[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My The Shroud of Turin blog]
The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in January-December 2013. See copyright conditions at end.
[Index: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]
19/01/2013 "Now there is a growing body of evidence that impels us to question what they told us in 1988. ... Even if the Shroud were of fourteenth century flax my Christian beliefs must be unaffected because I really and truly have no axe to grind in this sense. ... Therefore it is not without justification that I bring before you some of the considerations which make me more and more sceptical as time goes on. Firstly the attitude of one of those 1988 scientists, Professor 'Teddy' Hall, was in my eyes starkly unobjective. He said something like, `It's finished, finished! No one will have any further interest in the Shroud of Turin'. Setting aside the fact, unconcealed by him, that he is an atheist (and might therefore have an axe of his own to grind) I really must tell of his reaction when I questioned him on these words of his. `Surely, Professor Hall', I asked him, `if your result shows that the image was not produced miraculously by God the Father, will not scientists now be more interested in it, to find out how man did this thing?' His incredible reply was, `I don't believe in God the Father, old boy'! At that moment of breath-taking non sequitur I wrote him off as a thinker. 'The Fool hath said in his heart ...'" ("Michael Clift, "Carbon Dating - What Some of Us Think Now," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter," No. 33, February 1993, p.5). Feb [top]
1/02/2013 "Humbert Villersexel, from the House of Faucogney, born in 1385, son of Count Henri de La Roche Villersexel and Guillemette Vergy (daughter of John II of Vergy House of Vergy) In 1398, he married his first wife Marguerite de Montfaucon (circa 1388-1410), Dame d'Orbe, daughter of Count Henri de Montbéliard Monbéliard, family Montfaucon. In 1418, he married his second wife Marguerite de Charny (daughter of Lord Geoffrey II de Charny widow [Jeanne de Vergy] and first wife of John Beaufremont (House Bauffremont) killed at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. They will not have to child. Humbert disappeared in June 1437 at the age of 62 years, the last Count de la Roche. Shroud of Turin ... In the early fifteenth century, bands of brigands ... [were] ravaging France. Fearing for the conservation of the shroud, the canons of Lirey, who inherited the relic entrust the June 6, 1418 to Marguerite de Charny, granddaughter of Geoffroy de Charny, and her husband, Humbert de Villersexel. In 1418, Humbert of Villersexel, Count de la Roche and husband of Marguerite de Charny, placed again in its shroud Montfort castle to protect it from marauding bands and the Hundred Years War. He then moved to Saint-Hippolyte (Doubs), one of its strongholds. At his death in 1438, the canons of Lirey appealed on justice to force his wife to return the relic, but the parliament of Dole and the Court of Besançon gave reason for it, who traveled in different places with the shroud, including Liege, Geneva, Annecy, Paris, Bourg-en-Bresse, Nice. September 13, 1452, she exchanges the relic with Anne de Lusignan, wife of Duke Louis I of Savoy against the castle Varambon." ("Humbert Villersexel," Wikipedia, 13 December 2012. Translated from French to English by Google Translate. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humbert_de_Villersexel). 1/02/2013 "What happened in 1204? This year marks the lowest point of Christian history when crusaders from Venice and France invaded Constantinople, the center of Eastern Christianity. It was considered the richest city on earth and was proud of its collection of relics including the crown of thorns and `most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped.' This was how it was represented in a letter written to Pope Innocent III in 1205 protesting the invasion. We know from other references that this linen contained an image-much like the Shroud. The city was looted and burned. Almost every relic now claimed by some cathedral in France, Spain or Italy can trace its roots to Constantinople. Where did the Shroud go? A document reveals that it was taken to Athens and was seen there in 1207. Four documents now attest to this. Who had it? It had become the possession of a prominent crusader, Othon de la Roche of Burgundy. He was man of wealth and position and was instrumental in the successful sacking of Constantinople. In return for his service, he was awarded Athens as a fiefdom and became the Duke of Athens and was awarded several relics as payment including the Shroud. However his political reign was short lived due to a run-in with the Pope and in 1230 he returned to his castle at Ray-sur-Saône in Burgundy. Kept in one of the towers to this day is a collection of items taken from Constantinople. One of the most important items is a wooden chest with the inscription, `13th century coffer in which was preserved in Ray Castle the Shroud of Christ brought by Othon de Ray from Constantinople-1206.' There is some confusion as to whether the inscription refers to Othon or his son who is known as Othon de Ray. It hardly matters. The point is we know the whereabouts of the Shroud in 1230; it was in Burgundy, France. Now we must move forward 120 years to 1350. This is when Jean de Vergy, the great great granddaughter of Othon de la Roche was to marry a prominent French knight, Geoffrey de Charney. Jean was living in Besancon, France-about a hundred miles from Burgundy. She is recorded to have the Shroud and is kept in Besancon Castle outside the city. Records indicate it was exhibited occasionally at Saint Stevens Cathedral during Easter. The same year as their marriage, the cathedral burned. In 1353, Jean de Vergy and Geoffrey de Charney move to Lirey where Geoffrey builds a church but passes away in 1356. That same year, Jean de Vergy holds the first public exhibition of the Shroud in Geoffrey's honor. A pilgrim's medal is cast showing the Shroud's unique double image with the crest of both families represented. Historians have pieced together through inference and context that Jean de Vergy was the rightful owner of the Shroud as a direct descendant of Othon de la Roche and presented the relic as part of her dowry to Geoffrey when they married." (Russ Breault, "Is the Shroud of Turin Medieval? History Tells a Different Story," EzineArticles.com, October 18, 2009. http://EzineArticles.com/3110899). 1/02/2013 "Certain other omissions from this book have been more intentional. Internet sites often abound more with misinformation than reliable information on the Shroud, one favourite of this genre being the 'seeing' of other items in the Shroud's stains besides the universally agreed double imprint of a male figure. Among these there are just a few, most notably the occasional plant specimen, which might just be plausible. When none other than Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, very forcefully insists on seeing the images of certain plants, it deserves to be taken seriously - particularly given that he can in no way be accused of any pro-Christian bias. Most other such claims, however, are extremely doubtful, particularly the Latin, Greek and Hebrew inscriptions which have been 'seen' by two French researchers, Andre Marion and Anne Laure Courage. Also the claims of a French 'scientist', Thierry Castex, that he has found the Aramaic word 'found' written in Hebrew letters. In any event, all claims of this nature have been omitted on the grounds of their flimsiness and their impedance of the main line of argument." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year- Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, 2010, pp.291-292). , 2010, pp.291-292). 11/02/2013 "How does one begin to study the blood marks on the shroud cloth-blood marks that some claim to be the creation of an artist? It was 1979 when I called Harvard University and asked for the name of a professor who was a specialist in iconography, the study of religious images. I was given the name of Dr. Ernst Kitzinger, who had spent a lifetime studying ancient paintings of Jesus from both the East and the West. I was fortunate to meet with him just before his permanent departure to England where he planned to retire. I asked Kitzinger the following question: `Can you show me some works of artists who have painted blood marks like the ones that you see on the Shroud of Turin?' His response was: `The Shroud of Turin is unique in art. It doesn't fall into any artistic category. For us, a very small group of experts around the world, we believe that the Shroud of Turin is really the Shroud of Constantinople. You know that the crusaders took many treasures back to Europe during the 13th century, and we believe that the shroud was one of them. As for the blood marks done by artists, there are no paintings that have blood marks like those of the shroud. You are free to look as you please but you won't find any.' I did look, and he was right; I have never found any. Nor has anyone else." (Lavoie, G.R., "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," , Thomas More: Allen TX, 2000, pp.73-74). 11/02/2013 "The bloodstains on the head, then, are traces of a crown of thorns, removed from the head of a man who was crucified in the Roman manner and buried according to the custom of the Jews. Historically, we know of only one Roman Jew who was crucified wearing a crown of thorns: Jesus. The implication is that the Shroud is the very cloth in which Jesus was wrapped for burial." (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, p.132). 11/02/2013 "`Too good to be true' - that is a regular response to the Shroud of Turin. Without even looking at it, most people make a rough calculation (based on all sorts of hidden assumptions) that it is plainly incredible, not even worth considering. The doubts creep in only when and if - a rare event they start studying the cloth. Surprisingly, perhaps, the overwhelming majority of those who consider the matter carefully (including atheists, agnostics and non-Catholic Christians with a healthy disregard for religious relics) conclude that the Shroud might very well be what it purports to be: the winding sheet of Jesus. And the primary evidence that leads to this conclusion is the pattern of injuries apparent on the cloth. Far from being too good to be true, the Shroud's blood-image seems too good to be false." (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, p.132). 11/02/2013 "Medically attested as a convincing representation of severe injuries and chemically proven to consist of blood, there is no rational reason to deny that the bloodstains are natural traces of a man crucified in accordance with Roman practice, crowned with thorns and buried as a Jew. The notion that such a physiologically and archaeologically accurate image could or would have been painted (in blood) by a medieval artist is patently absurd. As the great Jewish art historian Ernst Kitzinger is reported to have said, `there are no paintings that have blood marks like those of the shroud. You are free to look as you please but you won't find any.' [Lavoie, G.R., "Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud," Thomas More: Allen TX, 1998, pp.65-66)] If the blood-image is not painted, it must derive from a genuine death and burial. Comparing it with the texts of the Gospels, the historical origin of the Shroud seems clear. As Yves Delage concluded over a century ago, it shows every sign of being the burial cloth of Jesus, a 'historical personage' whose body could have left 'a material trace of his existence' as well as any other." (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, pp.132-133). 11/02/2013 "Perhaps, if the Shroud had borne only blood marks, its authenticity would have been accepted long ago. After all, there is nothing particularly marvellous, to most people's minds, about a bloodstained linen cloth. But the blood-image is not alone; it is ghosted by the body-image, wherein lies the enduring mystery of the Turin Shroud. It is this that causes such anxiety among sceptics - and such enthusiasm among devotees." (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, p.133). Apr [top]
7/04/2013 "Regardless of the attention it has received, the Shroud remains virtually unknown in the English-speaking world, and its essential mysteries remain unsolved to this date. Is this remarkable cloth-with its clearly visible images of a man who was scourged mercilessly, humiliated by a crown of thorns, forced to bear his own cross, and finally crucified and gashed in his side to assure his death, all in accord with the Gospel descriptions of the Holy Passion-is this yellowed cloth the true burial shroud of Jesus Christ? Or is it the most ingenious and perplexing forgery the world has ever seen?" (Humber, T., "The Fifth Gospel: The Miracle of the Holy Shroud," Pocket Books: New York NY, 1974, pp.11-12). 7/04/2013 "If it is authentic, the Holy Shroud is unquestionably the greatest religious relic known to Christianity and one of the most fascinating antiquities known to mankind If it is authentic, the Shroud can rightfully take its place as `The Fifth Gospel,' for what it reveals of Jesus and his suffering far exceeds the scant Gospel words of the evangelists. If it is authentic, and if no completely satisfactory natural explanation can account for its unusual physical properties, then the Shroud is indeed the most miraculous of Holy Miracles-an enduring, self-made portrait of the man who would be called Savior by millions of Christians throughout the world. ?" (Humber, T., "The Fifth Gospel: The Miracle of the Holy Shroud," Pocket Books: New York NY, 1974, p.12). 7/04/2013 "But what if the Shroud is a forgery, whether perpetrated for good or evil? Do we merely write it off as a clever hoax and forget it? I think not, for if the Shroud is a fake, then whoever fabricated it, by whatever unknown methods, had command of knowledge and abilities quite incredible for his time. Specifically, he must have known the precise methods of crucifixion of the period; he must have possessed the medical knowledge of a contemporary master surgeon; he must have utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since; he must have been able to foresee and approximate principles of photography not otherwise discovered for centuries. All of this had to have been done prior to 1356, for since that date the Shroud has a clearly documented and uninterrupted history. ... Even now, with all the scientific knowledge and technical skills at our command, the Shroud cannot be satisfactorily duplicated." (Humber, T., "The Fifth Gospel: The Miracle of the Holy Shroud," Pocket Books: New York NY, 1974, pp.12-13). Jun [top]
25/06/2013 "Finally, Z. [Zugibe] suggests that certain aspects of the anatomy of the man on the Shroud indicate that he suffered from Marfan's disease: his tall, thin build, long armspan, spidery fingers, and narrow face. The reader may not be persuaded by this unnecessary thesis, since it is not debatable that the body and fingers appear slender because of the orthogonal projection, the almost complete lack of lateral planes visible on the imprint, and the undulation of the cloth over the body." (Scavone, D., "Review of Zugibe, F.T., `The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Examiner Investigates the Crucifixion,' McDonagh & Co.: Cresskill NJ, 1981," in Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #5, December 1982, p.38). Oct [top]
8/10/2013 "It dawned on me that virtually all portrayals of Jesus, including the Good Shepherd of my Sunday school and the United Nations Jesus of my Bible college, showed him wearing a mustache and beard, both of which were strictly banned from the Bible college. Questions now loomed that had never occurred to me in childhood. For example, How would telling people to be nice to one another get a man  crucified? What government would execute Mister Rogers or Captain Kangaroo? Thomas Paine said that no religion could be truly divine which has in it any doctrine that offends the sensibilities of a little child. Would the cross qualify?" (Yancey, P., "The Jesus I Never Knew," , Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1996, pp.14-15). 8/10/2013 "As to the third point, the writers whom we are discussing believed that by this method of study they would be able to arrive at the historical Jesus. But unfortunately another presupposition of which they were largely unconscious affected what they were doing. In a famous metaphor G. Tyrrell compared their endeavours to those of a man who peers to see what is at the bottom of a deep well, but all that he really sees  is his own image reflected in the water. Tyrrell was referring in particular to the work of A. von Harnack, and said of him, `The Christ that Harnack sees, looking back through nineteen centuries of Catholic darkness, is only the reflection of a liberal Protestant face, seen at the bottom of a deep well'. 8 [Tyrrell, G., "Christianity at the Crossroads," London, 1909, p.44] The point could be generalised, and was in effect generalised by Schweitzer in his chronicle of nineteenth-century research. In every case the picture of Jesus was of a Jesus clearly fashioned by a nineteenth-century artist. The process reached its climax in the so-called 'Liberal Jesus', a somewhat inoffensive teacher proclaiming 'the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man'. 9 [von Harnack, A., "What is Christianity," London, 1901] It was, of course, possible that their nineteenth-century background might have enabled these scholars to see Jesus more clearly than their predecessors and to remove layers of misinterpretation that had accumulated during preceding centuries. But the test of whether a historian's presuppositions help him to a better picture of a historical figure is simply whether they explain the evidence more adequately. It could certainly be argued that the pre-critical picture of Jesus produced a docetic figure who had little real connection with his Palestinian environment, a divine messenger who appeared as an alien in this world. But the Liberal picture fared no better, though for different reasons. The most damning criticism came from the pen of William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, who said quite simply, 'Why anyone should have troubled to crucify the Christ of Liberal Protestantism has always been a mystery'. 10 [Temple, W., "Readings in St John's Gospel," London, 1945, p.xxiv] The Jesus of Liberal Protestantism simply fails to explain the evidence of the Gospels; he could never have been the founder of a new religion." (Marshall, I.H., "I Believe in the Historical Jesus," World Bible Publishers: Iowa Falls IA, 1977, Reprinted, 2002, pp.112-113). 31/10/2013 "Moreover, if the Shroud was irradiated with a flux of neutrons, this would have other measurable consequences: radioactive or unstable isotopes would have been formed. [Phillips, T.J., "Shroud irradiated with neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February 1989, p.594] More than two decades ago, STURP scientists discovered that calcium (along with strontium and iron) was distributed uniformly throughout the Shroud, probably as a result of the retting process when the cloth was originally manufactured. 93 Almost 97 percent of all calcium consists of calcium-40 (Ca-40); the other 3.1 percent consists of Ca-42, 43, 44, 46, and 48. Conspicuously absent is Ca-41, which does not occur naturally. However, if a neutron flux had irradiated the Shroud, it would convert the Ca-40 in the cloth to Ca-41. If Ca-41 were found on the Shroud, it would confirm that the cloth had been irradiated with neutrons. Since calcium has been found distributed uniformly over the Shroud, any portion of the original doth could be examined for the presence of Ca-41." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.186). 31/10/2013 "In addition, when STURP scientists made X-ray fluorescence measurements on thirteen threads that had been removed from the Raes sample, they detected small traces of chlorine. [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N. "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin," Analytica Chimica Acta, 135 (1982): 3-49,47.] If a neutron flux irradiated the Shroud, it would convert chlorine-35 (Cl-35), found naturally, to chlorine-36 (Cl-36). Like Ca-41, Cl-36 does not occur naturally. As stated by Thomas Phillips in the scientific journal Nature, `The presence of either [Ca-41 or Cl-36] would confirm that the Shroud had been irradiated with neutrons'" [Phillips, T.J., "Shroud irradiated with neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February 1989, p.594]." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.188). 31/10/2013 "Determining whether Ca-41 and/or Cl-36 are present on the Shroud would involve the destruction of samples from the cloth. Fortunately, there is an abundance of samples on the Shroud that could be removed for this purpose without disfiguring or damaging the cloth in any way. At eight different places over the entire length of the Shroud, there are basically two sets of patches covering various burn holes from the fire of 1532. Shroud cloth can be found behind each of these sixteen locations. Excluding charred material, from behind just some of these patches can easily be found more than enough material for these analyses. So much cloth lies behind these patches that the Shroud could even be carbon dated by the conventional method with this material. [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," 1996, p.154] ]." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.188). 31/10/2013 "Furthermore, as we saw earlier, scientists concluded that the blood marks were on the Shroud first, and shielded the underlying cloth from the body image encoding event. If this event involved a neutron flux, it would also have affected the blood chemically. Iron, abundant in blood, will undergo nuclear reactions with neutrons. A likely product is chromium-53 (Cr-53), which is not normally found in blood. Cr-53 found in blood samples from the Shroud would also confirm that the cloth was irradiated with neutrons. Moreover, if the Shroud was irradiated with neutrons, it could have affected the blood in another significant way. The solid part of dried blood contain mostly proteins, which typically contains about 12 percent nitrogen by weight. This is a much larger amount of nitrogen than is found in cloth. If a neutron flux irradiated the blood on the cloth, it could convert the nitrogen-14 (N-14) into C-14 on a much larger scale than it would convert in cloth. As such, the blood would carbon date to  a much younger date than the cloth. In fact, it could easily date well into the future. Such a date alone would refute the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. (Any date appreciably younger than 1350 would seriously discredit the 1988 dating since the Shroud with its body and blood images has been known in Europe since then.) The blood from the Shroud of Turin should be examined for Cr-53 and should also be carbon dated. Performed in that order, these tests could determine if the Shroud was irradiated with neutrons and if that affected the 1988 carbon dating of the cloth. These tests could not only explain the effect, they could completely refute the earlier radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. Both tests could be performed on the same sample with a mass spectrometer ... " (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.188-189). 31/10/2013 "Fortunately, an adequate amount of blood for both purposes is also easily available and, unlike the other blood on the Shroud, (a) is off of the body image, and (b) provides no other useful information. This blood can be found off the man's anatomical right foot on the dorsal side of the Shroud. (The right foot on the photographic negative image-the left foot on the image as seen with the naked eye. Normally, blood is not the best candidate for carbon dating, because it does not contain a great deal of C-14. However, if the C-14 is enhanced by the large amount of N-14 found in blood, there would easily be enough C-14 present. The approval to carbon date blood from this location could even be given after the above Ca-41 and/or Cl-36 tests are completed to confirm whether the Shroud was irradiated with neutrons.) Naturally, the Shroud's owners should be reluctant to destroy any blood on it, especially in light of the possibility that it was shed by Jesus Christ. Yet, there is an enormous amount of blood on the cloth, literally from head to feet on both the front and back of the man." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.189). 31/10/2013 "These tests could have much greater significance for the world. From only the tests to measure the ratios of Ca-40 to Ca-41, Cl-35 to Cl-36, and Fe-56 to Cr-53, we could calculate the original age of the Shroud! From these ratios we can determine the average amount of neutron flux required to produce three different, independent amounts in both the Shroud linen and blood, which were removed from various parts of the cloth. (If the Ca-40 to Ca-41 ratio can also be determined from the limestone particles, it could provide an additional independent measure of the amount of neutron flux that occurred after the body was placed in the burial cloth inside the tomb.) From the amount of neutron flux, scientists can determine the amounts of newly created C-14 from the known `cross-sections' or conversion rates of N-14 and C-13. This amount of newly created C-14 can then be subtracted from the C-14 found in the C-14 to C-12 ratio in the above samples to arrive at their true original C-14 to C-12 ratio. The equipment that would most likely be used to measure the Ca-40 to Ca-41, Cl- 35 to Cl-36, and Fe-56 to Cr-53 ratios in the cloth, blood, and limestone particles would be an accelerator mass spectrometer or a thermal mass spectrometer." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.189). Nov [top]
2/11/2013 "As Bill Meacham of Hong Kong has so cogently argued (_Newsletter_ no. 14), whatever its results carbon dating should not be considered the be-and-end-all arbiter on the Shroud. Fresh microanalytical work on the Shroud's image and blood marks, combined with textile and similar analyses, are equally needed to be carried out and their results assessed in parallel to any carbon dating findings. But such work does not need a cast of thousands, and hard though it may be to disappoint enthusiastic would-be researchers on some of the more obscure points of interest, it may behove those with the most ambitious and expensive plans to heed the time- honoured maxim to cut one's cloth according to one's means. In all the circumstances, it is unavoidable recalling the parallel of the Roman soldiers parcelling out and casting lots for Christ's garments at the foot of the cross (John 19:23). A forthcoming novel on the Shroud, by Ray Leonard, features a priest secretly arranging the carbon dating of a piece of the Shroud, then at the last moment aborting the results on the grounds that God should not be put to the test. One cannot help but wonder whether this, after all, may be the true wisdom - for all the howls of protest it would undoubtedly raise ..." (Wilson, I., " Editorial - On Cutting One's Cloth ...," _British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter_, 17, September 1987, pp.2-3. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n17part1.pdf). Dec [top]
18/12/2013 "Dr. James Allan Francis puts Christ's life and influence into perspective so well in his famous narrative: `*One Solitary Life* He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village, where He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family or owned a home. He didn't go to college. He never visited a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place where He was born. He did none of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself. He was only thirty- three when the tide of public opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for His garments, the only property He had on earth. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend. Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today He is the central figure of the human race. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that one solitary life.'" (Kennedy D.J. & Newcombe J., "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?: The Positive Impact of Christianity in History," , Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, Revised edition, 2001, pp.7-8).
Copyright © 2013-2014, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 5 February, 2013. Updated: 1 January, 2014.