. . . 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.
More:
 |
| The Pray Manuscript Shroud image, c. 1192 - 5 AD, which gives reason to doubt the 1988 dating (Cf. here) |
Relevant, too, is the 1192 - 5 Hungarian Pray Codex, which as was noted may well document the shroud well before the 1988 dating window:
the Hungarian Pray manuscript (or Codex) is dated 1192-95, or 65-68 years before 1260 the earliest possible radiocarbon date of the Shroud (and 130-133 years before the claimed middle date of 1325). Yet the Pray manuscript is obviously depicting the Shroud with its: 1. naked Jesus (otherwise unknown in the middle ages); 2. having his arms crossed in front; 3. hands with no thumbs; 4. about to be covered by a shroud with the same rare herringbone weave pattern; and 5. (the clincher) the Pray manuscript's shroud depicts the same pattern of burn holes [--> the L-pattern of "poker holes" . . . possibly, from censer coals spilling on the shroud] that are on the Shroud of Turin!
Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business. If the "sceptics" were truly sceptical (and not just true believers in the Shroud's inauthenticity) they would realise that it would take far less than the Shroud to make money in the gullible middle ages . . .
This Schwortz interview (shortly before his passing), is also worth pondering, to see just how mysterious this object is and remains, long after the dismissive 1988 dating episode -- which he addresses i/l/o a 27 year later FOIA request; evidently, the dating was not as well-founded as it should have been (perhaps, in part due to only one sample being taken, from a part that it looks was rewoven after the 1532 fire):
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. BTW, the biochemical signatures in the blood and bodily fluid evidence show such a degree of trauma from the whipping, that the injuries at that point were already arguably mortal. |
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" on whatever convenient objection or explaining away?)
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
PS: For me, though obviously I do not rely on this artifact as base warrant for my "reason for the Faith I have," this case is sufficient to give pause, including not only on how credulous we can be, but also that that credulousness can all too easily extend to a commitment to dismissiveness and to "gold standard" high prestige institutions and their authoritative pronouncements -- let's say it out loud: "the settled Scientific consensus . . ." -- on all too many issues of concern.
PPS: The above, is about how we construct or acknowledge warrant in our civilisation, making a call for reform. That is valid, but this morning I was strongly reminded that we also need to draw out the Isa 53 context and healing power of Jesus' stripes. Accordingly, let me excerpt two WA posts I have shared across a remnant-reformation circle:
<<Let us refocus:
Is 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows . . .
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned-every one-to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He is risen with healing in his wings, and is capable of healing our inner pain and bringing our broken inner selves back into healthy wholeness. Peace, with God, peace within, peace with others, peace with the world.>>
Then,
<<The shroud and sudarium illustrate and just possibly may document [--> who else, historically was crucified with a mocking crown of thorns? ANS: Nil] what he went through bodily, the scriptures document his agony of soul, from which we have restoration, salvation, deliverance, healing. God be with you.>>
.jpg)
