http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/10/27/larry-davids-piss-christ/
Above is a link where this guy and HBO allow Larry , whoever he is, he piss on the picture of Christ. Christians are ridiculed because we are supposed to believe that those drops of urine on the pissed picture of Christ are tears of Christ.
Questions: 1) HBO and this guy Larry obviously do not have the guts to do that to other religion especially Islam. Why? Are Christians pushover? Let me rephrase-- if an acquaintance were to come to your home and started to insult your wife or make explicit sexual remarks to her, what would you do to that individual? Ignore, weak protest, or ????
2) All this for a laugh???
3) Unless we as Christians PROTEST by calling HBO and Larry show this will surely continue and there will come a time when physical abuse will occur, mark my word !!
4) Do not ignore and think it is OK for the time because we as Christians have again fail to follow God's plan to be 'fruitful, have dominion over the earth.'
Blessings
Eric
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Shroud..controvery cont.....
Thanks Allen for your input. It is important to understand that the ESSENSE of Christianity does not depend on 'The Shroud.' If shown to be False -- so what !! If shown to be true AMEN.
Below is a paper I wrote for my 'Christian Apologetic' class. I apologize for it's length. Those who are interested can research more by asking and we can provide you with more information, both pro & con.
The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
By Eric Quek
In Partial Fulfillment of CSAP 691 MD
In Defense of the Resurrection
Professor Clay Jones
Submitted May 18, 2008
A religious question has been needlessly injected into a problem which in itself is purely scientific, with the result that feelings have run high, and reason has been lead astray. If, instead of Christ, there were a question of some person like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection… I have been faithful to the true scientific spirit, treating this argument with the sole intention to find the truth… I consider the Christ to be an historical personage and I do not see why anyone should be scandalized that there exists a material trace of his existence.[1]
The historic relic known as ‘The Shroud of Turin’ makes it first public appearance in 1357. [2] In this paper, we will investigate the authenticity of ‘The Shroud of Turin’ from a historical view point. We will also enlist aid from several fields of specialty namely: chemistry, physics, radiology, medical and scripture. Methods of investigation for the authenticity of the ‘Shroud of Turin’ will include gathering of relevant data pertinent to the issue at hand namely: the application of scientific principles from various fields, from different specialties, testimony of experts who have investigated this relic, from the relic itself, and from scriptures. Scriptural evidence will be viewed with more valued than even expert witnesses or the scientific tool used to examine the ‘Shroud.’ Independent sources will naturally strengthen our case for the authenticity of the relic.
To prove the authenticity of the ‘Shroud’ we need to ask some pertinent questions and not simply do a match up of similarities between the Gospel descriptions of Christ’s ordeal comparing it to the relic. First question would be how do we determine that this relic is authentic? Second, how do we differentiate this relic, which is supposed to be the burial cloth of our crucified Lord, from thousands of other crucifixions? Lastly, the most crucial question is, can we harmonize the medical perspective with the scripture? Let us begin our investigation with: 1) Marks from the wounds of the deceased that are on the ‘Shroud.’ 2) We will then examine Pontius Pilate coins in relation to customary practice. 3) Amulet on the body of the crucified person and it’s meaning. 4) Iconography noted to be standardized by sixth century contrast that to early paintings. 5) Is it paint or human blood on the Shroud and its significance in relation to forgery and body washed after being crucified?
Marks from the wounds have been classified into five sections by Barbet. They are: 1) bilateral wrist and feet impalement, 2) numerous contusions on the torso, 3) numerous contusions on the lower extremities, 4) numerous blood clots on the scalp and 5) a large puncture wound on the side. Most artistic tradition depicts Christ’s hands
being impaled rather than through the Space of Destot, which is the space between the bones of the wrist, which will support the weight of the body. If this site is correct the
median nerve would not be damaged because the anatomical boundary for the median nerve, Capitate, Semilunar, Triquetral and Hamate which are located on the ulnar side of the wrist, not radial side as is depicted on the Shroud.[3] This would challenge the current believe that median nerve is damaged and ‘that is why on the shroud, the two hands when seen from behind only show four fingers and why the two thumbs are hidden in the palm.’[4] Critics point to this and ask for an explanation?
In 1593, Sebastiano Rodante identified an arterial and venous bleed on the forehead on the Shroud.[5] This is significant because no artist at that time knew of this type of physiology in detail. In addition, wounds on the scalp indicate something more like a cap that must be used to make those scalp wounds. More wounds on the face such as large swelling below the right eye, a swollen nose, a triangular-shaped mark on the right cheek are consistent with the recordings of the gospel. The other visible bloodstain on the Shroud is noted on the left side of the frontal image which corresponds to right side of the body between the fifth and sixth ribs. Visible on the Shroud in the region of this wound is a separation of blood and clear liquid. Judica-Cordiglia a forensic medicine professor, radiologist Moedder and Barbet all agree that this fluid was part of a postmortem issue of blood and clear fluid resulting from a puncture wound that reached the heart.[6] Proponents say that this would agree with the scriptures.
How was the Shroud wrapped around the body and is there any other evidence of more than one cloth? Was Christ wrapped in strips of cloth? Diana Fulbright does not believe Christ was wrapped in strips of cloth because of several reasons.[7] First there was the time element, Friday afternoon where all commerce would cease for several hours before sundown. In the scripture Christ died at the ‘ninth hour,’ or about 1500 hours. It would have taken several hours for permission to release the body and more time still needed to remove the body from the cross. Several things now come to light under these reasoning. Time will not permit Christ body to be ‘wrapped in strips of cloth,’ in addition; it was not the Jewish custom during that time to practice an ancient Egyptian custom. Critics point to John 19:40 which say “in strips of linen”[8], which is plural. How would they account for that?
According to Jewish enshroudment custom, the cloth was folded over the head and down to the feet. There was a chin band and a modesty cloth, a wrist band and a ankle band. It is the Jewish custom to tie the mouth shut. The face cloth or Sudarium of Oviedo measures two feet nine inches by one foot nine inches. Monsignor Guilio Ricci has direct access to the Sudarium in 1955 and had been studying blood stain on it. Whanger used the Polarized Image Overlay Technique and found seventy congruent blood stains on the face portion and over fifty congruent blood stains on the back of the head and neck.[9] The significance of this is that there are no stains or images on the Shroud where the chin band was place. Proponents say this is in line with the fact that the chin band absorbed all the blood stains and thus none found on the shroud.
Proponents point to the fact that time is of essence thus the anointing is likely to be used as an antiputrefacient where these aromatic san was packed around the body of the deceased. This would account for little or aromatic detected by current scientific methods.
Whanger was able to use his Polarized Image Overlay Technique to identify the Filas coin as during the time of Tiberius in A.D.29. They found at least seventy-four points of congruence. In addition, the pattern on the back of Filas coin was noted to be from the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. It is currently accepted that there is little archaeological support for a first-century Jewish practice of placing coins on the eyes of the deceased.[10]
In our next investigation, we will examine the image of the two seated figures at the midline of breastbone on the Shroud. Dr. Whanger has theorized that the amulet was put there as an act of mockery. There is another evidence of mockery found in a box like
structure on the forehead which was desecrated.[11] All this point to the fact that the man was mocked for whatever reason prior to his death.
Depiction of Christ by artists prior to sixth century varied. It was not until the sixth century that standardized artistic representation of Christ was noted. This Shroud like image has since persisted until present day. It was Paul Vignon and later Edward Wuenschel who started a systematic approach to iconography.[12] They have shown several specific markings appearing consistently in Byzantine portraits of Christ and of the Shroud.
In terms of paint on the Shroud or blood, according to chemist Walter McCrone and Dr. Alan Adler, both arrived at a different conclusion. McCrone concluded that the Shroud is a painting based on his findings of protein, iron oxide and ‘vermillion.’ He believes that the artist used the protein as a pigment binder to make the body image with iron oxide. However, Heller and Adler noted that McCrone did not distinguish two types of red particulates, birefringent and non-birefringent, nor did he note three types of iron compounds present.[13] According to Adler, McCone’s protein is amido black which is neither specific nor sensitive as a test. In addition, Adler et al demonstrated twelve tests
confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud.[14] Critics of the Shroud pointed to the bright red color of the blood stain. They argue that normally; when whole blood discolors rapidly it turn black-brown and not bright red color. Proponents’ counter by
arguing that it is not active bleeding that causes this bright red color. Instead it is from postmortem exudates.
Most proponents would concede that the body was unwashed. Defenders for an unwashed body cite the Jewish law (Halachah) where fewer than four conditions will prohibit a Jew from having his body washed.
They are: 1) a bloody and violent death,
2) death by capital punishment for religious crime,
3) an outcast of Jewish community
4) a Jew is murdered by Gentile.[15]
Opponents point to the fact that this is a 16th century Code for Jews. If this is true than this would contradict John 19:40 where he say that ‘this was in
accordance with Jewish burial custom.’ In addition, majority of biblical exegetes is of the opinion that Christ body was washed.[16]
Scriptural silence from this writer’s view is the strongest evidence against the Shroud’s authenticity. All four gospels mention about the empty tomb, the neatly preserved burial cloths. None mentioned or hinted about material trace on the burial cloths given the gravity of the situation. The next objection that this writer has is the apparent contradiction with John 19:40 where most biblical exegete scholars believed that Christ body was washed which contradict any given explanations from science. Third question that needs to be answered concerns the wrappings mentioned in John 19:40. Fourth question has to do with ‘about a hundred pounds weight of mixture of myrrh and aloes.’ Why was no myrrh and aloes found on the Shroud when clearly the scripture indicated that they were ‘bound with linen wrappings?’
On the other hand, a case for historical argument can also be made. The way this man was buried using a long linen sheet, jaw-band, closing of eyes, binding of hands, stigmata on the side of the fifth and sixth ribs which is unique, numerous other stigmata on his forehead, back, wrists and legs. From forensic medicine it has been determined to be Jewish man.
In conclusion, the evidence for forgery of the Shroud is unwarranted. Rather, the stigmata, unwashed body, the quality of the linen cloth, the crowning with thorns are all unique in recorded history. On the other hand, this writer is of the opinion that as stated earlier scriptural evidence carries significant weight. Based on the following evidences this writer rejects the authenticity of the Shroud based on : 1) the silence of the scripture especially when resurrection is of such importance to Christianity, 2) unconvincing evidence for the unwashed body as opposed to the scripture, 3) coins on the man’s eye were not Jewish custom, 4) no satisfactory answer for wrappings and not wrapping, 5) absent finding from current forensic science as to about hundred pounds of myrrh and aloe on the Shroud, 6) this writer has also taken into consideration where the interpretation of data from scientific evidence can be based on subjective interpretation.
Bibliography
Borkan, Marc. “Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud.” Vertices: The Duke University Magazine of Science, Technology, and Medicine. Vol. X, no. 2, (Winter 1995): 18-52.
Fulbright, Diana. “A Clean Cloth: What Greek Word Usage Tells Us about the Burial Wrappings of Jesus”, 2005. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n62part7.pdf. (accessed 4/24/08).
Guerrera, Fr. Vittorio. The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity. Illinois: Tan Books & Pub., Inc., 2001.
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler. “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin.” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal. Vol. 14, No 3 (7/27/81): 81-103.
The New International Version Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995).
Whanger, Mary and Alan. The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery. Tennessee: Providence House Pub., 1998.
Wikipedia. “Shroud of Turin.” (accessed 4/4/08).
[1] Marc Borkan, “Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud”, Vertices: The Duke University Magazine of Science, Technology, and Medicine. Vol X. No. 2 (1995): 18-52, cite Wilson 1979: 33-34 and Van Cauwenberghe 1992:17.
[2] Wikipedia. “Shroud of Turin.” (accessed 4/4/08).
[3] Fr. Guerrera Vittorio. The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity. (Illinois: Tan Books & Pub., 2001), 82.
[4] Mac Borkan. “Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud”, cites Frederick T.Zugib, M.D., Ph.D, ‘Pierre Barbet Revisited,’ Sindon, No.8, 12/95), 110.
[5] Ibid. 38.
[6] Ibid. 26.
[7] Fulbright, Diana. “A Clean Cloth: What Greek Word Usage Tells Us about the Burial Wrappings of Jesus”, 2005. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n62part7.pdf. (accessed 4/24/08).
[8] The New International Version Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995).
[9] Mary and Alan Whanger, The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discover. (Tennessee: Providence House Pub., 1998), 52.
[10] Mac Borkan.29.
[11] Whanger 62.
[12] Marc Borkan 30.
[13] J. H. Heller and A. D. Adler. “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin”. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal. Vol. 14, no. 3 (1981): 99.
[14] Ibid. p99.
[15] Marc Borkan. Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud cites Rabbi Solomon Ganzfried. Code of Jewish law, translated by Hyman E. Goldin, LL.B (New York: Hebrew Pub. Co., 1961), p 99-100).
[16] Ibid. 37.
Below is a paper I wrote for my 'Christian Apologetic' class. I apologize for it's length. Those who are interested can research more by asking and we can provide you with more information, both pro & con.
The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
By Eric Quek
In Partial Fulfillment of CSAP 691 MD
In Defense of the Resurrection
Professor Clay Jones
Submitted May 18, 2008
A religious question has been needlessly injected into a problem which in itself is purely scientific, with the result that feelings have run high, and reason has been lead astray. If, instead of Christ, there were a question of some person like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection… I have been faithful to the true scientific spirit, treating this argument with the sole intention to find the truth… I consider the Christ to be an historical personage and I do not see why anyone should be scandalized that there exists a material trace of his existence.[1]
The historic relic known as ‘The Shroud of Turin’ makes it first public appearance in 1357. [2] In this paper, we will investigate the authenticity of ‘The Shroud of Turin’ from a historical view point. We will also enlist aid from several fields of specialty namely: chemistry, physics, radiology, medical and scripture. Methods of investigation for the authenticity of the ‘Shroud of Turin’ will include gathering of relevant data pertinent to the issue at hand namely: the application of scientific principles from various fields, from different specialties, testimony of experts who have investigated this relic, from the relic itself, and from scriptures. Scriptural evidence will be viewed with more valued than even expert witnesses or the scientific tool used to examine the ‘Shroud.’ Independent sources will naturally strengthen our case for the authenticity of the relic.
To prove the authenticity of the ‘Shroud’ we need to ask some pertinent questions and not simply do a match up of similarities between the Gospel descriptions of Christ’s ordeal comparing it to the relic. First question would be how do we determine that this relic is authentic? Second, how do we differentiate this relic, which is supposed to be the burial cloth of our crucified Lord, from thousands of other crucifixions? Lastly, the most crucial question is, can we harmonize the medical perspective with the scripture? Let us begin our investigation with: 1) Marks from the wounds of the deceased that are on the ‘Shroud.’ 2) We will then examine Pontius Pilate coins in relation to customary practice. 3) Amulet on the body of the crucified person and it’s meaning. 4) Iconography noted to be standardized by sixth century contrast that to early paintings. 5) Is it paint or human blood on the Shroud and its significance in relation to forgery and body washed after being crucified?
Marks from the wounds have been classified into five sections by Barbet. They are: 1) bilateral wrist and feet impalement, 2) numerous contusions on the torso, 3) numerous contusions on the lower extremities, 4) numerous blood clots on the scalp and 5) a large puncture wound on the side. Most artistic tradition depicts Christ’s hands
being impaled rather than through the Space of Destot, which is the space between the bones of the wrist, which will support the weight of the body. If this site is correct the
median nerve would not be damaged because the anatomical boundary for the median nerve, Capitate, Semilunar, Triquetral and Hamate which are located on the ulnar side of the wrist, not radial side as is depicted on the Shroud.[3] This would challenge the current believe that median nerve is damaged and ‘that is why on the shroud, the two hands when seen from behind only show four fingers and why the two thumbs are hidden in the palm.’[4] Critics point to this and ask for an explanation?
In 1593, Sebastiano Rodante identified an arterial and venous bleed on the forehead on the Shroud.[5] This is significant because no artist at that time knew of this type of physiology in detail. In addition, wounds on the scalp indicate something more like a cap that must be used to make those scalp wounds. More wounds on the face such as large swelling below the right eye, a swollen nose, a triangular-shaped mark on the right cheek are consistent with the recordings of the gospel. The other visible bloodstain on the Shroud is noted on the left side of the frontal image which corresponds to right side of the body between the fifth and sixth ribs. Visible on the Shroud in the region of this wound is a separation of blood and clear liquid. Judica-Cordiglia a forensic medicine professor, radiologist Moedder and Barbet all agree that this fluid was part of a postmortem issue of blood and clear fluid resulting from a puncture wound that reached the heart.[6] Proponents say that this would agree with the scriptures.
How was the Shroud wrapped around the body and is there any other evidence of more than one cloth? Was Christ wrapped in strips of cloth? Diana Fulbright does not believe Christ was wrapped in strips of cloth because of several reasons.[7] First there was the time element, Friday afternoon where all commerce would cease for several hours before sundown. In the scripture Christ died at the ‘ninth hour,’ or about 1500 hours. It would have taken several hours for permission to release the body and more time still needed to remove the body from the cross. Several things now come to light under these reasoning. Time will not permit Christ body to be ‘wrapped in strips of cloth,’ in addition; it was not the Jewish custom during that time to practice an ancient Egyptian custom. Critics point to John 19:40 which say “in strips of linen”[8], which is plural. How would they account for that?
According to Jewish enshroudment custom, the cloth was folded over the head and down to the feet. There was a chin band and a modesty cloth, a wrist band and a ankle band. It is the Jewish custom to tie the mouth shut. The face cloth or Sudarium of Oviedo measures two feet nine inches by one foot nine inches. Monsignor Guilio Ricci has direct access to the Sudarium in 1955 and had been studying blood stain on it. Whanger used the Polarized Image Overlay Technique and found seventy congruent blood stains on the face portion and over fifty congruent blood stains on the back of the head and neck.[9] The significance of this is that there are no stains or images on the Shroud where the chin band was place. Proponents say this is in line with the fact that the chin band absorbed all the blood stains and thus none found on the shroud.
Proponents point to the fact that time is of essence thus the anointing is likely to be used as an antiputrefacient where these aromatic san was packed around the body of the deceased. This would account for little or aromatic detected by current scientific methods.
Whanger was able to use his Polarized Image Overlay Technique to identify the Filas coin as during the time of Tiberius in A.D.29. They found at least seventy-four points of congruence. In addition, the pattern on the back of Filas coin was noted to be from the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. It is currently accepted that there is little archaeological support for a first-century Jewish practice of placing coins on the eyes of the deceased.[10]
In our next investigation, we will examine the image of the two seated figures at the midline of breastbone on the Shroud. Dr. Whanger has theorized that the amulet was put there as an act of mockery. There is another evidence of mockery found in a box like
structure on the forehead which was desecrated.[11] All this point to the fact that the man was mocked for whatever reason prior to his death.
Depiction of Christ by artists prior to sixth century varied. It was not until the sixth century that standardized artistic representation of Christ was noted. This Shroud like image has since persisted until present day. It was Paul Vignon and later Edward Wuenschel who started a systematic approach to iconography.[12] They have shown several specific markings appearing consistently in Byzantine portraits of Christ and of the Shroud.
In terms of paint on the Shroud or blood, according to chemist Walter McCrone and Dr. Alan Adler, both arrived at a different conclusion. McCrone concluded that the Shroud is a painting based on his findings of protein, iron oxide and ‘vermillion.’ He believes that the artist used the protein as a pigment binder to make the body image with iron oxide. However, Heller and Adler noted that McCrone did not distinguish two types of red particulates, birefringent and non-birefringent, nor did he note three types of iron compounds present.[13] According to Adler, McCone’s protein is amido black which is neither specific nor sensitive as a test. In addition, Adler et al demonstrated twelve tests
confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud.[14] Critics of the Shroud pointed to the bright red color of the blood stain. They argue that normally; when whole blood discolors rapidly it turn black-brown and not bright red color. Proponents’ counter by
arguing that it is not active bleeding that causes this bright red color. Instead it is from postmortem exudates.
Most proponents would concede that the body was unwashed. Defenders for an unwashed body cite the Jewish law (Halachah) where fewer than four conditions will prohibit a Jew from having his body washed.
They are: 1) a bloody and violent death,
2) death by capital punishment for religious crime,
3) an outcast of Jewish community
4) a Jew is murdered by Gentile.[15]
Opponents point to the fact that this is a 16th century Code for Jews. If this is true than this would contradict John 19:40 where he say that ‘this was in
accordance with Jewish burial custom.’ In addition, majority of biblical exegetes is of the opinion that Christ body was washed.[16]
Scriptural silence from this writer’s view is the strongest evidence against the Shroud’s authenticity. All four gospels mention about the empty tomb, the neatly preserved burial cloths. None mentioned or hinted about material trace on the burial cloths given the gravity of the situation. The next objection that this writer has is the apparent contradiction with John 19:40 where most biblical exegete scholars believed that Christ body was washed which contradict any given explanations from science. Third question that needs to be answered concerns the wrappings mentioned in John 19:40. Fourth question has to do with ‘about a hundred pounds weight of mixture of myrrh and aloes.’ Why was no myrrh and aloes found on the Shroud when clearly the scripture indicated that they were ‘bound with linen wrappings?’
On the other hand, a case for historical argument can also be made. The way this man was buried using a long linen sheet, jaw-band, closing of eyes, binding of hands, stigmata on the side of the fifth and sixth ribs which is unique, numerous other stigmata on his forehead, back, wrists and legs. From forensic medicine it has been determined to be Jewish man.
In conclusion, the evidence for forgery of the Shroud is unwarranted. Rather, the stigmata, unwashed body, the quality of the linen cloth, the crowning with thorns are all unique in recorded history. On the other hand, this writer is of the opinion that as stated earlier scriptural evidence carries significant weight. Based on the following evidences this writer rejects the authenticity of the Shroud based on : 1) the silence of the scripture especially when resurrection is of such importance to Christianity, 2) unconvincing evidence for the unwashed body as opposed to the scripture, 3) coins on the man’s eye were not Jewish custom, 4) no satisfactory answer for wrappings and not wrapping, 5) absent finding from current forensic science as to about hundred pounds of myrrh and aloe on the Shroud, 6) this writer has also taken into consideration where the interpretation of data from scientific evidence can be based on subjective interpretation.
Bibliography
Borkan, Marc. “Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud.” Vertices: The Duke University Magazine of Science, Technology, and Medicine. Vol. X, no. 2, (Winter 1995): 18-52.
Fulbright, Diana. “A Clean Cloth: What Greek Word Usage Tells Us about the Burial Wrappings of Jesus”, 2005. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n62part7.pdf. (accessed 4/24/08).
Guerrera, Fr. Vittorio. The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity. Illinois: Tan Books & Pub., Inc., 2001.
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler. “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin.” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal. Vol. 14, No 3 (7/27/81): 81-103.
The New International Version Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995).
Whanger, Mary and Alan. The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery. Tennessee: Providence House Pub., 1998.
Wikipedia. “Shroud of Turin.” (accessed 4/4/08).
[1] Marc Borkan, “Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud”, Vertices: The Duke University Magazine of Science, Technology, and Medicine. Vol X. No. 2 (1995): 18-52, cite Wilson 1979: 33-34 and Van Cauwenberghe 1992:17.
[2] Wikipedia. “Shroud of Turin.” (accessed 4/4/08).
[3] Fr. Guerrera Vittorio. The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity. (Illinois: Tan Books & Pub., 2001), 82.
[4] Mac Borkan. “Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud”, cites Frederick T.Zugib, M.D., Ph.D, ‘Pierre Barbet Revisited,’ Sindon, No.8, 12/95), 110.
[5] Ibid. 38.
[6] Ibid. 26.
[7] Fulbright, Diana. “A Clean Cloth: What Greek Word Usage Tells Us about the Burial Wrappings of Jesus”, 2005. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n62part7.pdf. (accessed 4/24/08).
[8] The New International Version Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995).
[9] Mary and Alan Whanger, The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discover. (Tennessee: Providence House Pub., 1998), 52.
[10] Mac Borkan.29.
[11] Whanger 62.
[12] Marc Borkan 30.
[13] J. H. Heller and A. D. Adler. “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin”. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal. Vol. 14, no. 3 (1981): 99.
[14] Ibid. p99.
[15] Marc Borkan. Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud cites Rabbi Solomon Ganzfried. Code of Jewish law, translated by Hyman E. Goldin, LL.B (New York: Hebrew Pub. Co., 1961), p 99-100).
[16] Ibid. 37.
News of The Shroud
An article on The Shroud came out on Yahoo on Thursday alleging that a team of Italian atheists have "reproduced" the Shroud, thus claiming they have proven that The Shroud is a Medieval painting. To our readers, please be informed that this is the 4th such claim made over the past 30 years by someone claiming they have reproduced The Shroud. The claims have proven to be hollow. In each and every case, none of the so-called reproductions matched the image on the Shroud for its sharpness/clarity (i.e., they all came out somewhat distorted, blurred, etc.).
Besides, if it took a team of modern-day atheists/skeptics trying to wack their brains on how it could POSSIBLY be done, that does NOT mean that WAS how The Shroud was actually made...unless you're going to claim that the alleged Medieval forger(s) were genius-of-a-sort and knew of some unknown process and kept their marvelous technique a secret, never reusing it again....ever, only to have this unknown process rediscovered by this modern-day band of skeptics.
Besides, the article says a pigment was used by the team of skeptics. The STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) team of 27 scientists, however, using scientific instrumentation capable of detecting one part per billion, officially concluded after their intensive investigation that NO pigments were found on The Shroud. The trace Iron oxide (i.e., rust, which can be used as a pigment) found is not surprising seeing how The Shroud had been kept in a metal box for centuries (millenia?). These, however, were randomly distributed on both the image and non-image portion of the cloth. Besides, to be used as a pigment, the iron oxide needed to be mixed with a liquid and suspended in spit, animal fat, earwax, or some other binding substance. Such were not found on The Shroud. The lone member of the STURP team who makes this spurrious claim, the late Dr. Walter McCone, was unable to travel to Italy and was thnus NOT present when the team examined the cloth.
Besides, if it took a team of modern-day atheists/skeptics trying to wack their brains on how it could POSSIBLY be done, that does NOT mean that WAS how The Shroud was actually made...unless you're going to claim that the alleged Medieval forger(s) were genius-of-a-sort and knew of some unknown process and kept their marvelous technique a secret, never reusing it again....ever, only to have this unknown process rediscovered by this modern-day band of skeptics.
Besides, the article says a pigment was used by the team of skeptics. The STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) team of 27 scientists, however, using scientific instrumentation capable of detecting one part per billion, officially concluded after their intensive investigation that NO pigments were found on The Shroud. The trace Iron oxide (i.e., rust, which can be used as a pigment) found is not surprising seeing how The Shroud had been kept in a metal box for centuries (millenia?). These, however, were randomly distributed on both the image and non-image portion of the cloth. Besides, to be used as a pigment, the iron oxide needed to be mixed with a liquid and suspended in spit, animal fat, earwax, or some other binding substance. Such were not found on The Shroud. The lone member of the STURP team who makes this spurrious claim, the late Dr. Walter McCone, was unable to travel to Italy and was thnus NOT present when the team examined the cloth.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Health Care Bill -- How important is that to you
See and understand what your representatives -- represent you at their Ivory Tower opps I mean Washington
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/No_-you-can_t-see-the-health-care-bill-8352156-63636167.html#
Blessing
Eric
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/No_-you-can_t-see-the-health-care-bill-8352156-63636167.html#
Blessing
Eric
Jimmy Carter -- How Bizzare
Check this out ...
Jimmy Carter to Eat Live Frog on “60 Mins.”
Sep 25, 2009
In what critics are describing as a “shameless effort” to remain relevant, former President Jimmy Carter has agreed to eat a live bullfrog next Sunday night on the CBS program “Sixty Minutes”.
CBS execs are clearly thrilled, predicting a ratings bonanza beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. “The broadcast will be live,” said CBS President Les Moonves, quipping “as will the frog.” But friends close to the Carters are not amused, fearing the stunt will tarnish the former President’s legacy. But Carter remains defiant, describing the act as a “vindication” and as a “valentine” to his rural childhood in Plains, Georgia.
Veteran media watchers are puzzled, calling the whole thing “bizarre”. Some have suggested Carter was stung by the controversy over his remark that cast SC Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst as “racially motivated.” Eating a small amphibian on a nationally-televised program would serve to “turn the page”, with the added boon of possibly revitalizing the former President as a player on the international stage.
Carter was also thought to be upset that “Dancing With the Stars” had recently rejected him as a contestant. Learning they had welcomed the participation of former House Whip Tom Delay was “the last straw”, according to his wife, former First Lady Rosalyn Carter, who told one friend that while casting about for a way to “leap-frog” ahead of his detractors, her husband’s thoughts had drifted to an incident from 1934, when he was eleven. That memory seems to have sparked the idea for the “Sixty Minutes” appearance. But details of this incident remain unclear, although Carter’s late brother Billy spoke of it in a 1978 interview:
“There was an old redneck feller who lived in a shack by the river. Everybody called him ole Frawg, but I never knew why. My brother Jimmy and I would go down there to taunt him and chunk rocks at him. But one time that man taught us a lesson. One rock hit ole Frawg in the small of the back and he went down. Jimmy run over to see if he was still breathing, but as soon as he got close, ole Frawg grabbed him by the ankle! The old feller was just playing possum! He drug Jimmy to his shack and I ran home. Later on, when Jimmy came home he told me that ole Frawg had said, “You boys think you kin get the better of ole Frawg. But ole Frawg gonna teach you a lesson.” Then he reached down into a cedar bucket and pulled out a bullfrog as big as his fist and he talked to it real tender, callin’ it his brother. And then he chawed the critter’s head off. Jimmy started crying, but ole Frawg said it didn’t taste half-bad. He said his tastebuds wasn’t worth a damn on accounta he smoked so much ter-backy. And he allowed as that old frog was in a better place than that stinky bucket. Years later, when he had become a midshipman at Anapolis, Jimmy told me how the story had affected him, and how some day he’d tell the world about ole Frawg.”
Upcoming Schedule
Wheaton, Illinois10/08/2009
Chicago, Illinois10/09/2009
New York City10/14/2009
Dallas, Texas10/22/2009
Grapevine, Texas10/23/2009
Santa Monica, California10/28/2009
Mobile, Alabama11/08/2009
New York City11/09/2009
Indianapolis, Indiana11/14/2009
New York City11/17/2009
Related Books
Related Press
Related Reviews
Related Video
Podcast Powered by podPress (v8.8)
©2008 Eric Metaxas. All rights reserved. There's a time for joking around and a time to be serious; this is not one of them. --Anonymous
Jimmy Carter to Eat Live Frog on “60 Mins.”
Sep 25, 2009
In what critics are describing as a “shameless effort” to remain relevant, former President Jimmy Carter has agreed to eat a live bullfrog next Sunday night on the CBS program “Sixty Minutes”.
CBS execs are clearly thrilled, predicting a ratings bonanza beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. “The broadcast will be live,” said CBS President Les Moonves, quipping “as will the frog.” But friends close to the Carters are not amused, fearing the stunt will tarnish the former President’s legacy. But Carter remains defiant, describing the act as a “vindication” and as a “valentine” to his rural childhood in Plains, Georgia.
Veteran media watchers are puzzled, calling the whole thing “bizarre”. Some have suggested Carter was stung by the controversy over his remark that cast SC Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst as “racially motivated.” Eating a small amphibian on a nationally-televised program would serve to “turn the page”, with the added boon of possibly revitalizing the former President as a player on the international stage.
Carter was also thought to be upset that “Dancing With the Stars” had recently rejected him as a contestant. Learning they had welcomed the participation of former House Whip Tom Delay was “the last straw”, according to his wife, former First Lady Rosalyn Carter, who told one friend that while casting about for a way to “leap-frog” ahead of his detractors, her husband’s thoughts had drifted to an incident from 1934, when he was eleven. That memory seems to have sparked the idea for the “Sixty Minutes” appearance. But details of this incident remain unclear, although Carter’s late brother Billy spoke of it in a 1978 interview:
“There was an old redneck feller who lived in a shack by the river. Everybody called him ole Frawg, but I never knew why. My brother Jimmy and I would go down there to taunt him and chunk rocks at him. But one time that man taught us a lesson. One rock hit ole Frawg in the small of the back and he went down. Jimmy run over to see if he was still breathing, but as soon as he got close, ole Frawg grabbed him by the ankle! The old feller was just playing possum! He drug Jimmy to his shack and I ran home. Later on, when Jimmy came home he told me that ole Frawg had said, “You boys think you kin get the better of ole Frawg. But ole Frawg gonna teach you a lesson.” Then he reached down into a cedar bucket and pulled out a bullfrog as big as his fist and he talked to it real tender, callin’ it his brother. And then he chawed the critter’s head off. Jimmy started crying, but ole Frawg said it didn’t taste half-bad. He said his tastebuds wasn’t worth a damn on accounta he smoked so much ter-backy. And he allowed as that old frog was in a better place than that stinky bucket. Years later, when he had become a midshipman at Anapolis, Jimmy told me how the story had affected him, and how some day he’d tell the world about ole Frawg.”
Upcoming Schedule
Wheaton, Illinois10/08/2009
Chicago, Illinois10/09/2009
New York City10/14/2009
Dallas, Texas10/22/2009
Grapevine, Texas10/23/2009
Santa Monica, California10/28/2009
Mobile, Alabama11/08/2009
New York City11/09/2009
Indianapolis, Indiana11/14/2009
New York City11/17/2009
Related Books
Related Press
Related Reviews
Related Video
Podcast Powered by podPress (v8.8)
©2008 Eric Metaxas. All rights reserved. There's a time for joking around and a time to be serious; this is not one of them. --Anonymous
Monday, October 5, 2009
Conversion of Muslim to Christianity
Get a glimpse from a former Muslim who converts to Christianity. Currently he is the President of Liberty Theological Seminary. You can check that he is legitimate by going to Liberty Univerity and search for him under Ergun Caner. I search for Gary Habermas in the Liberty University and found him. Dr. Habermas taught a class which I attended on the Resurrection of Christ.
http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=027454a783c841250ba7
Blessings
Eric
http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=027454a783c841250ba7
Blessings
Eric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)