Colin Berry wonders, “Has the site now closed? Or is it merely taking stock of what’s been said thus far?”
- Taking stock (good one, I hadn’t thought of that)
- Relaxing a bit during the holidays
- Taking care of some health issue.
- Slowing down
- All of the above
I am thinking about writing a book, though not primarily focused on the Shroud of Turin itself, but rather on what I term ‘Shroudism.’ This is philosophically distinct from Sindonology or, as Colin calls it, ‘Shroudology.’
I’m not so much interested in trying to convince anyone about my skepticism about authenticity as I am in getting it down on paper. Portions of the book will be ripped from my “Slouching” essay. Who knows, one of these days, one of my grandchildren may pick it up and read it.
Currently, I’m working on the first chapter, which has been enjoyable. The working title for this chapter is “Jackson, Pappas, et al.“, though I anticipate this will change.
I harbor no illusions of a broad distribution. I don’t have that many children and grandchildren. My inclination is to just push it over the e-transom (Kindle, epub, PDF). The tentative title for the book does not yet exist in my mind.
I’m considering releasing the first chapter in very rough draft form here in this blog. Following that, I might publish the drafts of other chapters one by one without adherence to sequential order.
Coming Soon
I have a commitment to Pam Moon to discuss issues she has raised in her paper:
https://www.academia.edu/91074529/Medieval_Artists_Anachronisms_and_the_Shroud_of_Turin
She wrote to me: “You are right to question quasi-science about the Shroud, but it also important to critique and scrutinise the methodologies of the medievalists.”
I agree. Stand by . . .
Dan,
Perhaps you can request that the Pope give you, Colin and the other skeptics a special blessing. Call it Fiducia Shroudicans.
Hi, Dan,
“Shroudism.” That sounds like a variation on a theme regarding something that David Johnson of Skeptics and Seekers had said in describing my approach to the Shroud. He called it “Shroud First Christianity.”
Does the Shroud come first, before the Gospels and the entire Bible? I am not sure that I would exactly say that. The two work in tandem with each other. And, while I have been a Christian from as young as I can remember, and while I had confidence in God’s existence before I ever learned about the Shroud at around the age of 15, I cannot say that my confidence level in God’s existence was beyond a reasonable doubt –until I learned about the Shroud evidence. The Bible, alone, could not get me to that level of rock-solid, unshakable confidence that the Christian God is real. But, the Shroud does.
The evidence for its authenticity and its evidencing the supernatural resurrection of Christ allow my mind to rest easy in the way a juror’s mind is supposed to rest easy when deciding that evidence meets that “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold. This is what the Shroud is for. It is beyond obvious. What more could God do to convince us about His supernatural resurrection than what He has already done with the Shroud? It is not just poetic, it’s perfection.
I hope that you get to feeling better, soon.
All the best,
Teddi
As flagged up a while ago, I personally have withdrawn from internet-based debate where the TS is concerned. (It leads nowhere, says he, having devoted 10 years of fairly continuous research plus 370 or so postings towards developing his final Model 10 – flour imprinting followed by superficial exposure of the imprint to heat for yellowing/browning).
But I would say this by way of postscript. While the study of non-confirmable historical background is and cannot be part of the upfront approach, it can provide important leads and clues as to which testable scientific hypotheses to advance and test, in contrast to those which are best kept in abeyance till better more persuasive leads emerge.
The huge, nay vast neglected aspect of TS research is simply summarised, namely why the TS was first displayed at the private near-Lirey-based village-centre south-east of Paris.
Prior knowledge of TS at least in the public arena? Answer: seemingly negligible, probably zero. Clue? It was developed in private by Geoffrey de Charnay, Lord of Lirey, accompanied by his band or half a dozen or so full-time private clerics.
Yes, their role, at least officially, was to pray for the physical safety and souls, not just of their immediate master Lord Lirey, but also his close-buddy Monarch.
But once the master died at that Battle of Poitiers in 1356, to say nothing of his Monarch being captured and held to ransom, it was almost certainly Geoffroi’s widow who decided the time had come to lift the veil of secrecy re the TS, indeed charging cash for its viewing by all-and-sundry.
Nuff said. Final farewell Dan. Farewell internet!
.
Colin, Colin, Colin, you are like a moth drawn to the flame. So, how about doing a fiery tango with someone instead of just performing a solo with a quick jiggle of the hips and then jolting off?
But, as you undoubtedly know, the “tango,” like the flame, can get hot, hot, hot! But, that’s when things get interesting! After all, it’s the tango –not a waltz!
Regarding the Shroud of Turin’s being placed in the public arena prior in some place other than Lirey, France during the 14th century, I would say it has been on public display before –in Constantinople (as detailed by, at minimum, Robert de Clari) and in Edessa (when it was held up as a palladium to protect the city of Edessa from invasion from Chosroes’ army.). It was just a rose by another name: the Image of Edessa.
Best regards,
Teddi
Colin, you write;
“As flagged up a while ago, I personally have withdrawn from internet-based debate where the TS is concerned. (It leads nowhere, says he, having devoted 10 years of fairly continuous research plus 370 or so postings towards developing his final Model 10 – flour imprinting followed by superficial exposure of the imprint to heat for yellowing/browning).”
I have to admit that this comment of yours causes me personally to be outraged and I was extremely tempted to put you in your place for this slanderous lie on your part, but given we had our differences in the past and we put those behind us to be friendly to each other, I have opted to respond respectfully and calmly.
Colin, above any Shroud skeptic that I’ve seen, you like to complain about how the Pro-Shroud community ignores your research and work on your final Model 10 Shroud image formation hypothesis and yet I just recently did an entire show of about 3 hours devoted to it responding to and refuting it = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuj7Oj_AkOQ
Now, I reached out to you in the comments, through email and even had Hugh email you personally to not just ask, but at one point beg you to be a part of it to defend your theory and yet you ignored all such requests; I assume you must know that your Model 10 is in fact false as an explanation for the Shroud images and are thus that is why you wish not to have to defend it publicly and scientifically.
Fair enough, it is not my place to force anyone to be on my show, but I ask you to stop posting on Shroud skeptical safe spaces like Dan’s blog complaining about how no one on the Pro-Shroud side respects your work or takes the time to seriously respond to your theories because I have, along with Hugh Farey and Bob Rucker and this was hardly the first time I have invited you to be on my show to defend your work.
In response, you ignore me (an act of utter disrespect) when you should be thanking me profusely for spending my time and effort to share your views with my audience. The irony here is that while complaining about Pro-Shroud people ignoring you, you have ignored ME even disrespecting me by never mentioning MY ministry on Real Seekers and instead always giving credit to David Johnson and Skeptics and Seekers when it was not David but ME who put in the effort to make those Shroud Wars shows not David Johnson, but you only give credit to the Atheist and Shroud skeptic who doesn’t deserve it because he had literally NOTHING to do with those Shroud shows whatsoever.
I overlooked those slights because I didn’t want to make a big deal of it and I even overlooked your refusing to be on my show despite my generous invitations on multiple occasions, but you must understand how annoying it is for me to see you, after claiming to be done with the Shroud over and over again, posting once again on a skeptic’s blog complaining about what a waste of time it was for you to spend on the Shroud because no one on our side of the debate is willing to engage. I’m sorry we were willing to engage and YOU weren’t and that is the simple truth.
Again to honour the fact that we’ve had a spat before and we overcame that, I’m not saying this anger and I’m trying my best not to be overly annoyed, but please stop complaining; if you want to be done with the internet, then fine, please don’t post again esp. if you do so just to condescend to the others side by pretending we ignore you because we have no response to your theories.
God bless,
Dale
“As flagged up a while ago, I personally have withdrawn from internet-based debate where the TS is concerned.”.
That’s fine and that is you’re right Colin. But just don’t show up on here saying that your reason for dipping is because Pro-Shroud people always ignore you or that “It leads nowhere…”; it did lead somewhere, I gave you the time of day and had experts on my show to address your theory specifically and I even mentioned that I felt it was the best of the Artistic image-forming theories out there. I just wish that was acknowledged on your end.
Dan,
My socks are still on my feet after considering the distorted and alien-looking 3D image of Christ’s face. What makes this a “WOW” thing?
Jim
PPS:
https://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2014/10/modelling-shroud-of-turin-image-with.html
See above link. That was my position re the TS when first articulated way back in 2014.
What appeared subsequently over the course of 6 years, way through to my final June 2020 posting, was mere crossing of I’s, ticking of T’s (albeit I hasten to add in a strictly science-oriented viewpoint!).
That’s why I’ve now/since finally withdrawn from the internet. (Apols for this PPS).
Have now said everything I want or feel I need to say. That’s having added this PPS, starting with the explanation – from way back in 2014 – for my nitty-gritty explanation for the TS as an ingenious mid-14th century, albeit flour/heat imprint generated simulated 1st century look-alike, my now first expressed online almost (wait-for-it) 10 years ago explanation!