New Shroud of Turin book by John N. Lupia

We get this information from John N Lupia, the author himself, by way of a comment to an earlier post:

You can read my book on the subject of the Shroud of Turin being a Jewish tallit: The Ancient Jewish Shroud At Turin (Regina Caeli Press, 2010)
ISBN : 978-0-9826739-0-4
$27.99 + $4.50 shipping & handling
http://www.reginacaelipress.com

The book is apparently only available from the publisher as a pdf file on CD-ROM, requiring 4 to 6 weeks for delivery. Normally, I would caution anyone about ordering a book over the Internet from an unknown publisher who seems to only have one book for sale and who is the only outlet for the book. But John is a known, though controversial figure, in the world of Shroud research. (He is a good guy). There is no reason to doubt that you will receive what you ordered.

As for the Shroud of Turin being a Jewish tallit, that is another matter. It is hard to fathom. I don’t think there is a single scholar out there who thinks John might be right. But let’s see. I’ll order the CD book and write a review. Stay tuned.

krissthesexyatheist trying to debunk the Shroud of Turin by faith

Kriss, I have no issue with your atheism or agnosticism when it comes to the historical existence of Jesus. On these matters I respectfully disagree. What I do have a problem with is your use of facts.

You wrote:

According Gary Vikan carbon 14 dating shows, “it could not possibly have come into contact with the historical Jesus (if there ever was a historical Jesus-I’m agnostic on that).”

You might want to review the science on this matter. It is now widely recognized that the carbon dating must be considered invalid. Ray Rogers, who had accepted the carbon dating, decided to disprove a crazy explanation from what he called the lunatic fringe. The crazy idea was that the Shroud had been mended and the samples were from that mending job. What Rogers discovered was that the crazy idea seemed to be right. He concluded that the sample used for carbon dating was not representative of the cloth. It was chemically different. Moreover, one of the chemical differences, the amount of vanillin, provided a new clue about the cloth’s age. Samples from the main part of the cloth, unlike the carbon 14 sample area, did not contain any vanillin. If the shroud was only as old as the radiocarbon date, it would have plentiful vanillin.  The Shroud was at least twice as old. It might be 2000 years old. After a lengthy peer review process, his findings that the carbon dating was wholly invalid were published in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta.

Rogers’ published work showing that the carbon dating is invalid has been confirmed by John L Brown, a forensic materials specialist at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, Georgia and by Robert Villarreal and a team of nine scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

The Shroud first appeared in 1357 and was in possession of French nobleman Geofrey de Charnay. Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, believed it to be a fake, why, because the artist that claimed to make it told him so.

There is not a single shred of historical evidence other than the claim by Pierre d’Arcis that Henri of Poitiers ever thought so. No 30 years passed. You can’t write history this way and you should know better.

30 years pass, and in 1389 Henri’s successor, Pierre d’Archis states, “The Shroud is a product of human handiwork.” Although the Pope at the time allowed the Shroud to be displayed, he did so with caution and only if a priest were present to acknowledge that the Shroud is Not the true burial cloth of Jesus.

The consensus of many historians is that Pierre d’Archis was referring to a painted copy then on display. Many other papers at the time (historians need to consider all sources) dispute the Bishop’s claim. You are resorting to cafeteria style pick and choose history. Actually the claim was a forger had painted the shroud, not merely that it was handiwork, which brings us to the next point. You wrote:

Walter C McCrowe, in biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dec 98), “I concluded in two papers…that the Shroud was painted in 1355.” Other papers confirmed the results with X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray determination and carbon dating. The Shroud was produced around 1355.

You have all this wrong. The “X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray determination” you mention as well as visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry and pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser-­microprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing show no evidence of pigments or media. Even McCrone’s own employees proved McCrone wrong. See Didn’t Ray Rogers provide a definitive answer about paint?  BTW: Carbon dating can’t tell us if McCrone’s claims of inorganic compounds (paint) exist.

You wrote:

Rev. Lino Otero, “Our search for the truth is guided by faith.” And that is the problem. Faith is has already come to it’s conclusion. Conformation bias will skew the results because of preconceived beliefs. Where is the scientific method and the search for the truth? It is nowhere if faith is the guide.

Good grief. Faith is not incompatible with scientific method or the search for truth. Faith, of course, does not provide observations, facts or measurements in the pursuit of science, but it can be a guiding principle. Don’t confuse faith with blind faith.

He went on to write:

One million tickets have been sold for the April 10-May 23 viewing of the original Shroud in Italy.

No. Wrong again. The tickets are free. The showing of the shroud will be very costly for the archdiocese of Turin.

The Vatican has not taken an official stance on whether the Shroud is authentic or not; but I’m sure that they do know that pilgrimages will bring in big money-for the original Shroud and its replicas. Why do believers still flock to see an unauthentic icon that has been debunked several times over, from a church that has lied and hurt society several times over-cognitive dissonance.

Because the debunkers have been debunked and so far have not been able to produce scientifically or historically sustainable arguments. Your arguments seem to be guided mostly by your faith.

See krissthesexyatheist: Debunking the Shroud of Turin, Again.

The Nuts are Loose in the Shroud of Turin Realm

Sit down before you watch this. Get ready to laugh.

YouTube Link: Has history been tampered with? The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin? 

What if, as the Russian mathematician Anotoly Fomenko believes, ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt were in inventions of the Renaissance and Jesus was was born in A.D. 1053 and crucified in 1086.

Here is a tidbit from Wikipedia:

[Anotoly] Fomenko is a supporter of drastically revising chronological history. He has created his own revision called New Chronology, based on statistical correlations, dating of zodiacs, and by examining the mathematics and astronomy involved in chronology. Fomenko claims that he has discovered that many historical events do not correspond mathematically with the dates they are supposed to have occurred on. He asserts from this that all of ancient history (including the history of Greece, Rome, and Egypt) is just a reflection of events that occurred in the Middle Ages and that all of Chinese and Arab history are fabrications of 17th and 18th century Jesuits.

He also claims that Jesus lived in the 12th century A.D. and was crucified on Joshua’s Hill; that the Trojan war and the Crusades were the same historical event; and that Genghis Khan and the Mongols were actually Russians. As well as disputing written chronologies, Fomenko also disputes more objective dating techniques such as dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating (see here for an examination of the latter criticism). His books include Empirico-statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and Its Applications and History: Fiction or Science?.

Shroud of Turin exhibition committee Video

The video HERE from the Shroud Exhibition Committee is being billed at YouTube as a response to another video, Restauración de la Sábana Santa (2002) & M. Flury-Lemberg. In reality, it is a defense of the very controversial 2002 restoration. Archaeologists, chemists and other shroud researchers have condemned the restoration for being potentially destructive to the cloth and particularly to archaeological and scientific studies of the shroud.

For a comprehensive criticism of the restoration see William Meacham’s book, The Rape of The Shroud. I agree with Meacham. I think the restoration was reckless. I think this video, while interesting, does nothing to justify Flury-Lemberg’s actions. I believe she was well intentioned, but unprofessional.

YouTube – interviw with Flury Lemberg.