Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

Your telling me the man needed signs and wonders to believe... yet Jesus never gave him a sign. It's clear from scripture that he believed solely on the words of Jesus.

I never said that the official needed signs and wonders - but clearly some DID need more than mere words (Jesus confirmed that) - and they were provided such as well. And the man in question was not the only person being addressed (thus the plural "you."). And certainly many today need more than just to be told to "believe!" That is all I am saying. Evidence is important for many to believe - and you've got a whole forum of guys here that will attest to that. But no matter the power of the evidence, our faith must still be placed in JESUS. Just because some wrongly worship things connected with our faith, does not diminish the One who is the Author of it, nor the persuasive power of the evidence He provides.

Amen Philip, it all starts with Faith

PerciFlage wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Looks like you guys have "resurrected" a thread of one of my favorite subjects. I might as well post a little more info here. This has to do with the master hologram that Doctor Petrus Soons had made from the 3d information on the shroud . This stuff is even more exciting then the other evidence.

Bippy, hi again. I started looking through this thread, but I must confess that I only got as far as this post of yours (it's sixteen or so posts in - near the top of page two of the thread) before I became totally distracted by looking around the internet for more information on 3D information held within the shroud.

I've found that it's true that one is able to take greyscale images of the shroud and, using fairly simple and unbiased transformations in image processing software, produce three-dimensional representations of that greyscale data that resemble - in places at least - a three dimensional human face and body. This, however, is true of many drawn or painted images made in mono- or duo-chromatic media and converted into greyscale.

In the process of producing images that are more complete in their anatomical correctness, Petrus Soons et al appear to me to be engaging in a large amount of question begging. As I mentioned above, images derived solely from simple transformations performed on greyscale images of the shroud resemble only partially a human form; the resulting face and body images resemble an extremely deformed person. This raises two distinct possibilities:

• The shroud really does contain a three-dimensional image of a person, but the image has somehow become deformed and damaged.
• Any apparent three-dimensional qualities to the image are purely coincidental (c.f. other monochromatic images that have their greyscale values interpreted as a depthmap), and only become apparent through pareidolia.

Soons and his colleagues seem to plump automatically for the first of those options, leading to a chain of question begging where any areas lacking in anatomically correct three-dimensional information in greyscale images of the shroud are explained away by assuming that the shroud must have been damaged, rather than that it doesn't actually contain any three-dimensional information.

I may be wrong, but I've seen nothing in the methodology of Soons et al to explain satisfactorily that the image on the shroud is a genuine three-dimensional one that has been damaged rather than a two-dimensional image with some apparent and coincidental 3D properties. In assuming the former, it seems that the highest quality three-dimensional images they have produced of the shroud are rooted more in artistic licence than in the information contained within the shroud.

Petrus Soons was more into the holographic evidence of the shroud. We go through the 3d properties of the shroud when it is passed through the vp8 image analyzer that is used by parts of Nasa to map out the terrain of mars and the moon . If you pass any regular photo through the vp8 it will come out mangled, but when they passed the shroud through it, it came out to a perfect 3d image of a face and body. The shroud has 3d spatial information encoded into it.

It also has xray information of the hands, wrist, parts of the femur and parts of the jaw.

No one has been able to replicate the shroud whether it is with using 14th century methods or with todays most advanced scientific tools.

Like I said, Soons deals more with the holographic aspects of the shroud then the 3d aspects.
plus soons also stated correctly that not all of the holographic info has been found yet, and the research is ongoing in the holland labs. Once all of the holographic info is found they will be able to recreate the whole shroud image (without the parts damaged by the fire in the1500's) from just one little fiber. Remember the shroud image is starting to fade and will be gone one day in the future so this holographic research is even more important then ever.

Remember also that the 3d info on the shroud then anything they have seen yet without having to encode it with 3d info.

tetelesti wrote:I never stated that signs and wonders weren’t from God, I merely pointed out the fact that I don’t believe the Shroud is a sign. Why? Again because it can and did become an object of idolatry. If you reference the links I provided earlier you’d see a prominent figure bowing before the shroud. It's well documented that it did become an object of worship. Idols are a subject that scripture clearly forbids.

If I bowed and prayed at the side of my bed, would you think I am praying to God or the bed?

You don't know the persons heart, only God does, for all we know he may have seen the shroud and then gave thanks to God for the sign.

I am sure there have been people that have made this into an idol, but that does not make the cloth bad or somehow evil, the Bible could become an idol if people worshipped the book instead of God.

One thing to point out is that it is we that make objects into idols, the objects themselves are not intrinsically idols. Like the old misquoted scripture, money is the root of all evil, which is wrong it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, money itself is not intrinsically evil, it is only a tool.

The shroud is not an idol unless you make it one, I doubt anyone here would be praying to a piece of cloth or worshipping it, this is just a curiosity and possibly a miracules sign that our beloved Jesus lefts us, nothing more and nothing less.

If you find the cloth may become an idol for yourself, then run away from it and don't look back, but for the rest of us we can view it for what it is.

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

tetelesti wrote:I never stated that signs and wonders weren’t from God, I merely pointed out the fact that I don’t believe the Shroud is a sign. Why? Again because it can and did become an object of idolatry. If you reference the links I provided earlier you’d see a prominent figure bowing before the shroud. It's well documented that it did become an object of worship. Idols are a subject that scripture clearly forbids.

If I bowed and prayed at the side of my bed, would you think I am praying to God or the bed?

You don't know the persons heart, only God does, for all we know he may have seen the shroud and then gave thanks to God for the sign.

I am sure there have been people that have made this into an idol, but that does not make the cloth bad or somehow evil, the Bible could become an idol if people worshipped the book instead of God.

One thing to point out is that it is we that make objects into idols, the objects themselves are not intrinsically idols. Like the old misquoted scripture, money is the root of all evil, which is wrong it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, money itself is not intrinsically evil, it is only a tool.

The shroud is not an idol unless you make it one, I doubt anyone here would be praying to a piece of cloth or worshipping it, this is just a curiosity and possibly a miracules sign that our beloved Jesus lefts us, nothing more and nothing less.

If you find the cloth may become an idol for yourself, then run away from it and don't look back, but for the rest of us we can view it for what it is.

Dan

100% correct Daniel

PerciFlage wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Petrus Soons was more into the holographic evidence of the shroud. We go through the 3d properties of the shroud when it is passed through the vp8 image analyzer that is used by parts of Nasa to map out the terrain of mars and the moon . If you pass any regular photo through the vp8 it will come out mangled, but when they passed the shroud through it, it came out to a perfect 3d image of a face and body. The shroud has 3d spatial information encoded into it.

My understanding thus far is that the VP8 analyser (and similar transformations carried out in image processing software) is able to produce quite rudimentary "three-dimensional" versions of the image on the shroud. The most spectacular three-dimensional images I have seen so far have taken VP8-type images as their starting point and have then been polished by artists to fill in the blanks, so to speak.

Many monochromatic pictures will produce similar images with the rudimentary appearance of having 3D properties when passed through a VP8 or similar. This doesn't mean they have been deliberately encoded with three-dimensional information.

I may be wrong, but it appears that there is no way to produce a perfect three-dimensional representation of a person from the shroud using dumb image processing techniques like those of the VP8. For perfect such images large amount of pre-processing of photographs need to be performed in addition to elements of post-processing by touch-up artists.

Your incorrect perci, all that was done when a picture of the shroud was passed through the vp8 and it came out as an anatomically perfect face and body. No picture would look like thsi if passed through the shroud.

http://www.shroud.com/78strp10.htm

Designed in the 1960's for creating relief maps from moon photographs and for other topographical imaging purposes, the VP-8 Image Analyzer is an analog device that converts image density (lights and darks) into vertical relief (shadows and highlights). When applied to photographs made specifically for this type of analysis, the result is an accurate, topographic image showing the correct, natural relief characteristics of the subject. These results are often referred to as "three-dimensional."

In 1976, a group of scientists working on various projects at Los Alamos National Laboratories put a 1931 Enrie photograph of the Shroud of Turin into the VP-8 and discovered that these same three-dimensional properties exist in the Shroud image. This particularly intrigued two of the researchers present at the test, Dr. Eric Jumper and Dr. John Jackson. Stimulated by their startling discovery, they decided to form a research team to investigate what might have formed the image on the cloth and within a few months, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was born. Two years later, that same team would perform the first ever, in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin.

When input to a VP-8, a normal photograph does not result in a properly formed dimensional image but in a rather distorted jumble of light and dark "shapes." That is because the lights and darks of a normal photograph result solely from the amount of light reflected by the subject onto the film. The image densities do not depend on the distance the subject was from the film. Yet the image on the Shroud of Turin yields a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form. One must conclude from this that the image density on the cloth is directly proportionate to the distance it was from the body it covered. In essence, the closer the cloth was to the body (tip of nose, cheekbone, etc.), the darker the image, and the further away (eye sockets, neck, etc.), the fainter the image. This spatial data encoded into the image actually eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism for its creation and allows us to conclude that the image was formed while the cloth was draped over an actual human body. So the VP-8 Image Analyzer not only revealed a previously unknown and very important characteristic of the Shroud image, but historically it also provided the actual motivation to form the team that would ultimately go and investigate it. Interestingly, only sixty VP-8 Image Analyzers were ever constructed and only two remain functional today.

On May 1, 1997, I was fortunate to spend some time in North Carolina with my friend Kevin Moran, retired Senior Technology Specialist from Eastman Kodak's Estek Products Division and a Shroud researcher since 1978. Kevin owns one of the two functioning original VP-8 units and was kind enough to welcome me into his home and spend the next 14 straight hours working with me to videotape "new" VP-8 images. Actually, the real thanks should go to his dear wife Anne, who put up with the two of us working until 4:00am!

To maximize the quality of the somewhat dated and temperamental imaging system, I replaced the existing camera and lens with a new high resolution CCD camera and lens and used first generation black & white prints made directly from my original 4x5" negatives as source images. I recorded the results off the VP-8's green screen monitor using a Sony BetaCam SP system. The image at the top of this page is a frame taken from the videotape we made during that "all-nighter".

The Animated Gif file below shows only a brief sample of the VP-8 "Gain" control being applied to the Shroud facial area. Depending on the speed of your Internet connection, it may take a few minutes to load the page before the animation begins. If you have any difficulty getting the animation to start, try going to a different page of the website and then returning to the "VP-8" page using your browser's "back" button. If you still have difficulty, try reloading the page. Once it is stored in the cache of your computer, the next time you load the page the animation should run immediately

PerciFlage wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Your incorrect perci, all that was done when a picture of the shroud was passed through the vp8 and it came out as an anatomically perfect face and body. No picture would look like thsi if passed through the shroud.

You're right that all that happened to produce that image was to pass it through a VP8, but it is wrong to call that particular image perfectly anatomically correct. The features are all malformed, and whole body parts are missing. There are more anatomically perfect three-dimensional images of the shroud out there, but they require artistic intervention rather than merely being passed through a VP8-type process. Soons admits as much on his website.

It's also incorrect to say that no other images could produce similar patchy 3D effects when passed through a VP8. Many different monochromatic images could.

We are talking about the undamaged by the fire parts and the features aren't malformed . Experts have shown this and only parts of the upper arms are missing from the fire in France. You are right about Soons, but my last post wasnt about Soons .
It was about the picture of the shroud that was passed through the vp8.

Soons is an entirely different subject all together, but to his credit he was able to isolate the solid object with Hebrew writing right below the chin, as this is significant because it is unreasonable for a forger to place the amulete there because no one could have seen it until the first negatives were developed in 1898.

This was when scientists started descending onto the shroud in droves.

The image of the shroud has been deemed by anatomists and artists to be anatomically correct since the early 1900's with agnostic anatomist Ives delange declared the image to be anatomically perfect and the image of Jesus.

PerciFlage wrote:Bippy, I'm not sure what definition you are using for "anatomically correct". The VP8 images partially resemble the anatomy of a human, but they are far from a perfect three-dimensional representation of a human form (the features are extremely compressed for a start). As I mentioned in a previous post, there are two distinct possibilities for why this is so:

• It's a genuine perfect three-dimensional representation of a human that has become damaged.
• It's a two dimensional image of a human that has some apparent and coincidental three-dimensional properties when passed through a VP8 analysis or similar.

Given this, and given that other two-dimensional images also have a coincidental three-dimensional appearance when subjected to a VP8-type analysis, how do you determine which of those two possibilities you're dealing with, if either?

The 3d isn't coincidental, it's there and it's encoded into the image. The image shows perfect height depth for different parts of the body with the

http://www.shroud.com/78strp10.htm


Designed in the 1960's for creating relief maps from moon photographs and for other topographical imaging purposes, the VP-8 Image Analyzer is an analog device that converts image density (lights and darks) into vertical relief (shadows and highlights). When applied to photographs made specifically for this type of analysis, the result is an accurate, topographic image showing the correct, natural relief characteristics of the subject. These results are often referred to as "three-dimensional."

When input to a VP-8, a normal photograph does not result in a properly formed dimensional image but in a rather distorted jumble of light and dark "shapes." That is because the lights and darks of a normal photograph result solely from the amount of light reflected by the subject onto the film. The image densities do not depend on the distance the subject was from the film. Yet the image on the Shroud of Turin yields a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form. One must conclude from this that the image density on the cloth is directly proportionate to the distance it was from the body it covered. In essence, the closer the cloth was to the body (tip of nose, cheekbone, etc.), the darker the image, and the further away (eye sockets, neck, etc.), the fainter the image. This spatial data encoded into the image actually eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism for its creation and allows us to conclude that the image was formed while the cloth was draped over an actual human body. So the VP-8 Image Analyzer not only revealed a previously unknown and very important characteristic of the Shroud image, but historically it also provided the actual motivation to form the team that would ultimately go and investigate it. Interestingly, only sixty VP-8 Image Analyzers were ever constructed and only two remain functional today.

So perci, photographs have to be made specifically for this device. They have to be encoded with this spatial /topographical information to be read right by the vp8, and as you can see from the article the people that tested this with the shroud disagree with and say that its a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form.

They are experienced with this stuff, and Pete Schumacher the guy who built the vp8 disagrees with you also.
In closing with supporting evidence from the experts this is a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form.
It isn't coincidental 3d, it's there and it's encoded into the image itself.

This is a fact.
If you are an expert in this field maybe u can send them an email and argue then results with them, but there is a reason that they are the experts in this field and me and you aren't my friend.

Now that I have shown this to you, care to discuss any other aspects of the shroud?

PerciFlage wrote:

bippy123 wrote:The 3d isn't coincidental, it's there and it's encoded into the image. The image shows perfect height depth for different parts of the body with the
...
When input to a VP-8, a normal photograph does not result in a properly formed dimensional image but in a rather distorted jumble of light and dark "shapes."

How do you know that the apparent 3D isn't coincidental? A normal photograph subjected to a depthmap analysis will normally produce an incoherent image, but a drawn monochromatic image will often produce a smooth and coherent image with the appearance of having three dimensions - even though there is no 3D information encoded in the image.

bippy123 wrote:So perci, photographs have to be made specifically for this device. They have to be encoded with this spatial /topographical information to be read right by the vp8, and as you can see from the article the people that tested this with the shroud disagree with and say that its a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form.

To produce an accurate topographical image of an actual three-dimensional object, images do have to be specifically made for the device. Given that the VP8 images of the shroud are partial rather than complete and accurate images of a human form (compare the VP8 images to those produced with some element of artistic input such as those created by Soons et al, for example), it begs the question to assume that the semblance of 3D is deliberate but damaged rather than just coincidental.

None of the links you have provided nor any of the other material I have managed to find have discussed the methodology behind determining whether the apparent 3D information is likely to be actual rather than coincidental.

Your claim that the body image is incomplete is debunked by the experts who is it is complete.
It seems like your not understanding this very well. I never claimed that an artist can't produce some elements of 3d, but your forgetting that the shroud isn't a drawing. There are no added substances to the shroud . It's not a drawing so your comparison is invalid here even if they could draw it. This is what you are not understanding. If this were a drawing than that would be a different story. The fact is that this technology cannot be replicated in the laboratory shows me that your doing nothing but picking at straws . The fact that you were drawing a monochromatic image shows that your being deliberate of the intent to add spatial information to the drawing which it's incidental, but that's a moot point since the shriud isn't a painting or drawing . This is besides the point that monochromatic paintings as we know today weren't invented until the early 20th century. Again it's all a moot point

What part of its not a drawing that you cannot understand?
How many times must this be repeated to you?

PerciFlage wrote:

bippy123 wrote:I never claimed that an artist can't produce some elements of 3d
...
What part of its not a drawing that you cannot understand? How many times must this be repeated to you?

You haven't repeated that it is not a drawing to me at all, we've just been discussing the supposed three-dimensional properties of the image on the shroud. Given that this has been held up in this thread and elsewhere as evidence that the image is of a supernatural origin, it seems quite important to nail down what the methodology is behind determining whether the apparent 3D-ness is genuine. You did seem to be claiming that an artist can't produce elements of 3D when you said that the "spatial data encoded into the image actually eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism for its creation". Without knowing the aforementioned methodology, the spatial data doesn't eliminate those possibilities because we can't be sure that it truly is spatial data.

Whilst we're on the topic of whether or not the image is a drawing (no doubt it's discussed later in the thread somewhere - I'll get there eventually), is the spatial data the evidence that suggests this, or is it the lack of a laboratory reproduction, or is it some other line of reasoning?

This is the problem your having in understanding the shroud. There isn't just one evidence that points to a supernatural origin. It is the totality of its u inquery aspects that point to this. The fact that it isn't a drawing or painting debunks your argument before it gets off the ground. STURPS research has found conclusively that there are no added substances to the shroud. This information is available on the thread and if you had gone through it, it would have saved us the space of going through yet another failed argument.

Your argument for monochromatic drawings or any other drawings are destroyed completely by this fact. Your standing on the ledge of a 3story building with a 30 foot stool that is made of feathers and it can't hold the weight of your argument.

Now that I have debunked your attempt to grasp at straws , care to discuss anything else about the shroud or will you keep repeating your already debunked argument again which adds nothing of value to shroud discussion.

PerciFlage wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Your argument for monochromatic drawings or any other drawings are destroyed completely by this fact. Your standing on the ledge of a 3story building with a 30 foot stool that is made of feathers and it can't hold the weight of your argument.

I'm not arguing for the shroud being a drawing, I'm currently just trying to work through the evidence regarding the presence or otherwise of three-dimensional data in the shroud. Because I know a certain amount about image processing and pattern recognition, and because the topic is interesting, that's where I've sunk a bit of my free time over the past couple of days.

As I've said, I am reading the thread, but it's a long one and just the first few pages are throwing up a lot of additional reading. I know it's probably tedious to go over what is old ground for you, but if you'd done that rather than getting all defensive then you could have saved me a wee bit of time in the short term and you may even have piqued my interest even more. No mind.

This will help you get up to date.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Scienc ... usion.html

The following is from STURP's Final Report in 1981:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

No one knows for sure how the images were created. The images are scorch-like, yet not created by heat, and are a purely surface phenomenon limited to the crowns of the top fibers. The Shroud is clearly not a painting; no evidence of pigments or media was found.

STURP determined that the image was caused by rapid dehydration, oxidation and degradation of the linen by an unidentified process, coloring it a sepia or straw yellow. Several Physicists, including Dr. John Jackson of the Colorado Shroud Center, suggest that a form of columnated radiation is the best explanation for how the image was formed, leaving a scorch-like appearance (the scorch caused by light versus heat, as the image does not fluoresce).

The coloration on the linen fibers of the Shroud is extremely thin. Sticky tape samples taken from different parts of the image on the Shroud's surface in 1978 were too thin to measure accurately with a standard optical microscope, which means they were thinner than the wavelength of visible light, or less than about 0.6 micrometers. A more recent measurement of the coloration on one of the fibers was found to be about 0.2 micrometers thick (or one-fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter).

Italian scientists working at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted experiments on their own time between 2005 and 2010, applying ultraviolet radiation to strips of linen to see if they could match the coloration on the fibers of the Shroud of Turin. In their ENEA technical report, published in November 2011, they wrote that particular doses of radiation left a thin coating on linen fibers that resemble the colored fibers on the image of the Shroud of Turin. When questioned, the lead scientist in the study, Paolo Di Lazzaro, said that vacuum ultraviolet radiation (VUV, wavelength 200-100 nanometers) from laser pulses lasting less than 50 nanoseconds produced the best effect.

These findings support the idea that the image on the Shroud was made by a sudden blast of high-energy radiation. They also refute the possibility of forgery, since lasers were obviously not available in medieval times.

The technical report: P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, E. Nichelatti, A. Santoni, G. Baldacchini: "Colorazione similsindonica di tessuti di lino tramite radiazione nel lontano ultravioletto: riassunto dei risultati ottenuti presso il Centro ENEA di Frascati negli anni 2005-2010" RT/2011/14/ENEA (2011).

It is clear that no ancient forger had any ability to do what the Shroud analysis shows. And what other ancient burial shroud has been found with any such attributes? If it is a fraud from many centuries past, how is that possible - as not only was the expertise and technical ability not there (heck, it's not there TODAY!), but WHY would a forger go to such lengths - and to fool WHOM? Forged deceptions are always aimed at contemporary audiences. A clever painting would have more than sufficed to delude those in centuries past, where alleged pieces of the Cross and the lost Cup of Christ were a dime a dozen. Even the negative image was unknown until modern photography. No paint, no identified blood, no physical breaks within the blood, and an image modern science cannot replicate even just the LOOK of the scorches without using lasers and modern technology. None of this makes any sense for a forgery. PLUS the Church has had this in its possession for many centuries - and it had long considered it the burial garments of Christ - and BEFORE even the photographic negative was discovered, and also long before all of these other remarkable discoveries had been made about it. Did the Church just get unfathomably lucky that all these things correlate around an artifact that modern science cannot explain, and yet the Church always insisted was the burial garment of Christ? What are the odds of THAT?

Philip wrote:It is clear that no ancient forger had any ability to do what the Shroud analysis shows. And what other ancient burial shroud has been found with any such attributes? If it is a fraud from many centuries past, how is that possible - as not only was the expertise and technical ability not there (heck, it's not there TODAY!), but WHY would a forger go to such lengths - and to fool WHOM? Forged deceptions are always aimed at contemporary audiences. A clever painting would have more than sufficed to delude those in centuries past, where alleged pieces of the Cross and the lost Cup of Christ were a dime a dozen. Even the negative image was unknown until modern photography. No paint, no identified blood, no physical breaks within the blood, and an image modern science cannot replicate even just the LOOK of the scorches without using lasers and modern technology. None of this makes any sense for a forgery. PLUS the Church has had this in its possession for many centuries - and it had long considered it the burial garments of Christ - and BEFORE even the photographic negative was discovered, and also long before all of these other remarkable discoveries had been made about it. Did the Church just get unfathomably lucky that all these things correlate around an artifact that modern science cannot explain, and yet the Church always insisted was the burial garment of Christ? What are the odds of THAT?

Almost 0% Philip

Plus John Jacksons light raking tests have shown the exact folding pattern of the image of Edessa (the mandylion) found on the shroud of turin and we know from ancient manuscripts that the image of edessa was folded in this pattern tetradiplon (four-doubled). Jacksons rake tests showed major fold lines, describing the exact tetradiplonfolding pattern. the word tetradiplon is unique and has been used only to describe the image of edessa.
//theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2012/09/tetradiplon-and-shroud-of-turin.html

In all of known ancient Greek literature, tetradiplon occurs only in connection with the Image of Edessa. Its first known occurrence is in the Acts of Thaddeus, a sixth century update of an earlier (c. AD 400) story in the Doctrine of Addai, about Edessa's King Abgar V (c. 4 BC-AD 50) receiving an image of Jesus imprinted on a cloth. The sixth century Acts of Thaddeus added new information to that earlier story that the cloth was a sindon (a large linen sheet) which was tetradiplon ("four doubled"):

"In those times there was a governor of the city of Edessa, Abgarus [Abgar V] by name. And there having gone abroad the fame of Christ, of the wonders which He did, and of His teaching, Abgarus having heard of it, was astonished, and desired to see Christ, and could not leave his city and government. And about the days of the Passion and the plots of the Jews, Abgarus, being seized by an incurable disease, sent a letter to Christ by Ananias the courier ... And Ananias, having gone and given the letter, was carefully looking at Christ, but was unable to fix Him in his mind. And He knew as knowing the heart, and asked to wash Himself; and a towel [Gk. tetradiplon] was given Him; and when He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen [Gk. sindon], He gave it to Ananias, saying: Give this, and take back this message, to him that sent you: Peace to you and your city!"("The Acts of Thaddaeus, One of the Twelve," New Advent, 29 January 2010).

That the Shroud of Turin, when doubled four times results in Jesus' face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect, exactly as depicted in the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin, doubled four times, mounted on a board, and framed, so that only Jesus' face is visible. And therefore that the Shroud of Turin existed in the sixth century, and indeed in the first century, as the Image of Edessa's connection with Edessa's first century King Abgar V, attests!

The Shroud of Turin therefore is the very burial sheet of Jesus (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53), bearing the image of His crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2), flogged (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15), crucified (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18), dead (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37,43-45; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), speared in the side (Jn 19:34), and resurrected (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:1-6; Jn 20:1-9) body!



This is consistent with major foldlines at one-eighth intervals, found on the Shroud by Dr John Jackson from raking light photographs of the Shroud taken in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).

[Left (click to enlarge): Diagram of raking light photograph of the Shroud, taken in 1978 by STURP, showing major foldlines consistent with the Shroud having been folded at one-eighth intervals, discovered by Dr John Jackson: Ian Wilson, "The Evidence of the Shroud," 1986, p.123.]

As previously mentioned, below are two of the oldest surviving copies of the Image of Edessa or Mandylion. As can be seen, in both of them, Jesus' face is within a rectangle, in landscape aspect, exactly as obtained above by doubling the Shroud of Turin four times. I cannot show it here, but readers can verify it for themselves by following the above instructions, that when the fourth doubling is viewed from the side in profile, one sees four doublings of the Shroud.

proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin

I would be very careful about connecting the Edessa/Mandlion to the Shroud. First, unless I'm missing something, the legend connecting King Abgar V's courier (Ananias) and Jesus, and the details and the circumstances of receiving it do not match up with the Resurrection-producing the image on the Shroud ("He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen.") The story of Jesus and Ananias sounds to me more like a legend that was refined over the a long period of time. To me, the miraculous, inexplicable details of the Shroud, that it was long in the hands of the Church, are enough. There is no need to connect it to an unsubstantiated, legendary account.

Bip, am I misunderstanding you?

Philip wrote:

proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin

I would be very careful about connecting the Edessa/Mandlion to the Shroud. First, unless I'm missing something, the legend connecting King Abgar V's courier (Ananias) and Jesus, and the details and the circumstances of receiving it do not match up with the Resurrection-producing the image on the Shroud ("He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen.") The story of Jesus and Ananias sounds to me more like a legend that was refined over the a long period of time. To me, the miraculous, inexplicable details of the Shroud, that it was long in the hands of the Church, are enough. There is no need to connect it to an unsubstantiated, legendary account.

Bip, am I misunderstanding you?

Your right on target about the first part Philip. The king Abgar courier story sounds more like a story that was embellished over time, but if you recall the second part of it that the book of thaddeus gave us the more correct story of the image of edessa as it was the first to talk about the image being a sindone(one piece burial cloth) that was folded in a very unique and particular way that has been confirmed on the shroud is the most important part here. This tells us that the image of edessa that was told to us by thaddeus in the 6th century is the shroud of turin. Stephen Jones included the whole story to let us know that this image has been known through Christian history even though the original story was inflated. The important part is that the book of thaddeus recognizes this as the image of edessa. This is absolute confirmation of the shroud being here in the 6th century, and also connects the vignon markings and the Christ pantrocator to the image of edessa as they are congruent matches. The raking test of John jackson show a perfect match between the 2 in the folding pattern confirmed in the book of Thaddeus.

But your point is well taken Philip, at best it shows that the image was known before the 6th century but the story has been embellished before the 6th century.

This now pushes the forging theory back to at least 526 ad as the Christ pantocrator is dated from that time and it has just about a perfect congruent match with the shroud of turin
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... 90_16.html

These are 2 very strong proofs that the shroud was known in the early part of the 6th century by the church.

Dr Alan Whanger, using his polarized overlay method, discovered 170 points of congruence between the face of this icon and that of the Shroud. [10] Some of these were merely creases and wrinkles that can still be seen on the Shroud. [8]

In court of law it takes 25 congruent points to have a match , the Christ pantocator in the 6th century has 170 congruent points to the shroud.

There is very little doubt that the church knew about the shroud at least in the 6th century

An interesting note philip. I have been reading some of the research of JACK MARKWARDT that talked about how in the early years of Christianity that not only was the Roman Empire persecuting Christians but they apparently wanted Christian relics destroyed too. That would make sense since the first 300 years of Christianity, Christians were hunted down and persecuted by the Romans . I read an article of his that told of a roman leader that burned Christians at night just to give his garden some backyard lighting.
It makes sense why the shroud wasnt shown during the first 300 to 350 years of Christianity.

I will try to post something next week about this.
Bippy