Shroud continued....

The idea that the shroud was a painting was denied on every front by the evidence. The image is a faint yellow 'straw' colour which is barely visible unless you stand at a distance of 15+ feet. The image is not painted using normal light and shadow. The darker areas are those that would have the minimal perpendicular distance if a plane was laid on top of the image while areas that recede from that plane are lighter in colour. To the natural eye the image would appear as a negative since the receded portions would naturally be in shadows while on the shroud they are light. (thus the stark recognition of the image on a photographic negative) The areas that show wounds are done with real blood (ten different tests) and the flow from the front wound around to the lower back is anatomically logical. The crucifixion wounds show on the wrist rather than on the hands. Tests later showed the wrist is the more likely location of a spike, as the hand is not sufficient to support the weight of a body. Dirt is embedded in the cloth at the location of the feet. The medium used to create the image could not be a fluid as there are no traces of the miniscus effect which a fluid would leave. The artist could only cover the very surface of each fibril.

Thus in summary, an artist would need to 'paint' a 3-dimensional data image, in the negative, which cannot be seen from a paintable distance. He would need to cover only the surface of each fibril with a fluidless medium. He would need to paint the wounds with real blood, embed some dirt in the foot areas and place wounds in the wrists rather than the hands contrary to available information in medieval times. He would need to paint on a 14+ foot canvas with a perfect recreation of pressure points based on the weight of a human body and include full length ventral and dorsal view.

<- Image Fibrils

Blood Fibrils ->

In spite of this information there was one "scientist" who claimed the shroud had pigment on it and concluded it was a painting. All other scientists using the same evidence and equipment could not verify his claims in the least. That scientist would not show his analysis to other scientists and refused to attend forums discussing his conclusions. He continues to promote his theory to this day.

A plausible theory: The image most resembles a type of radiation burn. If you view the universe as expressions of matter, energy and/or spirit it's feasible that as Jesus body went from matter to spirit as it passed through the intermediary stage of energy, it left a burn on the cloth. The points directly touching the cloth leaving a denser image. The reverse then is also true when spirit is converted to matter as in the creation. This fits with the "let there be" in Genesis as God's spirit is directed to take on the form of matter. This transformation is not without cost as God is inclined to take rest from this form of effort.

Not necessarily a direct fit, but Wolfgang Pauli describes science as "finding the spirit in matter". More to the point is Einstein's e=mc² which mathematically described the non-spiritual side of the equation. There is also proof of the remaining energy to spirit conversion. It showed itself in studies of quantum mechanics. These observations Einstein rejected with the statement that "God doesn't roll dice with the universe" when in fact, it was later proved that he does exactly that. Alas, this will necessarily be covered in another post.

The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin is a 14 1/2 foot long, 3 1/2 foot wide cloth that is kept in St. John's Cathedral in the town of Turin, Italy. On the cloth, there is the front and back image of a man in a faint straw yellow colour. For the 1973 revealing of the shroud, a team of 43 American scientists was allowed to conduct 120 hours of tests to determine exactly what was on the shroud and possibly how it got there.

The "Report on the Shroud of Turin" was written by Dr. John Heller and published in 1983. It follows the formulation of the American scientific team, the study of the shroud in Turin, and the subsequent analysis of the results back in the United States. I have a lengthy summary (4 pgs) but for the purposes of this blog I will severely cut.

A VP©8 Image Analyzer was used to view the shroud. This "camera" interprets darker as farther away and lighter as closer up. A typical picture will become badly distorted under this image analyzer because the light source and the surfaces upon which it's reflecting will be interpreted as being closer when in fact this is not the case. The image on the shroud shows up as a perfect 3D image, which is virtually impossible to paint. (pg. 38)

Reflectance Spectroscopy was used which obtains spectra based on reflectance. They began on a background area of the cloth, then switched over to a section that had an image on it. They began at the heel and moved up the leg. As they moved up the leg they got totally different spectra, which indicates it's made of dissimilar material. It had all been alike except the heel. Under full magnification of a macroscope they found dirt particles "deep into and between the threads." This is logical if it came from a man's feet. It is illogical if it where painted since it could not have been seen. (pg. 112)

The body images are straw yellow in colour, "only on the crowns of microfibers of the thread." There were no signs of capillary action. The absence of this suggests that no fluid was used in the creation of the image. If paint had been used then the fibers should have adhered to one another and matted together. (pg 113)

Whenever there was a bloodstain in the image area there was matting and capilliarity. This would have to be the case with actual blood, which is a mixture of water, cells and blood protein. (pg 113)

There was no meniscus effect where the images were found. On the other hand, in the areas where the blood was purported to be, it left a meniscus as a fluid would. This is evidence that paint was not used to create the man image and what was thought to be blood was behaving as it should. (pg. 113)

Xray flourescence identifies dozens of inorganic pigments which would have been made up of such elements as arsenic, cobalt and mercury available in the middle ages. The results on the shoud were the occurrence of Calcium, lots of it, spread evenly over the length and width of the shroud, Strontium in lesser amounts, but again evenly distributed over the shroud, Iron spread uniformly over the shroud, except in the bloodstained areas where it was significantly higher. No other elements were found. Thermal analysis seemed to preclude organic and biological substance. Thus leaving no explanation for the image's manner of creation. (pg. 135)

After lengthy investigation is was discovered that the process of retting linen is by soaking the flax plant in a natural body of water (lake/river) Parts of the flax rot away and remaining fibres are linen which is spun into thread. During the process, the linen fibres act as an icon exchanger, picking up ions of Calcium, Strontium, and Iron. This discovery explains the findings of the Xray Flourescence tests and evidences the shroud was made by methods natural to an ancient time period. (pg. 174)

The "images were directionless" and therefore could not have been painted by human hand. This was the finding from a detailed image analysis at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (pg. 137)

After one month of testing, pretty well all paints, pigments, dyes or stains were eliminated as possible means of getting the image on the shroud. No acids, solvent, or other chemicals extracted or changed the colour. They left no reasonable explanation as to how the image came to be on the cloth. (Pg. 198-206)

"We do know, however, that there are thousands on thousands of pieces of funeral linen going back to millenia before Christ, and another huge number of linens of Coptic Christian burials. On none of these is there any image of any kind. A few have some blood and stains on them, but no image." (pg. 220)

A volunteer was chosen that had the same build and height as the image on the shroud. He was laid on a glass surface and the team crawled underneath to take measurements and take pictures. The contact points between the body and the glass surface are a replication of the contact points that would have left the image on the shroud. Over the shoulder blades there were two bilateral, trapezoidal flat areas which were the same as those on the back and the flattening of the buttocks, thighs and calves matching the shroud image. (pg. 208)

The hands on the shroud have only 4 digits showing. The thumbs were missing. It was found that when a spike is driven through the wrist, damage will occur the ulnar nerve which in turn would cause the thumb to flex into the palm of the hand. Following death, rigor mortis would keep it that way. This is unlikely to be an artists perspective when undertaking a painting.

Only one wrist shows up on the image. When the volunteer crossed his wrists and folded his thumb into his palm, the cloth tented up to a distance of approximately 2 inches above the lower wrist. Based on the VP©8 3D results, the intensity of the image is in relation to the distance that existed between the body and the cloth. This 2 inch distance prevented the lower wrist from leaving an image. An artist painting this image would be able to see the wrist and there would be no reason to not paint it.

James Cameron - Moron ?

Love his movies, but he just confirmed it doesn’t take brains to make them.

I saw him speaking on a podium last night on television stating that this is the ONLY pure archaeological evidence regarding Jesus. He was referring to the bones found in a small casket that had been dug up in Jerusalem in 1980. There was an inscription on the side saying “Judah, son of Jesus” which Cameron claims as evidence that Jesus may have had a son.

I’m not taking issue with people foisting a theory on evidence. It happens everyday, everywhere and is the legitimate process of arriving at the correct interpretation of events. My only caveat to that would be that you’re making a legitimate effort to incorporate all the evidence and that the theory it is supporting is not a complete fabrication with no reasonable correlation to the evidence (ie. it’s 82° today so global warming is true)

What stands out, and is the reason for this post, is Cameron’s statement that it is the only archaeological evidence related to Jesus. This tells me how badly Christians have mangled an accurate view of the New Testament documents. (Ryland fragment - John's gospel - at right) In their legitimate desire to defend the authenticity of the documents, they’ve cornered them off into iconic status where they’re no longer even regarded as archaeological. Frankly, I think the chapter/verse causes more serious problems than it ever solved. Like Entertainment Tonight, people use verses like the latest headline stripping it out of the context of the letters or narrative. It would have been much harder to do without each verse being numbered. Even just having Chapter only would have been much better.

Of course Cameron’s box is nothing more than just that without the inscription written on it. And how is that different than the inscriptions written on the pages of parchment making up the NT. Zip, zero, nadda. The difference lies in Cameron’s prejudice, not the archeology itself.

As F.F. Bruce summarizes in his book:

“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which none dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.”

Not only is Cameron denying the authenticity of those documents, (by implication) they’re not even on his radar. He attempts to defend his critics by stating "I'm not a theologist. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a documentary filmmaker." Now a documentary is a form of expression that is meant to “document” reality. To claim you’re not qualified in the fields of archeology or theology is hardly a defence unless frivolity is what you are defending. And hopefully his ‘theologist’ is a sign of real ignorance (theologian) not a ploy to convince us of his lack of expertise in this area. I don’t get the logic. I’m qualified to make a documentary film but am ignorant of the subject matter?? Ignorant or idiotic?

So the New Testament is a boat load of documents written during the first century that describe the events the eyewitnesses beheld. Cameron finds a box with a spurious inscription on it then claims everything else is garbage. And I’m not even talking about the mountains of additional evidence let alone the Shroud of Turin.

It just shows where the world is at and what Christians are up against in this day and age.

No question, the greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind. And by perpetrated, I mean one that's penetrated. (The Qu'ran says Jesus never died on the cross but that really hasn't gone anywhere.) Is a synthesis of the two theories a possibility? If you're thinking that way you've already 75% crossed over to the dark side. Evolution has become intertwined with virtually every single discipline known to man. Proponents and opponents on either side of the arguments feverishly defend their positions... as they should. The implications of this fundamental perspective will necessarily provide the context for everything else you think.

If you accept evolution then the pointlessness and randomness of life is an inescapable conclusion. It bears directly on your views of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, environment, marriage, animal rights, racism, welfare, biology, genetics etc. (virtually everything) Up until this perspective was foisted upon mankind, the awe of nature drove man to the natural conclusion of creation.

Romans 1:19-20 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made

But mankind slowly developed a mindset to deflect the natural awe of the pointers to God's hand in creation and replace it with a fabrication that through random chance and genetic mutation we came to be incredible beings we are today.

The believers in evolution co-opted "science" to support their view to give it supposed validity. Any true searcher will discover the falicy in this thinking. Having remained a theory for over 1.5 centuries it is still disputed on every front. Any other theory with such a poor evidenciary support would be quickly tossed aside. It's not like e=mc² which has proven to be true or real science where theories are tested and proven true. The arguments on both sides go on unabated. If you diligently search out each issue, and there are thousands, the best you will reach is a draw. I want to mention a few things of related note since my position is obvious.

Evolutionists believe science to be on their side, and propose that creationist's believe their views into existence. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The term "creation science" has been met with unadulterated scorn from the proponents of evolution and it has been said there simply is no such thing. This is the type of answer that actually confirms their extreme prejudice. Of course there's such a thing as creation science. It's a theory developed from supporting evidence that God created the universe. They think religion and science cannot be mixed so that's impossible. That's true, only if you come to the argument with an original position that God doesn't exist. True science doesn't have any presuppositions. They let the evidence speak for itself and don't draw conclusions beyond what can be supported.

Evolutionists go way, way beyond that. Their "belief" in the random generation of life from non-life has zero support and is totally a leap of faith. Although many Christians naively present their views in a "faith" mode (not fit for public consumption) rather than an apologetic, evidentiary mode, the evolutionist's really have no grounds to scorn; they are the ones making the jumps to swallow their theory and are merely projecting their actions onto Christians. If the chain of evolutionary evidence was remotely close to what they purport, we wouldn't still be discussing it 150 years later.

The Power of the Evidence

Christianity is founded on actual events that occurred in time-space history. As with any real event they leave traces of evidence. Similar to a CSI story, complete with DNA, blood samples, eyewitness accounts, fingerprints, contradictions etc. the information needs to be sifted through and interpreted to present an accurate picture of what transpired.

Derbyshire’s rendition of our faith is an all too often misrepresentation of the way we must approach the basis of our ‘religion’. Unfortunately many Christian’s support this erroneous view and some regard it as some type of faith “batch of honour” because of their supposed leap into the belief system. Besides being an idiotic perspective, it serves the devil’s purpose of preempting any one who is truly searching for answers to life.

John 20:26-28 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Some would say Jesus requests for Thomas to ‘put your finger here’ and ‘place it in my side’ were unnecessary and without faith. But that is simply not the case. Christianity is belief in a reality not a fantasy. Without any evidence there is no reason to believe. As in this example, Jesus encourages the testing of the reality of what we face. Stick your fingers into what you are questioning (so to speak), you really have nothing to lose.

I Corinthians 15:14-17 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile

Paul goes on to say that, we are be pitied more than all men, if we’ve put our belief in something that did not occur.

I’m an expert in this area. At an early age I wrote in an essay “if someone proved to me that Jesus never lived I’d still believe in him.” Yes a wonderful zeal but incredible naïve and completely indefensible. I was called to account by my mentor at the time and many years later have come full circle to appreciate the immeasurably valuable place evidences play in the soul of a Christian.

I tossed the frontal shot of the Shroud of Turin on the last post. It’s interesting to me that Josh McDowell books (i.e. Evidence That Demands a Verdict) don’t mention the Shroud. I’ve read a number of books on the Shroud beginning with June 1980 article in National Geographic. Since then I have read much on the topic and come to the conclusion that it is one of the most important pieces of evidence for Christianity that exists. My mentor, who had written it off as a piece of Roman Catholic iconography, was later convinced by the facts surrounding the Shrouds makeup. I will present my case in a future post.

The image is the negative of a photograph of the cloth.

Tired of this Bullshit which is Everywhere

An excerpt from John Derbyshire's criticism of an article by George Gilder.

"To adhere to religious metaphysics, on the other hand, you actually have to belong to one of the established religions, all of which require belief in things (resurrection, transubstantiation, reincarnation, Chosen People) that seem, to many minds accustomed to the evidentiary standards demanded by modern science and law, incredible. "

The Battle Zone

A few links to some articles I've been reading. I'm an admirer of Jonah Goldberg and John Derbyshire from the National Review. As with many other writers, when it comes to spirituality, we part ways. And it's usually with a bang. I'll link to the articles I've been perusing then make a brief comment on a certain aspect of the battle.

This was Derbyshire's Article I read first.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzUwMDliZTQxYTJlNjUzZTQ5YTRhNGJhOTQ0NmMxMzk=

I then went back to find Gilder's original article.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3631

This was followed by a rebuttal to Derbyshire by Joe Manzari and Casey Luskin
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=3707

Biblical Chronology

This chart below was developed out of desperation. As the world’s lies were being heaped higher and higher around me at the same time as my views were being seriously challenged at my local church, I found my slightest doubts to be exponentially magnified. One of those doubts concerned the reliability of the Old Testament dating. Similar to “Bishop Ussher’s” calculation and I’m sure many before and after him. (One of many hits on Google - this has references to the movie "Inherit the Wind" which misrepresent the creation position as well as shows the reality of William Jennings Bryant's weak position on it.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html )

The chart was developed from scratch in Lotus 123. Yep, Lotus 123. It’s a horizontal bar chart with some cleverly laid out ‘data labels’. (if I do say so myself) The beauty of this version of Lotus was it doesn’t force you to use the actual data that generates the bar to be the data label, which Excel does force… but I digress.

The process of developing the chart terminated my concern, aka doubt. Meaning, if the Old Testament is valid, then the earth is around 6,000 yrs old. Obviously this has some implications.