly Risen from the dead. I am putting emphasis on 'Risen' as there have
been many theories that the early Church did not believe in a bodily
resurrection, but that such a dogma came later and was anachronistically forced
upon earlier writings.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[1]</span></a>
However, scholars such as N.T. Wright have shown this to be an erroneous claim.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[2]</span></a>
In a similar vein, there's been many (bad) attempts to show that Christ was
just a copycat savior from preexisting mythology. However, the very concept of
the bodily resurrection – the word 'anastasis' – flew in the face of everything
that the Hellenic world imagined.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[3]</span></a>
Also, there have been many works that have debunked such theories, such as the
apologetics of James Patrick Holding, or Edward L. Winston's criticism of the
popular internet movie 'Zeitgeist'.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[4]</span></a>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet, the visions
themselves wont convince most skeptics. After all, people have visions of
things frequently, and in an ancient world that did not have the sciences
people <i>had</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> to of been more prone to be
duped by hallucinations, right?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While the assertion
may seem reasonable to us in our post-modern age, the ancients were actually
quite skeptical themselves of any kind of vision or hallucination.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[5]</span></a>
But rather than delve too deep into this subject, there is a key point I'd like
to make. In the ancient world, whenever someone saw a recently departed person
it was their soul that came back to talk, or a vision of some kind. <i>Never </i><span style="font-style: normal;">was it the entire person, both body and soul, who
returned.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[6]</span></a>
To the pagan mind this was pure foolishness; the body was something that was
shed after death. This is why the Greeks found Christianity to be “foolishness”
as St. Paul says, and why many of them laughed at him when he preached the
risen Christ.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Secondly, coupled with
this message was the fact that <i>Christ</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
was Risen. While many, though not all, Jews believed in the resurrection of the
body, the idea that the resurrection had already begun was what was so unique
about the message.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[7]</span></a> This did not
sit with the ideas of the Jews that everyone would be resurrected at once – no
one would resurrect before anyone else. Yet, as the disciples clearly preached,
Christ was Risen – the resurrection had begun.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thirdly, the empty
tomb. Some contest that the empty tomb is a legendary embellishment . Mark's
gospel in the earliest copies we have, ending with the women telling “no one”
what they saw seems to fit with this. Indeed, the later gospels seem to be
covering up this error by saying that they <i>did </i><span style="font-style: normal;">tell the apostles, trying to fix an obvious blunder. For indeed </span><i>if</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> the empty tomb were true, why would the women
disciples tell no one?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet, there are
problems with this train of thought. If the tomb was indeed a legend, why have
female disciples be the ones who discover it? Female testimony in Jewish law was
non-existent – they simply were not seen as reliable witnesses. True, the
disciples did verify their message for themselves, not solely relying off their
testimony (in fact they distrusted them from the outset). Yet why, if inventing
a story, have the women disciples be the ones to discover it at all? Perhaps
its supposed to be a reversal of sorts: while the men ran away after Christ's
arrest, the women stayed. Where it was Eve who first disobeyed, it was the
women who now first believe. While this is certainly true, and is even how it
is seen in the Tradition of the Orthodox Church, why are we to believe that
such a theological premise was to be invented, one with much profundity, but
that then the disciple who inaugurated it completely botched everything up by
saying they told “no one”? Is such a blatant error consistent with one who
could 'invent' such a theological reflection?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Furthermore, as
historian N. T. Wright points out, the empty tomb is a <i>necessary</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> condition for explaining the Paschal story.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[8]</span></a>
If the Apostles only had visions of a risen Jesus, this alone wouldn't of
brought them to their belief; like I said previously, despite our normal
assumptions, the ancient world had a firm grasp on the difference between
reality and visions. As Wright points out, “the response to reported visions of
this kind might of course have been, in the ancient as in the modern world, to
question the mental balance, or perhaps the recent diet, of the witnesses.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[9]</span></a>
To add on to this, visions of those recently departed were always seen as a
sign “that the person was dead, not that they were alive”, yet the claim of the
early Church was that Christ </span><i>was</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
alive.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[10]</span></a>
Had the apostles only seen visions, they, like most of the ancient world, could
have just written them off. However, it is – as Wright again points out – that
the visions had a “Jesus who was appearing...in bodily continuity with the
corpse that had occupied the tomb”.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[11]</span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, when we look at
the Shroud we <i>must</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> remember that any
hypothesis about the image and the end result of Christ's body has to also
account for all the other data I just went over. It's no good if a theory can
account, for example, the source of the image but have no way of explaining the
empty tomb. First, let's see some of the things the Shroud seems to vindicate
in our previous apologetic.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, the empty tomb.
My reason for this is how else should we have access to the Shroud unless the
Apostles found it as they describe in their accounts? Now skeptics may argue
that it was indeed recovered but not necessarily from an empty tomb. However,
the travertine aragonite located at Christ's feet on the Shroud has an <i>incredibly</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> <span style="color: black;">“similar [signature] to
limestone samples from ancient [Judaic] tombs”.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[12]</span></a>
This obviously does not prove the empty tomb, but it is certainly powerful
evidence for it's validity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"> Second,
a historical Jesus. The reason I mention this is that though 'Jesus-myth'
theories are not generally given the time of day, certain works and views by
authors such as Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier as well as serious laymen such
as Neil Godfrey are gaining more of an audience. However, if we're accepting
that the Shroud of Turin did indeed wrap Jesus Christ, then the idea that He
was a myth is soundly gutted. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So then, how can we
explain the empty tomb, the rise of early Christian beliefs, and the image on
the Shroud? The first theory we can look at is that the body was stolen from
the tomb. Immediately though, we run into problems because of the blood clots
on the Shroud. Vignon noted that these clots “showed the characteristics of
authentically dried or 'clotted' blood – separation of serum and darker
cellular mass”.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[13]</span></a> Though a
few of the stains had broken borders, “most were smooth” indicating “they must
first have dried and separated on a non-absorbent surface, such as the skin of
a corpse, before being transferred to the cloth.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[14]</span></a>
This would be possible due to the sweat released by Christ during His torture,
which then would have lingered longer if His body was placed in a cool
environment such as a tomb<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[15]</span></a>
(hence giving even more evidence to the fact that the empty tomb was not a
developed legend). However, the perfect quality in which the wounds are
transferred are the real problem for the stolen body theory; if the body was
stolen from the Shroud we would not see the perfection we do – instead things
would have been messy and haphazard.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[16]</span></a>
This makes sense as a wound that hadn't fully clotted yet would have smeared on
the Shroud while one that had clotted to the linen would have broken a-new. We
see neither of these on the Shroud, though.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, the Shroud
does away with 'swoon theory', or the idea that Christ didn't die on the Cross.
This is very hard to take seriously even without the Shroud, and most skeptics
don't hold to it. However, there is no doubt of its invalidity when we remember
that the image of Christ on the Shroud is in rigor mortis. The reason I bring
this up is for a more inter-religious apologetic than a theist-atheist one. To
my understanding, most traditional forms of Islam hold that Christ never died
while on the Cross. This seems to fly directly in the face of said claim. The
implications spell themselves out.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Third, the idea that
Christ was buried in a common grave. The first problem with this theory is the
aforementioned data of both the limestone and the blood. Any theory that claims
that Christ was buried instead in a common grave has to deal with these facts.
Second, the weave as I had mentioned in my second post was only one that could
be purchased by those with wealth. Why, if Christ was going to be subjected to
a common grave, would someone have bothered to bury such an expensive cloth
with Him? Such a cloth makes sense if the story about St. Joseph of Arimathea
is true, but doesn't seem to be the case if it is false. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One may opt that
Christ was wrapped in the Shroud and then buried in a common grave after wards
rather than a tomb (or just reburied). Again, this fails to deal with the
evidence we have (the clots and our possession of the Shroud), but even if this
were not the case we run into a different problem. The body would have
necessarily had to of been formed by contact in this case since there would
have been no proper environment for gasses to diffuse as perfectly as one sees
on the Shroud in this naturalistic hypothesis. Let me extrapolate:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One set of
naturalistic theories that attempt to explain how the image was made comes from
gases that proceed death. The most popular theory is the Maillard reaction
proposed by Raymond N. Rogers. The theory in brief states “that [the] colour
[on the Shroud] can be produced by reactions between reducing sugars, left on
the cloth by the manufacturing procedure, and amines deriving from the
decomposition of a corpse.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[17]</span></a>
This is because “decomposing bodies start producing ammonia and amines...fairly
quickly, depending on the temperature and humidity [of their surroundings]. The
ammonia and many of the amines are volatile, and they rapidly undergo Maillard
reactions with any reducing saccharides they contact.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[18]</span></a>
However, as Fanti and others pointed out, “t<span style="color: black;">he image
resolution and the uniform coloration of the linen resolution seem to be not
compatible with a mechanism involving diffusion.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[19]</span></a></span>
Even <i>if</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> this weren't the case though,
such a reaction would take at least a day<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[20]</span></a>,
hence making us run into the problem of the blood clots once again.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[21]</span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The image on the
Shroud could not have been made by contact with the body for a few reasons.
Firstly, there are areas on the image that would not be visible if the image
formation resulted solely from contact. In other words, there had to be some
kind of vertical projection from the body in order to create the image in these
places, whether we want to say gas, radiation, light, etc. Furthermore,
“thermography proved that the emittance of the image was the same in all areas.
The entire image formed by the same mechanism. Spectra and photography
confirmed this observation.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[22]</span></a>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Secondly, as I had
previously mentioned the Shroud when analyzed by a VP-8 image analyzer comes up
as a 3-Dimensional image, meaning it maps the distance of the Shroud from the
body.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[23]</span></a>
This would not be the case if the image was formed by contact since all areas
of the body would have to be on an equal plane, and thus the VP-8 analyzer
would have showed it as all being level instead of 3-Dimensional. However, for
the image to have been 3-Dimensional in the first place there had to be space
between the Shroud and the body as that is how a 3-Dimensional image is made in
such a case as this.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[24]</span></a>
This is because of the aforementioned reasons – if the cloth had been touching
the skin directly then any place where the cloth was touching would be equal in
distance to another area in which the cloth was touching. For example, if the
cloth was touching Christ's nose at two points, they would be at the same level
in a 3-Dimensional image. However, this is not found to be the case. The
implication then is that somehow the cloth wasn't touching Christ's body during
the image formation process.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I've derailed a bit
from my initial point which is that <i>if </i><span style="font-style: normal;">the
body had been buried somewhere other than the empty tomb and wasn't a reburial,
then the image must have been formed by contact since this seems to be the only
naturalistic explanation. However, we know the image wasn't formed by contact.
Hence, the theory is inadequate.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fourth, what if
Christ's body had simply rotted away and the Shroud was taken later on. There's
a whole bunch of problems with this to begin with, for instance <i>why</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> the Apostles would even bother to think their Savior
had risen if they removed the Shroud from His decayed body. However, these reasons
are irrelevant when we remember that there are no signs of putrefaction on the
Shroud of Turin. The image was made and the body was removed before any signs
of liquid decomposition kicked in, which at such a temperature would have been
roughly 30 hours.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[25]</span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So far, naturalistic
explanations for what happened to Christ's body while forming the image have
not fared well. This, of course, isn't even taking into account the Apostle's
visions, or their twist in Second Temple Judaic belief: that the Resurrection
had already happened to an individual. There is, of course, a theistic
explanation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every Pascha, or
Easter, in the Eastern Orthodox Church there is a certain troparion that is
sung: “<em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;">Christ is risen from the
dead</span></em><span style="color: #222222;">, trampling down death by death,
and on those in the tombs bestowing life!”</span> This message, that Christ is
risen, or in Greek, Christos Anesti, is what I believe can explain all of what
we have covered. The Resurrection of an individual, the inexplicable image, the
missing body, the empty tomb, the appearances to the Apostles, etc. The
Resurrection is a far superior explanation to any of a naturalistic origin. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But aren't I saying
“God did it?”. Well, I believe He <i>did</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> do
it, but my point is not to just throw my hands up because of this incredible
image and stop thinking. My point is that all the data is better explained if
we allow ourselves to admit that Christianity could be true than if we </span><i>a
priori</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> rule it out. That is why at the very
beginning of these essays I said one must keep an open mind and be open to the
possibility that Christianity may be true, and that “Truly, He is risen!” –
“Alithos Anesti!”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Furthermore, a
naturalistic explanation does not necessarily discount the Shroud as evidence
for the Resurrection. For instance, let's say that there was some sort of gas
theory that could fit all the parameters required and could occur fast enough
so that the body could be stolen before the clots were too hardened. We still
have the problem of either robbers or re-burialists having to remove the cloth
in such a way that there is no signs that it was removed – an incredible feat,
maybe even impossible. But even if <i>this </i><span style="font-style: normal;">was
done, that doesn't mean it </span><i>necessarily happened. </i><span style="font-style: normal;">Even if we had such evidence, which we don't, the
body still could have been in the tomb and then resurrected. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is why I will not
go as far as to say the Shroud of Turin <i>proves</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> the Resurrection. It, if accepted as Jesus' burial shroud, can only
act as evidence. However, what I do submit is that this evidence in its
historical context is good enough for a Christian to be logically justified in
his or her belief that Christ is Risen. I don't see how, unless God is ruled
out </span><i>a priori</i><span style="font-style: normal;">, a non-theist can
honestly look at all what we have covered (which isn't </span><i>close</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> to the full body of literature) and think that the
Christian is somehow deluding himself or is using wishful thinking. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As some may or may not
know, I used to be an atheist, and I was a fan of the new atheist movement.
Admittedly I avoided the literature of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc (though I'm
hoping to get to them) because I had heard that they attack a fundamentalist
view of Christianity – the most vocal in this country. It makes sense as when I
do hear from such areas, their own biblical hermeneutic seems to be that of a
fundamentalist <i>Sola Scriptura</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> –
something completely foreign to an Orthodox praxis. Many atheists, though
certainly not all, that I knew personally had never heard of let alone read of
William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantiga. “The Kalam Cosmological argument? The
modal Ontological argument? Isn't philosophy just a bunch of rubbish?” The
irony, of course, is that the empirical method was born from epistemological
assumptions – from philosophical thought.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This isn't to just
attack the new-atheists or skepticism; I understand <i>why</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> it exists having lived through it, and the example
that many of us Christians give – whether or not we are Orthodox – can be quite
appalling and hypocritical. Many of us, as Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of the OCA
points out, act just as self-righteous (if not more) than the pharisees.
However, an often forgot fact is that the Christendom is made of sinners.
Obviously we're battling the passions – we wouldn't be Christians if we were not<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn26;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[26]</span></a>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But to return to my
point is to end this series (though I may revisit it someday). I have given the
reason as to why I believe in Christ's Resurrection. I also believe, since I
must be firm, that any Christian could use this as their reason for believing
and be justified in doing so. I thank you all for your time and patience in
these essays.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/resurrection2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/resurrection2.jpg" width="420" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;">"If any man be devout and love God, let him enjoy this fair
and radiant triumphal feast. If any man be a wise servant, let him rejoicing
enter into the joy of his Lord. If any have labored long in fasting, let him
now receive his recompense. If any have wrought from the first hour, let him
today receive his just reward. If any have come at the third hour, let him with
thankfulness keep the feast. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him
have no misgivings; because he shall in nowise be deprived therefor. If any
have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing. If any
have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him, also, be not alarmed at his
tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even
as the first; he gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as
unto him who has wrought from the first hour.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;">And he shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first;
and to the one he gives, and upon the other he bestows gifts. And he both
accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises
the offering. Wherefore, enter you all into the joy of your Lord; and receive
your reward, both the first, and likewise the second. You rich and poor
together, hold high festival. You sober and you heedless, honor the day.
Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast.
The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously. The calf is fatted; let no
one go hungry away.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;">Enjoy ye all the feast of faith: Receive ye all the riches
of loving-kindness. Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom
has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown
forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us
free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into
Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And
Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it
encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It
was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered
in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and
encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;">O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your
victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the
demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen,
and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For
Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have
fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan; text-align: right;">
<span style="color: black;"><i>- The Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom</i></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn27;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;">[27]</span></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[1]</span></a> i.e., the whole Gnostic revival in biblical
academia – though there position is probably different than how I phrased it</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[2]</span></a> cf. N. T. Wright <i>The Resurrection of the Son
of God</i><span style="font-style: normal;">, Chapter 13</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[3]</span></a> Ibid, pp. 32-84. I know that this is a grand
sweeping of many works, but I do not have room in this essay to engage with all
the material. There were a few exceptions to this claim, but Wright deals with
these in his book.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[4]</span></a> cf. <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html">http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html</a>;
<a href="http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/">http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/</a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[5]</span></a> cf. N. T. Wright <i>The Resurrection of the Son
of God</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> and Dale Allison </span><i>Resurrecting
Jesus<o:p></o:p></i></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[6]</span></a> Wright, pp. 83</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[7]</span></a> Wright, pp. 689</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[8]</span></a> Ibid, pp. 687. A <i>necessary</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> condition is “something that has to be the case for
the conclusion to follow: it is a necessary condition of my computer working
properly that the house be connected to an electricity supply.”</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[9]</span></a> Ibid, pp. 690</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[10]</span></a> Ibid, pp. 690-1. It's hard to emphasize how <i>radical</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> the idea that Jesus was alive once again was in a
pagan setting.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[11]</span></a> Ibid, pp. 692</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[12]</span></a><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/06/bogus-shroud-of-turin-7-dirt-on-feet-of.html"> http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/06/bogus-shroud-of-turin-7-dirt-on-feet-of.html</a>
citing <span style="color: black;">Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "</span><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turin-Shroud-Illustrated-Evidence/dp/1854795015"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none;">The Turin Shroud:
The Illustrated Evidence</span></a><span style="color: black;">," Michael
O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.92 <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn13" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[13]</span></a> Robert K. Wilcox,<i> The Truth About The Shroud
of Turin</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. pp. 15</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[14]</span></a> Ibid, 15-16</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn15" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[15]</span></a> Ibid, 16</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn16" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[16]</span></a> Ibid, 77</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn17" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[17]</span></a> Raymond N. Rogers, <i>THE SHROUD OF TURIN: AN
AMINO-CARBONYL REACTION<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: ideograph-numeric;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"> (MAILLARD
REACTION) MAY EXPLAIN THE IMAGE FORMATION. pp. 1<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn18" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[18]</span></a> Ibid, pp. 6</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn19" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[19]</span></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-ReferenceA-133"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-ReferenceA-133</a>
referencing <span style="color: black;">G. Fanti et alii, <i>Microscopic and
Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality</i></span><span style="color: black;">, Journal of Imaging Science and Technology—July/August
2010—Volume 54, Issue 4, p. 040201-6. I know it isn't good to cite things from
Wikipedia, but I'm, at least currently, not willing to pay $20 for the article
just to get the citation first hand. There are some posters on Dan Porter's
blog who don't necessarily see this as <i>completely</i></span><span style="color: black;"> ruling out Rogers' theory, but that his discovery is just
part of the puzzle.</span> </div>
</div>
<div id="ftn20" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[20]</span></a> Rogers, <i>THE SHROUD</i><span style="font-style: normal;">, pp. 4. I'm more or less inferring this point rather
than Rogers' having of stated it himself.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn21" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[21]</span></a> It's also worth pointing out that, for those
who are interested, theology doesn't allow for the corruption of Christ's body
by death. The lack of any signs of putrefaction back this up which make me
ponder if the Maillard reaction would even be viable theologically. This isn't
as much a point to my argument as a thought done out loud.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn22" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[22]</span></a> Raymond N. Rogers, <i>FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS (FAQs)</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. pp. 16</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn23" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[23]</span></a> Joseph Amalraj, <i>Evidence of “Resurrection of
Jesus” in the Shroud of Turin. </i><span style="font-style: normal;">pp. 1</span><i>
</i><span style="font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/evidenceAmalraj.pdf">http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/evidenceAmalraj.pdf</a></span><i> </i><span style="font-style: normal;">I'm
a bit weary in including this information, not because of Amalraj, but because
I'm not sure if it's been peer-reviewed or if there are any critiques of it.
Nevertheless, food for thought.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn24" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[24]</span></a> Ibid, pp. 1</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn25" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[25]</span></a> Ibid, pp. 1</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn26" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn26;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[26]</span></a> Or we'd already be saints and the charge of
self-righteousness would be non-existent</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn27" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn27;" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters">[27]</span></a><a href="http://oca.org/FSsermons-details.asp?SID=4&ID=10"> http://oca.org/FSsermons-details.asp?SID=4&ID=10</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-16493785896715955852012-01-24T17:34:00.000-08:002012-01-24T17:35:03.648-08:00Update and an ApologyDear (few existing) readers,<br />
<br />
I just would like to apologize again for the time between each essay. My current job with inner city youth takes up a large chunk of my day, and with my free time at home I try and give a good amount of it to my religious life. Hence, when the weekend comes, sometimes the last thing I want to do is research and write (Arkham City is just too much fun).<br />
<br />
That said, I've been finishing up the final essay of the series which deals with the Shroud in the light of the Resurrection. This is very out of order to what I had initially stated. There's a few reasons for this. The first is the aforementioned schedule of my current life. The second is that, truth be told, I've grown slightly tired of using the Shroud as an apologetic tool -- not because I think its ineffective, but because my interest is theology and dogma and it's ecumenical implications. This blog, in all my arrogance, was originally made with such things as its intent (though I now, and thanks be to God for it, realize I was way in over my head (and arrogant) to think I could write about such subjects knowing as little as I do). I don't want to be caught up with the Shroud forever. The third is that any historical reconstruction I'd post would essentially be a giant 'Cliff Notes' version of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Ian-Wilson/dp/0593063597/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1327455029&sr=8-5">Ian Wilson's book</a> (much like the first essay was). For anyone wishing for a historical reconstruction, I highly suggest you buy it if you have a Kindle. If not, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Shroud-Turin-Solving/dp/B005HKMQR8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327455120&sr=8-1">Robert Wilcox's book is a good substitute</a>. That said, expect an update within the week!phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-45345132288310399752012-01-01T17:03:00.000-08:002012-01-02T07:53:52.233-08:00Joe Nickel -- c'mon guy<br />
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">So
I'm sure that everyone who keeps up to date on the Shroud has heard
about the recent experiments by ENEA which were able to reproduce the
superficiality of the Shroud image <a href="http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Turin+Shroud+could+have+been+faked+scientists/5883796/story.html">using bursts of light</a>. My point in
writing this though is to show the blatant fallacious writings of
skeptic Joe Nickell, who is repeating the same false facts that I
heard far too many Shroud skeptics tout:</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“<span style="font-size: small;">Given
the tremendous evidence against the 'shroud' — its
incompatibility with Jewish burial practices, lack of historical
record, bishop's report of the forger’s confession, the
still-bright-red 'blood' which failed forensic serological tests, the
presence of pigments and paints throughout the image, three
laboratories' radiocarbon dating of the cloth to the time of the
confession (1260–1390), and much additional evidence — it would
seem that Di Lazzaro is straining at a gnat and attempting to swallow
a camel. Let him produce a shroudlike image according to whatever
theory he can muster, and we'll talk again.”</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Let's
break this down line by line.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">“I</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">ts
incompatibility with Jewish burial practices”</span> is patently false.
Ian Wilson shows in his book how the word the synoptic writers (Mark,
Matthew, and Luke) use – </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>sindon</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">
– refers not to a burial cloth but just a general linen cloth.
Furthermore, even though John said he saw 'the </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>soudarion</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">
which had been over His head', the word he used for over – </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>epi
– </i></span><span style="font-size: small;">doesn't
necessarily mean that it had to cover only Christ's head, but that it
could have covered His entire body as well (which is reinforced with
what Jewish law mandated: that one who had blood pour forth from
wounds would be wrapped in a </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>sovev,
</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">a
cloth that would wrap an entire body in the same way that a </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>soudarion</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">
could).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">While
the <span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">“lack of historical record”</span> is true </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>in
a sense</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">,
the history of the Shroud has been reconstructed through various
hints in records, alluding to an image of the Savior being venerated.
We know of this happening in Constantinople all the way back to
Edessa since the Shroud is probably what we knew as the Image of
Edessa.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The
<span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">“bishop's report of the forger's confession”</span> has long been seen
as suspect because of power struggles surrounding the parties.
People, unfortunately, can lie.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">“</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">The
still-bright-red 'blood' which failed forensic serological tests”</span>
has been shown to be utterly false by the works of Adler and Heller,
and can be read about in the article by David Ford that I posted on
this blog earlier.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">“</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">The
presence of pigments and paints [found] throughout the image”</span> has
also shown to be false. See the above mentioned article.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The
<span style="background-color: #cfe2f3;">“three laboratories' radiocarbon dating of the cloth to the time of
the confession (1260–1390)”</span> are useless once we factor in that
the piece that they tested was most likely a re-weave.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">…<span style="line-height: 0.25in;">Whelp.</span></span></div>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="sdfootnote">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="sdfootnote">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="sdfootnote">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>cf.
Ian Wilson <i>The Shroud: Solving the 2000-year-old Mystery</i>.
Chapter 4: Window on the Passion</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a>cf.
the above or Robert K. Wilcox's <i>The Truth About the Shroud of
Turin</i></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>cf.
the above mentioned</span></div>
</div>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-73985217644514824432011-12-23T09:47:00.000-08:002012-02-08T17:48:55.509-08:00The Argument From the Shroud 2-A: The Carbon Dating<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" /></a>
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-top: 0.17in; page-break-after: avoid;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<i>I have to admit that I wasn't entirely sure if I should write
this essay. There already exists many other presentations on this
subject and I felt that perhaps I could save time if I had simply
linked to one of them instead of writing my own. However, since I
already have all the notes in front of me, I figure that at least for
the sake of my own writing I should follow through. With this said,
at the end of this post I'll link some of the other presentations
that I've mentioned (though only Dan Porter's comes to mind at the
moment).</i><br />
<h3 class="western">
</h3>
<h3 class="western">
Carbon Politics</h3>
<br />
There has been perhaps nothing more hindering for those who
believe that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of
Jesus Christ than the carbon dating tests of the 1980's. It's easy to
understand why; the Shroud stands out as if it is almost <i>proof</i>
of the central miracle of Christianity – the Resurrection. The weave
of antiquity, the dirt particles and possible pollen data that links
the Shroud to 1<sup>st</sup>
century Jerusalem, it's absolute correlation with the Gospel accounts
of the Crucifixion, and it's still mysterious and seemingly
explanation-defying image can leave many a Christian, myself
included, with a strong reassurance that Christ is truly Risen.<br />
<br />
Yet, when the Shroud was finally
dated, it seemed that all this evidence was moot. The dates came in
and the Shroud was Medieval in origin: ‘1260-1390!’<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a>
as is seen scribbled behind Doctors Michael Tite, Robert Hedges and
Professor Edward Hall.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc">2</a></sup><br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<colgroup><col width="256*"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="TOP" width="100%"><div style="text-align: center;">
<img align="MIDDLE" border="0" height="248" name="graphics1" src="http://shroud2000.com/ImageGallery/Set2/115_15.jpg" width="380" />
<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
It's as if on the last 100 yards of a
race a wall suddenly materialized in front of you, halting all the
momentum of the final dash. It didn't make sense: all of the evidence
pointed towards a date of antiquity and yet the carbon dating flew in
the face of it all.<br />
<br />
This, of course, is the first
problem with the carbon dating, or rather how one <i>uses</i>
carbon dating. Any piece of evidence in science must be utilized
alongside the <i>entire body</i>
of evidence – one piece cannot overturn all of the evidence unless
the latter group is found to be faulty in some way. So in the case of
the carbon dating of the Shroud, it alone can not nullify what we
already know (the herringbone weave, the dirt, the pollen [though I
have yet to get to these two], etc). On the flip-side, we cannot
immediately discard the radiocarbon dating because it doesn't match
up with either the evidence that we do have or our own <i>a
priori</i> convictions. It
is fitting then to evaluate the carbon dating in order to spot any
mishaps of procedure. There needs be some exposition to all of this.
<br />
<br />
First, what is radiocarbon
dating? Taken from Ian Wilson's <i>The Shroud</i>:<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The
principle behind it [carbon dating] is that all living things, animal
or vegetable, take in the very mildly radioactive isotope carbon 14,
but only while they are alive. When they die this isotope ‘decays’,
or loses its radioactivity, at a steady rate relative to the stable
carbon 12. Libby’s brilliant achievement, for which he was awarded
a Nobel Prize, was to develop a form of Geiger counter to measure
this decay in organic materials such as bone from an ancient
skeleton, or wood from some historic boat, or linen from what had
once been a flax plant. As if from an atomic clock, Libby’s counter
could ‘read’ the date on which the once living organism died.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup>4</sup></a></blockquote>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The
early years of carbon dating were not as refined as they are today;
there are certain adjustments that are performed in every procedure
that are now done routinely that were not when it was first
developed.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup>5</sup></a>
At this period of time using it to date the Shroud was specifically
advised against by top scientists in the field of expertise.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup>6</sup></a>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
However,
in June of 1977, AMS, accelerator mass spectroscopy, was
announced.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote7sym" name="sdfootnote7anc"><sup>7</sup></a>
It was to be a more efficient way to carbon date material, both
requiring a smaller sample size and having roughly the same precision in
dating.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote8sym" name="sdfootnote8anc"><sup>8</sup></a>
Even here, though, scientists felt it was too soon to use the method
on an object such as the Shroud of Turin.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote9sym" name="sdfootnote9anc"><sup>9</sup></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Those
of the Libby camp purported that they too were working on a new
version, one that was just as efficient as AMS.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote10sym" name="sdfootnote10anc"><sup>10</sup></a>
Furthermore, the Libby laboratories had decades of experience – the
AMS laboratories did not.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote11sym" name="sdfootnote11anc"><sup>11</sup></a>
The Shroud, due to it's legendary status, became the prize crown in
this “bloody war”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote12sym" name="sdfootnote12anc"><sup>12</sup></a>
between Libby and AMS advocates.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote13sym" name="sdfootnote13anc"><sup>13</sup></a>
It seemed to not be as much about the science as it was about being
the victor.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When
the then owner of the Shroud, “ex-King Umberto of Italy”, died in
1983, the cloth changed owners to none other than Pope John Paul II.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote14sym" name="sdfootnote14anc"><sup>14</sup></a>
Debate soon ensued in the Vatican on how to appropriately test the
date of the Shroud.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote15sym" name="sdfootnote15anc"><sup>15</sup></a>
Though Professor Carlos Chagas had put forth 7 laboratories, a range
that would utilize both the “old Libby method” and “the new AMS
method”, Cardinal Ballestrero's reduced list of 3 AMS laboratories
won out.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote16sym" name="sdfootnote16anc"><sup>16</sup></a>
The justification for the latter's was that the listed laboratories
had the most experience in the field.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote17sym" name="sdfootnote17anc"><sup>17</sup></a>
This fact, however, was entirely false, as “the rejected Harwell
alone [had] vastly more experience than all three of the chosen
[labs] put together.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote18sym" name="sdfootnote18anc"><sup>18</sup></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<h3 class="western">
The Inadequacy of the Choice</h3>
<br />
One may not care that the AMS laboratories won out. Indeed,
though a laboratory may be young and inexperienced, such facts cannot
be used to rule out their results. However, the situation only seems
to get worse the more we learn.<br />
<br />
The area of the cloth that was chosen to be tested wasn't decided
upon before it's viewing by the lead scientists Luigi Gonella and
Giovanni Riggi. They argued on spot what area of the cloth should be
used.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote19sym" name="sdfootnote19anc"><sup>19</sup></a>
Such lack of planning could hardly be called scientific. After this,
the
<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“approved ‘referee’ of the exercise Dr Michael
Tite of the British Museum, together with Cardinal Ballestrero, then
took the three portions to a side room where, with no camera present,
they placed them, together with the pre-arranged ‘controls’, into
sealed canisters carefully labelled for the laboratory
representatives to take away with them. A 135-milligram portion of
the sliver that was surplus to the laboratories’ requirements was
left over.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote20sym" name="sdfootnote20anc"><sup>20</sup></a></blockquote>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
After the tests, the now infamous results were reported, leading the world to believe that the Shroud of Turin
was another medieval fake. However, as we can see already, the
experiments' procedure didn't seem to be the meticulous and rigorous
process that science is known for. This is even more evident when we
start to view the quotes of many of those involved with the Shroud.
For instance, the same scientist Giovanni Riggi said: “I was
authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from
the</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Shroud…This was then
reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
mixed up with the original
fabric …”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote21sym" name="sdfootnote21anc"><sup>21</sup></a>
Similar comments were made by “Italian author Giorgio Tessiore”,
“Professor Edward Hall” (who was also the head of the Oxford Lab
at the time of the testing), “Professor Raes” and. “Dr. Alan
Adler”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote22sym" name="sdfootnote22anc"><sup>22</sup></a>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Dr. Adler's contribution
was especially significant as he showed there was a difference in
“chemical composition” between “the radiocarbon samples” and
“the non-image samples that comprise the bulk of the cloth”. That
the sample was not representative of the cloth was further supported
by the work of “statistician Bryan Walsh” who “showed that the
data indicated that there was a 97.7% chance that the C-14 subsamples
themselves are from different populations...” He also found that
there was more C-14 the further distance away “from the edge of the
Shroud”. Furthermore, the work of Van Haelst showed that the sample
failed to pass the Chi Square test, scoring above a 6 (a 6.4 specifically) instead
of below. This indicated that “the subsamples <u>cannot be</u><span style="text-decoration: none;">...from
the same representative sample.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote23sym" name="sdfootnote23anc"><sup>23</sup></a></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"> Many
hypothesis were put forward as to why the Shroud turned up with a
medieval date. Anything from chemical contamination, radiation,
sabotage, and after-effects due to a miracle were put forward. They
were all subsequently shot down for either lack of evidence, or for
not being provable by science. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"> However,
in the year 2000, Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford put out the
paper “</span><span style="text-decoration: none;">EVIDENCE
FOR THE SKEWING OF THE C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN DUE TO
REPAIRS” in which they argued that the Shroud was “</span><u>patched
with medieval material</u><span style="text-decoration: none;">”,
causing the subsequent date in the C-14 testing.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote24sym" name="sdfootnote24anc"><sup>24</sup></a>
Besides giving many quotes which supported their hypothesis (including all the above cited), they also provided the results of 3
blind analysis experiments in which all 3 subjects separately
agreed that their was an anomaly where the Shroud cloth and the
purported re-weave connected.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote25sym" name="sdfootnote25anc"><sup>25</sup></a>
They also supplied a historical reason as to why such a re-weave
would have been done.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
However, it wasn't until
2005 that the re-weave hypothesis became as widespread and accepted
as it did. This is thanks to the work of chemist Raymond N. Rogers.</div>
<h3 class="western">
</h3>
<h3 class="western">
Raymond N. Rogers</h3>
<br />
When Benford and Marino presented their paper, STURP member
Barrie Schwortz, the person behind <a href="http://www.shroud.com/">www.shroud.com</a><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote26sym" name="sdfootnote26anc"><sup>26</sup></a>,
was shocked: “...this is the first credible, easy-to-understand
explanation that does not require a miracle or some unknown science.
I was excited.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote27sym" name="sdfootnote27anc"><sup>27</sup></a>
Needless to say, Schwortz received permission from the authors to
post their paper on his website – it didn't take long before he
received a quite heated call from his friend and STURP chemist Raymond N. Rogers. Rogers claimed that the two were “'shroudies'”
– those of the “'lunatic fringe'”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote28sym" name="sdfootnote28anc"><sup>28</sup></a>
<br />
<br />
However, when he ran his own tests on some “strands of the Raes
sample” he found that “clearly distinguishable cotton
fibers begin appearing amongst the linen fibers” which had to have
“been spliced in” since “there was no cotton elsewhere
interwoven with the linen.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote29sym" name="sdfootnote29anc"><sup>29</sup></a>
Rogers took another look at “the 1978 ultraviolet and X-ray photos”
and noticed that in the corner from where the sample was taken, the
color as well as the contrast stood out compared to the rest of the
Shroud, indicating a difference in chemical makeup.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote30sym" name="sdfootnote30anc"><sup>30</sup></a><br />
<br />
Looking at his samples in greater detail, Rogers found there was
an “'encrustation' on the unraveled cotton fibers” that wasn't
found elsewhere on the Shroud. Furthermore, the seemingly reckless
way in which it was encrusted clued Rogers in that it “had been
applied as a liquid and had flowed down the threads”. This,
combined with the presence of “madder root in a gum arabic base”
was evidence that it had been dyed. This makes complete sense with
Benford and Marino's hypothesis; since linen is very resistant to
dye, anyone trying to match the color of a reweave would dye the
patch so it looked similar to the rest of the Shroud.<br />
In addition to all this, Rogers found what appeared to be a
splice in the very area that “Benford and Marino believed...the
patch to be.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote31sym" name="sdfootnote31anc"><sup>31</sup></a><br />
<br />
Calling Scwhortz back, Rogers admitted “'they're
right. I've found a splice...There's nothing like that anywhere else
on the shroud.” He then turned to Dr. John L. Brown, a proficient
forensic chemist who used to work for Georgia Tech Research
Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Lab. “Using different
methods and technology” Brown confirmed Rogers' observations, and
also noted that in areas “where 'the weave was tight enough,' the
dye 'did not penetrate.'” This indicates that the dye was poured on
after, compatible with a re-weave.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote32sym" name="sdfootnote32anc"><sup>32</sup></a>
To quote Brown: “this was 'obvious evidence of a medieval artisan's
attempt to dye a newly added repair [in order]<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote33sym" name="sdfootnote33anc"><sup>33</sup></a>
to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the shroud.'”
Rogers' findings were verified yet again by Robert Villarreal of Los
Alamos labs.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote34sym" name="sdfootnote34anc"><sup>34</sup></a>
“Using new high-resolution microscopes, a variety of spectroscopy
and spectrometry, they found both the cotton in the sample and the
'cocoon shaped brown crust' holding the threads together.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote35sym" name="sdfootnote35anc"><sup>35</sup></a>
Villarreal's statement is poignant:<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Apparently, the age-dating process [1988 Carbon
14]<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote36sym" name="sdfootnote36anc"><sup>36</sup></a>
failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry
that any sample taken for characterization of an area...must
necessarily be representative of the whole....Our analyses of the
three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner
showed that this was not the case. What was true for the [corner]<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote37sym" name="sdfootnote37anc"><sup>37</sup></a>
was most certainly not true for the whole.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote38sym" name="sdfootnote38anc"><sup>38</sup></a></blockquote>
<div align="LEFT">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT">
As for another way of dating the Shroud, Rogers used
the compound vanillin which “is found in flax, the plant from which
linen is made.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote39sym" name="sdfootnote39anc"><sup>39</sup></a>
This compound “is known to dissipate slowly over centuries”. For
example, the wrappings which covered the Dead Sea Scrolls, known to
be about 2000 years old, “have lost all their vanillin – as has
the overall shroud.” Rogers tested “Raes samples” as well as
“samples of the Carbon 14 cut sent to him by Professor
Gonella...and pieces of linen backing” that were “known to have
been sewed [onto the Shroud] in the sixteenth century”. He “found
significant amounts of vanillin in each.” In other words, the area
that was purported to be a re-weave was consistent in its vanillin
with other items of a medieval origin <i>but not the Shroud itself</i>. This
further indicates that said area is indeed a re-weave. While the lack
of vanillin on the Shroud by no means automatically points to a date
of antiquity (since there are many variables that could affect
vanillin content) the <i>significant difference</i>
between the two do suggest different origins.</div>
<div align="LEFT">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT">
The results of the
Carbon-14 datings done in 1988 are simply not acceptable when we take
into account all of the above. The haphazard selection process which
lead to a inadequate sample skewed the results. Thus, a medieval
origin of the Shroud cannot be posited viably.</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>Ian
Wilson <i>The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved</i>,
2010. Kindle Locations 1747-1748</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a>Ibid,
kl. 1746</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>Image
found on <a href="http://shroud2000.com/ImageGallery/Set2/115_15.jpg">http://shroud2000.com/ImageGallery/Set2/115_15.jpg</a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a>Wilson,
kl. 1677-1681</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a>Ibid,
kl. 1682-1683</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote6">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym">6</a>Ibid,
kl. 1686-1688</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote7">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote7anc" name="sdfootnote7sym">7</a>Ibid,
kl. 1692-1693</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote8">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote8anc" name="sdfootnote8sym">8</a>Ibid,
kl. 1693-1694</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote9">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote9anc" name="sdfootnote9sym">9</a>Ibid,
kl. 1695-1699</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote10">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote10anc" name="sdfootnote10sym">10</a>Ibid,
kl. 1702-1703</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote11">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote11anc" name="sdfootnote11sym">11</a>Ibid,
kl. 1703-1704</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote12">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote12anc" name="sdfootnote12sym">12</a>Ibid,
kl. 1704-1705</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote13">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote13anc" name="sdfootnote13sym">13</a>Ibid,
kl. 1704-1706</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote14">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote14anc" name="sdfootnote14sym">14</a>Ibid,
kl. 1707-1708</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote15">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote15anc" name="sdfootnote15sym">15</a>Ibid,
kl. 1709-1711</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote16">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote16anc" name="sdfootnote16sym">16</a>Ibid,
kl. 1714-1717</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote17">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote17anc" name="sdfootnote17sym">17</a>Ibid,
kl. 1715-1717</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote18">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote18anc" name="sdfootnote18sym">18</a>Ibid,
kl. 1718</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote19">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote19anc" name="sdfootnote19sym">19</a>Ibid,
kl. 1723-1724</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote20">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote20anc" name="sdfootnote20sym">20</a>Ibid,
kl. 1728-1731</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote21">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote21anc" name="sdfootnote21sym">21</a>Joseph
G. Marino and M. Susan Benford <i>EVIDENCE FOR THE SKEWING OF THE
C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN DUE TO REPAIRS, </i>2000.
pp. 1 citing Riggi di Numana, Giovanni: 1988. Rapporto Sindone.
Milano: 3M Edizioni. English translation by John D’Arcy
(unpublished).</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote22">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote22anc" name="sdfootnote22sym">22</a>Ibid,
pp. 2</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote23">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote23anc" name="sdfootnote23sym">23</a>Ibid,
pp. 3</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote24">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote24anc" name="sdfootnote24sym">24</a>Ibid,
pp. 1</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote25">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote25anc" name="sdfootnote25sym">25</a>Ibid,
pp. 4. Subjects were Thomas Ferguson & Co. Ltd, David Pearson,
and Louise Harner</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote26">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote26anc" name="sdfootnote26sym">26</a>Authors
note: Easily the best website on the Shroud of Turin on the internet</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote27">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote27anc" name="sdfootnote27sym">27</a>Robert
K. Wilcox, <i>The Truth about the Shroud of Turin: Solving the
Mystery</i>, 2010. pp. 214</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote28">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote28anc" name="sdfootnote28sym">28</a>Ibid,
pp. 215</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote29">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote29anc" name="sdfootnote29sym">29</a>Ibid,
pp. 215-216</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote30">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote30anc" name="sdfootnote30sym">30</a>Ibid,
pp. 216</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote31">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote31anc" name="sdfootnote31sym">31</a>Ibid,
pp. 217</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote32">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote32anc" name="sdfootnote32sym">32</a>Ibid,
pp. 218</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote33">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote33anc" name="sdfootnote33sym">33</a>Wilcox's
brackets</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote34">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote34anc" name="sdfootnote34sym">34</a>Ibid,
pp. 220-221</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote35">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote35anc" name="sdfootnote35sym">35</a>Ibid,
pp. 221</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote36">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote36anc" name="sdfootnote36sym">36</a>Wilcox's
brackets</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote37">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote37anc" name="sdfootnote37sym">37</a>Wilcox's
brakets</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote38">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote38anc" name="sdfootnote38sym">38</a>Ibid,
pp. 221-222</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote39">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote39anc" name="sdfootnote39sym">39</a>Ibid,
pp. 218</div>
</div>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-22204088057739741862011-11-06T13:33:00.000-08:002011-11-06T13:33:29.207-08:00Sorry for the delayTitle post describes it all. Been pretty busy with work, but I've read and will soon begin to work on the next section of my Shroud of Turin series. I'm trying to incorporate more sources this time around, so hopefully it will be of higher quality.phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-76723262713563264862011-10-09T14:28:00.000-07:002011-10-09T14:32:35.047-07:00The Argument From the Shroud - Further Reading (1-D)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Hello all,<br />
<br />
While I am currently researching and compiling for the next essay, I wanted to post two papers that address some issues surrounding the Shroud. The reason for this is that these essays have compiled so much data and have such a better hold on the subject that I feel it would be pointless for me to create an essay for each of the subjects.<br />
<br />
The first paper deals with the blood on the Shroud and the controversy surrounding the faulty research of Walter McCrone. It is a technical paper and a bit long, but <i>well</i> worth the read.<br />
<br />
The second paper deals with many of the posited image formation theories (especially those related to forgery) and systematically shows why each of them fail. It goes over theories such as:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The Shroud was a painting</li>
<li>The Shroud was a photograph</li>
<li>The Shroud was a bleaching</li>
<li>The Shroud was a rubbing</li>
<li>The Shroud was a scorching</li>
<li>The Shroud was a 3D block print</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
The paper also summarizes the problem with the carbon dating results as well as a suggested timeline for the history of the Shroud. Enjoy!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf">The Shroud of Turin's 'Blood' Images: Blood, or Paint? History of Science Inquiry</a> by David Ford<b><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf">Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin</a> by Richard B. Sorensen<br />
<br />
<br />phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-57660798236938795542011-10-05T18:27:00.000-07:002011-10-05T18:27:14.704-07:00Mention at Dan Porter's blogHey everyone,<br />
<br />
Just want to give a quick thank you to Dan Porter who <a href="http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/discussion-of-the-anatomy-of-the-man-of-the-shroud-of-turin/">had a link</a> to <a href="http://arathersillyblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/argument-from-shroud-anatomy-of-man.html">my previous post</a> on the Shroud of Turin. I've been a very big fan of Dan Porter's work for at least a year, and used him as a reliable reference before that. Thanks a ton, Dan!phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-89373294990096511472011-10-01T18:58:00.000-07:002011-10-09T14:29:52.157-07:00The Argument From the Shroud - The Anatomy of the Man (1-C)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" /></a></div>
<h1 class="western">
</h1>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In this post I'll be covering the
anatomy of the man on the Shroud while attempting to show that the
image depicts that of Jesus Christ (regardless of authenticity). I
should note now that one cannot <i>prove</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
who the image belongs to, but when all the facts are accounted for we
can easily infer that it depicts Jesus Christ.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> We
shall start from the top and work our way down. The first noticeable
wounds are those on the crown of the man; they correlate to the
puncture wounds that would have been made by a crown of thorns such
as depicted in the gospel of St. Mark: “And they twisted a crown of
thorns, put it on His head, and began to salute Him, 'Hail, King of
the Jews!'”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a>
In reality the crown is more akin to a cap<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a>,
thus going against artistic norms and therefore common-folk
expectations.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a>
Already we should ask: why would a medieval forger go against the
expected norms if he were forging the Shroud to trick others?<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup>4</sup></a>
However, this did not seem to stop people from believing the
authenticity of The Shroud in the medieval era, but it is still
something worth pondering about.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Moving
to the face we immediately see the damaged nose and swollen right
cheek.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup>5</sup></a>
The wounds here seem to be too general as to identify exactly what
caused them, though blows from fists seem to fit.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup>6</sup></a>
This would correlate with the accounts of both Luke 22:63<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote7sym" name="sdfootnote7anc"><sup>7</sup></a>
and Matthew 26:67:</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
“Now the men who
beheld Jesus mocked Him and beat Him. And having blindfolded Him,
they struck Him on the face and asked Him, saying, 'Prophesy! Who is
the one who struck You?'” Luke 22:63-64</blockquote>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
“<span style="font-style: normal;">Then
they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck </span><i>Him
</i><span style="font-style: normal;">with the palms of their hands,
saying, 'Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?'”
Matthew 26:67-68<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote8sym" name="sdfootnote8anc"><sup>8</sup></a></span></blockquote>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> The
man's hair is of longer length and fashioned into a braid while his
beard is both short and forked.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote9sym" name="sdfootnote9anc"><sup>9</sup></a>
It is worth noting that this hairstyle was not from “Greco-Roman
culture” but is Judaic.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote10sym" name="sdfootnote10anc"><sup>10</sup></a>
Likewise, the beard was “highly regarded...as a manly adornment”
in Jewish culture.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote11sym" name="sdfootnote11anc"><sup>11</sup></a>
</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> There
also seems to be a square imprint in the middle of the man's
forehead<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote12sym" name="sdfootnote12anc"><sup>12</sup></a>
as well as a 'V' mark between his eyes.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote13sym" name="sdfootnote13anc"><sup>13</sup></a>
Paul Vignon, the man who first observed the Shroud, noted that “80
percent” “of Byzantine icons”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote14sym" name="sdfootnote14anc"><sup>14</sup></a>
of Christ had this same 'V' shape amongst other identifying
characteristics, suggesting that “the shroud face and the face on
the icons had more than a casual link to one another”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote15sym" name="sdfootnote15anc"><sup>15</sup></a>
This important observation will be covered in another section.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Furthermore,
the face of the man was identified by anthropologist T. Dale Stewart
(who frequently identified people's race via bones for the FBI) as
being “that of a white man” whose origin could be either
Palestinian or Greek.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote16sym" name="sdfootnote16anc"><sup>16</sup></a>
Furthermore, Carlton S. Coon, a highly “distinguished ethnologist”
identified the man of the Shroud as having “a physical type found
in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote17sym" name="sdfootnote17anc"><sup>17</sup></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Moving
down to the torso area we see that the body of the man is covered in
whip marks which indeed relate to the Gospel accounts.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote18sym" name="sdfootnote18anc"><sup>18</sup></a>
The device used to make these wounds was none other than the Roman
</span><i>flagrum</i><span style="font-style: normal;">, a
dumb-bell-whip which was usually fitted with small sheep bones and
twin pellets of lead – such specificity has been identified on the
Shroud.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote19sym" name="sdfootnote19anc"><sup>19</sup></a>
There are around 100 individual dumb-bell marks<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote20sym" name="sdfootnote20anc"><sup>20</sup></a>
– something that would have been completely unfeasible for an
artist to replicate with such accuracy so many times (as Vignon
himself remarked)<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote21sym" name="sdfootnote21anc"><sup>21</sup></a>,
let alone as a photographic negative. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;"> The
nakedness of the man is also historically accurate as we know from
the accounts of Philo of Alexandria in which he reports that
crucifixion victims were stripped naked before flogging.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote22sym" name="sdfootnote22anc"><sup>22</sup></a>
This seems at first to be a contradiction between the Gospel accounts
and the Shroud, as both in the books of St. Matthew and St. Mark,
Jesus' own clothes were put back on him after he was beaten. However,
we also read in all four Gospel accounts how Christ's garments were
divided amongst the Roman Soldiers who then casted lots for them.
Thus Christ's clothes were stripped off Him at some point, again
showing a correlation between the Gospel accounts and the Shroud of
Turin.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Looking
on, there is noticeable chaffing of the shoulders<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote23sym" name="sdfootnote23anc"><sup>23</sup></a>
most likely from carrying the </span><i>patibulum</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
(crossbeam) on which the man was to be crucified (a common Roman
practice).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote24sym" name="sdfootnote24anc"><sup>24</sup></a>
This is reported in the Gospel of St. John when the beloved disciple
writes: “And He, bearing His cross, went out to a place called </span><i>the
Place </i><span style="font-style: normal;">of a Skull, which is
called in Hebrew, Golgotha” (John 19:17).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote25sym" name="sdfootnote25anc"><sup>25</sup></a>
There is also damage to the man's knees, presumably from falling
while carrying his </span><i>patibulum</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote26sym" name="sdfootnote26anc"><sup>26</sup></a>
If the man on the Shroud is indeed Jesus Christ, this would make
sense as St. Simon of Cyrene had to help Him carry His cross as
reported in the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote27sym" name="sdfootnote27anc"><sup>27</sup></a>:</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
“Now as they came
out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to
bear His cross.” (Matthew 27:32)</blockquote>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
“Then they
compelled a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander
and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to
bear His cross.” (Mark 15:21)</blockquote>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
“<span style="font-style: normal;">Now
as they led Him away, they laid hold of a certain man, Simon a
Cyrenian, who was coming from the country, and on him they laid the
cross that he might bear </span><i>it</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
after Jesus.” (Luke 23:26)<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote28sym" name="sdfootnote28anc"><sup>28</sup></a></span></blockquote>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Next
are the wounds in the wrists – not the hands. This, as most people
can figure, again goes contrary to traditional Christian art<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote29sym" name="sdfootnote29anc"><sup>29</sup></a>
where Christ is depicted as being nailed through his hands to the
cross. Now this doesn't necessarily rule out the fact that the man
was crucified through his hands as we only can see the exit wounds<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote30sym" name="sdfootnote30anc"><sup>30</sup></a>.
Regardless, this does not run contradictory to the account given in
the Gospel of St. John<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote31sym" name="sdfootnote31anc"><sup>31</sup></a>
as the word St. Thomas uses for “hand” includes the wrist area in
the original Greek.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote32sym" name="sdfootnote32anc"><sup>32</sup></a>
The blood from the wrist also moves in a way that does not seem
correct with the way the arms are positioned.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote33sym" name="sdfootnote33anc"><sup>33</sup></a>
This is because the blood flowed in such a way only if the man's arms
were positioned at a 65 degree angle – an angle that is completely
compatible with crucifixion.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote34sym" name="sdfootnote34anc"><sup>34</sup></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Lastly
we'll look at a particular wound in the man's chest which has an
“elliptic shape to its top edge”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote35sym" name="sdfootnote35anc"><sup>35</sup></a>
Such a wound could have been caused by a bladed weapon of some kind.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote36sym" name="sdfootnote36anc"><sup>36</sup></a>
Ian Wilson further elaborates:</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Times-Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
Greek word the author used for ‘lance’ in this passage was
lonche, the Latin equivalent was lancea; Archaeologically we know
quite a lot about the lancea. With a long leaf-like blade thickening
and rounding off towards the shaft, it was just the kind of
general-purpose weapon that would have been standard issue for the
small contingent of auxiliaries who took direct charge of Jesus’s
crucifixion (pl. l1b). In the Landesmuseum in Zurich there are
several good examples with essentially exactly the same elliptic
breadth to the blade that we can see on the Shroud.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote37sym" name="sdfootnote37anc"><sup>37</sup></a></span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> The
area targeted is where Roman soldiers were trained to stab since it
is the arm in which their enemy would be holding their weapon and not
their shield<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote38sym" name="sdfootnote38anc"><sup>38</sup></a>
(as seen in the “Dying Gaul” statue).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote39sym" name="sdfootnote39anc"><sup>39</sup></a>
This relates to the account in the Gospel of St. John when Jesus is
stabbed with the Lance of Longinus: “But one one of the soldiers
pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came
out.” (John 19:34) Furthermore, the area in which the wound appears
“showed [a] separation of blood parts, including serum”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote40sym" name="sdfootnote40anc"><sup>40</sup></a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Furthermore,
the blood flows on the Shroud are surprisingly realistic and again go
against usual artistic depiction; the “flows follow the natural
contours of the body” while “artists...usually depicted such
flows in straight lines or stylized droplets”.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote41sym" name="sdfootnote41anc"><sup>41</sup></a>
</span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">It
is worth noting that such a torture technique was not typical of
either Roman practice or that of any other culture and that Jesus is
the only one known to have received said torture<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote42sym" name="sdfootnote42anc"><sup>42</sup></a></span></span><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> There
are other facts that we could go into (as well as further elaboration
on the ones discussed here) but I think that this is sufficient to
establish vast correlations between the man on the Shroud and Jesus
Christ. There is no other person in history or legend that has
suffered all these wounds in the same exact matter, and the </span><i>perfect</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
correlation makes it highly plausible to reason that this man is at
least a depiction of Jesus Christ. To invent any other character
would seem to be completely illogical as they would be nothing more
than pure fiction<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote43sym" name="sdfootnote43anc"><sup>43</sup></a>
compared to the person of Christ, who even if one does not accept his
historicity, must submit to the fact that there is a long oral and
written tradition about Him. Thus, at this point, I put forward that
we can reasonably deduce two things:</span></div>
<ol>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The man on the
Shroud is a depiction of Jesus Christ</div>
</li>
<li><div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Shroud
does not seem to have been any kind of medieval forgery</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> If we
agree with these two premises (as I argued in this and my last essay)
then I think we can start to consider the fact that this indeed </span><i>is</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
the Shroud of Jesus Christ and that the image was made from his body
(whether by natural or supernatural means). However, at this point we
need to show at least some kind of a timeline that the Shroud could
be traced back through (though, as I showed in my first essay, we
have good reason to believe that this Shroud dates from antiquity).
But even before that, we need to answer the elephant in the room:</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
What went wrong
with the Carbon Dating?</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>Ian
Wilson <i>The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
2010. Kindle Locations 955-957. All Scripture quotations are NKJV
from </span><i>The Orthodox Study Bible</i></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a>Robert
K. Wilcox <i>The Truth About The Shroud of Turin</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
2010. pp. 17</span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="font-style: normal;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a>Robert
Bucklin, M.D., J.D., <i>An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud</i>
http://shroud.com/bucklin.htm</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote6">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym">6</a>Wilson,
kl. 947-948</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote7">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote7anc" name="sdfootnote7sym">7</a>Ibid.,
kl. 5834</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote8">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote8anc" name="sdfootnote8sym">8</a>Wilcox,
pp. 18</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote9">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote9anc" name="sdfootnote9sym">9</a>Bucklin</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote10">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote10anc" name="sdfootnote10sym">10</a>Wilcox,
pp. 144</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote11">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote11anc" name="sdfootnote11sym">11</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote12">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote12anc" name="sdfootnote12sym">12</a>Bucklin</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote13">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote13anc" name="sdfootnote13sym">13</a>Wilcox,
101.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote14">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote14anc" name="sdfootnote14sym">14</a>Ibid,
pp. 101</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote15">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote15anc" name="sdfootnote15sym">15</a>Ibid,
pp. 100</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote16">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote16anc" name="sdfootnote16sym">16</a>Ibid.,
pp. 143, 146</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote17">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote17anc" name="sdfootnote17sym">17</a>Ibid.,
147</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote18">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote18anc" name="sdfootnote18sym">18</a>Wilson,
kl. 965-967</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote19">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote19anc" name="sdfootnote19sym">19</a>Ibid.,
kl. 977-980</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote20">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote20anc" name="sdfootnote20sym">20</a>Ibid,
kl. 982-983</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote21">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote21anc" name="sdfootnote21sym">21</a>Wilcox,
pp. 18</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote22">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote22anc" name="sdfootnote22sym">22</a>Wilson,
kl. 974-975</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote23">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote23anc" name="sdfootnote23sym">23</a>Ibid.,
kl. 988-989</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote24">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote24anc" name="sdfootnote24sym">24</a>Ibid.,
kl. 995-996</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote25">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote25anc" name="sdfootnote25sym">25</a>Ibid.,
kl. 989-991</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote26">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote26anc" name="sdfootnote26sym">26</a>Wilcox,
pp. 19</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote27">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote27anc" name="sdfootnote27sym">27</a>Wilson,
kl. 991-993</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote28">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote28anc" name="sdfootnote28sym">28</a>Ibid.,
kl. 5849</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote29">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote29anc" name="sdfootnote29sym">29</a>Wilcox,
pp. 17</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote30">
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times-Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote30anc" name="sdfootnote30sym">30</a>
Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D., <i>Pierre Barbet Revisited</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
http://www.shroud.com/zugibe</span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote31">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote31anc" name="sdfootnote31sym">31</a>Wilson,
kl. 1006-1008</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote32">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote32anc" name="sdfootnote32sym">32</a>Ibid.,
kl. 5852. “So he said to them, 'Unless I see in His hands the
print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25)</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote33">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote33anc" name="sdfootnote33sym">33</a>Bucklin</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote34">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote34anc" name="sdfootnote34sym">34</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote35">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote35anc" name="sdfootnote35sym">35</a>Wilson,
kl. 1048-1049</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote36">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote36anc" name="sdfootnote36sym">36</a>Ibid.,
kl. 1049</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote37">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote37anc" name="sdfootnote37sym">37</a>Ibid.,
kl. 1052-1056</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote38">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote38anc" name="sdfootnote38sym">38</a>Ibid.,
kl. 1060-1062</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote39">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote39anc" name="sdfootnote39sym">39</a>Ibid.,
kl. 1062-1064</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote40">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote40anc" name="sdfootnote40sym">40</a>Wilcox,
pp. 19</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote41">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote41anc" name="sdfootnote41sym">41</a>Ibid.,
pp. 16</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote42">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote42anc" name="sdfootnote42sym">42</a>Wilson,
kl. 959-960, 962-964</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote43">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7169413079633887512#sdfootnote43anc" name="sdfootnote43sym">43</a>Ibid.,
pp. 26 “But those who wish to attribute the shroud to another
person are in the same condition as ourselves with respect to the
other difficulties, with this difference – that their person is a
pure invention without any mention in history, tradition or legend.”
- Prof. Delage</div>
</div>
phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-718299709791277412011-08-29T07:49:00.000-07:002012-01-29T14:07:47.945-08:00The Argument From the Shroud Index<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" style="display: block; height: 495px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center; width: 511px;" /></a>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://arathersillyblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/argument-from-shroud-introduction-part.html">Introduction</a>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Part 1: It's Characteristics</span>
<br />
A) <a href="http://arathersillyblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/argument-from-shroud-shroud-itself-part.html">The Shroud Itself</a>
<br />
B) <a href="http://arathersillyblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/argument-from-shroud-images.html">The Image's Characteristics</a><br />
C) <a href="http://arathersillyblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/argument-from-shroud-anatomy-of-man.html">The Anatomy of the Man</a><br />
D) <a href="http://arathersillyblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/argument-from-shroud-further-reading-1.html">Further Reading</a><br />
<br />
<b>Part 2: It's History</b><br />
A) <a href="http://arathersillyblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/theargument-from-shroud-1-e-carbon.html">The Carbon Dating</a><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>Part 3: Pascha</b><br />
A) <a href="http://arathersillyblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/argument-from-shroud-3-o-death-where-is.html">'O Death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?'</a>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-38397364088165633442011-08-28T21:45:00.000-07:002011-08-29T07:54:24.614-07:00The Argument From the Shroud - The Image's Characteristics (Part 1-B)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 511px; height: 495px;" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>
<br />
<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Please read the post not on the home page (where you can see multiple posts at once) but only on its own page (you can only see the post). If you choose to read it with other posts available the hyperlinks for the footnotes won't work correctly.</span>
<br />
<br />This post will move on to the properties of the body image. When I mean properties, I'm referring to UV waves, chemical tests, etc; any kind of anatomical analysis will be saved for another post.
<br />
<br />Note: Supposedly Joe Nickell, infamous Shroud skeptic, has been able to manually reproduce such an image using available painting techniques (see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inquest-Shroud-Turin-Scientific-Findings/dp/1573922722/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314628353&sr=8-1">his book</a>), however comments alone already start to show that <a href="">his claims are false</a> (he is also not well regarded in the area of Shroud Research), though at the same time others seem to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/RTRY1JCQDQMOH/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=087975396X&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful">defend his claims</a>. The problem with Nickell, though, is that he relies off of Walter McCrone's non-peer-reviewed research which has been thoroughly debunked -- but I'm getting off topic now (just remember, continue to research for yourself!).
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Photographic Negative</span>
<br />
<br /> The first thing we should notice is that the Shroud is a photographic negative. This was discovered by Secondo Pia , an amateur photographer, when he was developing pictures of the Shroud that were commissioned by the Vatican.<a href='#1'><sup>1</sup></a> What this means is while one can see the image of a man on the Shroud, the image's lifelike qualities do not show up until one sees the negative of the image. We already need to ask: how could a painter do this when the concept of photographic negativity did not come until well after the middle ages?<a href='#2'><sup>2</sup></a> If a relic-forger really wanted to stump people it would make far more sense to paint it as a positive, something that people would identify with.<a href='#3'><sup>3</sup></a>
<br />
<br />However, this alone doesn't prove anything as people did indeed believe that the Shroud was the genuine burial cloth of Christ long before Secondo's discovery. Even still, the sheer amount of detail, as we'll see more in the anatomical section, would be incredibly hard for an artist to replicate in the form of a negative, let alone both the front and the back body images as well as hundreds of years before photography.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Second Face</span>
<br />
<br /> Another startling discovery about the Shroud is the 'second face' discovered by Fanti and Maggiolo.<a href='#4'><sup>4</sup></a> On the backside of the Shroud which was not able to be accessed for some time, actually contains the face of the man on the front side in a much fainter image which can be seen with “Gaussian filters, Fourier transforms and template matching”.<a href='#5'><sup>5</sup></a> Furthermore, the properties of the image on the back, specifically the superficiality of the image (discussed below) is exactly the same on the front's, meaning that both images were produced by the same unknown process.<a href='#2'><sup>6</sup></a>
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Superficiality</span>
<br />
<br /> The image on the Shroud is superficial; in other words, the image only colors the top of the threads.<a href='#7'><sup>7</sup></a> This is opposed to paintings in where paint would seep through multiple levels of the fibers when applied<a href='#8'><sup>8</sup></a> Furthermore, the image-bearing fibers:
<br />
<br /><blockquote>“do not penetrate the cloth, nor do they exhibit any capillarity or absorptive properties. They are more brittle than their non-image counterparts, as if whatever formed them lightly corroded them. They are uniform in coloration. They are not cemented together, neither are they ‘diffused’ as they would be if they derived from some dye or stain. They do not ‘fluoresce’ or reflect back any light. Most emphatically, they are not made by any pigment.”<a href='#9'><sup>9</sup></a></blockquote>
<br />
<br /> Furthermore, “biophysicist John Heller (d. 13 December 1995) and chemist Alan Adler (d. 11 June 2000) concluded that the body image consisted simply of prematurely-aged linen” and not of any kind of paint pigment.<a href='#10'><sup>10</sup></a> Also, wherever there was blood, the fibers lacked these very characteristics – in other words the painter would have had to put the blood on first and then paint the negative<a href='#11'><sup>11</sup></a>.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">3D-Properties</span>
<br />
<br /> The image also exhibits 3D-image properties when analyzed by a VP-8 Image Analyzer, a device that uses levels of white and black to make “a vertical relief”.<a href='#12'><sup>12</sup></a> However, photographs usually do not encode this information since they only record shades of light and nothing about distance.<a href='#13'><sup>13</sup></a> Hence when photographs are normally put into a VP-8 image analyzer they come out “almost invariably collapsed and distorted” since “the VP-8” was not “designed or intended to produce any ‘true’ 3D display, only a semblance of it”.<a href='#14'><sup>14</sup></a> When the Shroud was put through though, a “consistent ‘true’ 3D effect was produced”, one whose very contours were visible.<a href='#15'><sup>15</sup></a> The inventor of the VP-8 Image Analyzer, Peter Schumacher, said:
<br />
<br />“‘A “true three-dimensional image” appeared on the monitor . . . The nose ramped in relief. The facial features were contoured properly. Body shapes of the arms, legs and chest and the basic human form . . . I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results are unlike anything I have processed through the VP-8 Image Analyzer, before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has [ever] produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer.’”<a href='#16'><sup>16</sup></a>
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Painting Hypothesis</span>
<br />
<br /> So our medieval forger now not only has produced a photographic negative without using paint, was able to create a “ghost” image that mirrored the front side of the Shroud, was able to paint both the front and the back of the man without any visible mistakes, was able to do all of this after blood had been put down on the Shroud, but he was also able to encode 3-Dimensional properties into the Shroud that are not found in other works and would not have been able to be appreciated for another 650 years.<a href='#17'><sup>17</sup></a> Furthermore, this man would have had to paint the Shroud without any signs of brush strokes<a href='#18'><sup>18</sup></a> as well as at a distance, for the man on the Shroud can only be seen when viewed from afar; up close, the image is not visible<a href='#19'><sup>19</sup></a>.
<br />
<br />The theory that the Shroud is a painting is less credulous the more we pour into the science; when the Shroud underwent it's first detailed examination by Paul Vignon, he concluded that “The impressions on the Holy Shroud are produced by chemical action, largely without absolute contact between the body and the cloth. Of this we have no doubt.”<a href='#20'><sup>20</sup></a> What Vignon, an amateur artist himself, failed to find was any signs of paint<a href='#21'><sup>21</sup></a>. Furthermore, Vignon tried making a replica himself, but found that whenever he tried to simulate the wear and tear that the Shroud had gone through, the paint would fall off, leaving his image significantly different than that of the Shroud's, let alone the vast information the Shroud contains in its image<a href='#22'><sup>22</sup></a> (more on this in later sections). Yves Delage, professor of Vignon, would go on to give his presentation on the Shroud “to the French Academy of Sciences” stating that there were no signs of paint or artistic preparation<a href='#23'><sup>23</sup></a>, and that the Shroud was the genuine Shroud of Christ.<a href='#24'><sup>24</sup></a> He personally believed that the vaporograph theory was what made the image on the Shroud.<a href='#25'><sup>25</sup></a>
<br />
<br />A further problem for the painting hypothesis is that linen is a tough substance to paint on, especially because it is water resistant.<a href='#26'><sup>26</sup></a> To consider what we have learned thus far as well as all the anatomical information that is to come and to then say it was all painted on such a difficult substance seems highly unlikely. Furthermore, the darker colored “lines” which make up the image are roughly “1/100th the width of a human hair”, something that is impossible to have been painted by an artist manually.<a href='#27'><sup>27</sup></a> There is also a lack of definite edges and an artistic style, something that we'd expect to see if the Shroud was a painting<a href='#28'><sup>28</sup></a> as well as foreshortening, an artistic concept which was not used until the Renaissance.<a href='#29'><sup>29</sup></a>
<br />
<br />
<br />Footnotes:
<br /><a name='1'><sup>1</sup></a> Robert K. Wilcox The Truth About The Shroud of Turin, 2010. pp 3
<br /><a name='2'><sup>2</sup></a> The concept of negativity did exist prior to the medieval ages, but it was different than today's. Cf. Izabel Piczek The Concept of Negativity Through the Ages vs. The Negative Image on the Shroud http://shroud.com/piczek3.htm
<br /><a name='3'><sup>3</sup></a> Wilcox pp. 11
<br /><a name='4'><sup>4</sup></a> http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-second-image.htm citing Fanti & Maggiolo 2004
<br /><a name='5'><sup>5</sup></a> Ibid
<br /><a name='6'><sup>6</sup></a> Wilcox pp. 229-230
<br /><a name='7'><sup>7</sup></a> Ian Wilson The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved, 2010. Kindle Locations 1252-1253; Evidences citing Evans 1978; Pellicori 1981, p. 4
<br /><a name='8'><sup>8</sup></a> Personal discussion with Dr. Fotios Papadimitrakopoulos, associate Director, Institute of Materials Science Professor, Chemistry at the University of Connecticut
<br /><a name='9'><sup>9</sup></a> Wilson, Kindle Locations 1253-1256
<br /><a name='10'><sup>10</sup></a> David Ford, The Shroud of Turin's 'Blood' Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry, 2000. pp. 2 citing Jumper et al., 456; Murphy, 65; Lavoie, 58-9; Heller (1983), 200.
<br /><a name='11'><sup>11</sup></a> Wilson, Kindle Locations 1261-1262
<br /><a name='12'><sup>12</sup></a> Ibid, Kindle Locations 533-534
<br /><a name='13'><sup>13</sup></a> Ibid, Kindle Locations 534-535
<br /><a name='14'><sup>14</sup></a> Ibid, Kindle Locations 536-537
<br /><a name='15'><sup>15</sup></a> Ibid, Kindle Location 538
<br /><a name='16'><sup>16</sup></a> Ibid, Kindle Locations 545-550, citing Schumacher, 1999
<br /><a name='17'><sup>17</sup></a> Ibid, Kindle Locations 553-554
<br /><a name='18'><sup>18</sup></a> Fanti, G. et al, Evidences for Testing Hypotheses About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud , citing Lorre 1977, pp. 9 http://shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf
<br /><a name='19'><sup>19</sup></a> Kilmon, J., The Shroud of Turin: Genuine artifact or manufactured relic?, The Glyph, the journal of The Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego, Vol 1, No. 10 (Sept 1997); No. 11 (Dec 1977); No. 12 (March 1998). Reproduced at http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm
<br /><a name='20'><sup>20</sup></a> Schneider, R. The Shroud of Turin: A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma – Shroud Science, Slide 12 https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AcPCQzmpKvr2ZG1xbmo4d18wZnNnbm01Zmc&hl=en&authkey=CN-wtYoL&pli=1citing The Shroud of Christ by Paul Vignon, 1902. pp. 154 English Version
<br /><a name='21'><sup>21</sup></a> Wilcox, 11
<br /><a name='22'><sup>22</sup></a> Ibid
<br /><a name='23'><sup>23</sup></a> Schneider, R. Slide 13
<br /><a name='24'><sup>24</sup></a> Wilcox, 28. Interestingly enough, Delage experienced a giant backlash for his conclusion and reprimanded the Academy, feeling that if it were not Christ that was in question, no one would bother to challenge his conclusion (Delage himself was not a Christian).
<br /><a name='25'><sup>25</sup></a> Schneider,R. Slide 13. A brief explanation of this theory is on Slide 14 of the same presentation.
<br /><a name='26'><sup>26</sup></a> Sorensen,R. Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud, pp.3 http://shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf
<br /><a name='27'><sup>27</sup></a> Ibid
<br />www.shroud.com/piczek3.htm for the lack of artistic style
<br /><a name='28'><sup>28</sup></a> Ibid
<br /><a name='29'><sup>29</sup></a> Ibid, citing Is the Shroud of Turin a Painting?, www.shroud.com/piczek.htmphyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-39780658117011575642011-08-28T20:23:00.000-07:002011-08-28T22:18:55.979-07:00UpdateFor the negative percentage of the population that have ever heard of this blog or, even more startling, read anything from it,
<br />
<br />As one can see I've been quite absent, which is the opposite of what I promised, and for which I do apologize. Work has this nasty way of cutting into things (and a dose of lethargy never helps, either). As of recent I've moved so I could accept a job offer for the next 10 months. As such I have no plans to stop my work on the Shroud: full steam ahead, so to speak (and by 'full steam' I mean the little train who thought he could).
<br />
<br />I also just want to remind all that this project is not aiming for academic quality: I simply do not have the time to pour that far into all the peer reviewed (and non-peer-reviewed) material. I highly suggest that if I peak your interest you continue to research the Shroud for yourself. I suggest both Ian Wilson and Rober K Wilcox's books (links below).
<br />
<br />Expect the next part up in a matter of days.
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Shroud-ebook/dp/B003D87PS6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1314588554&sr=8-2'">Ian Wilson's book</a>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Shroud-Turin-Solving/dp/159698600X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1314588653&sr=1-1">Robert K. Wilcox's book</a>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-29108626332290529982011-06-01T07:46:00.000-07:002011-06-01T10:20:03.123-07:00The Argument From the Shroud - The Shroud Itself (Part 1 A)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 511px; height: 495px;" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Before anything else I'd just like to point out that I have gotten most of my information here (23/24ths of it) from Ian Wilson's book “The Shroud: Solving The 2000-Year-Old Mystery”. I highly recommend this book, though I add to such a recommendation that I disagree with Wilson's views on the medieval re-weave – but that's for another post.<br /><br />Though it is inevitably the image on the Shroud that concerns us, the physical properties can be very telling in and of themselves. The Shroud of Turin is roughly 14.5 feet long by 3.5 feet wide and is made out of yellow linen.<a href='#1'><sup>1</sup></a> Linen is made from the flax of <span style="font-style:italic;">Linum usitatissum</span> which “is native to a region from the eastern Mediterranean to India”.<a href='#2'><sup>2</sup></a> More importantly, linen was used greatly for clothing “in ancient Egypt...[and] the ancient classical world, including Rome and Palestine”.<a href='#3'><sup>3</sup></a> The Shroud has a “'Z' twist”, meaning that “whoever held the original spindle” in its production “rotated it clockwise”.<a href='#4'><sup>4</sup></a> This is significant as it rules out an ancient Egyptian origin as their linen had the reverse twist.<a href='#5'><sup>5</sup></a><br /><br />Interestingly, the Shroud was probably once part of an even larger sheet, evidenced by a “seam that runs the Shroud's full length, just under three and a half inches below its top edge”.<a href='#6'><sup>6</sup></a> This assertion, made by Dr. Flury-Lemberg, is backed up by the selvedge (“the weaver-finished edging at the left and right sides of a piece of fabric as it comes off the loom”)<a href='#7'><sup>7</sup></a> at the top and bottom edges of the Shroud.<a href='#8'><sup>8</sup></a><br /> <br />Most exciting of Dr. Flury-Lumberg's discoveries was on the backside of the cloth at the location of the mentioned seam; the “highly unusual technical characteristics” of the seam had only been seen by her in one other set of textiles – those “found at Masada, the historic Dead Sea fortress”, which dates to the first century.<a href='#9'><sup>9</sup></a><br /><br />The actual weave of the Shroud is a “three-to-one herringbone twill”, a very “rare and expensive...work”, one characterized “of a highly skilled professional” if made before the Industrial Revolution.<a href='#10'><sup>10</sup></a> We know that such a weave was used in pre-medieval times from silk weaves found in Syria, Holborough, “Trier, Conthey, Riveauville and Cologne”.<a href='#11'><sup>11</sup></a> However, there has not been a medieval parallel of such a weave.<a href='#12'><sup>12</sup></a> More parallels with a “three-to-one twill” date even closer to Christ's time with the discovery of textiles at the “Roman fort of Krokodilo.”<a href='#13'><sup>13</sup></a> The textiles there have been dated between 100 and 120 C.E.<a href='#14'><sup>14</sup></a><br /><br />Some of the damage on the Shroud also indicates how it has been folded in the past; one comes from a series of “'triple-burn-hole' fire damage” marks that are repeated on the Shroud four times.<a href='#15'><sup>15</sup></a> This set of burn-marks are mirror images of one another when the Shroud is folded in four.<a href='#16'><sup>16</sup></a><br /><br />Another set of marks are those of water stains which many had assumed were there from when the Shroud caught fire in 1532.<a href='#17'><sup>17</sup></a> What is significant is that a second set of earlier water stains were identified by Dr. Flury-Lumber and “Italian photographer Aldo Gurreschi” independently.<a href='#18'><sup>18</sup></a> These marks do not correlate to the 1532 fire damage as the folding pattern is different.<a href='#19'><sup>19</sup></a> Nor do they correlate to the previously described burn-holes as there was no attempt to extinguish the flames that made those holes.<a href='#20'><sup>20</sup></a> The only found way for these marks to have been formed is when the Shroud is folded in an “accordion-type folding arrangement”<a href='#21'><sup>21</sup></a>, a style found in antiquity such as the <span style="font-style:italic;">liber linteus</span>.<a href='#22'><sup>22</sup></a> The water stains were replicated when Gurreschi placed a cloth folded in this fashion into a replica of the jar the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in.<a href='#23'><sup>23</sup></a> It was then replicated again in 2004 for a documentary using the same method.<a href='#24'><sup>24</sup></a><br /><br />Obviously we can't over-state our case here at this point. Thus far it seems very likely though that the Shroud was constructed in a time closer to, and possibly in, the time of Christ compared to the medieval era. This alone of course doesn't prove anything as a forger could have simply used a cloth preserved from this time period. However, as we will see in the next section, the idea of a forgery is going to become a lot harder to accept.<br /><br />There is <span style="font-style:italic;">one</span> very significant thing about this though; if the cloth can only be identified with ancient techniques, then this suggests (not disproves) that something with the carbon dating went wrong.<br /><br /><a name='1'><sup>1</sup></a> Robert K. Wilcox, The Truth About The Shroud of Turin, pp. 2<br /><a name='2'><sup>2</sup></a> Ian Wilson, The Shroud: Solving The 2000-Year-Old Mystery, Kindle Location 1451<br /><a name='3'><sup>3</sup></a> Ibid, 1452<br /><a name='4'><sup>4</sup></a> Ibid, 1454<br /><a name='5'><sup>5</sup></a> Ibid, 1455<br /><a name='6'><sup>6</sup></a> Ibid, 1469-1470<br /><a name='7'><sup>7</sup></a> Ibid, 5904-5905<br /><a name='8'><sup>8</sup></a> Ibid, 1470<br /><a name='9'><sup>9</sup></a> Ibid, 1488-1489<br /><a name='10'><sup>10</sup></a> Ibid, 1512-1515<br /><a name='11'><sup>11</sup></a> Ibid, 1531-1534<br /><a name='12'><sup>12</sup></a> Ibid, 1526<br /><a name='13'><sup>13</sup></a> Ibid, 1535-1538 citing from Sheffer and Granger-Taylor, 1994<br /><a name='14'><sup>14</sup></a> Ibid, 1539-1540 citing from Sheffer and Granger-Taylor, 1994<br /><a name='15'><sup>15</sup></a> Ibid, 1596-1603<br /><a name='16'><sup>16</sup></a> Ibid, 1603-1604<br /><a name='17'><sup>17</sup></a> Ibid, 1606-1609<br /><a name='18'><sup>18</sup></a> Ibid, 1609-1611 citing Flury-Lemberg, 2003, pp.42–7<br /><a name='19'><sup>19</sup></a> Ibid, 1611<br /><a name='20'><sup>20</sup></a> Ibid, 1611-1612<br /><a name='21'><sup>21</sup></a> Ibid, 1612-1614<br /><a name='22'><sup>22</sup></a> Ibid, 1626-1627 citing Soric, A. Rendic-Miocevic et al, Katalog Pisati Etruscanski, Muzej MTM Zagreb, 1986<br /><a name='23'><sup>23</sup></a> Ibid, 1632-1635<br /><a name='24'><sup>24</sup></a> Ibid, 1643-1644 citing Secrets of The Dead IV: The Shroud of Christ which aired on PBS in the U.S.A.phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-81635432523322231032011-05-31T17:24:00.000-07:002011-06-01T07:51:23.445-07:00The Argument From The Shroud - Introduction<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 511px; height: 495px;" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/anubis18/ChristPantocrator-Sinai-1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><br />I still remember the moment when I finally admitted to myself that I was now a Christian. Standing in the shower around midnight I was pouring over all the facts I had remembered that weekend. The mysterious image, the corona discharge theory, the empty tomb, etc. As I stood there I finally had the courage to come to two conclusions that in years past I thought I may never utter:<br /><br />“So, you really believe that the Resurrection is the only way to explain all this?”<br />“Yes, I do.”<br />“So, then you're a Christian now.”<br />“I guess I am.”<br /><br /> I finished my shower and for the first time of my life I made the sign of the cross (right to left, mind you).<br /> <br />The purpose of this blog series is to make a case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ via the Shroud of Turin. Ideally, if I get into academia, I'd like to turn this into a full blown book. However, for the sake of the blog here I'm going to be much more reserved.<br /><br />A note: this argument needs one assumption to get off the ground: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ <span style="font-style:italic;">could</span> be a possible explanation for what happened Eastern morning in the year 33 C.E. Since I have always considered the christian worldview to possibly be true <span style="font-style:italic;">a priori</span>, I ask that those who wish to know why I converted also hold to this possibility as well. On a side note, I can say with past experience as both an atheist and a misotheist that God is not, emphatically not, the tyrant that so many make Him out to be<a href='#1'><sup>1</sup></a>, so this, in my view, should not prevent one from conversion if (and I doubt this if) they end up being convinced by my argument.<br /><br />The ease of my conversion came from my alacrity to know and study all things Eastern Orthodox as it seemed to be an anomaly from everything I had previously known about Christianity (which, admittedly, was little). By no means did my approbation for Orthodoxy (it single-handedly stopped my hatred for God and Christianity) make me convert – a lie, no matter how beautiful, is still a lie.<br /><br />The moments leading up to conversion are arduous and erratic; one certainly does not want to be capricious in such an exigent decision (as you may be able to tell, I'm currently studying for the GRE). However, once one takes the first step off the cliff and finds that the air beneath them has firmness, and that the conclusion is not as inured as one might think (quite the opposite, actually) life becomes a lot easier (and harder). But for me, I had to know that I would not plummit once I stepped off, or at least have good reason why to not think so. I knew that there would be no way that I could have all my questions answered ahead of time. Christians, believe it or not, do struggle with the problem of evil, or how God acts in the Old Testament. Yes, Job can be quite a tough read. The laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are harsh, and furthermore we know that despite this it was the same God who said “whosoever shall smite thee on they right cheek, turn to him the other also"<a href='#2'><sup>2</sup></a> and “thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."<a href='#3'><sup>3</sup></a> We are also painfully aware of the fragmented state of Christendom – St. Paul himself, though, said this would happen.<a href='#4'><sup>4</sup></a><br /><br />It is in the face of these doubts and worries that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."<a href='#5'><sup>5</sup></a> It is faith – trust in the God of Abraham, a communal relation with the Holy Trinity – that sustains us. But this is not the faith that people usually fulminate against. That is more akin to epistemological belief – not trust. To St. Paul this kind of faith was a given: “for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal God head."<a href='#6'><sup>6</sup></a><br /><br />It is thus here that the famous Shroud of Turin comes in. I personally believe (with reason, of course) that the Shroud is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ and that when it is put into the context of Easter morning 33 C.E. it heavily supports the hypothesis that Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Thus, in this argument, I will hope to show this process of thought.<br /><br />The series of posts will be as such:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Part 1</span> will be a description of the Shroud, noting many of the particular characteristics of the image as well as the cloth. It is in this part that I will argue that the man on the Shroud, regardless of fact or forgery, depicts Jesus Christ. It is also throughout this first part that I'll address forgery theories and why all of them fail.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Part 2</span> will be a historical reconstruction of the Shroud's history, noting its probable time line from present to the empty tomb. It is also here that I'll address the carbon dating issue that has plagued the Shroud.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Part 3</span> will be an examination of many popular theories for explaining the empty tomb and see how they match up with the data we have on the Shroud, and then make the claim that the Resurrection best accounts for all this data. I'm assuming most skeptics come in with a binary view of Christianity – it is either true or it is not. There is no 'middle-ground' where Jesus was Resurrected by some other means. Either way, I'll still cover this line of though (albeit briefly).</blockquote><br /><br /> I'm not under any delusions; I'm sure most people will walk away away either unconvinced or have too much apathy towards the subject to care. Still, as long as I show that one can indeed rationally believe in the Resurrection and thus Christianity, then it's something. And who knows, maybe I'll even convince a mind or two.<br /> <br />Or maybe not.<br /><br /><br />By the way, two good books on the Shroud of Turin are Robert K. Wilcox's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Shroud-Turin-Solving/dp/159698600X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306889741&sr=8-1">"The Truth About The Shroud of Turin: Solving The Mystery"</a> and Ian Wilson's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-2000-Year-Old-Mystery-Solved/dp/0553824228/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306889792&sr=1-4">"The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved"</a> (although I personally disagree with the latter's assessment of the re-weave theory) <br /><br /><a name='1'><sup>1</sup></a> I, for my self, blame this largely on Reformed theology, especially Calvinism, as well as just bad explanations by those preaching from the pulpit<br /><a name='2'><sup>2</sup></a> Matthew 5:39<br /><a name='3'><sup>3</sup></a> Deuteronomy 7:2<br /><a name='4'><sup>4</sup></a> 1 Corinthians 11:9<br /><a name='5'><sup>5</sup></a> Hebrews 11:1<br /><a name='6'><sup>6</sup></a> Romans 1:20 -- found at bible.cc<br /><br />NOTE: All versions used either the KJV or the NKJV and were found on either http://bible.cc/ or http://www.biblegateway.com/phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-35098733865178923822011-04-26T08:56:00.000-07:002011-04-26T09:01:15.960-07:00New ProjectHello my 1 to 2 readers,<br /><br />This summer I'm going to be composing and writing a work on the resurrection of Jesus Christ with the added features of the Shroud of Turin. This obviously is going to postpone or even end any work I was doing on the Ever Virginity of the Theotokos, but inter-Christian debates have been largely uninteresting to me as of late. Though I want the full work to be of scholarly quality, the stuff I'll be posting here will be condensed versions (or maybe not). Expect more updates from now on as I do intend to actually use this blog.phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-45246345016504592682011-03-22T00:15:00.001-07:002011-03-22T00:16:14.541-07:00FilioqueAn old, yet very interesting, article on the filioque <a href="http://bekkos.wordpress.com/filioque-introduction/">here</a>phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7169413079633887512.post-6133419779889070462011-03-07T00:02:00.001-08:002011-03-07T00:05:03.826-08:00Shroud ScienceThose who know me know that my conversion to Christianity came because of my personal research into the Shroud of Turin. As such, the Shroud means a lot to me as it has allowed me to stay firm in my belief in rough times -- times where I may have otherwise gone back to being a non-theist. A website <a href="https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AcPCQzmpKvr2ZG1xbmo4d18wZnNnbm01Zmc&hl=en&authkey=CN-wtYoL&pli=1">here</a> deals with some basic science on the Shroud. I haven't read the entire presentation yet, but from what I've read thus far it all seems familiar and valid.phyzicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02959840594910447111noreply@blogger.com0