Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Burial Cloth Found In Jerusalem Cave Casts Doubt On Authenticity of Turin Shroud [Really?]
Daily Mirror (UK) ^ | December 15th 2009

Posted on 12/15/2009 8:35:30 PM PST by Steelfish

Burial Cloth Found In Jerusalem Cave Casts Doubt On Authenticity of Turin Shroud

By MATTHEW KALMAN 16th December 2009

Archaeologists have discovered the first known burial shroud in Jerusalem from the time of Christ's crucifixion - and say it casts serious doubt on the claimed authenticity of the Turin Shroud.

Ancient shrouds from the period have been found before in the Holy Land, but never in Jerusalem. Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem's Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud.

Discovery: The shrouded body of a man was found in this sealed chamber of a cave in the Hinnom Valley, overlooking the Old City of Jerusalem Radiocarbon tests and artefacts found in the cave prove almost beyond doubt that it was from the same time of Christ's death.

It was made with a simple two-way weave - not the twill weave used on the Turin Shroud, which textile experts say was introduced more than 1,000 years after Christ lived. And instead of being a single sheet like the famous item in Turin, the Jerusalem shroud is made up of several sections, with a separate piece for the head.

Professor Shimon Gibson, the archaeologist who discovered the tomb, said ancient writings and contemporary shrouds from other areas had suggested this design, and the Jerusalem shroud finally provided the physical evidence. The debate over the Turin Shroud will not go away. Last month a Vatican researcher said she had found the words 'Jesus Nazarene' on the shroud, proving it was the linen cloth which was wrapped around Christ's body.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; leprosy; letshavejerusalem; shroud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

1 posted on 12/15/2009 8:35:31 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Uh Huh. Why don’t they tell us all about the image on that shroud they found too.


2 posted on 12/15/2009 8:37:27 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Just in time for Christmas...


3 posted on 12/15/2009 8:40:00 PM PST by donna ( I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth. - Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I don’t know if the Shroud of Turin is what people think it is or not, but why would finding a different style of shroud “cast doubt” on the one in Turin? Do we all dress identically today, or all use the same kind of bedding, or drapes, or anything else? Why would we expect those in the first century Roman Empire to all use the same things?


4 posted on 12/15/2009 8:40:14 PM PST by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
... why would finding a different style of shroud “cast doubt” on the one in Turin? Do we all dress identically today, or all use the same kind of bedding, or drapes, or anything else? Why would we expect those in the first century Roman Empire to all use the same things?

Precisely. Not everyone is buried now, and then if they are, not in the same style/type of casket. Far too many variables insofar as the material used, imho. Joseph of Arimathea (sp?) was a wealthy man, iirc, and could have provided really high-end shroud material as well as the tomb.

5 posted on 12/15/2009 8:44:02 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

Perhaps there was one type of shroud for commoners, and a better quality for nobles. Jesus was buried in a noble’s tomb.


6 posted on 12/15/2009 8:46:55 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

Indeed. Plus the volume of trade across the empire was enormous. Dried fish from the Sea of Tiberias made its way to Rome. Goods made in Britain in the second Century have been found in the Holy Land. Rome owed that to Pompey who savaged the sea pirates and made the seas safe for trade for hundreds of years. Roman highways were superior to any made in Europe until the 18th Century. Roman garrisons made them safe for merchants and travelers.


7 posted on 12/15/2009 8:49:01 PM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Ping.


8 posted on 12/15/2009 8:49:44 PM PST by rdl6989 (January 20, 2013 The end of an error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

What idiocy.

1. As a weaver . . . I can attest that single weavers can weave any number of different styles. Twill is not that complicated. Sheesh.

2. It is highly likely that a special weave would have ended up as Christ’s cloth.

3. Jerusalem likely had many weavers from many regions with a great variety of styles.

4. Burial cloths and customs were also likely quite varied. And it would only take varying by say only 2-4 different styles to make the assertions of this article grossly foolhardy.


9 posted on 12/15/2009 8:50:33 PM PST by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Ancient shrouds from the period have been found before in the Holy Land, but never in Jerusalem. Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem's Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud....The debate over the Turin Shroud will not go away. Last month a Vatican researcher said she had found the words 'Jesus Nazarene' on the shroud, proving it was the linen cloth which was wrapped around Christ's body.

Ping for later

10 posted on 12/15/2009 8:53:57 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

So just like the Climate Debate this is now settled? Sorry, not buying it. The left continuously works itself into a frenzy trying to disprove/discredit Christ and the Resurrection. As far as I am concerned they can ram their discovery right up their....uh, theory.


11 posted on 12/15/2009 8:54:18 PM PST by RadioCirca1970 (Victory or Death in the War on Terror)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

ping


12 posted on 12/15/2009 8:55:59 PM PST by Fractal Trader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

It doesn’t matter what Jesus was buried in. It matters that the burial cloth was used for only three days, then discarded.

Let’s worship the Savior, not souvenirs.


13 posted on 12/15/2009 8:56:07 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

According to the New Testament, Joseph, in whose tomb he was buried was a member of the Sanhedrin, the Council of 70.


14 posted on 12/15/2009 8:58:04 PM PST by cookcounty (“HOAX and CHEnge” ......Obama's beret comes into clear view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
John 20:6,7 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
15 posted on 12/15/2009 9:02:45 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

If its true that twill was not used there until 1000 years later then there is a problem for the Turin cloth. Not much different than claiming we have the pants Colombus wore: blue jeans.


16 posted on 12/15/2009 9:07:29 PM PST by phredo53 (Caution: This post does not comply with White House standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Good point. Thanks.


17 posted on 12/15/2009 9:09:49 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Quix

And don’t forget that the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimanthea. He was wealthy and since he was donating his tomb to bury Christ, it makes sense he would also donate the linens prepared for himself. They were probably of finer stuff than the typical burial shroud.


18 posted on 12/15/2009 9:11:28 PM PST by Melian ("Here's the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost." ~Archbishop Charles Chaput)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Some people really, REALLY don’t want the Shroud to be genuine.


19 posted on 12/15/2009 9:16:39 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Agreed.

People have no idea just how sophisticated weaving and dying were thousands of years ago. Its the same with plaid , with the Brits saying that it didn’t exist prior to 1500 , when 4000 year old Celtic mummies in Urumchi, China were recently found wearing twill and plaid.

Twill was woven widely 4000 years ago. Thats a fact.


20 posted on 12/15/2009 9:17:47 PM PST by Candor7 ((The effective weapons Against Fascism are ridicule, derision , and truth (.Member NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Nice point.


21 posted on 12/15/2009 9:21:30 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
A) IIRC ancient textile 'experts' (obviously different ones) have previously cited the unusual twill weave of the Turin Shroud as evidence for it being from the correct time. It will be interesting to see if pro-Shroud 'experts' come forward to dispute that point.

B) I'd thought there was one, and only one known archaeologically confirmed case of what we now call leprosy (Hansen's disease) from that time and area and it was a fairly recent find. That was a walled up burial that had never been opened to collect and rebury the bones after a year, which was the normal Jewish practice then. What the bible referred to as "leprosy" is much debated, but probably was several diseases with prominent skin involvement such as psoriasis. HD is known from biblical times in India, but not from the middle east excepting the one recent find. I wonder if this cloth was from that burial or whether they've found a second burial of HD there. HD was often a more severe disease in the middle ages than what is usually seen today and probably was also more severe in the 1st century AD. TB would have been a common disease then; it is more likely this poor soul was given a quick and permanent burial because his HD was both unfamiliar and horrific to them. I doubt this was a 'normal' burial for the time, not that Christ's was normal either...

22 posted on 12/15/2009 9:22:33 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Some people really, REALLY don’t want the Shroud to be genuine.

My 17-year-old's Spanish teacher told the class he didn't believe in God. I said that it was an intellectually weak position because it presumed an exhaustive knowledge of all reality (in other words a God-like knowledge) to be able to conclusively rule out the existence of God. A more realistic position would be to claim that he wasn't convinced of the existence of God, but that such a position was undesirable by atheists because they don't want to entertain even the possibility that God exists. That would put them into a position of having to answer to claims by a being superior to their own and that is intolerable. He asked where do they think everything came from. I said from the Big Bang, attributing to it the source of all being, as though to God, but in a safe, materialistic, non-judgmental form.
23 posted on 12/15/2009 9:28:38 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
People have no idea just how sophisticated weaving and dying were thousands of years ago

And it perhaps was so because it was a lifelong job for a weaver, and inventing a new style immediately gave him an economic advantage. A weaver doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to pull a thread over two, or three, other threads instead of one.

24 posted on 12/15/2009 9:31:56 PM PST by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

It’s like one guy buried in a polyester suit and another in silk. Doesn’t mean they didn’t die in the same timeframe.

But Jesus is risen. The linen was left behind for a reason.


25 posted on 12/15/2009 9:39:03 PM PST by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
[Barber's Prehistoric Textiles] provides all the necessary chapter, verse and photographs to counter the often-voiced argument amongst sceptics that the Shroud's herringbone weave could not date from the 1st century AD. As Barber points out (p.186ff), in the ancient salt mines at Hallstatt near Vienna the miners of the early 1st millennium BC used old rags to light their way. Scraps of these became preserved in crevices from which have come to light more than a hundred pieces of early 1st millennium BC cloth, many of these twill weave, and five specifically of herringbone.

By way of a further example, on p.196 Barber reproduces the remains of a black horsehair sash, found in a bog at Armoy, County Antrim, Northern Ireland, again dating from the early 1st millennium BC, and bearing the closest resemblance to the Shroud's weave. As Barber goes on to point out (p.190), the Hallstatt folk worked with flax (i.e. linen), as well as wool and other fibres. So although this is not to suggest that the Shroud actually derived from the Hallstatt culture, which was broadly Celtic (as in the case of ancient Egypt linens, the Hallstatt fabrics simply survived due to exceptional environmental conditions), it is quite clear that the Shroud's herringbone twill weave represents no obstacle to a first century AD date.

26 posted on 12/15/2009 9:41:28 PM PST by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Quix
The cloth itself has been described (Raes 1976) as a three-to-one herringbone twill, a common weave in antiquity but generally used in silks of the first centuries A.D. rather than linen. The thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed; after ca. 1200, most European thread was spun on the wheel. Minute traces of cotton fibers were discovered, an indication that the Shroud was woven on a loom also used for weaving cotton. (The use of equipment for working both cotton and linen would have been permitted by the ancient Jewish ritual code whereas wool and linen would have been worked on different looms to avoid the prohibited "mixing of kinds.") The cotton was of the Asian Gossypum herbaceum, and some commentators have construed its presence as conclusive evidence of a Middle Eastern origin.
27 posted on 12/15/2009 9:43:46 PM PST by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Sinful human nature dictates that IF God had left any actual artifacts that came in direct contact with Jesus, the creation would be worshiped instead of the Creator. Which, IMHO, is why we would never find any of it.


28 posted on 12/15/2009 9:47:12 PM PST by uptoolate (Governments don’t love...People do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
You know that Martha Stewart label should have been a tip off.
29 posted on 12/15/2009 10:03:12 PM PST by ditto h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Ping.


30 posted on 12/15/2009 10:12:54 PM PST by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Since there have been studies done on the Turin shroud that reveal things like pollen which are from the Jerusalem area, I wonder if anyone has done the same studies on this new shroud?


31 posted on 12/15/2009 10:14:06 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uptoolate
“...IF God had left any actual artifacts...”

We don't have to have artifacts when there are places...but Christians never made the Jordan River into the Ganges and we never made Bethlehem into Mecca. God left us many puzzles from atomic nuclei to the Shroud to Capernaum to the Heavens.

32 posted on 12/15/2009 10:14:47 PM PST by Monterrosa-24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; albee; AnalogReigns; AnAmericanMother; Angelas; AniGrrl; annalex; annyokie; ...
The claim that an unclean leper, buried in the hills above Jerusalem, with a motley collection of cloths, never gathered into the central ossuary of his ancestors, is somehow evidence of "normal Jewish" burial in Jerusalem, is contrary to Jewish tradition and customs... but here it is, anyway.

Obligatory Holiday anti-Shroud of Turin story PING!

If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.


33 posted on 12/15/2009 10:15:34 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE isAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
It doesn’t matter what Jesus was buried in. It matters that the burial cloth was used for only three days, then discarded. Let’s worship the Savior, not souvenirs.

The Catholic bashers have arrived. Thanks for that pithy comment and the charity in which it was delivered. I'm sure someone is as proud of you as you are of yourself.

34 posted on 12/15/2009 10:21:55 PM PST by grammarman (Pride goeth before the the fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

Since the woman with an issue of blood was healed by touching the *fringe of Christ’s garment* it is not surprising that such “souvenirs” are venerated in traditional Christianity.

“25And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,

26And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,

27When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.

28For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.

29And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.

30And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?

31And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?

32And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.

33But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.

34And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. (Mark 5:25-34)


35 posted on 12/15/2009 10:23:06 PM PST by MilicaBee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

BINGO =


36 posted on 12/15/2009 10:25:49 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help" Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phredo53
If its true that twill was not used there until 1000 years later then there is a problem for the Turin cloth. Not much different than claiming we have the pants Colombus wore: blue jeans.

That claim is not true. One of many of the claims in this article that is simply not true... including the one that remnants of shrouds have not been found in burials inside Jerusalem. In fact, the weaving of the Shroud, done on a wall loom, with the hand spinning, the soapwort fullering, and hank bleaching technique, when used in combination... something that would not have been likely done deliberately... are all, according to numerous textile experts, uniquely first Century. The thee over one twill in Linen would have been a very expensive cloth that would have represented weeks of work of a skilled weaver. It would have been reserved for avery wealthy buyer, a person such as Joseph of Arimathea was described as having been.

A leper, with two communicable diseases, such as the body covered by this shroud, is probably not a candidate for purchasing a "fine Linen cloth" and his relative used what they could afford. In fact, as you know, as a weaver, the larger the cloth, the more expensive it will be.

What this burial DOES prove, however, is that they DID use a large sheet... and bound his wrists, his jaw, and his ankles, as is reported in Jewish custom and was postulated as the "bindings" or mistranslated "wrappings" in Jesus' burial.

37 posted on 12/15/2009 10:37:09 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE isAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
It doesn’t matter what Jesus was buried in. It matters that the burial cloth was used for only three days, then discarded. Let’s worship the Savior, not souvenirs.

I've been trying to get this point across for ages whenever an article like this is posted. It seems as though no one listens to this reasoning as it is easier to worship items like pieces of cloth or images showing up on toast instead of just having true faith and not needing to worship items (yes it is worship).
38 posted on 12/15/2009 10:38:56 PM PST by brent13a (You're a Great American! NO you're a Great American! NO NO NO YOU'RE a Great American! Nooo.....WTF?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: grammarman
The Catholic bashers have arrived. Thanks for that pithy comment and the charity in which it was delivered. I'm sure someone is as proud of you as you are of yourself.

Wow. You assume that because someone states we shouldn't be doting on a piece of cloth, that may or may not have anything to do with the burial of the Son of God, that makes them "catholic bashers". Just wow.
39 posted on 12/15/2009 10:39:49 PM PST by brent13a (You're a Great American! NO you're a Great American! NO NO NO YOU'RE a Great American! Nooo.....WTF?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer
B) I'd thought there was one, and only one known archaeologically confirmed case of what we now call leprosy (Hansen's disease) from that time and area and it was a fairly recent find. That was a walled up burial that had never been opened to collect and rebury the bones after a year, which was the normal Jewish practice then.

This is the VERY SAME burial... it had the Shroud they are talking about. It was found in 2000. They have just dusted it off and are using it as "new"...

40 posted on 12/15/2009 10:40:26 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE isAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield
The cloth itself has been described (Raes 1976) as a three-to-one herringbone twill, a common weave in antiquity but generally used in silks of the first centuries A.D. rather than linen. The thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed; after ca. 1200, most European thread was spun on the wheel. Minute traces of cotton fibers were discovered, an indication that the Shroud was woven on a loom also used for weaving cotton. (The use of equipment for working both cotton and linen would have been permitted by the ancient Jewish ritual code whereas wool and linen would have been worked on different looms to avoid the prohibited "mixing of kinds.") The cotton was of the Asian Gossypum herbaceum, and some commentators have construed its presence as conclusive evidence of a Middle Eastern origin.

Unfortunately, the Raes samples (taken in 1973) have been conclusively proved to have been a melange of mixed original Shroud linen Flax interwoven with a Medieval Cotton patch invisibly rewoven in the 16th Century to repair a worn area. This Raes area is right next the area where the 1988 Carbon 14 sample was taken and both suffer from the same problem, pollution with the 16th century cotton repair threads. The Cotton that Raes observed in his sample were only observed in his sample and were found in no other locations on the Shroud. His generalizations based on his observations of his samples were erroneously generalized to the Shroud because he assumed the samples were homogenous to the Shroud... just as the scientists who Carbon dated the adjacent samples generalized their results to the Shroud because they also assumed erroneously that their samples were homogenous to the Shroud as well. Both were wrong. Their sample both included material from the 16th Century.

These findings from 2005, have been peer reviewed and duplicated in several scientific journals. Incidentally, the latest studies have found that Raes was wrong about the type of Cotton... it was a European cotton... not Egyptian. However, because it was from a Medieval patch, that would be expected.

41 posted on 12/15/2009 10:56:27 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE isAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
You'd have to talk to someone who knows how to spin, and how to weave, and who knows the nature of flax cultivation and the history of assembling cloth.

Really, they don't talk to those women who understand fabric from the raw textile.

When I first read about the shroud of Turin, I didn't care much for the image, but for the fabric. Because if a length of linen could last 2000 years, that was a miracle itself. That it was a ***wide*** piece of fabric was an indication against the authenticity--ancient looms were narrow. Not that it could not have been supernatural, but everyone focused on the image and I could never get the scientific details about the piece of fabric.

42 posted on 12/15/2009 10:58:31 PM PST by Mamzelle (Who is Kenneth Gladney? (Don't forget to bring your cameras))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: brent13a
“..and not needing to worship items (yes it is worship).”

I must admit that I find these archaeological finds that relate to the Bible as interesting. While I would really like to think that someday “proof” as to the origin of the shroud and the supernatural image on it can be confirmed (or at least - “we can't explain the image”) - it doesn't matter one whit with regard to my faith.

Awhile ago they found something with a reference to King David (an inscription on a coin, building, something). Prior to that there was no archaeological evidence regarding a King David - with many saying he was a myth. I'm sure that the finding of the inscription did not change any minds regarding faith issues, but it sure is interesting - to me anyway.

I wonder if prior to this find of another cloth, the “deniers” (those adamantly denying even the possibility - for faith reasons) were saying about the Shroud of Turin “Well, no other shroud has ever been found in Jerusalem - it would be amazing that the one shroud we DID find just happened to be Jesus’ “).

Hmmm. I suppose they have some reasonable answer on the lack of finding shrouds. One of the earlier post said they reburied the bones. Did they recycle the shrouds into something else. That would seem odd - especially with all of the rules they had to follow regarding clean/unclean, etc. Perhaps they were burned in some type of ceremony?

Anyway, as a person interested in the sciences, history, and a Christian - I find the Shroud of Turin an interesting subject. With regards to the separate piece for the head - there is another relic in Europe of that. I think it had something to do with being wrapped under the chin and over the head to keep the jaw closed.

43 posted on 12/15/2009 11:04:41 PM PST by 21twelve (Drive Reality out with a pitchfork if you want , it always comes back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
My 17-year-old's Spanish teacher told the class he didn't believe in God. ... A more realistic position would be to claim that he wasn't convinced of the existence of God,

The two statements have the same meaning. He doesn't believe because he's not convinced.

but that such a position was undesirable by atheists because they don't want to entertain even the possibility that God exists

Is it undesirable for you to entertain even the possibility that Zeus exists? How much does the possible existence of Zeus threaten or worry you? Probably not at all, right? Now you may understand.

44 posted on 12/15/2009 11:05:44 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

The weaving argument didn’t make much sense. Now if the Shroud were polyester or had a Gucci logo on it...


45 posted on 12/15/2009 11:10:06 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Whether real or spurrious, the Shroud of Turin is absolutely fascinating, all the more so because it was Science herself which made it an issue when towards the end of the 19th Century the negative-to-positive image was discovered.

Catholics don’t worship it, they worship the Redeemer, but it is perfectly sane and natural to take interest in the “souvenir” if it is indeed authentic. To ignore it would be foolish pride. It is there before us, it exists, and it has qualities that make it impossible to explain. No one should be accused of idolatry for showing interest in it.

It is one instance in which debunking is not enough. The cloth demands an explanation. In other words, if bogus, that too needs to be figured out. Far from being a test of faith, it is a test of science. Faith remains either way, but what happens to positivistic science?


46 posted on 12/16/2009 12:04:53 AM PST by Youaskedforit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
Did they recycle the shrouds into something else. That would seem odd - especially with all of the rules they had to follow regarding clean/unclean, etc. Perhaps they were burned in some type of ceremony?

The cloth would not have survived the effects of putrefaction process of the body... there would not be much left after the microbes and insects had reduced the body to bones. It is theorized that the Shroud of Turin survived because it only covered the body for less than three days, and the body was removed, for whatever reason before much putrefaction set in...

47 posted on 12/16/2009 12:26:46 AM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE isAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Interesting - makes sense. Thanks!


48 posted on 12/16/2009 12:34:27 AM PST by 21twelve (Drive Reality out with a pitchfork if you want , it always comes back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
For me I know that the shroud is real. The LORD gave me a totally unexpected glorious vision many years ago when I was looking at a picture of it in a paperback book.

I was a maid for a very wealthy young Jordanian Muslim. I had given him a copy of a paperback about the Shroud to read to see what he thought about it.

In an ordinary day, an ordinary maid became blessed by God. As I was changing his bedding the book was lying on the bed. I picked it up and looked at the picture of the image of Christ. I was looking at it very carefully to see if I could tell what Christ might look like and said to The LORD in my heart that I wish that I could see what He really looked like not expecting anything to actually happen.

In an instant The LORD transformed me to a place that I could plainly see the face of Jesus. Glorious light was streaming from his face. The light was so beautiful because it was not just light but it was also pure love. This was many years ago and I shall never forget His beautiful face and often think about how someday I shall see it again.

2Cr 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

49 posted on 12/16/2009 1:52:11 AM PST by Bellflower (If you are left DO NOT take the mark of the beast and be damned forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
It is theorized that the Shroud of Turin survived because it only covered the body for less than three days, and the body was removed, for whatever reason before much putrefaction set in...

Because of who Christ was his body did not decompose as others would:

Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Referring to:

Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Referring to:

Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

50 posted on 12/16/2009 2:01:47 AM PST by Bellflower (If you are left DO NOT take the mark of the beast and be damned forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson