Posted on 06/12/2022 4:46:31 PM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Your truth pal, there’s every bit as much evidence illustrating the shrouds authenticity.
Believe what you will but take your self righteous arrogant attitude of being the disseminator of only the bonafide truth and shove it.
1. The Shroud of Turin did not attract much attention around the world until the end of the 19th century. The reason for this is is that the Shroud itself did not seem to be all that spectacular. It was an ancient piece of fabric with what appeared to be the image of a man on it. What changed all of this was the advent of photography. An Italian photographer named Secondo Pia received permission to photograph the Shroud during one of its rare public displays, and while he was developing the film he produced a negative that had far more detail than the original image (the dark image of the Shroud that you often see in pictures is the negative, not the original). The implication of this was immediately clear to Pia: The "negative" he was looking at was actually the real image, and the "original" image on the Shroud was actually the negative -- which meant that whatever process was used to produce that image was identical to a photographic process that the world had only discovered recently. It is so unlikely that I'd consider it damn near impossible that someone invented photography 700-800 earlier and then never left any evidence of it.
2. The Shroud cannot possibly be "proven" to be a fake until someone can figure out how the image got there. Even those scientists who insist that it was a forgery are at a loss to explain how someone in the 12th century could possibly have created something that human beings cannot even create today.
3. While most artwork from the Middle Ages depicting the Crucifixion shows Christ nailed to a cross with nails driven through his hands, the image on the Shroud does not show this. Instead, it clearly shows nail wounds in the wrists, which is exactly how a person would have been nailed to a cross -- because nails driven through the middle of the hand would not support the weight of a human body without tearing through the hand. If someone in the 12th century was intent on making a realistic forgery of Christ's burial shroud, then why would he depict the crucifixion in a manner that did not match the prevailing view of how the crucifixion occurred?
4. The hands shown on the image appear to only have four fingers -- leading to speculation that perhaps the person whose image was on the Shroud had his thumbs cut off before "burial." The reality is that the image is anatomically correct, because driving a nail through the wrist between the two bones of the forearm (the radius and the ulna) damages one of the key nerves in the wrist and produces a reflexive reaction in which the thumb is drawn across the palm in such a way that it is not visible from the back of the hand. I find it extremely unlikely that a forger in the Middle Ages would have known such minute detail about human anatomy that he would have been able to replicate the results of this reflexive action.
5. One of the most serious flaws in the argument that the Shroud was created by someone in the 12th century is this: Almost no anatomic detail is visible in the image unless you get further than 15 feet away from it. If someone HAD "painted" it, he/she would have had to have used a paintbrush over 15 feet long!
Another interesting article is this:
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf
This is an article that debunks what seems to be the best example of a non-religious explanation of the shroud. It does a pretty good job attacking the medieval photographic theory.
On the other hand, if God is going to provide physical evidence of His existence why stop at the Shroud of Turin. I can see the argument that no amount of evidence would be enough for some of us and that Jesus already made a personal appearance, but certainly something more unambiguous than the shroud would be nice.
It's real, case closed.
I don’t need the Shroud, to believe in my Lord and Savior.
my belief is not based on relics, saintly or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, well what is it based on? And in your view is your belief the same as your faith?
In light of true faith, the shroud is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting. Can you explain what you mean by the “light of true faith”?
Believe what you will but take your self righteous arrogant attitude of being the disseminator of only the bonafide truth and shove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Yep, I had the very same thought in mind!
I don’t need a relic to have complete faith in the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The Bible gives me all of the evidence and corroboration I need.
The shroud is confirmation.
The shroud is not the Christ. The shroud doesnt save me. I dont need the shroud though I believe it is what its claimed to be. I do need Christ.
# 22 and # 24.
Good.
I don’t need the Shroud, to believe in my Lord and Savior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course you don’t. By the way, what do you need?
And not by coincidence, Jesus had his hands strategically placed so that the energy of the resurrection would not leave a graphic image of his private parts on the negative of the burial shroud...He was quite modest!
That is not a very Christ-like response. I don't read anywhere in the Bible of Jesus talking like that. You just give ammunition to those who hate God, Jesus and the Bible. When people say they have prayed for those suffering and have them in their thoughts and then read your response, they respond "F_ _K your thoughts and prayers." which is what they've been doing. "A soft answer turns away wrath." the Bible says.
The Bible gives me all of the evidence and corroboration I need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly it does. I bet you can quote it chapter and verse!
By the way, are you a diehard KJV defender, too?
Then, I want no part of your religion. You're going to disagree with me on some other matter and want to assault me. Can you see what you are doing over a relic which is mired in controversy?
The shroud doesnt save me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Save you? Save you from what?
Actually, no. I prefer the New American Standard. It is accurate and the language used is more up-to-date to the common vernacular of today.
My faith is quite enough.
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.