Skip to comments.Does This Finding Prove Jesusí Resurrection? New Book Offers Stunning Details About the Shroud
Posted on 03/30/2013 1:29:01 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Shroud of Turin continues to spark intense theological debate. While one side believes that the cloth is nothing more than a medieval forgery, the other contends that the x-ray-like image imprinted on it was supernaturally created during Jesus Christs resurrection.
In the past, claims that it was the work of a renaissance artist, an optical illusion or, as mentioned, a legitimate, faith-inspired phenomenon have abounded. Without a doubt, the cloth has confounded supporters and detractors, alike, for decades.
Now, The Mystery of the Shroud, a book that examines new chemical and mechanical tests that were more recently conducted on the shroud, seems to side with the latter assessment. Journalist Saverio Gaeta and Giulio Fanti of Italys University of Padua (professor of mechanical and thermal measurement) collaborated on the new book that maintains that the Shroud of Turin dates back to the 1st century and not to a later time period as some have contended.
As TheBlaze previously reported, the shroud features an image of a bearded man (i.e. Jesus) whose body appears to have wounds from nails in his hands and feet the same locations that some believe were affected when Christ was nailed to the cross....
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
The image is a negative, which becomes positive when viewing a photographic negative. Why on earth would a would be forger create a negative image ? It does seem slightly taller than the average height of Jesus’ time and there is only one piece of cloth when the Bible clearly states two but it basically seems real to me as well.
The Bible describes two pieces of cloth, but they are not both “burial shrouds” as you see this. Conventional burial practices at the time would indicate that the second piece of cloth was a much smaller one that was wrapped only around the head of the deceased.
Wouldn’t the scriptures be a clearer “road marker”, and preceding the shroud?
I have to laugh every time I read many “scientific” tracts on Biblical events. They cite everything else as evidence, but never the actual Bible.
It’s as if they automatically assume the Bible is false or distorted history, until something else comes along to verify it.
Objectivity, inquiry, etc. are one thing, but they won’t admit any active negative bias.
Correct. Here is an excellent video from the History channel on the latest research. Long but worth a watch.
As opposed to those who think Jesus was scotch taped to the cross?
It’s a historic artifact. It has been examined by the same forensic methods used on other historic artifacts,including historic artifacts in criminal trials.
Except that it has been examined more thoroughly than any other historic artifact in history.
And the science evidence by a vast, overwhelming preponderance points to this being a burial shroud from the time of Jesus with an image formed in an inexplicable manner.
It does NOT prove the Resurrection. It does, however, point pretty strongly to the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
It is mentioned in the Bible—the curious scene where John and Peter run to the tomb and see the graveclothes. I never understood why the autbor bothered to mention that the graveclothes were lying there.
But it’s clear to me now that they had picked up those graveclothes and preserved them as relics. The author of JOhn’s gospel thought everyone knew about those relics, everyone knew they had been preserved, so he didn’t say anymore about them.
The Shroud does not prove the Resurrection but it makes it more believable. What the Shroud really does is show that it’s possible to preserve a relic of this sort over thousands of years, despite war and pillaging and the changes in governments and cultures.
If people consider an artifact really, really, really, really important they can defy impossible odds to preserve it.
And the Shroud is a testimony to the continuity of the Church over all these centuries. Perhaps the Church’s preservation of the story of Jesus is not garbled and mythologized but
Yeah, and that one has also been preserved,at Oviedo in Spain. It’s facial image lines up perfectly with the one on the Shroud.
THe Shroud IS one of the two graveclothes mentioned in John.
Jesus resurrection is a matter of faith. Either you believe the Lord rose or you do not. I do not need a bunch of liberals, who were not there, who have their anti-Christian, anti-Jesus, pro-homo agenda, telling me. The Bible is good enough for me. It was good enough for my great-great grandparents, my great grandparents, my grandparents, my parents. Thus, it is good enough for me. Their faith, even way back then, led down through the years, before these homo lovers came to the front, taught us the Bible is the TRUTH. I don’t doubt it. Those that do, do so at their peril. I will not argue with anyone about it. If you don’t believe, then you had better be correct. If you are wrong, you will regret for all eternity your decision. I believe, thus I am not worried about it. My eternity is secure in the Lord Jesus Christ, Yeshua.
You are correct - He IS risen and all any “proof” does is to provide a gap for the Evil One to insert his wedge. Burn it and be done with it (not a real proposal - just my opinion).
Depending on what you define as "religious," and what you accept as "proof."
Muslims would point out paperwork such as the achtiname, which is stashed away somewhere in Istanbul, last I heard; it's got Muhammad's signature and a handprint.
Then there's Mormon and Quaker leaders...and Joan of Arc...innumerable other saints.
If you are going to prove that the Bible story about Christ being crucified at a certain place and on a certain time is true, you can't just say its true because the Bible says so and still claim it's a scientific argument, or a logical argument. It's not an argument at all when posed that way, it's a statement of faith.
But then why accept any other contemporary evidence? Just because a stone has a name carved on it from that time is no better evidence.
My point is there doesn’t seem to be the same overt cynicism about, say Hammurapi’s code or Socrates. They always seem to put a qualifier in when talking about the Bible, though.
It’s a bias that seems mostly directed one way.
Strawbs “A Glimpse of Heaven”
There exists, in Spain, a second cloth, a facecloth, which is linked to the Shroud. Its provenance is less disputed than the shroud, having been traced historically from the Middle East to Spain well within the time frame.
While this particular item does not have the image phenomenon the shroud does, it does have some interesting supportive characteristics. It bears blood stains in the fabric just as the shroud does. Those blood stains were examined by forensic types, and it was determined that it is possible, indeed likely, that because of the positioning, and shape of those stains, that this 'face cloth' lay on top of the shroud itself.
To those who claim that the shroud is nothing more than a middle ages forgery, how can *this* be explained?
Actually, my friend, that was established back in 1977, even prior to the original STURP team investigation in 1978, using the VP8 Image Analyzer (now very old technology; state of the art at the time).
...or.....how about this: the fact that the Shroud image is a photographic negative, and that the blood trails follow the laws of circulation.....both 500 years before either was discovered by man? ...or the fact that the Shroud image is anatomically perfect, and there is no piece of art on the planet that is anatomically perfect......or the fact that you cannot even see the image until you are at least 11 feet away, so an “artist” would have had to use a VERY long paint brush....
I could go on and on and on here.....
Fascinating. Amazing. Perhaps a glimpse of what Jesus looks like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.