The Sign of Jonah and the Shroud of Turin


#1

The story of the Prophet Jonah tells of how Jonah attempted to disobey YHWH’s orders to preach to Nineveh by taking passage on a ship bound for a distant land. But YHWH “unleashed a violent wind on the sea, and … the ship threatened to break up.” The casting of lots named Jonah as the one who was “responsible for bringing this evil on us.” Jonah confessed and advised the sailors to “throw me into the sea, and then it will grow calm for you.”
“The sailors rowed hard in an effort to reach shore, but in vain, since the sea grew still rougher for them.”
“And taking hold of Jonah, they threw him into the sea; and the sea grew calm again.”
Then Scripture records that, “YHWH had arranged that a great fish should be there to swallow Jonah; and Jonah remained in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights.”
These two events, the storm and the fish, ought to be regarded as miraculous since they were caused by YHWH and were too unusual to be natural events.

In our Holy Gospels we read of how some scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus for a “sign” meaning a miracle to be performed in their presence. Jesus condemned their request and replied, “The only sign that an evil and unfaithful generation will be given is the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.” Here we find a theological conundrum, for while Jonah’s death and burial were miraculous, Jesus’ death and burial were not. The Jewish religious leaders were not forced by YHWH to demand Jesus’ execution, and Jesus’ burial was no more than a hurried Jewish one. It is true that these events were predicted, but prediction alone does not cause any event to become miraculous, and a miracle is what Jesus had promised.

The answer to this theological issue finally arose in 1988. Radiological testing of the Shroud of Turin resulted in proof that Jesus’ Divine Image on that cloth was caused by the vanishing of His corpse into another dimension.*** This Image is miraculous, and it also is a record of Jesus’ execution by crucifixion and of His burial for three days and three nights. Therefore, the Divine Image of our Lord on His sacred burial cloth is the miraculous fulfillment of the promised Sign of Jonah.

***TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015


#2

I’m not sure where this is coming from, the 1988 tests concluded the should to be from the 14th century.

National Geographic article

At any rate, even the Vatican has a neutral position on the authenticity of the shroud.


#4

(correction) Science and the Shroud of Turin.

Roman Coins on the Eyes of the Man in the Image
The presence of coins on the eyelids of the man on the Shroud was first identified by the
Greek classical numismatist Michael Marx who saw their images in the photographs of Enrie (1931) and Secundo Pia (1898). Marx identified four raised letters – UCAI – on coins that looked like Jewish lepta – “widow’s mite” coins – copper coins minted by Pontius Pilate in 29 AD in Judea (see below Figure 3). This discovery was initially challenged by some numismatists who claimed that such a coin would not have had a Roman “C” but rather a Greek “K” – because this was the way Tiberius’ coins were typically minted. However, Fr. Francis Filas (Professor at Loyola University Chicago) responded to the objection when he was given a lepton with the “C” inscription on it (see below Figure 4). Later, Filas and Duke University Professor Alan Whanger discovered five additional leptons with the same inscription – indicating that it was unusual, but by no means, rare.

These coins enabled Whanger (and others) to use a polarized overlay photographic
analysis to show that the images of the coins (on the eyes of the man of the Shroud)
16 corresponded almost perfectly to the actual coins with the unusual “C” mint. Whanger described the discovery as follows:
We have done this by means of the polarized image overlay technique that we
developed which enables the highly accurate comparison of two different images
and the documentation of the various points of congruence….Using the forensic
criteria for matching finger prints, we feel that there is overwhelming evidence for
the identification of the images and the matches with the coins.

Whanger has made these results well-known internationally through a variety of media:
We have published these findings in the referenced professional literature and in
many lay publications, have issued an international press and video release in
1982, have shown the findings personally to many thousands of people, and have
produced detailed documentary videotapes showing the identification of these
images and their congruence to two Pontius Pilate lepta.

Whanger’s polarized imaging overlay analysis is complemented and corroborated by the
digital imaging analysis of Professor Robert Haralick (an internationally known computer
imaging expert). Haralick’s results show evidence of “OUCAIC” on the coins on the eyelids of the man in the Shroud. This is a more extensive result than the previous one (UCAI) by Marx, Filas, and Whanger. He notes in this regard:
The evidence is definitely supporting evidence because there is some degree of
match between what one would expect to find if the Shroud did indeed contain a
faint image of the Pilate coin and what we can in fact observe in the original and
in the digitally processed images.


#5

The 1988 carbon fourteen data that was obtained from Shroud samples was not indicative of a date, but of an event. See my thread titlled THE SCIENCE OF THE RESURRECTION.

Carbon fourteen data is not normally interpreted by the carbon fourteen testing lab personel but, rather, by an archeologist who has an understanding of the surrounding history and provenance of the object being tested. In this case, the scientists who had the most understanding of the Shroud’s provenance and scientific evidence were deliberately excluded from participating in any way in the C-14 testing and subsequent data analysis. Instead, the head of Oxford’s C-14 lab, the atheist Prodessor Edward Hall directed the analysis of the C-14 data. Wilson writes, “Hall positively relished the opportunity to be judge, jury, and executioner of the Shroud.”* Hall ignored all of the data that proved that the Shroud was 2000 years old and then interpreted its C-14 data as indicating a date.

But C-14 data is not always proof of a date. It can, instead, indicate an event. If a piece of linen from 1963 in subjected to C-14 analysis, the results will not show a date anywhere near 1963. That data would be proof of the event of atmospheric atomic bomb testing in the 1950’s. It is exactly the same way with the Shroud of Turin. All of the evidence gathered prior to 1988 indicated that the Shroud was of first century origin. Futhermore, as noted in your linked article, the Shroud’s C-14 data showed a variance depending on what part of the sample was tested. Antonacci reports that this variance was actually 250 years, and that the British Museum had requested the C-14 labs to obscure this fact. Furthermore, a linear progression in the data was noted: as the piece of the sample being tested became closer to the Shrould’s image, its date became younger.**

The correct interpretation of the Shroud’s C-14 data is that the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse left a residual neutron and proton radiation which respectively enhanced the Shroud’s carbon fourteen content and caused an image of Jesus to be formed.** So, just as the C-14 data from a piece of 1963 linen would be proof of an event, so the Shroud’s C-14 data is actually proof of the event of the vanishing of Jesus corpse into another dimension. That, my friend, is proof of a miracle; the proof that Jesus promised to us 2000 years ago.

*THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010, pg.139
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015


#6

After doing more reading of the report on Father Spitzer’s website, I found a bit more regarding the Carbon 14 testing, which is what I really wanted to respond to. When I made the post above, it was late and I was having a problem posting it, so I had to cut some out. I also realized that I had quoted the wrong post to respond to. :crazy_face:

"At present the preponderance of scientific and historical evidence favors the authenticity of the Shroud. In fact, the preponderance is so great that a change in Carbon 14 dating should be expected from new tests – with the swing back in time of approximately 1,000 to 1,600 years from the date given by the 1988 carbon testing (1260-1390). This would put the date of the cloth between 250 BC and 350 AD (see below Section III). Thus, the mean predictable date of the Shroud’s origin would be approximately 50 AD – quite near the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.

As noted above, the 1988 Carbon 14 testing showed that the fibers removed from the Shroud were 638 years old (with a probable origin at around 1350). Note that this test did not show that the Shroud originated in 1350 A.D., but only that the fibers extracted from the Shroud (which could have come from threads or cloth used to mend it after the fire of Chambery in 1532). As we shall see, the fibers removed from the Shroud were probably not from the original Shroud, but from dyed cloth added to the Shroud at that time. Furthermore, the testing did not account for microbiological contaminants or the additional carbon that would have been added by the fire. These problems indicate that the 1988 Carbon 14 testing was very likely invalid and skewed toward a much later date.

At the very outset, there were problems associated with the sampling of fibers used for the 1988 Carbon 14 test. The STURP team recommended that seven different samples from different parts of the Shroud be sent to seven labs across Europe and the United States. This was inexplicably changed. Instead of taking fibers from many parts of the Shroud, the samples were taken from a single strip from a questionable part of it. This one sample was divided into three parts and sent to only three labs. To make matters worse, chemical and microscopic testing on the single strip was not performed (even though there were experts present who could have done so). Though arguments broke out about these problems, the samples were sent to the three labs which no doubt performed the tests professionally. The problem was not with the Carbon 14 testing, but rather with the gathering of the samples."


#7

Yes, lab techs do, that’s their job. They along with many other specialists support the archaeologists.

These nuclear events involve the fission of uranium or plutonium; which are larger and much less stable elements and not anywhere close on the Periodic Table. More importantly consider where the shroud has been stored, it’s been in a church with thick stone walls, which will block quite a bit of radiation.

From what I’ve read the samples were from around the parameter, not near the patches. I’ve heard the carbon from fire theory, but I can’t imagine this is a consideration not uncommon to carbon dating techniques. I’d be surprised if there is not a sound understanding of this.

Like I said before, believe what you will, miraculous or not it is still a very interesting piece


#8

The samples were taken from an edge that had been damaged in the fire in the mid 13th century. What they didn’t realize was that some Nuns of that area had made repairs to the Shroud by using the same weaving technique, so that it would blend in. They also used cotton fibers that they also dyed to match the color of the Shroud, so to the eye, it looked the same. The samples dated to the 13th century because they were composed of a mix of the original linen fibers as well as the cotton that had been woven into it.

Newer and less invasive tests have been done in the past 10-15 years that date it back to the time of Christ + or - 250 years. If you follow the link in my first post, you can read the entire report that gives much more scientific information about it. They only discovered the coins that were covering His eyes, recently, by a new type of photographic analysis. It’s absolutely fascinating. I really didn’t need to be convinced, because I have believed it was real for 40+ years. But, after seeing all of the scientific studies that have been done, I feel as if my faith in the Shroud being real has finally been proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt.


#9

The Vatican, who now owns it, is neutral on its authenticity. If anything were to be gained, it would be the Church that declared it a settled miracle.


#10

I think there’s a lot to be gained by gathering more and more conclusive evidence of its authenticity. The spiritual inspiration that could result in many more souls being convinced that the Resurrection was true could have an enormous impact on a lot of people. It would bring many more people back to the faith that they may have lost somewhere along the way, and many others might even reconsider their doubts about the existence of God.

Did you read the report? Have you heard the conversion stories of many of the people who worked on the first team that studied it in 1978? A good number of them were atheists when they began their studies, but as they saw how many things pointed to it being authentic, they had to reconsider their lack of faith in God.


#11

Here is what Ian Wilson wrote in THE SHROUD, pg 138:

"The big problem with the Shroud dating, and one that virtually never happens with any other C-24 datings, was that there was no one equivalent to an archeologist to act as an interpreter (and potential rejector) of the results. . . .The British Museum’s Dr. Michael Tite declined to see himself in this role, again quite rightly, because he was simply another radiocarbon dating scientist, not an archaologist.
“This left the role to be filled by the three radiocarbon dating laboratories–primarily, because with characteristic forcefulness he made himself their chief spokesman, by Oxford’s Professor Edward Hall… . .
His laboratories role in proving it to be a fake was proudly dispayed at his offices as among his finest achievements.”

As detailed by Antonacci in TEST THE SHROUD, the C-14 lab directors went out of their way to make sure that the scientists with first-hand knowledge about the Shroud (STURP) were completely excluded from the C-14 data gathering and analysis. The lab directors wanted a homogeneous result, and that is why only one sample was taken from the Shroud. They insisted on that procedure.

Antonacci’s conclusion is that the analysis of the Shroud’s C-14 data was nothing less than a railroad job and a frame-up. I call it the crime of the century.


#12

Atomospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950’s produced neutron fluxes which enhanced the normal C-14 content of the earth’s atmosphere. That is why a piece of 1963 linen would have a much greater than expected C-14 content.

In the same way the linen of the Shroud of Turin has a greater than expected C-14 content. But it was not, of course, atom bomb testing that caused this. The theory that has been developed by the Antonacci/Rucker team is that the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse into another dimension left a residual proton and neutron radiation field which the burial cloth then collasped into. This theory is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis.*

BTW, Antonacci made the same observation that you have. He noted that man-made neutron fluxes have been available since the 1940’s and that there is no record of the Shroud having ever been taken to any nuclear facility.*

*TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015


#13

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.