Skip to comments.Shroud of Turin
Posted on 11/24/2010 7:38:30 PM PST by truthfinder9
The authenticity Shroud of Turin has been the most debated of Christian relics in history. Many believe this is the burial shroud of Jesus. Some dismiss it out of hand because of their religious or philosophical beliefs about God. Some Protestants are wary of they perceive as a Catholic relic. But what if it is real? What if it is an authentic archaeological piece?
(Excerpt) Read more at shadowsofhistory.wordpress.com ...
But what if it is real? What if it is an authentic archaeological piece?
What if it is? What difference does it make?
What if it is? What difference does it make
Maybe we are supposed to worship a cloth or something. :0)
My faith doesn’t rely on material objects.
It looks like a TSA scan.
Just like in Jurassic Park you take a dna sample from the blood..........
I don’t think he is.
It won’t change my faith one bit.
I don't need a relic/cloth to believe, but it is sweet to possibly have something that would help another's unbelief.
If it is, then Jesus created it deliberately, to be found and contemplated as 2000+ year old evidence of His existence and miraculous intervention in human civilization.
I, for one, do not choose to argue with Jesus' wisdom in doing this.
We already know from roman records that jesus was crucified in the typical roman way. Therefore he died, and then was given a death shroud.
I care about the actual shroud as much as I care about the actual cross. both are meaningless.
“We already know from roman records that jesus was crucified in the typical roman way.”
Nope. There are no contemporary Roman records that speak of Christ. None.
“I care about the actual shroud as much as I care about the actual cross. both are meaningless.”
Not to those who believe. Christians of old were wiser than some Christians today who are too stupid to realize the value of those things Jesus used for His eucatastrophe.
How come we cannot pinpoint the exact date of Jesus Birth or Death? I firmly believe the mystery is fully intentional on the part of God. God knows His creation so very well - and knows its proclivity to worship “things”, including days/dates. The same goes for Jesus tomb and the exact location of the stable.
The Word of God in no-way calls for the worship or adoration of anything other than Jesus Christ. Not pictures, remnants, places,or other “relics” (in fact, those clearly fall under the worship of idols).
Yet man continues to seek after “things” to place his trust in, while God calls us to faith in Him alone.
I have been weaving since 1984. So from a weaver’s viewpoint, the cloth has some flaws. The same kind of flaws as one of my younger apprentices would make.
I would think it would have been woven by a younger, not so experienced person.
Thanks for the ping!
“You may be wrong.”
“I read somewhere that they have records from Pontius Pilate that talks about a Jesus.”
Nope. There are no such contemporary records. What you’re talking about are apocryphal stories.
“Not using his name but about being crucified. I could be wrong but wont hurt to look it up.”
Already have - many times. There are NO contemporary records from the Romans that attest to Jesus. The earliest records are from decades later. The book to read is by F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside of the New Testament (1974). Bruce discusses ALL of the known and genuine sources - Suetonius, Tacitus, etc.
Or God’s Word?
Leviticus 26:1 immediately comes to mind.
2 Kings 18:3-4
and of course - Exodus 20:4 would qualify as the “grand-daddy” regarding this issue.
All this being said - our desires can be idols. our habits or hobbies can be idols. What we eat or drink can be idols. Idols are anything that get the respect, reverence, attention, focus, worship, etc. that God deserves.
Again - I have yet to find in my years of extensive Biblical studies - ANY command or even suggestion that followers of Christ should worship/adore/revere ANYTHING or ANYONE but Jesus Christ alone.
And the referecne to relics raising someone from the dead- I assume you are referring to 2 Kings 13 when a man was cast into Elisha’s grave (presumably by accident because of impending danger). Where does that indicate that the “relics” were used intentionally by those burying the dead man? Further - how does this incident provide a defense for the collection and attempted USE (and the subsequent worship and adoration given the relics) of these items?
Closest thing I can find to the “collection” of relics advocated is when Moses carried the bones of Joseph. But what was the ultimate destination? That he might be buried in the promised land. NO indication is given for worship/adoration/mystical powers associated.
Notice that the location of Moses final grave is unknown even to this day... any guess why? Would the Hebrews not have worshiped the location and his remains? Quite possible, given the prominent position given to him.
“who said the Divine Liturgy over the bones or martyrs” - do you have any idea how silly (and unscriptural) that sounds?
According to the New Testament - how many real High Priests are there?
According to the New Testament, who is the only arbiter between mankind and God?
According to the New Testament - what are the “Saints” (lets not get into the definition as used by Paul just yet) doing when “seen” in Heaven? They are worshiping and singing to God. Not making petitions. Not interceding. For that is the position and job of God the Son - Jesus Christ.
Sentimental value only.
“The Description of Publius Lentullus
The following was taken from a manuscript in the possession of Lord Kelly, and in his library, and was copied from an original letter of Publius Lentullus at Rome. It being the usual custom of Roman Governors to advertise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their provinces in the days of Tiberius Caesar, Publius Lentullus, President of Judea, wrote the following epistle to the Senate concerning the Nazarene called Jesus.
“There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raised the dead and cured all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him Laugh, but many have seen Him Weep. In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men”
***************** I'm intrigued by the reference of his hair style being in the manner of the Nazarenes (NOT to mean from the village of Nazareth, but of the Nazarene sect of Essenes whose headquarters was at Mt.Carmel, a few miles from Nazareth.
Also, were this ‘made up’, why would the author give His hair, complexion and eye color as quite different that what most people perceive to be of the Jews of that time? (The latter perceptions, I believe, are myopic.)
There is much evidence to support Jesus as belonging to the Nazarene sect - indeed, so stated in the Bible. The Nazarene priesthood also wore shorter, forked beards.
As to hair/eye coloring, there has been much written on that also - but bottom line, the Jewish people then, as now, were from many ‘tribes’, and hardly all of dark hair, short and swarthy - as many are tying to portray Jesus today - because of a skeleton or two that has been found from that time.
That's like finding a skeleton of someone from today, hundreds of years from now, and saying - “See, this is what they looked like.” (Just go to the supermarket and stand for a few minutes, watching people. What would a future archaeologist, finding the bones of one of us, conclude as to what today's people looked like?
I like the Publius Lentullus description as it would seem, were it made up, it would have described a man more in line with the long and present assumption of what he, being a ‘Jew’ would have looked like, as to coloring.
The History Channel's newest show on The Shroud last Easter was the best yet. An artist took months using the unique properties of the Shroud (in producing a 3-D depiction of the subject under certain applications,) and, except for coloring, which of course is not incorporated in the cloth, produced a bust of a man that looked like - JESUS.
The artist fell short, however, I believe, by assuming his hair and eyes to be dark.
(As I mentioned, I am an artist - a portrait artist. I have been following The Shroud since long before The 1978 STURP Team of scientists who were allowed to examine The Shroud. I have read their books, from the forensic experts, the photographers, the botanists - all the sciences. I have been in correspondence with one of the best known of the team, a man who went as a skeptic but has since devoted his life to it's study.
I did my independent research from an art discipline - and find a ‘provenance’, if you will, back far beyond cameras or great painters/minds like daVinci.
I believe The Shroud to be genuine and I believe what He looked/s like is pretty much what we always thought Him to - except for the accepted assumption as to His coloring.
I guess if you "read it in a book", it is gospel truth. Must be nice to know everything because you read it and have "faith" in the writer. I do that with the Bible but that is the only book I do that with. I'm not saying you are wrong, just a little arrogant.
I don’t think we were meant to see the face of Christ in this world.
If God were to allow such evidence of Christ’ resurrection to remain through the centuries it would be no accident. He is merciful and knows that faith is based upon evidence of things not seen. The Bible itself is evidence. Our faith should be based on intelligent analysis of the evidence God has left us rather than be blind so people need to stop being proud that they think that their faith is blind and mindless. All of creation gives glory to God and to the eyes that are not blind and to the mind that understands speak clearly about their Creator.
The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar
This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.
TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:
A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.
Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.
Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.
Your most obedient servant,
No one is seeking to worship the shroud. It is an evidence of historical Christianity as much as the ancient texts of the Bible itself. If Jesus was really a historical person, why wouldn’t there be evidence?
The Jesus Shrouds from Besançon, Cadouin, Champiègne, Xabregas, etc., are all known to be forgeries by this time, and, as some old 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia states it remains true that many of the more ancient relics duly exhibited for veneration in the great sanctuaries of Christendom or even at Rome itself must now be pronounced to be either certainty spurious or open to grave suspicion. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm
The Turin Shroud fits right in there. And the Carbon-14 dating research that’s been done so far either proves the shroud is medieval, or it proves that those holding and cutting cloth samples from the shroud are incredibly incompetent and definitely should not be trusted holding the shroud, or it proves that those holding and cutting cloth samples from the shroud intentionally bonerized and sandbagged the sampling and therefore, the test results, because they see foresaw the most benefit to themselves down that route. And if this third possibility is true, then, again, those holding and cutting cloth samples from the shroud are definetly not to be trusted with it. By the mighty carbon atom, then, either the shroud ain’t authentic, or it’s held by the incompetent and isn’t safe in their keeping, or it’s held by malefactors and ain’t safe in their keeping.
I don’t either.
Another thing. I remember reading years ago, and I don’t know whether it is true or not, that tests had shown that the man shown in the Shroud had been alive when buried.
If true, it would be proof positive, in my view, that it WAS NOT the shroud of Christ. He was dead, according to the Gospels.
The famous carbon dating has been widely discredited because most scientists got a good laugh at the lax methods the testers used. You don’t carbon date parts of the cloth that had been handled hundreds of times, repaired and exposed to fire and water. Those dates are thought, at best, to be of repair work on the cloth. Other more rigourous dating has placed the cloth into Christ’s time.
Also, many people don’t realize that the shroud has been displayed exposed and allowed to be touched in the past (even in the late 20th Century). The shroud has escaped fire, WWII, Nazis and other thieves for centuries.
Tacitus wrote Annnals around 115AD. Historians agree that Tacitus must have received his information from an earlier, now lost, source. Seuetonius, who had access to imperial records, also wrote of Christ. Thallus, as quoted by Julius Africanus, wrote of the darkness after the crucifixion. Thallus’ original works are lost, but they were contemporary to Christ’s time, even predating the gospels.
By ancient standards these are as contemporary as it often gets. People seem to think that those days were like today with newspapers and the internet. So they aren’t “contemporary” by modern standards, but for those who study ancient history, they’re gold.
Did Christ wear a bag over his head when he was here?
I don’t quite follow your question and I don’t really care to. You silly person.
For the faithful, none. We know the truth.
I believe the Shroud was left to us by Christ as a tool for those who need, like Thomas, to see for themselves to help their belief. It is a gift to increase faith.
I know I experience a feeling of peace when I look at the face on the Shroud. If that didn’t convince me, the miraculous history of the survival of the Shroud would.
Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for the ping!
Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for the ping!
On the other hand, the Gospels provide no physical description of our Lord prior to resurrection ("no longer knowing him after the flesh" as Paul says -- no longer viewing him as that "James Taylor-like" illustration) while Revelation describes Him in great detail in His glorified state. So, in Kipling's words,we must "make allowance for their doubting too."
I appreciate your insightful comments and probably side with you more than not in this. To me, the shroud is authentic and was miraculously preserved. The only doubt that I previously had was concerning the head wrap -- resolved with info on the Sudarium. Looking at it from a very singular and Biblical point of view, it somewhat validates Christ's comments regarding the only sign that He would further provide the Jews was "the sign of Jonah" (reliable commentaries refer to this as the raising of the dead) (eg. Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain, Jairus' daughter, and Christ Himself. Later, Peter raised Tabitha of Joppa extending use the sign of Jonah past our Lord's death). For me, the shroud is an on-going, extra-Biblical proof that the Jews (and other hardened souls would not believe even if someone were to rise from the dead. (Also refer to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man)
The attack about it becoming an object of veneration is no more forceful than the fact that the brass serpent on the pole, a valid and authentic instrument used by Moses, had afterwards been perverted into an idol, by infidels.
For Christians, it is important to note that the "testimony" of the shroud does more to buttress the Gospel accounts than undermine them.
Even a fake from god
“I guess if you “read it in a book”, it is gospel truth.”
In other words you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim? No surprise there. So, you’re making claims without evidence. Is that arrogant?
“Must be nice to know everything because you read it and have “faith” in the writer.”
My faith is in God, and my education helps make things about Him clearer. One thing that is clear is that no contemporary Roman records about Christ have ever been found. Ever. That isn’t arrogant. That’s just history.
“I do that with the Bible but that is the only book I do that with. I’m not saying you are wrong, just a little arrogant.”
If being right comes across to you as arrogant, then I won’t worry. Maybe you should ask yourself why you associate someone else’s being right with arrogance. You’ll probably discover your root problem is wounded pride. You also need to study more before you make baseless claims. For people with wounded pride that is often a bitter pill.
Your reply ignores human nature. There are already those who worship the Shroud.
None of the sources you mention are actually contemporary.
I have no doubts that they MIGHT be based on information that was contemporary, but they are not contemporary.
First, it is true that Thallus wrote 20 years after the resurrection but we have never seen the originals or even an early copy. All we have are much, much later quotations from his work and they may be spurious. The evidence is so frought with difficulties. I don’t usually cite an atheist website, but in this case the quality of evidence demands it: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jacoby.html
And Thallus mentioned darkness, not Christ.
I’m on your side, but ease up on the ad-hominems of a lesser brother. It is not what you say, but how you are saying it that may be at issue here.
“Im on your side, but ease up on the ad-hominems of a lesser brother. It is not what you say, but how you are saying it that may be at issue here.”
Are there contemporary Roman records of Christ?
That was the issue. That is the truth. There are no contemporary Roman records of Christ. None.
If someone is going to tell me it is arrogance to know and say the truth, then I don’t see why I should not point out the obvious arrogance or wounded pride of that statement. That is no more ad-hominem then what was said to me - in fact it is obviously less so. And I think calling a man a “lesser brother” may be more ad hominem than anything I said.
I wish I remembered the details, but I do recall reading that carbon dating is not much use on fabrics, maybe especially linen.
Well what “if” it’s real. We will never have positive proof——That’s GOD’S sence of humor— We have to have faith and HE smiles.............
“Other more rigourous dating has placed the cloth into Christs time.”
Article title, link, etc? And if, over the centuries, parts of the cloth that have been handled hundreds of times, repaired and exposed to fire and water, and it has been displayed, exposed, and handled in the surprisingly recent past, how can any tests on any part of the sheet tell anything?
That special is a superb defense of the shroud.
I know, I know, you might say ..."Can anything but that which is anti-Christian come out of the National Geographic?" In this case, yes.
A skeptic book claimed that without attribution, but every forensic pathologist who has examined the image on the shroud is in agreement that it is of a dead man.
Carbon dating works on anything that has organically grown carbon as it's base including cloth or linen. The problem with the dating of the Shroud was in the sampling... The used a sample that turned out to be a mixture of original Shroud material and sixteenth century patch interwoven by a technique called "French Invisible Reweaving," used to repair valuable tapestries in the sixteenth century, resulting in a spurious thirteenth century false dating. This has been proved by three different peer reviewed studies.