. . . yes, the UAP concept broadens our focus and leads to questions about the factual adequacy and explanatory power of the conventional wisdom of modern, often hyperskeptical radically secularist worldview.
 |
| An AI constructed image of the man in the Shroud |
The Shroud itself is apparently a burial cloth for a crucified man, with a crown of thorns and a spear thrust in the side, who had been cruelly beaten before his crucifixion; which bears the image of the victim. Up until 1898, it would have been easy to dismiss it as just one of many religious relics of dubious provenance. But, in that year, a photograph of the face was taken, and to the shock of the photographer, the expected "negative" image turned out to in fact be a positive, i.e. the shroud itself was a negative image. Where, until photography was invented in C19, that was not a recognised concept. As well, the shroud shows a proper anatomical knowledge of crucifixion, i.e. the wrist is where the nails were likely to go, as the palms are too weak to support the victim, and this would tend to lock the thumb in, as is shown in the image of the hand, due to cutting or damaging a nerve . . . itself a further source of pain.
Worse, when the STURP project investigated the relic in 1978, it was recognised that three dimensional information was embedded in the image; something that simply does not happen with a conventional photograph.
And much more, e.g. dust and pollen consistent with being in the ME near Jerusalem in the Spring time, etc.
Moreover, apart from blood deposits (Type AB), the image is not formed from dyes or pigments, but instead a ~ 200 nm surface layer of linen fibres has been altered (seemingly by radiation), forming the negative by means unknown but speculated to be an immense, short pulse of radiation. Also, the blood-stained areas do not have an image, showing that the blood was deposited first. Likewise, the blood shows breakdown products consistent with horrific trauma that reasonably would be associated with crucifixion.
Nor, can the notorious 1988 C-14 radiocarbon dating settle the matter as a medieval forgery (as I recall seeing roundly declared in a CXC Physics Textbook, as a triumph of Science); as, it comes from a section that seems to have been repaired and rewoven, apparently including cotton fibres. (The Shroud proper, IIRC, is 3:1 Twill, Linen.)
This is already exceedingly in the UAP category.
But, there is more, the Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain, which -- suitably folded -- matches the blood stains for the face, including, AB blood type. (Which, is relatively rare and would not have been known to a medieval forger.)
 |
| Matching the Sudarium to the face, 1 |
In more detail:
 |
| More details of the match, drawn out, 2. Notice signs of bleeding and/or effusion from nose and mouth, signs of internal injury |
The tickler?
The Sudarium has been separately dated and is in continuous chain of custody from Spain, 645AD, with a plausible narrative of rescue from the ME.
So, where does all of this sit?
Is this "proof beyond all dispute" that this is Jesus' burial cloth, complete with markers of a radiative event connected to his resurrection?
Does this then "prove" the Gospel narratives to similar absolute degree?
(And if they fail such utter demonstration, can we then dismiss the lot as "no evidence"?)
No.
No, to all three, in fact.
But that is in a perverse way, just the point.
For, artifacts and history, witnesses and record CANNOT prove beyond "all dispute." Instead, responsible due warrant and right reason would recognise that such evidence can only at best show to moral certainty. And the point of moral certainty would be that it would be irresponsible to act as though a claim with such a degree of evidence is false, on matters of grave weight.
In short, one of our points here, is to challenge our attitude to evidence and tendency to selective hyperskepticism.
Where, too, the real point of this post in the ESB series emerges.
For, we have here yet more evidence, that our conventional wisdom is too narrow and needs to be reassessed. Perhaps, starting with structural reason to believe in God, a reconsideration of the worldviews issue and with reason to examine the case of Jesus of Nazareth with fresh, open minds. END
