Is it absurd to think that the Shroud can show a physical trace of the Resurrection?

imageYannick Clément, in an open letter to scientists, quotes French Catholic theologian Odile Celier from Qui a peur du Saint Suaire? (Who’s Afraid of the Holy Shroud?) by Brice Perrier (2011). I have taken the liberty of tweaking Yannick’s English (by guessing) but only in these quoted paragraphs and not in the full open letter, which follows:

Since science became involved (note: it is even truer since the failure of STURP to totally explain the image on the cloth, which doesn’t mean however that this image will never be naturally explained in the future), the devotion to the Shroud underwent a real mutation because it is no more [longer[ the memorial of the Lord’s Passion and death than [but] the material witness of his Resurrection and, by doing so, the providential object called to healed this modern decease which is the decline of the Christian faith.

Yannick goes on to say:

There’s no doubt that such a mutation is not seen with a good eye by the Vatican, because, as Jean-Michel Maldamé (a Dominican monk who’s also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science) states in Perrier’s book, the idea that the Shroud can really show a physical trace of the Resurrection of Christ is absurd from a theological point of view. And Maldamé continue by saying this (personal translation):

The word “Resurrection” would lost [lose] his sense and would be deformed. This would be a materialization of the Resurrection and that’s contrary to the theology teaches [taught] by the Church. The only trace of the Resurrection that exist[s] can only been found in the Gospels and in the testimonies of the Apostles.

Yannick’s complete open letter is contained below. You may need to click on “Read more” to uncover it:

AN OPEN LETTER
TO ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS
WHO ARE HONEST AND SINCERE
IN THEIR QUEST FOR TRUTH CONCERNING THE SHROUD

After having read carefully the translation of M. Barberis comments provided by Dan (link: https://shroudstory.com/2012/12/13/barberis-fantis-conclusions-are-not-scientific/), I just want to say that I am VERY PLEASED by it! Some of you will remember that I was one of the first to elevate my voice against M. Fanti’s unscientific antics at the moment he published his “special edition” issue about the Shroud. At that time, I wrote an open letter that you can find here on the blog at this adress: https://shroudstory.com/2012/08/07/and-yannick-responds-to-giulios-comments/. I said roughly the same thing as M. Barberis but in a much longer and exhaustive way. What I love the most about M. Barberis comment is the fact that here, unlike myself, you got someone well-established and well-respected in the Shroud world who finally dare to critic M. Fanti’s way to do Shroud science (which is, in fact, unscientific to say the least). Such professional comment should have come much sooner but at least, it is there for anyone to read now!

And you know what my present dream is? I dream that many more honest scientists involved in Shroud science for the right reason (i.e. finding the truth about the Shroud, whatever it might be) who will do exactly the same as me and M. Barberis, because it’s only by acting firmly like this that we will eventually re-established the credibility of Shroud science in the eyes of the international scientific community! Another very good way to do a clean-up in the mess that have become Shroud science in the last 2 decades would be to banished anyone who is obviously doing pseudo-science with the Shroud from any important Shroud conference. I know M. Fanti was kind of persona non grata in the recent conference of Valencia and I hope this will continue in the future and not only for M. Fanti but also for anyone who is obviously agenda driven (religiously) in his Shroud research.

If nobody from the inside do nothing concerning such persons and their bad antics, Shroud science will be condemned to always be seen as a big and sad joke in the eyes of the international scientific community and that’s a shame because I truly believe the Shroud is a real archaeological remain related to Jesus Passion, death and burial and, because of this, such a relic deserves to be analyzed by honest scientists who only wants to know the truth about it and who only wish to use the scientific method to do so and nothing else. I believe that there’s a way to do Shroud research with honesty even if a scientist is also a believer. What I just said is really important because I don’t want people to understand my point of view as a totally anti-religious comment. By the way, did you know that Raymond Rogers (yes, the same person who was tagged as being a total rationalist who was fighting against the Resurrection of Christ) was not an atheist? He was a believer but, as Barrie Schwortz once told me, he was able to put is faith in his back pocket when it was time to do Shroud research. I dream of the day when a majority of Shroud scientists will do the same. I know this is not always easy (don’t underestimate human nature my friends, especially concerning this particular topic!) but I still believe this can be done and I even confidant that this is presently done by some scientists but, unfortunately, I don’t think they are in majority…

Don’t you think like me that the Shroud (and the man of the Shroud too) deserve much better than all these pseudo-scientists who used that piece of cloth over the years (and even more, as it seem to me, these days) to push their religious agenda of “proving” the Resurrection by using the image on the Shroud? The sad reality for these people is that there are absolutely no facts and observations coming from the Shroud that can exclude the possibility that this image was caused by one or many natural process(es) and more importantly, all the tests that have been made over the years to produce a coloration on linen with the help of any kind of energetic radiation (whether it be with corona discharges, UV lasers, Proton and neutron bombardments or even natural electrostatic discharges) have proven to be inconsistent with the real physical and chemical nature of the Shroud’s image, as it was described by Ray Rogers who conclude that the image formation process(es) has ONLY affected a thin layer of impurities on-top of the most superficial fibers on the cloth, while it had no effect at all on the fibers located underneath, whether it be on the primary cell wall of the fiber only or on the whole structure of the fiber.

In that regard, the failure of these energetic radiation tests to reproduced a coloration on linen that show the same chemical and physical characteristics than the Shroud’s image (as it was described by Ray Rogers) can truly be compared to the failure of all the artistic attempts that have been made over the years. Personally, I don’t see any difference between those two sorts of attempts because the final result is the same: FAILED! The only difference I see (and it is very sad for me to note this) is the fact that these energetic radiation tests, by producing a coloration on linen that is somewhat similar at first sight with the coloration on the Shroud (even though it is not truly consistent with it) have had a bad influence on the faith of many Christians, especially during the last two decades, who begins more and more to interpret such a “good” result (SIC) as a scientific proof that the image on the Shroud must have been caused by a by-product of the Resurrection of Christ.

I want to say to this group of people (that includes some Clergy members among them who push this issue, along with all the scientists who are doing Shroud science with a religious agenda in the back of their head): There’s not only an important lack of solid and confirmed scientific basis in your interpretation, there’s also a great lack of good theological basis! Effectively, nowhere in the official teaching of the Church will you find something like : “the Resurrection event could have left some kind of physical or material traces behind.” There’s no way for the Church to say this since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was not a simple physical re-animation of his dead body like it was for the corpses of Lazarus and Jairus daughter for example. No… The Resurrection of Jesus was more like a “dematerialization” or a “spiritualization” of his body who suddenly wasn’t restricted no more to our material world (or if you will, to our time-space reality). To borrow the words of Father Manny Carreira from Spain that you can find in my paper entitled Concerning the question of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: please, don’t forget the evidence of the bloodstains, which has recently been published in the December issue of the British Society for the Turin Shroud: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church (particularly #996–1000) indicates that, at the time of Jesus’ Resurrection, his entire human reality (body and soul) begin to exist outside the space-time frame where physical activity takes place, as described by science.” In such a spiritual context, I don’t see any good reason (not even the presence of a body image on the Shroud!) to believe that such an immaterial event should have left any kind of physical traces or imprints or whatever on the cloth or on any other material objects.

Maybe the times as come for the supernatural fanatics to finally realized that the image and bloodstains on the Shroud are speaking much more about the Incarnation of God in our humanity and his final sacrifice on the cross to save all mankind (Christians, Jews and anyone else) than about his Resurrection… After all, prior to the 1980s and what I called “the modern Hollywoodish heresy of the so-called “supernatural” image of the Shroud that appears through this scientific age”, this was the main interpretation that Christians were making of the Shroud. You don’t believe me? Read again the superb article that was written in 1934 by Father Rinaldi (link: http://johnklotz.com/Shroud/RinaldiJune1934.pdf) and particularly this great line: “In a language which is both vivid and impressive, the Holy Shroud tells the story of the Passion and Death of Christ.” Question: Where do you see any reference to the Resurrection in that statement? And to comfort even more the reality of this very sad (and even dangerous) change in the perception of the Shroud in the eyes of many believers, I would like to report a very clever comment made by the French Catholic theologian Odile Celier that we can found in the book Qui a peur du Saint Suaire? (Who’s Afraid of the Holy Shroud?) published in 2011 by Brice Perrier, a French journalist. In my opinion, this is the most accurate summary of the present situation concerning the perception of the Shroud in the eyes of the public (personal translation): “Since science became involved (note: it is even truer since the failure of STURP to totally explain the image on the cloth, which doesn’t mean however that this image will never be naturally explained in the future), the devotion to the Shroud underwent a real mutation because it is no more the memorial of the Lord’s Passion and death than the material witness of his Resurrection and, by doing so, the providential object called to healed this modern decease which is the decline of the Christian faith.” There’s no doubt that such a mutation is not seen with a good eye by the Vatican, because, as Jean-Michel Maldamé (a Dominican monk who’s also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science) states in Perrier’s book, the idea that the Shroud can really show a physical trace of the Resurrection of Christ is absurd from a theological point of view. And Maldamé continue by saying this (personal translation): “The word “Resurrection” would lost his sense and would be deformed. This would be a materialization of the Resurrection and that’s contrary to the theology teaches by the Church. The only trace of the Resurrection that exist can only been found in the Gospels and in the testimonies of the Apostles.”

Also in Perrier’s book, we can find another very true comment made by Mrs. Celier that gives, in my mind, a proper and correct interpretation of what the Shroud should mean for a Christian (personal translation): “An authentic Shroud would mean that Christ is really dead the way we were told.” For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the Shroud, which is to confirm the general validity of the testimonies we found in the Gospel’s narratives of the Passion, death and burial of Jesus of Nazareth. And by implication and extrapolation, it is possible to extend this historical validity to the testimonies related to Jesus Resurrection, even though we have to be cautious here because this part of the Gospels is much more non-homogeneous than the accounts of the Passion. And along with that, the Shroud can also be very important for a Christian believer because it can be seen as a “proof” (I dare to use the word) of the Incarnation of God in our humanity, which is, sadly, very often forgotten or neglected by those who publicly speaks about this relic.

And to those involved in Shroud research for the right and most noble motive (i.e. the honest quest for truth, whatever it might be), I say: Have no fear to express your opposition versus those who do Shroud science for religious motives, because such motives should never have their places in an honest, sincere and rigorous scientific quest for truth. I know that you are more numerous out there than it seems who silently agree with the heart of the message you find in my open letter against M. Fanti’s way to do Shroud science or with this recent comment of Bruno Barberis. I hope that in a near future, your silence will be transformed in loud voices each time you’ll see someone doing Shroud science for the wrong motives. Don’t forget that it’s only by acting like this that Shroud science will get purged one day of all the pseudo-scientists who make a very bad use of the Shroud for dishonest religious motives and who harmed greatly the credibility of Shroud science in the eyes of the international scientific community who mainly see it as a sick joke right now. And more importantly, it’s only by standing firm for an honest and proper scientific research about the Shroud that more and more honest and unbiased scientists will be interested to seek the truth concerning this real archaeological artefact.

Ray Rogers did all he can to clean the Shroud world of these religious biased “scientists” (the same ones who are constantly trying to attack Rogers’ credibility these days) and now Bruno Barberis seems to follow his footsteps. I certainly hope that many more persons involved in Shroud research will eventually do the same.

Important note: I don’t pretend that every person who has done experiments of coloration on linen with some sort of energetic radiation has necessarily done non-rigorous pseudo-science. However, at the exception of those who did researches concerning natural electrostatic discharges coming from earthquakes, I just can’t believe that these scientists, by doing these kinds of experiments with these kinds of energies that cannot be released by a dead body (this is a solid scientific fact), didn’t had some serious religious motives in the back of their head. And simply because of that, these scientists have broken the rule followed by rigorous scientists like Ray Rogers and many others, which is to never do science with a religious motive and always keep your faith (if you have faith) in your back pocket while you do your researches and experiments. It is as obvious as the nose in anyone’s face that these scientists who tested hypotheses of image formation involving some kind of energetic radiation (except for the natural emissions of electrostatic discharges) were doing it (whether it was publicly acknowledged or not or only partially or not) with the religious purpose of “proving” or at the very least, strongly suggesting that the Resurrection of Christ is directly responsible for the body image on the Shroud.

And that’s what I just can’t stand because religious motives have not their places in an honest, sincere and rigorous scientific quest for truth, whether it concern the Shroud of Turin, the Big Bang or anything else. On this point, I’m convinced that Georges Lemaître (a Catholic priest and astronomer who is one of the Father of the Big Bang theory) would agree with me because he once criticized seriously Pope Pius XII for having declared that the Big Bang offered some sort of scientific proof that God is really the Creator of the Universe. I’ll leave you with this question, which is at the same time a suggestion of reflection: If you would ask a Buddhist scientist, a Muslim scientist or an atheist scientist to analyze the Shroud and to come up with an hypothesis that could explain the body image on the cloth, do you think for one little second that such a scientist would think energetic radiation (except maybe for natural electrostatic discharge) could really offer a scientifically valid option in the context of a burial cloth that covered a tortured and crucified corpse of a man for less than 72 hours? I think asking the question is already getting the answer! In my mind, there’s no doubt that religious agendas related to the Resurrection of Christ have destroyed (or, at the very least, seriously affected) the credibility of Shroud science in the eyes of the international scientific community and that’s a shame.

In his book Fabricating Jesus, Craig Evans wrote something that his very telling concerning our modern culture and that can well be applied to the presence state of Shroud science: “We live in a strange time that indulges, even encourages, some of the strangest thinking. It is a time when truth means almost what you want to make of it. And in these zany quests for “truth”, truth becomes elusive.” Concerning the scientific reality of the image on the Shroud, truth is this: It is highly probable that the Shroud’s image reside only in a very thin layer of carbohydrates impurities on-top of the linen fibers of the cloth and it is highly probable that no energetic radiation of any kind can be able to only produce a coloration of these impurities without also produced a coloration of the fiber located underneath (whether it be a coloration of just the primary cell wall of the fiber or of the whole fiber), which is inconsistent with the most likely chemical and physical characteristics of the body image on the Shroud. So, no matter what the partisans of the supernatural might think truth should be regarding the Shroud’s image, this is the real and scientific truth concerning the Shroud’s image. Of course, such a scientific truth is still waiting to be confirmed by a new series of direct research on the Shroud, but right now, in face of all the known data and observations concerning the Shroud (particularly the ghosts of color that were found in the sticky tapes while leaving a clean, intact, undamaged and colorless fiber behind, as well as the reduction of the coloration with a diimide reagent, which produced the same exact result), I don’t think there is a good reason to seriously doubt this particular and most important truth, which strongly suggest that the body image formation was most probably caused by one or many natural process(es).

Yannick Clément, Louiseville, Québec, Canada

N.B.: I’m not a scientist myself but, unlike many persons involved in Shroud research, I have a infinite respect for true and honest science and for the Shroud and my faith is strong enough to even support the possibility that one day, science could prove without any serious doubt that this relic is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Of course, I don’t say that this is the case, but I’m prepared to accept such an unlikely conclusion if new solid proofs would force me to do so. In fact, my personal quest for truth regarding the Shroud is pure, in the sense that I only seek for the real truth, whatever this truth might be, including the possibility (weak but still present nevertheless) that the Shroud can be the burial cloth of someone else than Jesus of Nazareth, whether it be an anonymous man who was legally crucified by the Romans in the same manner than him or the anonymous victim of an unknown forger who crucified him like the Jesus of the Gospels in order to produce a false relic of Christ’s Passion (note: these are the first two possible scenarios that can explain the Shroud, which you can find in my paper Concerning the question of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: please, don’t forget the evidence of the bloodstains). So, when I read a scientific paper about the Shroud, I expect the same kind of “pure” quest for truth on the part of the scientist (or scientists) who wrote this article. Unfortunately, my experience of almost 10 years of following what goes on in Shroud science has convinced me that it is far from being always the case.

168 thoughts on “Is it absurd to think that the Shroud can show a physical trace of the Resurrection?”

  1. I just want to correct one of my statement from this open letter : Instead of writing “In that regard, the failure of these energetic radiation tests to reproduced a coloration ON LINEN that show the same chemical and physical characteristics than the Shroud’s image”, I should have write “In that regard, the failure of these energetic radiation tests to reproduced a coloration IN A THIN LAYER OF IMPURITIES LOCATED ON-TOP OF THE LINEN CLOTH that show the same chemical and physical characteristics than the Shroud’s image” It’s much better and precise that way! On this subject, it’s important to be precise…

  2. I wasn’t going to comment, but I checked out something that I previously saved in my notes:as quote from Le Monde.” (Did I get from the blog???

    “Jean – Michel Maldame, a Dominican theologian and philosopher at the University of Toulouse, in defense of the 1988 radiocarbon tests carried out at Oxford, Zurich and Tucson. “The date revealed by Carbon-14 analysis, that is, the 1260-1390 window set for the Shroud’s fabrication, confirms the rule for all similar shrouds offered to popular devotion: they were made to attract pilgrims from far and wide. Whoever insists upon these shrouds’ authenticity cannot be adhering to rigorous intellectual discipline.”

    Prof. Bollone, appearing on an Italian state television broadcast called Mixer, replied: “These days no serious scholar — and a review of the specialized literature proves this — believes in the ‘late medieval’ thesis suggested by the 1988 radiocarbon analysis.” The professor went on to insist: “The Shroud is mentioned in documents composed before the date established by C-14. Furthermore, we now are in possession of intrinsic data from coin imprints, dating the cloth to around 30 AD.”

    What bothers me is that this Dominican monk is a member of the ” Pontifical Academy of Science.” I think we need a new Father Rinaldi to plead the Shroud’s case.

    1. What is important from this quote of Maldamé is not is position on the C14 dating of 1988 but is theological opinion versus the fact that the Resurrection of Christ cannot have left a physical trace on a material object, simply because the Resurrection, by nature, was NOT a physical event. The theological position of Maldamé reflect the official theological view of the Church and I agree 100% with it.

    2. John Klotz wrote:

      Furthermore, we now are in possession of intrinsic data from coin imprints, dating the cloth to around 30 AD.”

      ***Hi and Happy New Year!

      John, would you please give me a link, so that I may access the information concerning the 30 AD date.

      Thanking you in advance..

      Best,

  3. When Baima-Bollone wrote: “Furthermore, we now are in possession of intrinsic data from coin imprints, dating the cloth to around 30 AD.” The true fact then was these numismatic data were more sensed than correctly identified by Moroni/Rodante and Baima-Bollone/Balossino (the latter mistook a fresh petaless flower head protrusion for that of a Pilate coin).

    1. Baima also claimed that there was traces of aloes and myrrh on the cloth, while the STURP team never found any traces at all… So, I think we have the right to seriously questioned his opinion on the question of the so-called coins over the eyes.

  4. A comment in reference to the aloes & myrrh. The STURP team used different methods (chemical, spectroscopy) to examine for the presence of these substances than BB, which used immunology-based techniques. Perhaps both groups are correct. I think you have to be careful when disparate results are obtained using different techniques-the only fair way to do this is a side by side comparison of the same area(s) using both techniques. Immunodection can be as sensitive as mass spectometry; situations could exist where a protein is denatured or functional groups are altered and react negatively in a chemical-based test, but positive with an immunology-based method. It’s not as though both groups did exactly the same test using exactly the same method.

  5. I cannot agree with the proposition that the Resurrection was not a physical event, in the wider sense of the word “physical”. But it was a physical event for which we as yet only have a limited understanding. It was also a supernatural event. The Resurrection involved a body, and that is physical. It was not merely a spiritual event. But it was supernatural.

    The apostles saw and touched Jesus after the Resurrection; Thomas was invited to put his hand into His side, and to touch Him. Jesus was seen to eat and drink with the apostles at Emmaus. That is something which a mere spirit is incapable of. To talk of a “spiritual body” is a contradiction in terms, it cannot even be a metaphor; it can only be a euphemism for something that we do not understand.

    The distinctions are very important theologically and philosophically, and just possibly also scientifically. We do not as yet know how the image on the Shroud was formed, and there is general disagreement as to whether this was caused by a naturalistic process, or whether it may have been a miraculous event, either miraculous by a providential concomitance of the circumstances that produced it by a naturalistic process, or else by the direct intervention of the Deity. All perspectives have their supporters, and I see little point in debating a preferred method without knowing and understanding a lot more about the image than we have at present. Such a debate generates more heat than enlightment. At some time in the future, when further access to the relic may be allowed, Science may be able to discover a more definitive answer than is possible at present. In the meantime, I believe all options as to how this image of Jesus Christ was formed are open.

    Regarding evidence of the Resurrection from the image: Clearly initiation and completion of the imaging process occurred within some 40 hours of death, as there is no sign of corruption, Whether the actual image was apparent immediately, some hours afterwards, or some years afterwards is not known. But the initiation process was complete within 40 hours. What happened to the body? If it had been unwrapped from its burial cloth and taken, this would have left some trace, such as smearing from fluids, blurring of the image, or damage to the fibrils of the linen. But there is no such evidence. We can only be left with the conclusion that this cloth is at least persuasive evidence of the Resurrection as a real event in our time and space and hence in physical reality.

  6. The Resurrection even did not involved a body Dave. It involved the DISAPPEARENCE OF A BODY from this material world! And concerning the appearance of Jesus to his disciples, of course, they were physical. I’m truly convinced of this as much as you. But that only means that Jesus eternal body was able to appear physically in this world whenever he wants. Note that he was passing through the locked door and he the disciples had a hard time to recognized him! This clearly shows that the Resurrection was not a simple re-animation of the corpse like in the cases of Jairus daughter or Lazarus. The theological point of view expressed by Maldamé is a good reflect of the official theological teaching of the Church.

    1. Ubiquity (experienced by (non resurrected) human beings such as Padre Pio, Sister Yvonne etc just to mention two famous Christians from the XXth century can be the answer to Yeshua’s ‘post-mortem’ (?) apparitions. Ubiquity cases are known from Antiquity.

      1. I read about Padro Pio some 25 years ago. Besides his stigmatas, he was known to appear in two places in the same time and other supernatural feats. Do you believe them?

  7. Just to be accurate, Father Carreira’s work has been largely misunderstood because his thought have been expressed mainly in Spanish and I often find like in the case of Yannick that his quotes are not properly understood.
    In a recent Tv debate in Spain he mentioned -in the line of Daveb- that the resurrected body was composed of atoms (literally) but these atoms hold properties such that the spirit is the one acting on matter, just the other way round as in current life.
    I myself do not have a final opinion on this but for the sake of accuracy I just wanted to make clear his views on this issue.

    1. The quote from Carreira is taken directly from an email exchange with him!

      Last year, I know he published a controversial paper in which he tried to bring together the hypothesis of the Maillard reaction, the hypothesis of Jackson concerning the suddent disappearence of the body and the hypothesis of Fanti concerning Corona discharge. And his idea is that at the moment of the spiritualization of Jesus body, the disappearence of his body caused something like an electrostatic discharge that could have been part of the image formation, along with the Maillard reaction. BUT there’s a big problem with this particular hypothesis… If Rogers is right about the chromophore (and as I said, I don’t see any good reason to doubt that), it is almost impossible for such a discharge to color ONLY the layer of impurities like it is (most probably) on the Shroud. And that’s the same thing for any other sort of energetic radiation. So, personally, I really think Carreira’s idea is incorrect versus the Shroud and in the end, incorrect also versus the official theology of the Church because if his idea was good, that would mean there really is a trace of the Resurrection on the Shroud and that doesn’t fit with the official teaching of the Church.

      Think about it ! Why the Resurrected Christ will make a big reproach to the lack of faith of Thomas and was, during his lifetime, constantly amazed by the faith of those who had such faith in God (without proof) and at the same time, left us some kind of physical proof of his Resurrection (which was a spiritual event involving the entrence of his physical body into the spiritual world) on a linen cloth? This is ludicrous to me.

  8. I have found the link above in which Father Carreira expresses his points of view when he says that the resurrected body is composed of atoms. Yannick, I hope you know enough Spanish as to follow his words

    1. No, I don’t know Spanish. But I have read his paper and that’s enough for me to understand that his theological point of view is not shared by the official Church (because it involve the idea that God would have left a physical trace of the Resurrection on a material object) and I also know that if Rogers is right about the image chromophore, is hypothesis of image formation is most probably erroneous, at least for the part where he include an electrostatic discharge that would have caused part of the body image. Carreira is intelligent, no doubt about it, but I think his point of view versus the Shroud is a bit religiously biased…

  9. The “disappearance of a body” clearly involves a body, and it did appear in this material world. So let’s not be confused about that!

    Gabriel makes a good point, that the resurrected body did comprise some kind of atoms. My own suspicions about that are that they may have been metamorphosed into some parallel universe for which the physical laws are different from our own. But let’s not go there, because as yet, we know even less about parallel universes than we might guess about how the TS image may have been formed!

  10. The main goal of my open letter was not to start another theological debate, even if it’s interesting. No, I want people to realize that the MAIN GOAL of my letter was to strongly criticize the scientists who make researches about the Shroud for religious motives (note: sadly, they are numerous out there) and to encourage all the honest and non-religiously biased scientists presently involve in the Shroud science (they are probably more numerous than I think) to do the same thing than Bruno Barberis and me, which is to publicly critize those who obviously wants to let their religious beliefs intervene INTO their science instead of ONLY doing a quest for truth regarding this relic (whatever this truth might be)… That was the main purpose of this letter. By the way, I also encourage other non-scientist shroudies like me to do the same on this blog and elsewhere!!!! For the sake of Shroud science, I think it’s about time that some people express publicly their opposite toward such religiously biased science that his done by scientists who have only 2 things in mind: proving the Shroud’s authenticity and also proving the Resurrection with the help of the body image that is on the cloth. As I said in my letter (and that’s the most important thing to remember): Religious motives should never have their places in an honest, sincere and rigorous scientific quest for truth. This is particularly true in the case of the Shroud.

  11. Reminder: The highest state of vibration of matter is spirit and the lowest state of vibration of spirit is matter.

  12. If Yannick didn’t want to start a theological debate, he ought not to have made so many provocative statements. His main message could have been stated in one sentence: “He considers that when the Shroud is being subject to some scientific test, then only the protocols of that science should apply, and other disciplines should not intrude – in a word religion should be placed in the back pocket.” There is nothing controversial in that. But then he goes on and on, and allows his own religious perspectives to intrude and this then gets him into trouble!

    But there can be no doubt that the Shroud itself must have a religious dimension to it. There can be no escaping it! Many consider it a likeness of the founder of their own religion, the ony true religion, the only true likeness that can be verified, and they revere and worship this founder. And we do not know yet how this image was formed. Science has so far failed to ascertain how. Science has made unprecedented advances in the 115 years since Secundo Pio first took the first photographs. But despite all these wonderful advances, Human Science has so far failed to ascertain the nature of the image, nor how it was formed. It is almost laughable. There are only untested theories, and a few ambiguous experiments. It is human to draw various inferences from this lack of progress and to speculate. If Science has an answer – let it speak – but for the present it can only remain silent and speculate.

    Yannick denigrates the work of a dedicated scientist, Giovanna De Liso, who certainly did not allow religion to intrude into her work, and over a period of 12 years and some 400 experiments later produced some of the few 3D images that have resulted from any experiments. Because they involved earthquakes, which he dismisses as so much gospel midrash, they do not suit his own perspectives on the matter. It is not known if the images she produced were on the cellulose or on an impurity layer. But she obtained the best results when the cloths were imbibed with a mixture of myrrh and aloes! Does this ring any bells? But they involved radiation from radon, so they do not fit into Yannick’s own narrow perspective and those of his one true scientific hero!

    There is a sign of the Resurrection on the Shroud! It is the image itself, and the lack of a human body. How that image was formed, we do not know! It may have been naturalistic, or it may have been otherwise. To deny this, is to fly in the face of the evidence that we do have. And here we are inescapably drawn into the realm of theology.

    1. Dave said: “It is not known if the images she produced were on the cellulose or on an impurity layer.”

      My answer: Oh yes it is this my friend! By saying this, you prove you don’t understand the great scientific importance of this fact or you don’t want to see it. In reality, this is the most crucial aspect of all the experiments ever made with energetic radiation regarding the Shroud’s image! If Rogers conclusion is correct versus the image chromophore, and right now, I don’t see any good reason to doubt it, that mean all the hypotheses involving any sort of radiation (even those related to earthquakes) are INCONSISTENT with the Shroud’s image! We must look at these hypotheses as being unable to explain the Shroud’s image, in pretty much the same manner than all the artistic hypotheses (paint, scorch, rubbing, medieval photograph, etc.), EXCEPT for one thing: the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the image chromophore (i.e. only located in a thin layer of impurities and NOTHING ELSE) still wait for a scientific confirmation. But as I said, right now, we must consider this hypothesis as being probably right, especially in the light of the observations made by Adler and later confirmed by Rogers concerning the reduction of the color with diimide and the ghosts of color which both strongly suggest that the linen fiber (including the primary cell wall) WAS NOT AFFECTED OR COLORED AT ALL DURING THE IMAGE FORMATION PROCESS. If you prefer to put your head into the sand and not consider this highly probable scientific fact regarding the Shroud’s image in order to save your preconceive notion of what the Shroud’s image should be, it is your right but I will never follow your footsteps. If one day, Rogers hypothesis concerning the chromophore would be proven wrong by science and I would be sure that the primary cell wall of the linen fiber itself was colored, I would have no choice than to reconsider the whole issue but right now, in the present state of our knowledge, the facts don’t point into that direction. And that’s the main point I wanted to make with my letter, i.e. that all the experiments made with radiation had failed to reproduce a coloration that would reside only in a layer of impurities, which is the most probable hypothesis for image chromophore right now. And the fact that Rogers was able to do so with ammoniac gas strongly suggest that the body image on the Shroud was produced by a natural phenomenon.

  13. This is a reply to M. Kearse comment #6 concerning the possible presence of traces of aloes and myrrh on the Shroud.

    M. Kearse, I agree with your scientific principle on a general sense. However, concerning the question of the possible presence of traces of aloes and myrrh on the Shroud, I have a pretty good alternative argument that strongly suggests that there was no use of such burial products in the case of the Shroud man. My argument is based on the FACT that there is absolutely no coloration on the Shroud outside the actual body image! This can be seen as a very good sign that no ancient burial products (including myrrh and aloes) were used on the Shroud and/or on the body of the Shroud man because these kinds of products can stained very easily a linen cloth!

    Effectively, in a paper he wrote for STURP in 1980, which is entitled Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin (this is a very good paper!), Samuel Pellicori describe many coloration experiments on linen he made with the most common burial products used by the ancient Jews at the time of Christ (including aloes and myrrh and also olive oil) and EACH TIME he put one of these product in contact with his linen samples, he ALWAYS got a coloration very similar to the Shroud’s image after he baked his sample to simulate aging. And he obtained such a good and visible result even when the contact was very light and subtle between these products and his linen samples! Consequently, if there would have been a spreading of such products on the cloth or if the body of the Shroud man would have been anointed with them, it’s EVIDENT that there would have been a coloration (probably looking more like a staining) of the cloth in zones that are located outside the actual body image.

    There’s no doubt that it’s totally irrational to assume that a spreading on the cloth could have been restricted to the area where we find the actual body image (on the dorsal part as well as the frontal part) and it’s also highly improbable that there would not have been some staining of the cloth outside the actual body image if the corpse would have been anointed with these products because we know for a fact that some parts of the body were in direct contact with many areas located outside the body image at one point during the burial! How do we know that? Because of the few bloodstains and scourge marks that are located in places where there is no body image! Since each one of these bloodstains and scourge marks must have come from a direct contact between the body and the cloth, if there would have been aloes and myrrh on the body, there would consequently have been some staining of the cloth in these areas where we can see off-body image bloodstains! THIS IS PURE LOGICAL THINKING!

    So, to me, along with the incapacity of STURP to detect any traces of these burial products, the fact that there is no coloration on the Shroud outside the actual body image is the most important piece of evidence to conclude that, most probably, there was no use of such products during the burial of the Shroud man OR, if there really was such a use, it was exactly like Pierre Barbet thought: a mixture of aloes and myrrh in powder that would have been placed inside some smaller cloths (like bags if you will) and then placed all around the corpse inside the Shroud, for the main purpose of removing some bad odors (and also to retard the putrefaction a bit) in the prevision of a return to the tomb early Sunday morning to finish the burial rite properly with a real anointing and probably also a washing and dressing of the body. If Barbet’s hypothesis is correct, then that would explain why there is no coloration outside the actual body image and why STURP never found any traces of these products, even though they were really used during the burial (in a powder state instead of in an oily state), as it was reported in John’s Gospel. In sum, for me, the results obtained by Pellicori leaves NO DOUBT AT ALL that if there would have been direct contact between these products and the cloth (directly or indirectly via the anointed corpse), there would have been a lot of staining of the cloth in places located outside the actual body image.

  14. In the present comment, I would like to incitate every blogger (and also Dan!) to do a little test in order to evaluate where you stand in front of the Shroud!

    Remember the quote from Odile Celier (a French theologian in Paris) that you find in my open letter? Here it is again: ”Since science became involved (note: it is even truer since the failure of STURP to totally explain the image on the cloth, which doesn’t mean however that this image will never be naturally explained in the future), the devotion to the Shroud underwent a real mutation because it is no longer the memorial of the Lord’s Passion and death but the material witness of his Resurrection and, by doing so, the providential object called to heal this modern decease which is the decline of the Christian faith.”

    With this comment, I think Mrs. Celier give us a very good way to evaluate our perception of the Shroud and the level of dangerousness of such a perception for the faith of anybody.

    So here’s the test I suggest you to do: I would like you to look at the Shroud and let us know if what you see is mainly an image of the Passion and death of Jesus Christ or mainly an image of the Resurrected Christ…

    If you answer “an image of the Passion and death of Christ”, I think there are good chances that you can follow Shroud science without too much religious bias. And if you’re a Shroud researcher, I think there are good chances that you can do your scientific work without too much religious bias. But, on the contrary, if you answer “an image of the Resurrection of Jesus”, then I’m afraid that you’re on the right track to fall into the “supernatural trap” with this cloth and see Shroud science as a possible way for men to physically prove this spiritual event that is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think Mrs. Celier is totally right when she said that our scientific age is responsible for the fact that a lot of good Christians have unfortunately fall into that dangerous trap (dangerous for the quality of their faith I mean). Effectively, it’s part of human nature to always tend to find clear, rational and physical answers and proofs for such a mystery… It was like that well before our modern scientific age started and since that time, it is even truer because many people wrongly think that science can explain spiritual things, which is totally irrational and even ludicrous because, by definition, science is bound to our space-time material universe, which is located outside the spiritual world.

    As I said before, don’t you think like me that the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains on the cloth and the simple fact that such a gruesome burial cloth was taken from the tomb and well-preserved until this day is well enough to understand that we can trust the testimony of the Apostles concerning the fact that Jesus is really Resurrected? These two facts concerning the Shroud are not enough for you to strengthen your faith in Jesus Christ, the Resurrected Son of God? THEY ARE FOR ME!

    I think if anyone (and particularly the scientists involved in Shroud research) could ends up by admitting that the image and bloodstains on the Shroud represent a dead man who look like Jesus after his Passion and death instead of the Risen Lord, then Shroud science could have some chances to get back on the right track, which is to ONLY seek the truth regarding that cloth without any preconceived religious notions and whatever this truth could be…

    So now it’s up to you! WHAT DO YOU SEE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SHROUD? Take your time to think about it because your answer could really determine if you are a Rinaldi or a Fanti!!! While sitting on his cloud, Ray Rogers is waiting anxiously to get your answer! ;-)

    1. From the comment #18 made by Dave and the approval of Carlos, I now know where these 2 people stand in front of the Shroud: In the supernatural freaks club of Fanti!

    2. Your test misses a third option – an image of the Passion and death of Jesus Christ AND an image of the Resurrected Christ. Effectively what you are doing is precluding any miraculous event that could have formed the shroud image. Why, therefore, do you believe in any miracle where Jesus is concerned?

      1. What I wanted to emphasize is the FACT (for anyone who has eyes to see) that the image on the cloth is OBVIOUSLTY THAT OF JESUS DEAD AFTER HIS PASSION. Where do you see signs of life (glorious or not) there??? All the forensic experts have seen is signs of death, especially the rigor mortis that is easily discernible. What I really wanted with this questioning is to make people realize that if they can see signs of the Resurrection in this image of a martyrized corpse, they are most certainly religiously biased. Why? Simply because it is obviously a statement that is 100% based on Christian faith on the Resurrected Christ and nothing else. It is effectively the case for the reason I just mentioned (i.e. that the image on the Shroud is that of a dead man who even show evident signs of rigor mortis). And because of this, this particular idea that we can see a sign or even a proof of the Resurrection on the Shroud is EVIDENTLY a religiously biased idea. IT IS AS SIMPLE AND EVIDENT AS THAT MY FRIEND. And if you don’t trust me, just ask yourself the question: Which atheist, Jew or Buddhist would see an image of the Resurrected Christ on that cloth? This is ridiculous! But on the contrary, even they would admit that this image is similar to the image of Jesus after his Passion and death! That’s the very best proof that this image is that of the dead Jesus and not the one of the Risen Lord! Meditate on that. This kind of thinking is not grave when it comes from Joe Bloe, but when it comes from a scientist who is involve in Shroud research (and believe me, there really are such persons), that’s when things got much worse! In such cases, I have no choice than to raise the red flag and say there really is an appearance of “religiously biased science” here! Shroud science doesn’t need this kind of “scientist”! This is precisely because of them that Shroud science is considered as a joke by the major part of the international scientific community.

  15. You think Dan? Maybe you’re right. But I simply based my judgment on this line written by Dave himself: “There is a sign of the Resurrection on the Shroud! It is the image itself…”

    Sorry but in my mind, from the moment someone consider the image as a sign of the Resurrection, he’s close of falling into the supernatural freak pit.

    But maybe I’m too much rational… So, Dave, if my words have offended you, I’m sorry and I apologize.

  16. There are many contradictions in the comments being posted, however all one can say now, whether the TS did wrap the body of Jesus or not, is that the mysterium Christi will continue.

  17. Yannick not only continues to be close-minded to all but his own perspectives, but he also continues to be inconsistent, and to misread and misinterpret others’ comments, particularly my own.

    I referred to De Liso’s experiments and said: “It is not known if the images she produced were on the cellulose or on an impurity layer. But she obtained the best results when the cloths were imbibed with a mixture of myrrh and aloes! Does this ring any bells?”

    To which he replied: “My answer: Oh yes it is this my friend! By saying this, you prove you don’t understand the great scientific importance of this fact or you don’t want to see it.”

    My comment clearly refers to De Liso’s work, but with his own narrow viewpoint, he wrongfully concludes that my comment refers to the Shroud image, and that I don’t understand the significance of the chromophore location. I reiterate: I do not know if De Liso’s images were on an impurity layer, or on the cellulose fibres, neither does Yannick Clement, and possibly neither does De Liso.

    He then delivers a long lecture on the work of his favorite scientific hero, states the importance of Rogers’ work, that Rogers was insistent that the chromophore was on the impurity layer, that Rogers conclusion was infallible and that all should acknowledge it, and then allows that Rogers was only probably right, and finally concedes that Rogers could be proved wrong. This is inconsistency at its worst!

    He then accuses myself and Carlos of being in the “supernatural freaks club of Fanti”. This probably refers to an inference he makes that Professor Fanti apparently expects that the Resurrection has left some material trace on the Shroud. I do not know if that is Professor Fanti’s position or not; it may be. But it is certainly not my position, and the accusation is completely unjustified.

    If Yannick cannot see that the image itself is a sign of the Resurrection, then his viewpoint is even more limited than I had imagined, and he misses the principal message left by this sacred burial cloth of Jesus Christ. He chooses to ignore the remainder of my last paragraph: “How that image was formed, we do not know! It may have been naturalistic, or it may have been otherwise.” This statement can hardly put me into any kind of “supernatural freaks club” but is a fair statement of the present position. Yannick pretends he knows that it is naturalistic, but he cannot know that this is so!

    With his own persistent narrow perspective, his persistent misreading and possibly deliberate misinterpreting of my comments, his inconsistency in debating the issue, and his unjustifiable accusations against me, the matter has become too tiresome for me to continue this debate with him any further. I prefer a more RATIONAL contender!

    1. It is not known if the images she produced were on the cellulose or on an impurity layer for De Liso’s experiments, really ? If we believe Rogers, it is impossible that she could ever produced a coloration of the impurities only… Come on Dave. One day or another, you will have to admit that even if she got 3D images, that’s only one characteristic of the Shroud’s image and his results are lacking the most important one, which is to match the most probable image chromophore.

  18. Dave, one more word: Please read my comment #26 to Chris and you’ll understand why I assumed that you were part of the supernatural camp!!! In my mind, if someone is not able to admit that the image is that of a dead Jesus and prefer to see a “sign” of the Resurrection in it, then automatically, such a person has to be placed into the supernatural camp… Seriously, where do you see a sign of the Resurrection in this image of a dead man showing evident signs of rigor mortis??? And you say that you’re not part of the supernatural camp? I just don’t understand your point of view at all… Talking of inconsistency, I don’t know which one of you or me is the worse!

  19. Dave, you also said: “that Rogers conclusion was infallible”. Please give me the quote! I never say this in my letter or in this debate! I always say that Rogers conclusion is the most probable in the present state of our knowledge and that presently, there’s no good reason to seriously doubt this. Of course, it would need a new series of direct researches on the Shroud to make sure he was right. Of course. But right now, this is without a doubt the most probable conclusion we have to explain the real nature of the Shroud’s image, which is INCONSISTENT with the results obtained by scientists who have made coloration experiments with one kind or another of energetic radiation. That’s all I say.

    1. Can you please read my previous reply to Dave in which is clearly show that my reference of Rogers conclusion was not contradictory at all ! In any other scientific field, Ray Rogers work would be largely admitted as being the closest to the solution, except here in this damn Shroud world full of supernatural crackpots (most of them being too fearful to even admiting being part of this club), his work is constantly put into doubt for no other reasons than it strongly suggest that the image on the cloth most probably comes from a natural interraction between a dead and crucified corpse and the linen cloth, which is, by the way, a conclusion that even a kid of 10 years old could find just by looking at the image closely !!!!!

      And when Rogers produced a coloration of only a thin layer of impurities and nothing else (see his book), which is probably the same that we find on the Shroud, almost no one acknowledge the feat (including the medias), while, at the same time, every religious (and even some non religous) medias made a big case of Di Lazzaro’s results simply because it push “we can prove the Resurrection with the Shroud” agenda!!! Look… Even Rogers himself was able to produced a coloration of only the primary cell wall of the linen fiber with a corona discharge (see his book) and he clearly stated that THIS IS NOT THE SAME KIND OF RESULT AS HE COULD SEE ON THE SHROUD.

      That’s the reason why I’m so disgusted by what goes on in the Shroud world these days where most of the people in it are truly supernatural freaks.

  20. During the 1930s when Dr Barbet showed his findings to an agnostic colleague Professor Hovelaque, the latter is said to have pondered it all carefully, and then exclaimed, “But then, mon vieux, Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead!” An agnostic Professor of forensics sees the Resurrection in the Shroud,image but Catholic Yannick Clement cannot! None so blind … I rest my case!

    1. i know of no one that says the body was unwrapped or started decomposing as shown by blood stain non smears so how did the body come out of the shroud before decomposition and not be unwrapped

    2. Dave, since you speak English, I will forgive you this erroneous statement. What convinced Hovelaque that Jesus was probably resurrected is the evidence coming from the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains that was described to him by Barbet!!! This is the true story and we can find it in Barbet’s book A doctor at calvary. The body image NEVER was a factor in Hovelaque’s change of mind versus the Shroud. The appearance of the bloodstains was the true factor that shook his unbelief regarding the possibility that Jesus was really resurrected! And that’s very telling because, on the contrary to the body image, the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains is the ONLY CHARACTERISTIC coming from the Shroud that really seem to be scientifically unexplainable in the context of a dead body of a crucified man that was covered by blood clots and who spend at least 24 hours or so and no more than 72 hours inside the Shroud.

      And this is truly something most people don’t understand versus the Shroud! It is possible to see a sign (not a proof, which is very different) of the Resurrection of Christ from this undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains because this characteristic really seem to be scientifically unexplainable (and this was not even a definitive conclusion of Barbet because he was open to the possibility that science could naturally explain this aspect of the bloodstains in the future), while this is NOT the case at all for the body image. In fact, the truth is that the body image has not been explained yet by science, which is something completely different!!! STURP has never proclaimed that the body image was scientifically unexplainable but that the team was not able to completely explain it in the present state of their scientific knowledge. As I said in my letter, people must realize that, unlike the very unusual aspect of the bloodstains, there is absolutely no fact or observation coming from the Shroud that can exclude the possibility of a natural formation of the image.

      Unfortunately, from the time STURP published this particular conclusion, there was a bunch of supernatural freaks who entered in the Shroud world (among them, many scientists!) because they thought that such a statement was meaning that the body image could never been naturally explained and consequently, was surely coming from the Resurrection event. These people were only looking to find a physical proof of this event in the body image, while putting aside (or inventing new “facts”) in order to back-up their religious-based agenda. THIS IS A MODERN SCIENTIFIC HERESY AND IT’S STILL VERY PRESENT IN THE SHROUD WORLD THESE DAYS. That’s a shame because THAT DOESN’T REFLECT THE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH AT ALL

  21. Please read comments #28 and #34 which refer to contradictions in general in the comments being posted. I regret to say that this thing about Rogers is sounding like a broken record, almost an obsession.

    To find the contradictions in general, have a look at what has been posted in the past few months.

  22. ” Since science became involved (note: it is even truer since the failure of STURP to totally explain the image on the cloth, which doesn’t mean however that this image will never be naturally explained in the future), the devotion to the Shroud underwent a real mutation because it is no longer the memorial of the Lord’s Passion and death but the material witness of his Resurrection”

    I don’t think STURP failed, it did a great job to describe scientifically the shroud. The C 14 dating failed, not to say it turned out to be a scientific fiasco.

    Rogers was the first who discovered precisely and directly why the C14 dating failed, the first to put scientific study of the shroud back on track. The first to give a modern, naturalistic, credible explanation of image formation. The first to claim scientifically, that the shroud could be the actual burial cloth of the historical jesus.

    This was ten years ago.

    1. What I meant with my comment about STURP is the fact even acknowledge by Barrie Schwortz himself that the team really failed in his primary mission to find the exact process that has caused the formation of the body image on the cloth. This was the most important task of STURP and they were not able to completely solve the mystery. That’s what I meant.

      And concerning your comment about Rogers, this is totally true and very telling! Rogers work on the Shroud really indicates that a natural image formation is very likely, even though he wasn’t able to completely solve the mystery of the image in a complete way. And the fact that his scientific conclusions versus the Shroud strongly suggest that the Shroud is really the authentic burial cloth of the historical Jesus should be praised much more in the Shroud world. Unfortunately, since most of them are partisans of the supernatural, they just don’t want to acknowledge anything coming from Rogers! What these people should realize is the fact that if Rogers was right with his conclusion of a completely natural formation of the image, that doesn’t mean for one second that Jesus is not resurrected! People don’t understand that, for Rogers, Barbet, Vignon, Legrand, Rinaldi and many others, a natural formation of the image coming from the dead corpse of Jesus is not incompatible at all with the Catholic idea of the Resurrection, which is a spiritualization and a sudden disappearance of his body before the arrival of the first liquid of putrefaction. Unfortunately, most people interested in the Shroud (including many scientists) only wants to believe that the body image is hiding a physical proof of that spiritual event! That’s precisely why Shroud science has loose much of his credibility in the eyes of the international scientific community and that’s a shame!

      1. We are talking science. Forget about pseudo-science or bad science.

        STURP did not fail, it did not reach all its objectives.

        The C 14 dating failed, it went wrong and was published.

        That’s how i see a scientific failure.

      2. I agree that the C14 dating (and probably also the 2002 restoration) were the most important failure in recent Shroud history. But you have to admit that STURP was not able to answer that simple question: What caused the image on the Shroud ? That was their most important objective in 1978!!!

        At least, they were able to conclude this:

        1- IT IS NOT AN ARTWORK OF ANY KIND, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BLOODSTAINS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IT IS A REAL BURIAL SHROUD THAT ENVELOPED, FOR LESS THAN 72 HOURS, A REAL MAN WHO WAS TORTURED, SCOURGED, CROWNED WITH THORNS AND DIED BY CRUCIFIXION.
        2- THE BODY IMAGE ON THE SHROUD MUST ABSOLUTELY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SOME FORM OF INTERRACTION BETWEEN THE CLOTH AND THIS TORTURED AND CRUCIFIED BODY.

        AND SUCH CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT BANAL AT ALL !!!! Note that these two conclusions are totally consistent with the idea that the image was formed by a natural process…

  23. Los escritos de Yannick rozan el PANFLETO….y además no quiere entender la posición del que considera su adversario ( su fijación con el Prof. Giulio Fanti es una OBSESIÓN).

    -Los cristianos creemos en la Resurrección de Jesús gracias a la FE,
    -La impronta corporal de Jesús muerto que presenta la Sábana Santa demuestra la muerte de Jesús.
    -Los líquidos y gases producto de la descomposición del cuerpo muerto de Jesús habrían destruído la impronta corporal del cuerpo de Jesús entre las 40-72 horas de su contacto con la Sábana.
    – El HECHO de que la impronta corporal de Jesús muerto se muestre en la Sábana Santa es prueba de la RESURRECCIÓN, lo que es coincidente con nuestra FE cristiana.
    [ La “estrategia escéptica” futura (¡ ya se va observandodo!) será NEGAR la resurrección física de Jesús y postular que el cuerpo de Jesús fue robado por sus amigos o enemigos…..]
    – El estudio de TODAS las causas físicas o químicas que hayan podido intervenir en la formación de la impronta corporal de Jesús muerto PREVIAS A PERDER EL CONTACTO FÍSICO CON LA SÁBANA es objeto de la Ciencia……y eso, aunque a Yannick no le guste, incluye si la desmaterialización de la “materia” (un supuesto teórico) puede perturbar la estructura del tejido de la Sábana.

    Carlos Otal

    1. Whatever you want to believe Carlos, it’s up to you. If you’re happy being a proud member of the supernatural freaks club, that’s fine for me since you’re not involved in Shroud research. But when it comes to M. Fanti or any other scientist who push the “I will prove the Resurrection while using the Shroud” issue, that’s when you will always see me makes critics with a loud voice.

      Even if I don’t care too much about your belief versus the Shroud (for the reason I gave you above), I must ask you a question anyway… You wrote that the image of a dead Jesus is proof of the Resurrection, which is consistent with our Christian faith.

      First: Can you explain to me how you came to this non sense conclusion that an image of a dead man can be a “proof” that this man is resurrected??? I’m very curious about that!

      Secondly: Did you read carefully the official theological position of the Church expressed by Maldamé, which completely contradict your idea that a physical proof of the Resurrection on the Shroud would be consistent with our Christian faith??? I would definately love to hear your thoughts about that. I thought you were a good Catholic who followed closely the official position of the Church on every subject… Now that it concern the Shroud, we see you taking some distances with the Church. WHY???

  24. Anoxie, the first scientist to state that the Shroud could actually have been used to wrap the body of Jesus was Yves Delage.

    1. Yes, that’s why i’ve precised “modern”, meaning gas diffusion theory, cracking in a gaz-solid reaction, notions of kinetics, potential reactants.

    1. Rogers made a few preliminary experiments and got very interesting results that seems to indicate that he was on the right track to find the solution. A biochemist should take the lead of Rogers work and push it further. In the light of all the data and observations we know about the Shroud, a biological interraction between the cloth and the crucified corpse is definately the most probable path to follow regarding the image on the cloth.

      YOU SHOULD READ ROGERS BOOK !

    2. “still a theory”

      Yes, a theory with its limitations, but the most comprehensive and rational one.

      And it’s not up to the Church to chose the “right” theory.

      And its theory tackles the issue of cloth-body distance attenuation.

      1. “And its theory tackles the issue of cloth-body distance attenuation.”

        I want to add that it tackles also the extreme superficiality of the body image residing only on the top-most fibers of the Shroud…

  25. Rogers proposed just one among the several theories about image formation, the controversy continues and therefore the Church has not made any definitive statement. As commented earlier, the creed does not say “…and was buried wrapped in the Turin Shroud.”

    1. Very true ! And you can bet your house that the Church will never do anything of that nature, simply because it’s impossible to be 100% sure that it is the Shroud of Jesus.

      Concerning Rogers, you must note however that he is most probably the only one to have succeed to produce a coloration of only a thin layer of impurities on-top of the fibers without affecting at all the fibers themselves underneath the impurities, which is probably the exact nature of the Shroud’s image. Despite what the supernatural freaks can think and despite the fact that this experimental result obtained by Rogers was never publicly written in any medias (religous or not), this is not a banal result at all because it really suggest strongly that the image was formed by a natural process (or combined natural processes).

      Of course, it is much more attractive to make believe the Shroud’s image was produced by a burst of UV light or by some other kind of energetic radiation related directly with the Resurrection event…

  26. Well, as I said in previous comments, Rogers provided his theory and others, like him, published their own peer-reviewed papers with differing points of view. Rogers’ theory does not explain the question of cloth-to-body distance, very important in studying the image and its subtlety. I would hesitate to use words like “supernatural freaks” and, remember, these can be directed to the authors of the Gospels —- as is being done everyday —– and then you will play into the hands of sceptics like Dawkins.

    1. My use of the expression « supernatural freaks » is a very correct one and I have no shame to use it over and over again on this blog. It is a FACT that since STURP failed to give us a complete explanation for the body image, the Shroud world (including sadly Shroud science) has been polluted by these kinds of agenda driven freaks who only seek to find a physical proof of the Resurrection in the body image instead of looking to find the real scientific truth about that cloth, whatever this truth might be! It is these religious freaks and not me who are responsible for giving plenty of ammunitions to the skeptics (and also to a major portion of the scientific community)! This is very sad, but that’s the reality and I’m not responsible for it. So please Louis (and anyone else who’ll read this), don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger of this truth! ;-)

      1. ok for “fanatic” but I don’t see the point because any expression used means in the end the same thing.

  27. Clearly the image is of a dead body in rigor mortis! But what happened to the body? If I had an interest in stealing a body, why would I unwrap it and leave the cloth behind in the tomb? I might get caught in the act! There are no signs on the TS of any disturbance that would result from moving the body – no blurring of the image, no smearing from the fluids, and no tearing of any cloth fibrils. But the body was removed within 40 hours of death, or else we would see a different image from the one we have. YC says that Hovelaque was convinced of the Resurrection from the blood stains and not the image itself. Image or blood-stains whatever! The point is that Resurrecion is the only reasonable induction that can be made. That is what I mean when I say that the Shroud cloth is a witness to the Resurrection. Surely he can see that! “The Silent Witness”!

    1. Dave, the bottom line is that you or Fanti or anyone else has no right to use the image of a dead Jesus on the Shroud and pretend that it shows a true physical and scientific proof of the Resurrection or even a clear sign of this event. You can’t since there’s nothing in the data and observations coming from the Shroud that can presently exclude the possibility that the image was formed naturally. If one day, science would conclude that this image is totally unexplainable scientifically, then maybe you could think that way. But we’re far from being there. In fact, this is precisely the opposite. Like it or not, since the great work of Rogers near the end of his life (this was a pure blessing from the sky that he could do this before dying), there’s good reasons to believe the image comes from one or more natural process(es). As I often said, the clue is the image chromophore. If Rogers hypothesis concerning could be scientifically confirmed one day, I guess you will have to change your mind and finally have to admit that only a mild natural phenomenon could produced such a coloration of only the thin layer of impurities on-top of the fibers without affecting the fiber itself located underneath the impurities.

      ALL THIS DOESN’T MEAN ONE SECOND THAT JESUS DIDN’T RESURRECT!!! I don’t know why you have so much fear that the image could really have been produced by a natural phenomenon… That would not change our faith in the Resurrected Christ for one second if this would be the case. At least, for me. AND YOU? Remember this great truth: the hypothesis of a natural image process is TOTALLY coherent with the image and bloodstains of a dead and crucified man that we see on the cloth while the hypothesis of a supernatural process related to the Resurrection is not.

    2. Yannick, you are persistently misreading what I am saying! Don’t associate my views with those of Professor Fanti – they are completely different! As I understand it, Fanti is looking for material evidence of the Resurrection on the Shroud cloth! He will never find it! what I am saying is that the Resurrection is the only REASONABLE INDUCTION that can be made from: (a) the image is that of Jesus Christ – dead and in rigor mortis as you would have it; (b) there is no body and the remains of a body identified as that of Jesus Christ has never been discovered; (c) initiation of the image formation was complete within 40 hours of death, and was not distorted by any later decomposition of the body; (d) there are no signs on the cloth that the body was deliberately removed by persons known nor unknown; (e) Ipsis factis – Resurrection is the only reasonable induction that can be made. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS LOGIC?

      As to the nature of the Resurrection, that is only something that can only be ascertained (a) by scriptural authority (b) the disciplines of theology and philosophy! Your own assertions on the nature of the Resurrection are far more dogmatic than I would hold! I am prepared to speculate on the nature of Resurrection but I would hesitate to be so dogmatic about it as you appear to be!

      1. Dogmatic? I prefer to say that this is MY own understanding of the Resurrection, which is certainly not far from the official point of view of the Church, and I have no fear to talk openly about it. A physical re-animation of a corpse ? COME ON ! The simple fact that the disciples had a hard time to recognized him after his Resurrection is clear about the fact that Jesus eternal body was not the same as we can see on the Shroud ! The Resurrected Christ still has the wounds of the Passion but we have to guess that his face at least is somewhat different than the face of the Shroud man, because this is the face he had at the moment of his death, not after his Resurrection.

  28. ¡Creo que el FANÁTICO es Yannick!

    Debe explicar qué sucedió con el cuerpo……

    El Evangelio indica claramente que Jesús tenía cuerpo físico y NO ERA un espíritu:

    Luke 24: 36-46

    “36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them,”Peace be with you.” 37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself ! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?”42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,”

    Yannick NO CREE en la resurrección del cuerpo de Jesús, así que debe ACLARAR cual es su pensamiento.

    Carlos Otal

    1. Carlos, like many people around here, you mixed up the Resurrection event (which St Paul really described as a spiritualization of the body) and the apparitions of the Resurrected Christ, which are 2 different events. After his Resurrection, I

      The Resurrection of Jesus was not the same thing as a re-animation of his corpse for God sake!!!! Don’t you realize that this is precisely what St John tried to make us understand with the account of the Resurrection of Lazarus? Lazarus came out of the tomb with his Shroud (that John called a “sudarium”) still over him, while in the case of Christ, his corpse completely disappeared from the tomb and from this material world! Jesus corpse was not re-animated like Lazarus and he didn’t raised up in the tomb and get out of his burial cloth and leave the tomb walking!!!! His body left our material world to enter into the spiritual world where anyone of us will enter after our death.

      Now, for the physical apparition of the Resurrected Christ, I believe them all! I have no theological problem to believe that the spiritual body of Christ after his Resurrection could still physically appeared into this world. But the accounts are also clear the his body was not bound to this material world no more because he could pass through a locked door and disappeared instantaneously in front of the Emaus disciples!!! You and me can’t do that my friend !!!! The bodily resurrection of Jesus is really badly understood because people tend to think that it was the same as a re-animation of a corpse (like in the case of Lazarus) which is NOT.

      1. Yannick, there was no intention to shoot. Your theology is close to mainline Christian (Catholic and Protestant) belief, and more convincing than the Rogers line you are towing. All you have to do now is to maintain this belief and not change your mind in more comments on this topic.

  29. Oh dear. I was so sure I wasn’t going to get involved here… As I understand them both Dave and Yannick think that there was a body under the cloth, and then there wasn’t. So presumably there was a sudden vacuum, which would have collapsed, probably with a bang like a hydrogen balloon going pop, and a sudden but temporary slight drop in air pressure, and the universe got 75kg lighter. A little later, somewhere else, the air was suddenly deflected out of a body shaped hole in the atmosphere, possibly with another bang, as the living Christ reappeared in the universe, which got 75kg heavier again. Or maybe it happened more slowly. Or maybe each cubic nanometre of body changed into a cubic nanometre of air (and vice versa) so that there was no pressure decrease and no bang, and the mass change of the universe was slightly less. There need not be any evidence of this on the shroud or anywhere else, of course, but even miracles have physical corollaries.

    1. Vaguely from a Thermodynamics 201 course some fifty years ago, I think it depends on whether it’s adiabatic, isotropic or isothermal! Star Trek used it all the time. Beam me up, Scotty! It was more transitional there, so probably adiabatic. I think theory of Parallel Universes probably has something to do with it! Which is about as dogmatic as I’m going to get!

  30. “……..but even miracles have physical corollaries”.

    ¡Exacto, Hugh!

    Y a eso me refería cuando yo escribí en un anteriorior comentario:

    “- El estudio de TODAS las causas físicas o químicas que hayan podido intervenir en la formación de la impronta corporal de Jesús muerto PREVIAS A PERDER EL CONTACTO FÍSICO CON LA SÁBANA es objeto de la Ciencia……y eso, aunque a Yannick no le guste, incluye si la desmaterialización de la “materia” (un supuesto teórico) puede perturbar la estructura del tejido de la Sábana.”.

    Carlos Otal

    1. Carlos, I think Rogers conclusion is very clear about the fact that, on the contrary than what you might think, the image formation process that is responsible for the image on the Shroud did NOT affected at all the structure of the linen fibers! It’s true that this conclusion is still waiting to get a proper scientific confirmation but right now, there’s no good reason to doubt it. So, in that context, how can you believe that “the dematerialization of “matter” can have disrupted the tissue structure of the Shroud? I hope you realized that if Rogers’ conclusion is correct concerning the chromophore of the image, that would mean your idea of the Resurrection and his supposed material effect on linen is completely wrong concerning the Shroud of Turin. Do you realize that?

  31. RS – There’s new data asking the question : ” Is The Shroud of Turin The Burial Cloth of Christ ; Or An Iconographic Artifact ?

    There is new data and suggestive observable evidence (that at this time) does not state that : ” The Shroud of Turin ” is NOT real or IS real. However, the new data and evidence suggests that there is a growing body of evidence that the Shroud of Turin has pictorial images on it, possibly of different people.

    Secondly the The Shroud of Turin in one image the eyeos of Christ are closed , and when a new scientific imaging technology is applied to it the eyes are shown to be open and /or also in different positions.

    Third there are additional images in the forehead that may suggest what resemble : ” Symbolic Eyes In The Supposed Forehead of Christ “.

    This new data and research is still ongoing and more wil be made known into the near future

    You may find more information this at this web sites :

    http://biblical-images.com/

    http://taberstruths.com/exclusive-newly-published-images-of-the-shroud-of-turin/

    http://www.stewart-research-consulting.com/shroud-video-review.html

    Thank you !

  32. lets see;1 the odds of making a duplicate of the shroud i would guess a billion to one since no one has done it yet since the shroud has become known to the public. now consider the cloth wrapped a bloody body but it was taken out before decomposition but not physically disturbed. i would say impossible but put the odds at a billion to one . the combine odds that one piece of cloth went thru these 2 events are 1 billion times 1 billion or1x10to the 19 power which i think is more than the number of atoms making up the earth.

  33. Message to Carlos and Dave and anyone else who see an image of the Resurrected Christ (or a sign of the Resurrection of Jesus) when he look at the Shroud’s image:

    Even if I generally prefer to keep separated the Resurrection event and the apparitions of the Resurrected Christ, I think we can still find a very interesting clue in the later ones to understand that the Resurrection event most probably didn’t involved any burst of energy of any sort.

    I have 2 questions for all the persons who believe the image on the Shroud was produced by some kind of burst of energy.

    1- Where do you see in the Gospel accounts we find in St John of the apparitions of the Resurrected Christ to his disciples in the upper room a mention that there was a burst of radiation, a flash of light or an electrostatic discharge at the very moment he suddenly appeared in front of them? Answer: NOWHERE! There are absolutely no signs in the Gospel that the apparition of the Resurrected Jesus was accompanied by any kind of energetic release! No… He just suddenly appeared in front of them!

    2- Where do you see in the Gospel account we find in St Luke of the apparition of the Resurrected Christ to the two disciples of Emmaus a mention that there was a burst of radiation, a flash of light or an electrostatic discharge at the very moment he suddenly disappeared in front of them when they recognize him? Answer: NOWHERE! There are absolutely no signs in the Gospel that the disappearance of the Resurrected Jesus was accompanied by any kind of energetic release! No… He just suddenly disappeared in front of them!

    From these accounts, we have a strong feeling that the Resurrected body of Christ never emit any kind of energetic radiation (including light) when he appeared and disappeared from this material world. A second before the apparition of Jesus to his disciples, he just wasn’t there and then boom! He was present in front of them. No release of anything. No puff of smoke. No flash of light. No nothing! And it’s the very same thing when he disappeared in front of the two disciples of Emmaus!

    These particular Gospel accounts are very telling when we think about the image on the Shroud. Why would there be any kind of energetic released by the body at the moment of Jesus Resurrection when there was certainly not every time he appeared and disappeared in front of his disciples? Good question, don’t you think?

    Why is it so hard for you to be open to the possibility that there was no more release of energy at the very moment of the Resurrection than there was when the Resurrected Jesus appeared and disappeared from this world?

    I have a little exercise for you: Please, read again these accounts in the Gospels of John and Luke and try to imagine that the disappearance of Jesus body from inside the Shroud and the tomb (and front inside this world) at the moment of his Resurrection was EXACTLY like these accounts: No burst of energy of any sort! Just a sudden disappearance of his physical body to enter into the spiritual world of the Father. For me, this moment certainly looked pretty much like the last scene of the movie The Passion of the Christ when we see the enshrouded body suddenly disappeared and the burial cloth collapsing slowly to the ground WITHOUT any release of energetic radiation of any kind (and without any sound and earthquake too). Just a very quiet and sudden disappearance of the body in the same manner than he appeared and disappeared in front of his disciples after his Resurrection.

    Last questions: WHY WOULDN’T BE THAT WAY FOR THE RESURRECTION EVENT? And if it was, then WHY THE IMAGE ON THE SHROUD COULDN’T HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SOME GASEOUS AND/OR MOLECULAR RELEASED BY THE DEAD BODY PRIOR TO THIS SUDDEN EVENT? Deep in my heart and mind, I’m convinced this is very near the truth. Note that this way of mine to see the Resurrection of Christ is totally consistent with the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains…

  34. Jesus ate after the Resurrection to show the disciples that he was not a ghost. He would “step on the accelerator” and enter our “frequency”, as he did in Emmaus and elsewhere, and “take his foot off the accelerator” and leave our “frequency” to go beyond it, impassive, beyond the possibility of suffering.

    Being a supernatural event the Resurrection could never be subject to direct observation. If it can be indirectly, repeat, indirectly, observed on the Shroud is another question, one that Professor Giulio Fanti answered in the HSG interview.

  35. YC is defintely NOT a “naturallst” but a “miraculist” in his own way…

    The TRUE fact is such blood stains and decals recorded on the TS are perfectly explainable from an (archaeological) bloodstain pattern analytical view point in conjunction with my archeaocryptological reconstruction of the TS man’s burial (experiment in thought that neither include nor preclude resurrection).
    A qualified forensic archaeologist AND (ancient) bloodstain pattern analyst would be MOST needed here to confirm my reconstruction.

    1. Max, the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains have been noted by many medical experts who have studied the Shroud over the years. And recently, I asked the question to M. Kelly Kearse and here’s what he said about that: “I’m not so sure you can go from the imprints of the cloth to a collapse. I would think there would be some sticking if the cloth was simply removed from the body, and some tearing away or distortion of the wounds. Their regular outline would suggest something different is involved here, but I don’t really know how far you could take it.”

      Even M. Kearse agree that the undisturbed aspect and shape of the bloodstains on the Shroud really seems to be inconsistent with the idea of an extraction of the bloodstained corpse from the burial cloth at a moment when the blood clots were all dried and stuck to the fabric. This is not a proof of the Resurrection of course, but this could be seen as a sign of this event that involved a spiritualization of the body¸and his disappearance from our material universe.

      I have been very prudent not to state categorically that the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains is a proof of the Resurrection. That’s why I am far from being a “miraculist”!!!

      In fact, there’s no scientific proof of this spiritual event. God respect too much our free will for leaving such a proof on a piece of cloth. That would completely contradict all the teaching of Jesus (including his great teaching concerning the doubting Thomas) concerning the fact that we will only be happy as believers when we will be able to believe without seeing! The Shroud is not a proof of Jesus Resurrection. It can only be a proof of God’s Incarnation. Of course, with the eyes of faith, someone can see a sign of the Resurrection in the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains but that will forever be only a sign, which is something completely different than a proof. And that’s why St John used this term “sign” instead of “miracle” in his gospel…

  36. But who really cares? They are only miraculistic authenticists and fraudulistic antiauthenticists around here on this s blog….

    1. So, you don’t believe that it is possible to be a Christian rationalist who still believes in miracles accepted by the Church and in Jesus Resurrection? Look at me!

  37. Kearse is NEITHER a Second Temple period archaeologist NOR a palaeopathologist OR even an archaeological bloodstain analyst (BTW do you REALLY know what is (ancient) bloodstain pattern analysis all about ?) besides my reconstruction NEVER implied any extraction as you mean it.

  38. YC: “Message to Carlos and Dave and anyone else who see an image of the Resurrected Christ (or a sign of the Resurrection of Jesus) when he look at the Shroud’s image: [Etc]”
    “1- Where do you see in the Gospel accounts we find in St John of the apparitions of the Resurrected Christ to his disciples in the upper room a mention that there was a burst of radiation, [Etc]”

    Kindly note that in this posting I have not once said that the image was produced by a burst of radiation as some kind of physical feature of the Resurrection! Nor have I once said said that there was not! Why? Because I do not know! And neither does Yannick Clement!

    After 45 years in civil engineering, the last ten across all disciplines in engineering, I think I have had rather more exposure to what Science can and cannot do than YC could ever dream of. Yet he continues to place his faith in Human Science. I do not!

    To paraphrase the Great Bard: “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Yannick Clement’s philosophy!”

    There are no physical signs as such of the Resurrection on the Shroud cloth! BUT the Resurrection is a REASONABLE LOGICAL INDUCTION from the very fact of the existence of the Shroud cloth. I can only assume that the discipline of Critical Thinking is not included in any syllabus of the Quebecois education system! Doubtless this clear and unequivocal statement will also be misread and misinterpreted by the Quebecois geograph!

    Incidentally! NZ just west of the International Date Line was the first country to herald the Mayan Doomsday date of 21 December 2012, but I can comfort all readers with the knowledge that this event passed entirely without incident. Although I note that the Doonesbury columnist did comment that no Mayans were around to observe it!

    1. Dave, it’s incredible how you can be dishonest for a Christian !

      You said: “BUT the Resurrection is a REASONABLE LOGICAL INDUCTION from the very fact of the existence of the Shroud cloth.”

      That’s almost what I said to you the other day WORD FOR WORD !!! So, don’t try to make us believe that these words are from you. They are from me ! And if you finally agree about that, then we both agree on something for once !!!

      But when you say: “There are no physical signs as such of the Resurrection on the Shroud cloth!”, I have to disagree with you because of the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains.

      1. Yannick, the other day you attributed the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains to the remoisturing effect originated by the vapors emanating from the body. You mentioned that for an intial phase only, but in my view, the same explanation should be also valid after 40 hours, because the release rate of vapors (H20, ammonia, whatever…) responsible -in your opinion- for the remoisturing of bloodstains would increase with time.
        I disagree with you at this point, because I can’t think of a physical/chemical mechanism responsible for remoisturing bloodstains, neither at the initial hours nor at the end.
        This also leads me to disagree with you regarding the possible change in the configuration of the shroud around the body (in your scheme, initially tightly wrapped and after remoisturing and removing the cloth, gently falling on the body).

    2. Who’s the dishonest one??!!

      As far back as #7 Dec 17, 3:44pm, last para, I made my position quite clear! I then mentioned Hovelaque at #37, and you wanted to be picky about it! At #62 on Dec 19, I said “The point is that Resurrection is the only reasonable induction that can be made.” I thought I had made it even more clear at #64! I finally spell it out clearly for you at #87, and you now claim it’s all your own idea! After misreading and misinterpreting all that I have said!

      Has anyone ever told you that you have a communication problem, which is less to do with the French-speaking Candian province of Quebec than you own single-mindedness! There’s a reason why the good Lord gave us TWO ears and TWO eyes, and that is because we should listen and see more than we should speak! You say you are passionate about the Shroud. I think you are great deal more passionate about your own particular ideas about the Shroud, and intolerant about what anyone else has to be say about it if it doesn’t conform to your own particular ideas!

    1. No matter what some might think, it is evident that there will be an end to this material world someday. The thing is: nobody has a clue about when this will happen! All we know is when the sun will fade out, but I have to assume that the end of our human world will happen much sooner that this. Or maybe I’m wrong in my guess… Who knows!

      1. i know Luois that’s the reason why I added: “…(they only) (believed) in the end of an ancient world and the beginning of a new one….” (see my post December 20, 2012 at 4:39 pm | #97)

  39. The above quotes attributed to me were in reply to a personal e-mail that Yannick sent to me regarding the pattern of bloodstains. I don’t mind a personal response being quoted, but if this is the case, please have the courtesy to quote the entire message, so that everything remains in the proper context.*

    Rather than reproduce Yannick’s entire original e-mail, which would surely strain the bandwidth, I have included the major portion of my response below, other than “Hi Yannick” at the beginning and “Hope this helps” at the end, in quotation marks.

    “My training & background is in the cellular portion of blood, the immunology, in particularly how the cells function at a molecular level, particularly in terms of the receptors the utilize. People like Nels Svensson & Gil Lavoie would be able to provide answers with a lot more practical experience & expertise than me. So, this is only my opinion, based on what others have written

    1. I’ve read that there is some debate as to whether the clots were wet/gel-like when they first touched the cloth and/or if the clots were disturbed (by washing the body), causing them to be freshly opened, allowing blood to seep out for a more defined imprint. I believe the window is somewhere within a 2 hour time frame-Lavoie’s work, if I recall correctly.

    2. I’m not so sure you can go from the imprints of the cloth to a collapse. I would think there would be some sticking if the cloth was simply removed from the body, and some tearing away or distortion of the wounds. Their regular outline would suggest something different is involved here, but I don’t really know how far you could take it.

    3. I haven’t noticed that type of condition on the Sudarium, interesting idea. With the issuing forth of edema fluid from the mouth & nostrils & also contribution of perspiration, it might dampen the cloth so that not much sticking might occur-difficult to say-interesting thought.

    Again, I think Svensson & Lavoie (trained physicians) could probably provide a much more educated answer than me.”

    I think that is a more correct reflection of what I said. Clearly, I’m not an expert in bloodstain analysis or have ever claimed to be. Use a bit of caution when pulling out a sentence from someone to support a personal viewpoint/bias. Someone might tag you as a freak…

    1. M. Kearse, I didn’t thought you would be offended by this little quote. Even by writting the whole email, that doesn’t change a thing about the fact that for you too, the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains doesn’t look rational in the context of an extraction of a body from a burial cloth several hours after the bloodstains had dried on the cloth.

      Did my understanding is correct or not? If I didn’t understand your words correctly, then yes, I’m a freak because for me, your answer was pretty damn clear! Ha ha ha !

      Seriously, I never change one bit of your answer to me… I just report it in the same exact state you gave it to me. The context you report above doesn’t change anything about the fact that you found the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains on the Shroud strange, while staying prudent versus the possible link with the Resurrection of Christ. I think this is the correct interpretation of your quote, right??? One thing’s for sure: that’s the way I understand it…

      Maybe you have some fear to express your personal opinion on that particular topic ? If that’s the case, then sorry for having “used” your quote to back-up the FACT that a lot of medical experts who have studied the Shroud over the years have noted this strange characteristic of the bloodstains… In the end, because of all these other experts (like Barbet and Baima Bollone among others), I would not even need to use your words to back-up my viewpoint. In reality, I simply size the opportunity to report your opinion about that because we talked about it very recently. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less. I hope you can understand now why I did so.

      1. YC,
        Neither Barbet nor even Baima-Bollone were/are a palaeopathologist or an (archaeological) bloodstain pattern analysts far less a second Temle period archaeologist.

        Most obviously you just havent the foggiest notion of what paleaopathology and (archaeological) bloodstain pattern analysis is all about!

  40. I don’t have any fear about expressing my personal opinion on the particular topic. I just simply don’t feel qualified to be quoted as though my own opinion should carry any weight. I felt the broader context helped to convey that. I understand, it’s no problem. Oh, and you might consider decaf…

    Yannick, just kidding :) Peace

    1. Don’t worry, you’re far from being the first who tell me something like this. In fact, my friend Barrie Schwortz constantly told me to relax!!! Ha ha ha!!!

      Sorry for being so passionate about the Shroud but… I can’t help it! Maybe you should blame the Holy Spirit for this “obsession” of mine…

  41. Reminder for bloggers: the Turin Shroud is the single most badly studied artifact in human history

    1. There has been no change since the days of Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, Max. On the contrary, things have become worse. Now the Turin Archdiocese does not release the microphotographs and we have scientists contesting other scientists by releasing statements to the press instead of publishing peer-reviewed papers. So, unfortunately, like the rest in the world of Shroud studies it is chummies that matter.

  42. The problem with Perrier’s book is the fact the this uncle is someone by the name of Jean-Baptiste Rinaudo, the same who pretend the Shroud’s image came from a burst of protons and neutrons and the same who saw Ray Rogers himself destroy his hypothesis a few years ago. Once you know this, is is surprising to note some pretty evident bias in that book in favor of Rinaudo and some attempts by Perrier to undermine Rogers’ credibility as a scientist? Note that Fanti is doing exactly the same thing in his papers and, surprise!, he also saw Rogers crushed down his personal hypothesis of image formation some years ago!!! Personal vendettas in the Shroud world are alive and well as you can easily see!!!

  43. Yannick, I just agreed with his assertion that ‘the Turin Shroud is the single most badly studied artifact in human history’ (my translation) not with all that is written in his book.

    1. This is most obvious whenever I read authentistic archmiraculists and antiauthentistic archfrauduslitists.

    2. I would agree with this statement if it would be change for this: “the Turin Shroud is the single most badly studied artifact in RECENT history, in fact, since the last paper was published by STURP.”

      Up until the end of the STURP team work, the Shroud research was mainly done by honest scientist without any religious motives who were only seeking truth, whatever this truth might be and this is what is crualy missing in Shroud science since that time. Of course, since the end of STURP, there were still some researches honestly done but it’s far from being the majority. It’s sad but it’s true. Shroud research need to get back to the spirit of the STURP era where science about the Shroud was done for the right motive and the Resurrection of Christ was cleverly put aside.

      1. Just to make sure everyone understand me well, here’s my updated statement: I would agree with this statement if it would be change for this: “the Turin Shroud is the single most badly studied artifact in RECENT history, in fact, since the last paper that was published by STURP in the 1980s.”

  44. First of all greetings everyone and a very merry and traditional Christmas to all.

    I have been a Shroudie since I was 10 yrs old. I have read or watched just about all the many papers, books and film on the subject.

    Yannick, to me your argument is
    “(The image is) OBVIOUSLTY THAT OF JESUS DEAD AFTER HIS PASSION. Where do you see signs of life (glorious or not) there???”

    Why could not the moment of resurrection record the state of the corpse? Perhaps at the moment of dematerialisation?

    The image on the cloth shows a dead body.
    The image exists because of the resurrection event.

    Science has proven the first but so far has not disproven the second.

    Is it wrong to believe this?

    1. Gerard: “Why could not the moment of resurrection record the state of the corpse? Perhaps at the moment of dematerialisation?

      The image on the cloth shows a dead body.
      The image exists because of the resurrection event.

      Science has proven the first but so far has not disproven the second.”

      You hit the nail right on the head Gerard with this comment, and something I think Yannick among others need to really contemplate on.

      Best wishes over the holidays everyone.

      R

    2. Gerard: “Why could not the moment of resurrection record the state of the corpse? Perhaps at the moment of dematerialisation?

      My answer: Please read the scenario #4 described in page 8 of my paper about the evidence of the bloodstains (you can find it here: http://shroudnm.com/docs/2012-07-26-Yannick-Clément-The-evidence-of-the-bloodstains.pdf).

      You’ll see that I left the door open for that kind of possibility but, as I also said, I don’t think it’s fair (scientifically speaking) to claim that this scenario is the most likely. Remember that there is no data and observation coming from the Shroud that can discard the possibility that the image on the cloth could be the product of a natural process… Also, let’s always remember this great quote from Ray Rogers: “For the ones that like to defend the Shroud image as a « by-product » of the resurrection, the only thing needed is a kind of energy emanating from the body and able to induced rearrangement of the sugar molecules in the same way that heat does but without affecting the cellulose of the linen at the same time. Does anyone have suggestions of a kind of energy (not infrared, apparently) that could produce a CARAMELIZATION (note : This process mentioned by Rogers refers here to a coloration of a thin layer of impurities) WITHOUT ANY EFFECT ON THE POLYSACCHARIDE STRUCTURE OF FLAX FIBER.”

      Let’s also remember this other great quote from Rogers : “I studied the chemical kinetics of the impurity materials and conclude that it was IMPROBABLE that the impurities had been scorched by heat or any radiation source : the crystal structure of the flax image fibers was NO MORE DEFECTIVE than non-image fibers. It would take very good temperature control specifically to scorch impurities without producing some defects in the cellulose.”

      It’s not me who said these words, it is an expert in radiation who is also one of the only chemist in the world to have studied the Shroud first hand…

  45. Most likely, the Sindon image was recorded on the purifying and drying out ritual (fumigation burial chamber/corpse see Chronicle 2)…

  46. “Shall I endlessly repeat: Archfraudulists and archmiraculists have been completly spoiling the debates for decades and discredited Shroud Science, Exegesis and Archaeology. A more naturalistic AND ritualistic approach (that neither include nor preclude resurrection or coming back to life) shall be promoted for Shroud Science, Exegesis & Archaeology to REALLY advance”.

  47. the shroud is only significant if it shows the resurrection; image plus body was not unwrapped and only in the shroud for less than 3 days

    1. Paul, I think you should be interested to read this comment of mine: https://shroudstory.com/2012/12/17/is-it-absurd-to-think-that-the-shroud-can-show-a-physical-trace-of-the-resurrection/#comment-21112

      Don’t forget that the Shroud is most probably much more a relic of the Incarnation and of the Passion than a relic of the Resurrection. This is my feeling and this was also the feeling of Father Rinaldi, of Ray Rogers, of Paul Vignon, of Pierre Barbet, of Antoine Legrand, of Frederick Zugibe, of Pierluigi Baima Bollone, etc., etc…

      Of course, you’re free to believe otherwise. The idea that the body was not unwrapped comes mainly from the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains and the apparent lack of broken fibers in the bloodstained regions. This is only a sign of the Resurrection that can be seen with the eyes of faith and this can never be considered as a physical proof of that spiritual event. It’s important to understand that difference.

      But, as I often say, the only fact that such a bloodstained and gruesome burial cloth has been kept and well-preserved until this day is the most compelling sign of Jesus Resurrection regarding the Shroud… It shows that if this cloth is really the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, someone was so convinced that he was resurrected that he dared to kept and preserved this disguting piece of cloth, even if it was against the Jewish law to touch anything that was in contact with a dead body. I don’t think we need the concept of a miraculous image to see a sign of the Resurrection on the Shroud.

      The Shroud IS THE SIGN, just like the empty tomb was a sign for the disciples 2000 years ago!!!!

  48. Yannick, nobody knows what a resurection event looks like. Any natural process known might leave an imprint from a body but what about the hair? A natural process also eminating from the hair? What about the time needed for a natural process? If a natural process left an imprint, how could it be a photographic negative in 3D?
    Is there any other known example? No.
    By a process of elimination we get to the only other explaination. A miracle.

    1. Gerard, let me simply suggest you to buy and read carefully the great book written by Ray Rogers A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin. In this book, you’ll find an interesting image formation hypothesis developed by Rogers just before he died in 2005 (the hypothesis is still incomplete in my mind), which allow a true scientifically sound explanation for the hair. In fact, you’ll see in this book that the image of the hair is in fact much more problematic in the context of an image formation process that would involved any kind of energetic radiation! In reality, this is one of the most problematic fact regarding any hypothesis that involve an energetic “by-product” of the Resurrection…

      Here’s the link to buy the downloadable PDF version of this masterpiece: http://www.lulu.com/shop/raymond-n-rogers/a-chemists-perspective-on-the-shroud-of-turin/ebook/product-15663522.html

      In this Christmas time, I think you deserve to make you a great gift by buying this book!

      I really believe that anyone who’s interested in the Shroud should read Rogers book in PRIORITY. This book, as well as A Doctor At Calvary, written by Pierre Barbet and The Shroud of Christ: Scientific Study, written by Paul Vignon are three of the best scientific books ever written about the Shroud. Unfortunatelly, I am still waiting to get a copy of Vignon’s book to read it but someone told me that it was maybe the best book written about the Shroud!

      1. Well, Yannick, you’ll be pleased to know that I have now taken both your book suggestions seriously, and got The Orphaned Manuscript and A Chemist’s Perspective. In fact I’m quite embarrassed that I haven’t read them before. Thank you so much for INSISTING (in capital letters, of course) that we read them!

  49. Reminder for Gerard: the Jospice mattress ALSO shows a 3D (partial) body image and this is NOT a miraculous image at all. Gerard, who has ever told you a 3D encoded photonegative = a miraculous image?

      1. Louis, on this very blog, I posted many a comment on the Jospice mattress cover image.

  50. All these books! All these theories! All these speculations! All this chemistry.

    Paul Vignon first formulated his vapour theory in 1902, and by 2005, Ray Rogers was still speculating, all looking for a naturalistic explanation! You can find a few more theories not even mentioned here, on the “Holy Shroud Official Site” http://www.sindone.org including the electrostatic theory, which had some minor success. Some have even succeeded in producing a few stains! But a coherent, orthogonal image, with 3D encoded, only 200nm thick, probably just on an impurity layer, (we think) that’s another matter entirely! A few that have been moderately successful, such as the seismic / radon theory have generally been as good as anyone could manage. But apparently objections can even be found for this method.

    The truth is, Gerard, that no-one has ever been very successful at all at producing a fully complying image. Considering the efforts and brain strain all this must have caused, one could say that it’s quite miraculous that no-one has yet come up with an answer! And that’s probably as good an explanation as any yet available! Others may be able to spot the irony!

    1. To successfully reproduced the Shroud image with a good level of concordance, someone would need a scourged, beaten and crucified body that was tortured and killed in Palestine (or another place with the same environmental conditions), a linen shroud made in the old fashion way (producing a thin layer of carbohydrates impurities on the top-surface of the cloth) and a rock tomb like those of the first century AD!!!!!!

      I think it’s the only way someone could reproduced the Shroud image with some high level of concordance and even then, I’m not so sure the image you would get on the cloth would be very close to what’s on the Shroud. Maybe yes, maybe not. There’s so many unknown factors regarding the suffering, death and burial of the Shroud man that it would need an incredible luck to reproduced them all. But I’m sure of one thing: After 36-40 hours, you would get an image on the cloth and at least part of this image would have been caused by a Maillard reaction coming from post-mortem gases (especially ammoniac)…

      And Dave (and anyone else who will read this), I think you should read again this great quote from Father Rinaldi’s 1934 paper, which says it all: “We will observe with Doctor Barnes that to reproduce the conditions of the crucifixion is OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE.”

      This is so true ! People around here don’t seem to understand this BASIC FACT that explain why no one has ever been able to reproduced the Shroud image with a very good level of concordance. And as Ray Rogers wrote in his book: “If image color is not simply a result of color formation in the cellulose of the linen fibers, image formation must be a much more complex process than we originally thought.” That’s another very good reason why no one have succeed to reproduced the Shroud image with a high level of concordance. But as I also said the other day, if the chromophore of the image is really what Rogers postulated, then he has at least succeed to reproduced the same kind of coloration on a small piece of linen that had been made with the ancient technique of making linen cloths. Of course, this wasn’t an image of a body, but that coloration is probably showing the very same chemical and physical characteristics than what’s on the Shroud. But since it’s not spectacular and doesn’t involved the Hollywood idea of the Resurrection, all the medias and most shroudies doesn’t care about that or doesn’t want to hear about that…

  51. Please, first check/experiment my ritualistic reconstruction before invoking ‘your ‘king of the gap miraculous theory! BTW can Dave scientifically account for the Jospice mattress cover body image and if he just cannot yet, does Dave necessarily ALSO infer “that it’s quite miraculous that no-one has yet come up with an answer! And that’s probably as good an explanation as any yet available!”? Do hope Dave is able to spot the whole irony of his ‘NON-explanation’.

  52. In Science and Archaeology as well, the main thing is to find what you did NOT expect to (I found it more than once as far as the Turin Shroud is concerned).

  53. Reminder: consensus reality (e.g. the Sindon image is a miracle/a fake) is nothing but an agreed fiction just because archmiraculists and archfraudulists tells the world what to think or not to think as far as the Sindon is concerned.

  54. Max, blog comments are bits and pieces and to read these will mean collecting, copying and pasting. Why don’t you put these together from what you have in mind and send them to me? Thanks.

  55. I’m not telling the world what to think at all. I merely observe that there are any number of untested, unproven theories, the MPH hypothesis is another, all with their individual advocates, who so far have been unable to produce a meaningful reproducible result, and I draw my own conclusions: EITHER that despite all the work that has been done over the last 110 years, a lot more is needed for there to be a conclusive answer; OR that all the work to be done has been done, and that the image appears to be unexplainable in naturalistic terms. The circumstances of the Jospice matress are also ambiguous, with conflicting reports as to whether the mattress cover was insulated from the body or not.

  56. Shall I endlessly repeat: the Sindon image is the most BADLY studied artifact in human history.

  57. The blame is not on you but on fact-twisters/archfraudulists (such as U.Chevalier, E.Hall etc) and fact-twisters/archmiraculists (who totally ignore/overlook Augustine of Hippo’s exegesis of the empty tomb + the real meaning of the koine Greek conjugated verbs used by the 4 evangelists to describe the wrapping of Yeshu’a corpse on his burial).

  58. The Jospice mattress image was created while the poor man was still alive was it not?
    Over an extended period as he was left in the same position.
    I think most agree that the man of the Shroud is deceased?

    1. This image, like the Shroud, was formed AFTER the death of the person. But probably unlike the Shroud, the image was already visible (it wasn’t a latent image)… What’s truly interesting to note is that in both cases, the deads had a very high level of bilirubin in their blood just prior to their death.

      1. NONSENSE! No one can say, in the case of the Jospice mattress when exactly the image was formed, i.e during life or after death, no one!…You have just speculated wildly! Anyways the Jospice mattress in ALL commonsense, CAN NOT be compared whatsoever with the Shroud. The Jospice image has saturated into the material, the Shroud image is superficial. We are talking completely different material here; BIG difference. How can anyone even consider comparing the two is beyond me. Unless of course they are of the fundamentalist materialistic bunch, grasping at straws to find some kind of reference to the ‘Indefinable’ image found on the Shroud.

        R

      2. The Shroud and the Jospine mattress images are most certainly both coming from a natural biological source. I think that’s a pretty good level of similitude.

    2. You’re right Gerard. For some reason or the other, the request I made (see above) has fallen on deaf years and it was the second challenge, the first one directed to another blogger around a month ago, who also continues to be silent. Browse the Internet and you will see that there is material on the topic to read.

  59. Reminder: still waiting for Ron, Gerard or Louis to tell me who told them a 3D encoded (photo)negative = a miraculous image?

  60. On January 16, 2012 at 10:15 am | #3 I wrote:
    “The Jospice mattress partial body image is also a superficial 3D image. I do agree with Rogers: the recording of a true 3D superficial body image DOES NOT NEED a supernatural image formation process to accidentally or providentially happen.”

    1. Max, all someone has to do is to look at 3D pictures of plants or leaves that were formed on paper by a Volckringer pattern process to understand that nature can definately created images on a material object that contain distance informations incoded in them.

      You can see very impressive 3D pictures of leaves here: http://www.gizapyramid.com/LECTURE-SHROUD3.htm

      Just look at slides 19 and 20.

      1. YC, myself I found 3D picture of flower heads on Tamburelli’s 3D close-up. The whole irony here is you’re a telling me “nature can definately created images on a material object that contain distance informations incoded in them” and even “very impressive 3D pictures” of plants but YOU JUST CANNOT SEE/DETECT them on Tamburelli’s 3D close-up!

      2. When (com)pressed between sheets of paper (paper being a cellulose-based commodity closely related to linen) or between a corpse and a burial sheet, plants can (and do) create images of themselves.

  61. Max, no one told me.

    I’m just re-acquainting myself with the Jospice mattress. Described by the priest as a surface phenomena just like the Shroud. Les’ position was changed at 5.25am and he died at 5.55am. His body was washed and removed by 11.00am.
    Btw I got Ian Wilson’s 2010 The Shroud for Christmas but haven’t got through it yet. Presume there is mention of it as the was in The Blood and…
    Actually, don’t tell me. I want enjoy a good read. Lol

    And, just on a general point. I know the subject of the Shroud can be very emotive. Please don’t misconstrue anything I might write. I find I’m not as good as some people in getting my point across via a keyboard. I tend not to be as good at it as say arguing my position in person and so tend to go directly for the salient point and not beat around the bush as mostly I deplore typing because I’m so bad at it. In the time it’s taken me to type this I could’ve written a book with a dictaphone.

    Kindest always, to everyone.

  62. Max, I do not about the others whose names you cite and obviously cannot answer for them, but from where did you get the information that I consider a 3D image to be a miraculous phenomena? Far from it, and I presume you know that my article on the Mattress has been available for donkey’s ears. Have you formed a duo and appointed a spokesman? I hope not. For the last time: put your thoughts on the Mattress in an article or paper, contesting what I wrote when needed, and post it and if you don’t wish to do this publicly the option to send it to me directly is always there. This has to be a long point-by-point discussion and blog comments are not ideal for this. Thanks, and best.

  63. Gerard, it is available on the Holy Shroud Guild website. The approach is from the point of view of Parapsychology because the Imprint is certainly not a spiritual phenomenon, which seemed to have been one of the first interpretations. It must also be said that Parapsychology is neutral and must not be confused with Spiritualism and one need not mix things unnecessarily as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did, ignoring the advice of the Jesuits. Hope you will find what you read useful. Best.

  64. Reminder for Louis: INITIALLY my comment was on Gerard’s contention “a photographic negative in 3D” could only result from “a miracle”. The fact is Gerard most misleadingly did write: “If a natural process left an imprint, how could it be a photographic negative in 3D? Is there any other known example? No. By a process of elimination we get to the only other explaination. A miracle.”

  65. Max, my comment only came as a result of your throwing my name together with others in this discussion. Never did I say that a 3D image was miraculous.

  66. On December 28, 2012 at 5:55 pm | #143, you wrote:
    “You’re right Gerard.” What was Gerard right about exactly?

  67. If you are referring to #138 I reiterate what was said and if you read the article on the topic, referred to dozens of times, you will understand why.

  68. This is off-topic (supernatural/miraculous image). The Jospice mattress cover image case has not been properly investigated from the very start.

    1. Louis, this is off-topic, but I wonder if the connection that Jesus = Melchizedek was noted anywhere on this site. I could find no reference in the search section. Read these scriptures and then Hebrews 7 1-28. Then check the link for more detail.

      Gen 12:7 The Lord appeared unto Abram
      Gen 14: 18 Melchizedek King of Salem brought forth bread and wine and he was the priest of the most High God.
      Gen 14:19 And he blessed and said “Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth
      Psalms 110:4 The Lord hath sworn and will not repent. Thou are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
      Psalms 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath

      Hebrews 7:1-28 Details exactly Jesus is Melchizedek.

      Explained more thoroughly on the following link.
      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/HWA/k/745/Mystery-Melchizedek-Solved.htm

      Therefore, Jesus is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending

  69. Hullo Angel, can’t say if the connection was noted in some comment on this blog. It it wasn’t that is perhaps due to the fact that it refers to biblical studies and/or theology and no one found the need to make some link to Shroud studies. Anyway, you are right about the Letter to the Hebrews as well as Alpha and Omega.
    Best.

    1. Thanks, Louis.

      One thing to note about Melchizedek, there is no genealogy found anywhere in scripture. Melchizedek simply appears and then disappears. And since Melchizedek appeared in the first few chapters of Genesis, surely his genealogy would have been included.

      If you have an interest the link below details how Melchizedek has no genealogy and is greater than Levy and finally, he (Jesus, Melchizedek), is the high priest. This article also indicates the new priesthood implies a new law, guaranteed by an oath.

      Therefore, Jesus did not have to fulfill the Hebrew prophecy of being from the Aaronic tribe of Levy, as he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. He is King of Kings.

      http://www.gci.org/bible/hebrews7

  70. In Hebrew Melkytsedeq, ‘King of Justice/Righteousness’ plays with Malkytsedeq, ‘(Jerusalem Temple) stone of Justice/Righteousness’. Yeshu’s said of himself and was said by Shaul, he was the holy cornerstone (Eph.2:20) in whom the whole structure of the temple not made by human hands (or spiritual temple) is joined. Right in the middle of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), stands the letter nun in conjunction with the word even, ‘stone’. Besides the first letter (Bet) and last letter (Tav) of the Tanakh = BeT, ‘temple’.

  71. In Hebrew Be-Nun means ‘for ever’, from generation in generation’ and Nun can mean ‘fish’ or the ’50 (gates of wisdom)’.

  72. In Hebrew alephbet, the first letter Aleph (Greek Alpha) and the last letter Tav (Greek Omega), give the word ET expressing G.od’s eternity.

Comments are closed.