Double 0 is code for license to kill. Good Shepard with a license to kill?
GoodShepard007 has posted a new video on YouTube: Finding Jesus in the Shroud. It runs about ten minutes. It is a video on matching the faces of the Shroud, the Manoppello, the Sinai Pantocrator, and a fresco of Jesus supposedly from the 1st century. And – read on – it is a video that makes a big deal about the number 3.
Double-0-7 tells us at YouTube:
This video shows the top 3 images in the world that match up with The Turin Shroud. After viewing the overlay images there is discussion about whether a blood stain in the shape of #3 is a random event or not. I believe the identity of the Man in the Shroud is written plainly on the right side of his forehead. The answer to the mystery of who this man is has always been right in front of our face, clearly written out. Sometimes the most obvious clue is overlooked by a forensic pathologist or detective working on an unsolved murder case or when trying to make positive ID on a victim of a wrongful death. Often the case is solved by the most obvious clue that was there from the beginning that they somehow overlooked or passed off as being coincidence. Take a look at the next 30 “Coincidences” and listen to your inner voice and trust your gut feeling, what is it telling you?
1. Jesus prayed (3) three times in the Garden of Gethsemane before His arrest.
2. Jesus was on cross for 3 hours
3. There were 3 hours of darkness while Jesus was on the cross
4. NASA confirmed there was a blood moon in Jerusalem on Friday April 3, 33AD
5. Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days
And the list goes on and on over at YouTube.
And how did I miss this spy clue in the past? Galatians 3:1 tells us:
You foolish Galatians! Who put you under a spell? Was not Jesus the Messiah clearly portrayed before your very eyes as having been crucified?
Well, maybe because different versions say it differently. For instance NRSV:
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!
And, of course, context is everything.
BTW: Double 0 is code for license to kill. Good Shepard with a license to kill?
Of course, context is everything.
. . . before the exposition starts, about one million people have signed up. Most Saturdays and Sundays, particularly in May, are booked up — close to or at maximum capacity. There are plenty of slots available most other days of the week.
Sam Coale, a professor of American Literature at Wheaton Colleges, in a special book review for the Providence Journal, Vatican thriller ‘The Fifth Gospel’ is a divine mystery, tells us:
If you liked Dan Brown’s "The Da Vinci Code," you will revel in this spectacularly intricate, psychologically probing, suspense churning and better written thriller-mystery by the author of "The Rule of Four." It took a decade for Ian Caldwell to write this book, and it’s all worth it with its fascinating analysis of the differences in the gospels, its focus on restoring the discredited Shroud of Turin to Christ’s actual burial cloth, its deliciously labyrinthine Vatican intrigue, its mix of cardinals, archbishops, a dying Pope John Paul II, lawyers, tribunals, priests and violent death.
This is a tale of two brothers, Simon, a tight-lipped, martyr-haunted Roman Catholic priest and diplomat, and Alex Andreou, a Greek Catholic priest whose love for his son knows no bounds, especially since his wife, Mona, left him. Ugo Nogara, an art curator, has discovered the Diatessaron, which has combined all four gospels into a single narrative, a fifth gospel, and may prove that the Shroud is real. He’s found shot dead on a stormy night at the Castel Gandolfo, after which someone breaks into Alex’s apartment.
I’ve been listening to the audio of the book, off and on, while walking the dog. It’s good. Is a movie next? If so and if they don’t deviate too much from the novel, it will be more accurate than CNN’s piece on the shroud.
A reader writes:
Did Hugh Farey not just drop a bunker buster on the Quad Mosaics when he wrote [in a comment], “These studies are in fact largely ignored by authenticists, in that they are assumed correct and quoted as gospel without any reference to what they actually say. Non-authenticists, on the other hand, have studied them in considerable detail, such that we can say with authority that any contamination of the radiocarbon corner of the shroud made it appear older, not younger, than it really is […].”
If Rogers misread the Quad Mosaics, now what?
I think Hugh may be paradoxically right!
(link and ellipsis above added by me)
Hugh has since added the following in a clarifying comment:
Claim: “We can say with authority than any contamination of the radiocarbon corner of the shroud made it appear older, not younger, than it really is.” This is based on John M. Morgan III’s paper ‘Digital image processing techniques demonstrating the anomalous nature of the radiocarbon dating sample area of the Shroud of Turin’ at http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380798975_Morgan.pdf, where he shows that the radiocarbon samples are increasingly contaminated the closer they are to the corner, and on Ray Schneider’s St Louis paper, ‘Dating The Shroud Of Turin: Weighing All The Evidence’ at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlschneiderpaper.pdf, where he shows a 99.93% correlation between the radiocarbon dates and the UV-fluorescence.
I don’t know what paradoxically right means. However, Hugh is non-paradoxically right, at least as it applies to this blogger: I did assume that what I was being told about the Blue Quad Mosaics was correct. I didn’t think about it at all. Now I’m not going to make the same mistake and assume Hugh is right. I’m a layman. I’ve read the Morgan paper and I listened to Ray in St. Louis. Now I need to have it explained to me. I’m totally confused. No paradox there.
I recommend a paper by Barrie Schwortz: SOME DETAILS ABOUT THE STURP QUAD MOSAIC IMAGES
And I also recommend an earlier posting in this blog: Comment Promoted: Are the Quad Mosaics Meaningless?
There is no new news in James D. Tabor’s posting in the Huffington Post blog two days ago. CNN provided the cover for repetition:
CNN focused on the question of the authenticity of the controversial "Shroud of Turin," in the first episode of its new pre-Easter series "Finding Jesus." Those challenging the authenticity of this ancient relic point to carbon dating tests done at three independent labs in 1988 that dated samples of its cloth to AD 1260-1390, which coincides with the first appearance of the shroud in France in the 1350s. Believers in the shroud’s authenticity have questioned the authenticity of the tests.
What many do not know is that we do in fact have an unquestionably authentic burial shroud from a tomb in Jerusalem that has been carbon dated to the 1st century. Any consideration of the "Shroud of Turin" should begin with a comparison of what we know rather than what we might want to believe.
The tomb of which he speaks is the tomb that Tabor and Shimon Gibson found in June of 2000.
…Textile analysis was done on the cloth–it turned out to be a mixture of linen and wool, not woven together but layered with a separate head piece. It had a distinctive 1st century weave–in contrast to the Shroud of Turin….
And then . . .
The Tomb of the Shroud continues to offer more surprises. We recently noticed that the mitDNA tests of two of the individuals in this tomb match the polymorphisms of two individuals in the Jesus family tomb–namely skeletal materials taken from both the Yeshua and the Mariamene ossuaries. What the implications of this might be, and whether there is any possible relationship between these two families, remains to be explored.
Hat tip to Joe Marino for spotting the posting.
One may find argument with historical evidence of the shroud’s existence before Lirey. But to say there is no evidence is to be …, well, in my opinion, like the nut jobs who go about saying there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed.
John Klotz, in a MUST READ essay, CNN’s Finding Jesus loses Him, makes it abundantly clear. By page 7 John is writing:
There is more: an eyewitness account of exhibitions of a linen shroud that is more than arguably the Shroud of Turin. The witness was a French knight who participated in a siege of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade which ended with the "Christian" knights looting Constantinople and stripping it of all its cherished relics that could be carried away. Among them was the linen cloth that was the Shroud of Turin.
This is how Gibson and McKinley described it their book Finding Jesus:
"In 1203, a Flemish knight named Robert de Clari, fighting with the Fourth Crusade then camped in Constantinople, noted that a church within the city’s Blachernae Palace put on a very special exhibition every Friday. On display wasn’t just the holy image of the face of Jesus, but the actual cloth in which Christ had been buried. In 1205 de Clari composed a more detailed account: ‘There was a Church which was call[ed] My Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, where there was the shroud (syndoines) in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday, raised itself upright so that one could see the form (figure) of Our Lord on it, and no one either Greek or French, ever knew what became of this shroud (syndoines) when the city was taken [by the Crusaders].’" 10
What happened to the Shroud after Constantinople was looted by the French? Wilson has favored the idea that it came into possession of the Order of the Knights Templar in France. The Order was suppressed in 1307 by French King Philip the Fair. On March 19, 1314, its Grandmaster, Jacques deMolay along with the Order’s Master of Normandy Geoffrey de Charny were burned at the stake.11 That Geoffrey may have been related to the Geoffrey de Charny who was the documented owner of the Shroud in 1355.
However, Gibson and McKinley echo another view that has achieved some currency. One of the French knights who participated in the sack of Constantinople was Orthon de la Roche who performed outstanding service and was named the Lord of Athens. He later returned to France. Jeanne de Vergy was a descendant of Orthon. She became the second wife of the 1355 "owner" of the Shroud Geoffrey de Charny. Gibson and McKinley hypothesize that the Shroud was a part of her dowry when she married Geoffrey12
This is not a complete recitation of the reported history of the Shroud prior to 1532. When Professor Goodacre baldy states that there is NO evidence of the Shroud’s history before Lirey, he is simply wrong.
The KO is in the next paragraph:
In my opinion that is not his most egregious error. Perhaps it’s excusable as only his opinion. However, his statement that the critics of the carbon dating were engaged in special pleading is not just wrong but, in my opinion, reprehensible.
Some of us who are not, like John, skilled lawyers, need to remind ourselves what a special pleading is – to pull out that old definition from behind mind’s cobwebs. According to Wikipedia (I’m not a scholar, either) it is “a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.”
I share your opinion, John. It is reprehensible.
Note: The photograph, by an unknown photographer, is of Ingemar Johansson knocking out Floyd Patterson and becoming the boxing heavyweight world champion in 1959 is a press photograph taken before 1969 and is therefore in the public domain (Wikimedia Commons)