|
Previous Posts
Moving on, and many, many thanks...
So...my recent vacation and related absences also coincided with an offer from PoliticsDaily.com to cover religion for them, as editor Melinda Henneberger announces here in her roundup on the site's very successful first 100 days. That means, in short, that I'll have to sign off from blogging h
posted 8:29:24pm Aug. 02, 2009 |
read full post
»
Calvin at 500, Calvinism 2.0
If you thought you knew John Calvin--who turned 500 last week--you probably don't know enough. For example, that he was French, born Jean Cauvin. And if he was in fact scandalized by dancing, he was also a lot more complex than that. I explored the new look Calvin in an essay at PoliticsDaily, "Patr
posted 11:53:35am Jul. 16, 2009 |
read full post
»
Apologia pro vita sua...Kinda
In my defense, I've had computer outages and family reunions and a few days of single-parenthood, which is always a bracing reminder of what many parents go through all the time.
And this weekend it's off for a week's vacation.
Anyway, hence the long absence. Apologies to those who have chec
posted 10:51:36am Jul. 16, 2009 |
read full post
»
When Benny met Barry: "I'll pray for you!"
The first word via Vatican Radio and first image (that I saw) via Rocco:
Speaking to Vatican Radio, Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said "moral values in international politics, immigration and the Catholic Church's contribution in developing countries" were key topics of discussio
posted 12:54:28pm Jul. 10, 2009 |
read full post
»
Signs of the times: Obama's eye
Yes, this photo of Obama ostensibly eyeing a young woman (apparently a 17-year-old delegate from Brazil--where are her parents?!) at the G-8 Summit is the hottest Google search item. And of course the question of what Obama was thinking is a leading Fox News story.
So it goes, even as the
posted 12:26:05pm Jul. 10, 2009 |
read full post
»
|
The Discovery Channel opens up what many–including the Vatican–had taken to be a settled question, namely whether the famous Shroud of Turin is truly the burial cloth of Jesus. “Unwrapping the Shroud: New Evidence,” airs Sunday (today), Dec. 14, at 10pm Eastern time.
posted December 16, 2008 at 2:02 am
The most significant argument against the Shroud being anything but an interesting forgery is not the material on which is was made, but rather than the face on it is not the face of a first century Jew but rather a 13th-14th century Frenchman or Northern Italian. It is too long and narrow and the beard is in the style of that period.
And the proportions of the image are all wrong. The head is too large for the body and clearly that image was placed on last.
posted December 16, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I watched this and while the researchers seemed to be asking the right questions, they also seemed inclined to already believe what they set out to determine about the Shroud.
An understandable prejudice because few would devote such time while lacking a vested interest.
posted June 20, 2009 at 11:49 am
The shroud of turin is true .. Radio carbon dating reveals so many things like the pollen grains found only 2000yrs ago which fits in jesus era . these pollen grains are found only in that region . and that specific pollen grain no longer found anymore . also the shroud of turin fits in with the passion of christ like the broken nose . the swelling on the face when pilots soldier gave a blow to jesus which injured his cheek bone . also the wounds on the hand are on the wrist to avoid the body from tearing from the cross rather than on the palms . also the forehead shows the blood due to crowning of thorns . the imprint on the shroud was caused due to a bright light most probably during the resurrection of our lord jesus into heaven after 3 days . also if you look at the entire shroud of turin the body has scourge marks with an instrument with bones at the end of the string which fits the size on the shroud that was used during that time . the negative is clearer than the actual image .. very very impressive and very real . Charles Cosimano above in his comments is very very wrong . please know your facts well before you say its false ..
posted August 6, 2009 at 9:00 pm
yes, the shroud is real
posted April 11, 2011 at 10:40 pm
i just took a picture of me and a friend @ the calvery church near lake arrowhead ca….we had been speaking of the lord all that day…we past the church an i tured around to take a pic in front…..the image i captured i cant explain…..it looks like the shrouds face…i dont know where to go or who to show this picture to…can anyone help???? you can contact me buzzfarm@ yahoo.com.
posted April 11, 2011 at 10:42 pm
i captured the shrouds face on camera
posted April 11, 2011 at 10:43 pm
caught shrouds face on camera
posted April 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm
The thing I find most interesting is the fact that the image on the shroud is in the negative. Now if you think about it, a negative image does not exist in nature (except when you close your eyes after staring at something a long time). But there was no such thing as a photo negative, since photography hadn’t been invented at this time. So if it is a forgery, why would the artist have drawn it in the negative? He would most assuredly have drawn it in the positive. In fact, doing it as a negative would not have even crossed his mind, since a negative image was a total unknown. This is one of the most compelling arguments for the authenticity of the shroud.
posted April 15, 2011 at 6:32 pm
I agree that all comments are very interesting and bring up very good points. Particularly the comment regarding those studying the “Shroud” already having a determination in their mind as to what or whom the linen negative portrays. The reason this is so interesting to me is that those studying the “Shroud” are mostly non-believers.Seems to me they are looking for a reason to believe…
posted April 16, 2011 at 10:17 pm
The shroud is hard evidence supporting the eyewitness testimonies included in the New Testament.