World's First Photograph.....................Jesus

"The first photo of the full Shroud of Turin was taken in 1898 by Secondo Pia. It shows the surprising feature that the image on the negative was clearer than the positive image."

The photo of Jesus at the top of the post is the below negative image taken with the Helmut negative film app. set on color negative. The result was then single color filtered via Aviary. If you look at the top image for a minute or two you will note it is actually a positive image. Note particularly the lips and left eye. (Viewer's perspective)

So, how do I know this is the actual face of Jesus when radiocarbon dating puts the age of the Shroud of Turin at the late 1300's? There was a fire in the 1500's that damaged the shroud and altered the true date of the Shroud. The best proof, however, is the Sudarium of Oviedo. this was the face cloth that covered Jesus and it's provenance is not in question:

"The experiments with the model head and the study of the stains also show that when the man died his head was tilted seventy degrees forward and twenty degrees to the right. This position further suggests that the man whose face the sudarium covered died crucified.

There are smaller bloodstains at the side of the main group. It would appear that the sudarium was pinned to the back of the dead man's head, and that these spots of blood were from small sharp objects, which would logically be the thorns that caused this type of injury all over Jesus' head.

The medical studies are not the only ones that have been carried out on the sudarium. Dr. Max Frei analysed pollen samples taken from the cloth, and found species typical of Oviedo, Toledo, North Africa and Jerusalem. This confirms the historical route described earlier. There was nothing relating the cloth to Constantinople, France, Italy or any other country in Europe.

An international congress was held in Oviedo in 1994, where various papers were presented about the sudarium. Dr. Frei's work with pollen was confirmed, and enlarged on. Species of pollen called "quercus caliprimus" were found, both of which are limited to the area of Palestine.

Residues of what is most probably myrrh and aloe have also been discovered, mentioned directly in the gospel of john, 19:39-40, "Nicodemus came as well...and he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes...They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, following the Jewish burial custom."

The stains were also studied from the point of view of anthropology. The conclusion was that the face that had been in contact with the sudarium had typically Jewish features, a prominent nose and pronounced cheekbones.

Finally, the very fact that the cloth was kept at all is a sign of its authenticity, as it has no artistic or monetary value at all. All the studies carried out so far point in one direction, with nothing to suggest the contrary the sudarium was used to cover the head of the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth from when he was taken down from the cross until he was buried.

3: Coincidence with the Shroud

The Sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.

A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.

The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud."

Some interesting things about the picture of Jesus are that his features ARE caucasian as opposed to the revisionist history view that Jesus was negroid. He almost certainly was olive-skinned, however.

Also, how would one expect God to look if he was to manifest himself as human? The photo of Jesus indicates he was the typical "Joe six pack" of his day. There was nothing unusual about him. Had he manifested as a glowing white lighted atypical human then faith in him would not have been necessary. In short, he HAD to look ordinary.

From Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 we know Jesus was a carpenter. There's an old Amish saying.."Hands to work, hearts to God." It is also logical that God would not only have manifested himself as a "common" human, but that he would have been a blue collar tradesman as well.

At any rate, faith is faith and you have it or you don't. If you have been given the gift of sight then you will know, and be very humbled, to be looking at the face of Jesus.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.......

...being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So states the text of what was originally the Fourth Amendment. The Bill of Rights originally had 12 Amendments, but the first two did not get ratified, thus we ended up with ten and the Fourth Amendment became the Second Amendment. There has been much argument as to the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Heller decision (DC v. Heller 2008) was the first Supreme Court decision to declare that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

From Heller:

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Well, that's nice, but what did the founding fathers really have in mind with the Second Amendment? Let's look at it again:


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We think we know what these words mean today, but what was the common usage in 1789? To determine this I used Samuel Johnson's 1792 edition of "A Dictionary of the English Language."

In those days a "militia" was defined as "the trainbands" or trained band of men. Specifically, a company of trained civilians, in England or America, from the 16th to the 18th century.

"Regulate" was defined as "to adjust by rule or method" and "to direct".

"Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense" and "war in general", so the Miller decision which restricted they type of weapons a person could own was incorrect as it was expected that citizens could own, provided they were not insane, any such weapon used in warfare.

Now let's look at the Second Amendment as the verbiage was understood by the men who wrote it:

"A well directed band of civilians, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and carry weapons of offense used for war in general, shall not be infringed.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

In Heller, the Supreme Court did get right that the Second Amendment was there to prevent tyranny and that "the right of THE PEOPLE" was also an individual right.

The specifier "being necessary to the security of a free State" is critically important because it separates a militia from the government. Civilian militias can be used to assist the government in times of emergency, such as if the British are invading, but the specifier clause has a different duty for the militia.

There is a famous quote by Thomas Jefferson to wit:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Here it is in context:

 "The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.^[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787."

Thus, the importance of "being necessary to the security of a free State" is that the Second Amendment was specifically written to allow the militia to detach itself from the State and overthrow the government that has become tyrannical by the use of force. The militia then goes from a team player whose function is to assist the government to the ultimate check of destroying the government.

UPDATE: Some additional commentary. For additional clarification, it is the word "free" in the clarifier sentence that is important. As defined, "being necessary to the security of a non-tyrannical/non-oppressive State"(I.E. free State) as opposed to, "being necessary to the security of the State" makes the Second Amendment essentially a command for the militia to overthrow an oppressive government rather than an equivocal suggestion.

Also, based on the definition of "Arms" at the time, ANY weapon of war would be permissible to own.(Voiding the 1934 National Firearms Act) The definition also includes the phrase "and armor for defense" so MRAPS can be sold to civilians, who aren't insane.

TO ARMS!!!! TO ARMS!!!! It's fast approaching now or never.

Scalia's DOMA Dissent

From another one of my blogs from June 27, 2013. I feel itis especially relevant today. From my concluding statement:

I've heard and read commentary on Scalia's dissent all day and it all misses the main point.
**********************************************************************Scalia's dissent IS the green light for the overthrow of our currently illegitimate government. The parts I've highlighted make clear that Scalia did not think the majority was incompetent. He makes the case that they were deliberately undermining the Constitution and the government AND are basically subversive agents of an enemy government, not merely five Justices voicing an opinion.**********************************************************************At a minimum, Scalia makes a crystal clear cut case for the forcible removal of those Justices and, by extension, the leaders of the Executive Branch and Holder and certain members of congress.

Below is Scalia's dissent. I have some parts highlighted and will have additional comment at the end.

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. EDITH SCHLAIN
WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[June 26, 2013]
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins,and with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins as  to Part I,dissenting.

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the samediseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.

Be Prepared

So, I'm eyeballing Facebook when I notice a friend's status that referred to a Douglas Wilson post that dealt with the latest International Olympic Committee idiocy regarding the participation of transgender athletes in Olympic competition. It appears to be Wilson's aha moment to wit.."we have now advanced well past the absurdity horizon, the point past which no recovery is possible without resorting to the forces of dark bigotry and reaction."

Some of us reached this conclusion more than twenty years ago. 

If you feel as if you are living in some sort of alternate reality where morality, ethics, common sense and basic goodness and humanity have gone out the window......well.....you are.  From Job 1:7 "The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it." John 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." 

Finally, 2 Timothy 3:1-5 "But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power."

While we are never guaranteed a tomorrow, we MUST be ready for it. Islam is marching across Europe and gaining popularity in the U.S. We can expect ever increasing acts of horror against Christians. Christian parents have to prepare their children never to deny God, no matter the consequences. 

All of the worldwide economic and political indicators show that catastrophic events are just around the corner. Be prepared. Our names can be erased from the book of life so it is vitally important not to be distracted with earthly things and focus instead on the spiritual.