Posted on 03/16/2010 10:47:41 AM PDT by NYer
The soudarion, commonly spelled ‘sudarium’ today is in Oviedo.
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm
Also, the shroud IS a strip of cloth. It was most likely bound around Christ with other strips of cloth.
This is the closet we have of a photo of Our Lord Jesus.
To those who are against, just think of having a picture of dear family member. Also in the Bible book of Revelation, there is a discription of what Jesus looks like.
Please see post 22. Thank-you.
New Testament was written in Greek please see post 13
It doesn't. In fact, it compliments it. The blood stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo line up with the stains on the shroud. Furthermore, they are the same blood type.
The remarkable thing about this cloth is that both tradition and scientific studies claim that the cloth was used to cover and clean the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. We are going to present and look into these claims.
Sudarium.
For a more comprehensive and scientifically researched study on Shroud of Turn, go to this link.
Yes, I'm sorry if I was unclear. I'm trying to address objections to the authenticity of the Shroud on a purely objective basis.
You see, it could be a one-time event for a crucified man of the first century who was not Jesus Christ. But why would anyone put a crown of thorns on such a person, as the cloth seems to indicate? That specific feature is unique to Jesus. Also, it was not usual Roman practice to pierce the side with a lance, as again the Shroud's image suggests, but to break the legs of those who survived too long on the cross. Again, the Shroud is consistent with the Gospel accounts and not with common Roman practice, as one would expect for some other crucified man.
Both of these pieces of evidence in the image on the Shroud point to its being the burial cloth of Jesus in particular, and not some anonymous individual.
While no one can answer that question just yet, I believe you will find some truly interesting data at the web site below.
If the Shroud is an authentic burial cloth of a much wounded crucified man (it is if it is not a hoax) then is it a lucky fluke that the images are so visually correct? A truly natural explanation requires that a chemical reaction starts and ends. And this is key: The reaction must end sufficiently late for there to be discernible images. And, it must end early enough that the images are not oversaturated. Analysis of the images shows no saturation plateaus. Timing is everything. In photographic terms this is correct exposure. Is this mere luck?
It is also interesting to note that the man of the shroud's legs were not broken, a common practice at that time. Also, the marks on the head attest to the excruciating wounds inflicted by the crown of thorns imposed on Jesus Christ. Who, other than Christ, do we know for certain, was crowned with thorns?
First of all, Catholics do not "worship" the Shroud of Turin. If anything, it would be considered a relic.
Secondly, reverence of relics is based on Scripture. One of the most moving accounts of the veneration of relics is that of the very body of Christ itself. Rather than leaving his body on the cross, to be taken down and disposed of by the Romans (as was the customary practice), Joseph of Arimathea courageously interceded with Pilate for Christ’s body (Mark 15:43, John 19:38). He donated his own, newly hewn tomb as Christ’s resting place (Matt. 27:60). Nicodemus came and donated over a hundred pounds of spices to wrap inside Jesus’ grave clothes (John 19:39), that amount of spices being used only for the most honored dead. And after he was buried, the women went to reverently visit the tomb (Matt. 28:1) and to further anoint Christ’s body with spices even though it had already been sealed inside the tomb (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1). These acts of reverence were more than just the usual courtesy shown to the remains of the dead; they were special respect shown to the body of a most holy man—in this case, the holiest man who has ever lived, for he was God Incarnate.
Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.
But if the shroud is a fraud, which I contend that it is, then it isn’t a relic is it. And if it isn’t a relic then the church should not be promoting it should they
That does not necessarily follow, logically. I realize it seems pedantic, but one must cover all the bases. It's logically possible that the Shroud represents a one-time event, but that the image is of someone other than Jesus Christ.
But it would be highly unusual for any other crucified man of the first century to be crowned with thorns or have his side pierced. Those two pieces of evidence, which are present on the Shroud, are what strongly suggest that the image is of Jesus, and not of someone else.
On what basis do you contend that it is a fraud?
I’m well aware that it was written in Greek.
You are the one hung up on the word napkin, not me.
There is NOTHING to indicated that a “soudarion” was a small square.
“... the Shroud is consistent with the Gospel accounts and not with common Roman practice, as one would expect for some other crucified man.”
That seems correct to me. I am a Christian, not Roman Catholic, and I have looked at as much of the scientific evidence I have been able to study on the shroud. I am a scientist.
I believe we do not know whether the shroud is or is not the burial cloth in which our Lord was wrapped, but there is enough evidence to suggest that it could be that. The discussions here about the napkin and the linen cloth(es) are interesting. The napkin likely was over the head, and the linen cloth was under and over him. Then all that was wrapped, probably with additional linen clothes, wrapping the body and pressing the piece we know as the shroud tight against the body. There is no reason to think that the napkin would interfere with blood stains or image being transferred through the napkin to the shroud. The word for linen clothes in John 20:7 suggests a large piece of cloth, like a linen sail cloth. (Strong’s # G3607, G3608).
The blood stains and the obvious evidence of the head punctured and bleeding, as would be from a crown of thorns, has significance. That in itself makes this shroud unique. Also the belief I have that it is only resurrection power likely to be such that it could impress an image on the shroud.
I have not touched on all the objections that might be posted here or elsewhere regarding the authenticity of the shroud. As I said earlier, I believe we have evidence supportive of it being the shroud that was used to bury our Lord, and that was then impressed with an image at the ressurection.
For me it does not reek of idolatry to regard it as His burial shroud. Why would He not give us something such as this, to be passed down to this time?
If the authenticity is ever proven, there are a few groups today, such as the Amish, who might change their mind about photographs :) Of course we may not know for sure until our Lord comes again into our midst, or we are with Him where He is.
I also admire the Catholic Church position that does not say it is or it isn’t. This has been treated cautiously by the Church.
Careful consideration of what the shroud apparently shows, and if it is His burial cloth, shows an extraordinary glimpse of the awfulness of torture He experienced leading up to His death on the cross. Look at it that way, and consider, not the cloth, but Him. Revere Him, our Lord and Savior, and read Isaiah 53 again, carefully and reverently. Bow, and worship Him.
I don't know if you're interested in the physics of image formation, but you can find an explanation of Beer's Law by clicking here. What it boils down to is that the Density of the image (which is the logarithm of its reflectivity in the case of the Shroud), suitably normalized, is proportional to the logarithm of the relative luminance (i.e., the logarithm of the Exposure) of the incident radiation. The slope of the line relating these two quantities is known as the "gamma" of the exposure. In real film, the "line" is in fact roughly S-shaped, linear in the middle portion, but rolling off at the top in a "shoulder", and at the bottom in a "toe".
The Shroud's image seems to be "toasted" on the surface of the fibers of the cloth, suggesting it was caused by a burst of infrared radiation. The tonal distribution of the image is what one would expect from the physics of this process. But what could have caused the burst of radiation itself? That's the intriguing question, and we physicists love such a mystery. Naturally, we Christians would fill in the blank, so to speak, by saying it was caused by the glory associated with Christ's resurrection from the dead.
With regard to Protestant objections, my observation is that they tend to be distrustful of the Word actually being made Flesh, which is to say the Incarnation. This seems to arise from the Manichean influences the Reformers were subject to. The Catholic faith is nothing if not incarnational, so disagreements are bound to arise on these points.
While it's not Scripture, of course, I'm reminded of the passage in the ancient hymn and Easter sequence, Victimae pascali laudes:
Angelicos testes,This suggests that the "moderately early" Church understood there to have been "grave clothes" in addition to a "head cloth".
sudarium et vestes.
Thank you for your very kind post.
As you know from the philosophy of science, no hypothesis can ever be proven correct by means of the scientific method. This is because the scientific method procedes by inductive rather than deductive reasoning. It can, however, prove an hypothesis false, merely by finding a single counter-example. So scientific theories are different in character from mathematical theorems. The latter are obtained by deduction.
At present the carbon-dating results do seem to disprove the Shroud's authenticity, and that will eventually have to be addressed by further tests. Many questions still remain. The best scientific inquiry can do is suggest a plausible explanation.
The purpose of relics (Acts 5:14-16 and 19:11-12), as you say, is to point the mind and heart to Him, not to be an end of themselves. The Shroud in particular, if authentic, makes clear just how much Our Lord suffered for us, and that can be a very fruitful meditation for all of us, especially in this season of Lent. We need to remind ourselves of our own role in causing His suffering by our sinfulness, so that we can rejoice fully on Easter in His great mercy and forgiveness.
Relics, as well as our attempts to reason about theological matters, are not substitutes for faith, but may serve to make the leap of faith a bit smaller. In this sense, they can be useful tools for evangelization, especially of skeptics.
If authentic, how could we not be grateful to Our Lord for leaving us this artifact?
Since the “napkin” exists, would you venerate or not?
When Catholic AND Protestant scholars were translating the Bible in the 16th century they both used the term “napkin” and it would be an error to assume that this returns to a small cloth we place on our laps while eating. It meant TABLECLOTH and that changes the size of the cloth considerably.
The napkin that covered Jesus’s face EXISTS!! There is the SHROUD of Turin AND the Napkin....I think in Portugal or Spain.
Yeah, that's my favorite too.
Let's look at it logically:
Satan used powers that modern science cannot explain to place the image of the Crucified Jesus Christ on the Shroud...this has lead untold numbers of people to a greater faith in the Resurrected Jesus Christ. How anyone can conclude this is the work of Satan is beyond me.
And Veronica’s Veil.
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.