clip_image001Stephen E Jones continues his series (be sure to see his contents page for more in this wonderful series0:

Here is "2.6. The other marks" (2), which is part 13 of my series, "The Shroud of Turin." The series was originally titled, "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have retitled it "The Shroud of Turin" so that my posts in this series are more easily found using a search engine. The previous post in this series was part 12, "2.6. The other marks" (1)." See the Contents page (part 1) for more information about this series, .

As explained in my previous post, by "other marks" I mean those significant marks on the Shroud of Turin which are not wounds (see "2.4. The wounds") or bloodstains (see "2.5. The Bloodstains"). In that previous post I covered the burns and water stains. In this post I will cover the `poker holes’, the dirt on the man’s foot and in particular the limestone in that dirt. Again the order in which they are presented is from the most to the least obvious (not necessarily from the most to the least important). (Bold mine)

imageColin Berry, by way of a most unusual picture caption, updates us some more on his planned letter to the Royal Society:

Colin, above, he say (being a free agent): My letter to Sir Paul Nurse PRS will go into the post by the end of the week. It will focus, at least initially, on just two carefully-selected and crucial questions regarding the TS where I consider that the UK’s premier scientific society could play a useful and clarifying role: 1. Which arrived first on the linen : blood or image (as already discussed) – a test of authenticity entirely independent from radiocarbon dating 2. Can heavily media-promoted hypotheses based on any kind of electromagnetic radiation, such as those of John Jackson, Paolo Di Lazzaro, Luigi Fanti, August Accetta and others be safely dismissed as unscientific, or in some cases pseudoscience, through their disregard for established principles of physics and chemistry. (If others wish to make similar approaches to their own learned societies then that is fine by me.) (Bold mine)

clip_image001[6]John Klotz offered us a must read posting, Evidence and the Shroud of Turin in his blog Living Free. We mentioned this yesterday, but it merits mentioning again.

There is no authentic doubt about the Shroud once it is established that it is a linen cloth that once enwrapped the body of a crucified man who was scourged, beaten, nailed to a cross and his side pierced with a post-mortem (after death) spear wound. There is even evidence that he carried the cross-bar on his shoulders and walked through streets that had limestone stone dust compatible with the streets of Jerusalem. There is also evidence that he fell and because he was carrying the cross-bar, he couldn’t break his fall, injuring a knee and the tip of his nose.

The accumulation of facts is overwhelming. The question that nobody has ever answered, given the circumstances is: If not HIM, who?

imageOther, mostly Catholic blogs are beginning to talk up the upcoming Holy Saturday TV-only exhibition. The story is being picked up from CWN, ANSA, STERA and this blog. For instance, Catholic Culture reports:

Before his resignation took effect on February 28, Pope Benedict XVI authorized a television broadcast that will display the Shroud of Turin.

On Holy Saturday, March 31, Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia will lead a liturgical ceremony that will include a public display of the Shroud. The ceremony will be telecast and made available worldwide.

The last broadcast images of the Shroud were carried by the Italian RAI network in 1973. The last public display of the Shroud was in May 2010. Pope Benedict was among the 2 million people who came to venerate the Shroud during that exposition.