Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 12/14/2011 11:10:27 AM PST by NYer
Why would Satan want to call attention to Christ in this way?
After all, to merely think about the *possibility* of this shroud reminds one of the great suffering, death and power that MUST have been present at His resurrection.
It calls our attention to Christ all that much more.
Yes, indeed, Satan does inspire people to spout nonsense, such as the above!
“Ultimately, the shroud is not an object of worship but, rather, an image that reminds us of the ultimate sacrifice made by Christ, our Savior. As such, it merits our attention, reflection and introspective prayer of gratitude and appreciation. If anything, it is an object of the Greatest Love one can have for mankind.”
Beautifully stated.
But there are serious problems with the view that this is the burial cloth of Christ, even if we ignore carbon dating tests in 1988 that showed the cloth may be only 600 or 700 years old.
We admit that carbon dating can give crazy results, and carbon dating results from the shroud have brought major criticisms, so this is not proof of the shroud’s age. Even so, there are genuine problems with the view that this shroud shows a picture of Christ.
It is clear from the Bible and from Jewish burial customs that several pieces of cloth bound Christ at His burial — not one large sheet like the shroud.
In John 20:5-7 we find there was a separate piece wrapped around Christ’s head. Yet the Shroud of Turin depicts a face on the sheet.
In December 2009, archaeologists announced the discovery of a shroud-like cloth in a cave in Jerusalem that dated to the time of Christ. Unfortunately, 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 1000 years after Christ lived.
The size of the shroud is 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches (434 centimetres by 109 centimetres). But the Bible says linen strips bound Jesus, not an enormous cloth (see John 19:40).
The Bible is the authoritative record of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, and the Bible mentions nothing of a shroud.
Walter C. McCrone, head of a Chicago research institute and a specialist in authenticating art objects, examined the shroud. He found a pale, gelatin-based substance speckled with particles of red ochre on fibres from the part of the cloth that supposedly showed the figure of Christ. He also found that fibers from the “wounds” had stains, not of blood, but of particles of a synthetic vermilion developed in the Middle Ages. He said the practice of painting linen with gelatin-based temperas began in the late thirteenth century and was common in the fourteenth.
McCrone concluded that a fourteenth century artist had forged the shroud, and defended this view right up until he died on July 10, 2002.
In the 1980s, Jesuit priest Robert A. Wild expressed surprise that the bloodstains showed no trace of smearing after all the movement and transport the body would have endured. Wild also noted that the hands of the body masked the genitals. He said this couldn’t be right. No matter how you arrange a body after rigor mortis, he said, the hands cannot cover the genitals unless you prop up the elbows on the body and bind the hands tightly in place. Yet this is not what the shroud’s image shows.
Above: In the studio of composer Igor Stravinsky’s home stood a reproduction of the face from the Shroud of Turin among other icons and religious memorabilia. © Time Inc. 1959.
The first record of the shroud’s appearance was in 1353, when Geoffrey de Charny presented it to the small local church in the French town of Lirey. Three years later, in 1356, the bishop of the region wrote to the pope, in Latin, telling of his annoyance that certain people wanted this “painted” cloth displayed as the burial cloth of Christ. The bishop added that his predecessor, Henry of Poitiers, “after diligent inquiry and examination,” had found the artist who painted it. The artist testified that “it was the work of human skill and not miraculously wrought.”
Interestingly, this date accords with the carbon-14 tests, which dated the shroud to about the first quarter of the 1300s — although some information suggests that this is the date the cloth was repaired, and the repaired cloth was the part that was carbon-dated. The date agrees with art expert Walter McCrone’s estimate of the age based on known painting styles (see 6th point above).
The verses that tell of Joseph of Arimathea’s wrapping Jesus in linen cloth are Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, and John 19:40. Look in Vine’s Expository Dictionary, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and the Ryrie Study Bible. They all tell us the Greek words used in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (entulisso and eneileo) mean “to roll in, wind in”, “to twist, to entwine”, “to enwrap”, “to wrap by winding tightly”. Winding, twisting and entwining imply wrappings, or strips of bandage, rather than a single shroud.
But if they did mean a single sheet, then Matthew, Mark, and Luke would conflict with John 19:40, which is clearer by using the Greek word othonion, meaning “linen bandage” (Strong’s concordance). If the Bible writers had meant a single linen sheet like the shroud, the word used should have been othone (a single linen cloth, a sail, or a sheet). From this, it seems that all four Gospel writers were telling us that normal long strips of linen covered Jesus.
In 2005, N.D. Wilson, a fellow of literature at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, showed it would have been easy for a medieval to create a 3-D photonegative. Wilson painted faces on glass, put the painted panes on linen, and left it in the sun for various lengths of time. The images Wilson produced look remarkably similar to the Shroud of Turin, although Wilson was the first to admit that this in itself did not disprove the Shroud’s authenticity.
The Catholic Church itself does not officially accept the shroud as authentic. When we last checked, in May 2008, the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the Shroud of Turin admitted a number of reasons to doubt its authenticity. These included:
the awkward fact that many similar shrouds existed which their owners claimed showed the genuine image of Christ
a pope in the 1300s issued a pronouncement that when the shroud was exhibited, the priest must “declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ”
the admission that “no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud” before it appeared at Lirey around 1353
this shroud, like the others, “was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting” at Easter
witnesses in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries said the image was then so vivid that the blood “seemed freshly shed.” But the blood is now dark and hardly recognizable.
On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from aroound the year AD 30, “why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.”
Even if the Shroud of Turin proves to be 2000 years old — and it hasn’t — you can see there are strong arguments against its being Christ’s burial cloth.
Historical note: The Shroud of Turin has been kept since 1578 in a chapel at the Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy.
http://www.creationtips.com/shroud.html
How about let’s use the whole passage and not take a verse out of context.
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
It’s the faith that saves but the works produced by that faith are what proves what type of faith it is. If that were not so you would have to believe that Paul in the following passages was lying.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Do you believe Paul was lying?
That would be the Sudarium of Oviedo. ALL of the points you raise are addressed at the link I posted. Here is another, more specifically dedicated to the Sudarium.
It is hard to know. Estimates generally range from 5'9" to 5'11".
One reason is that we don't know how flat the body is on the cloth. If the image is anatomically correct -- and it seems to be -- we know that the knees are bent and the head is tilted forward as though resting on a pillow (outside of the cloth).
Another reason is that we don't really know the size of the cloth at the time the image was formed. How much as it changed over the years due to stretching or shrinking? It has been held aloft, nailed up for display, rolled up, folded. It has been exposed to sunshine and dampness. It was seared in a fire that was doused with water. During a restoration effort in 2002 it was stretched with weights and steamed to remove wrinkles. By some estimates the length of the cloth was increased by eight centimeters during the restoration.
Nice link. I hadn’t heard of the Sudarium of Oviedo before.
and what about those things that draw the attention of the non-believer? The things that lead them to investigate and seek answers.
You really seem to hate the Church or is it that you cannot believe that Christ was really resurrected?
So what if this is His shroud? Even if it isn’t, no one is worshipping this. If it is true, awesome. If not, still pretty amazing.
Yeah, bowing down to an image of Jesus is what the devil wants /s. Rather bow to the image of him in your head?
***
If I kneel down in front of my bed to pray, does this mean I am worshiping my bed?
***
Why yes it does. And you better quit doing that. Idol worshipper you. ;-0)
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
If it is not the burial cloth of Christ would that affect your salvation?
What eternal impact does a piece of cloth have on your eternity?
As noted in Col. 1:15 - the only image of God that Catholics worship is Jesus Christ, who is the "image" (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God.
Nicely put.
You keep repeating your dogma, as if repetition made it true. But it simply boils down to this: I reject the Church, and so I must rely on the Bible as the source of my information. But so many Protestant teachings are not literally stated in the Scriptures, but are found rather in the Tradition they reject. So the rejection is not, after all, total.
I) The “details” in the Bible are fewer than the above supposes, the burial was quite hasty, and many factors govern the onset of rigor mortis.
2) The one thing that is certain: this is not a painted image. If you read the above. the thickness of the image is less than that of the “ink,” used to produce what you are reading here. If we cannot produce it, why think that a medieval artisan could?
I do not know what the exact truth of the Shroud, but since a central tenant of Christianity is that Jesus was a man unlike any other man, we ought not suppose his body was like any we have ever seen.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
The key to understanding this is understanding the word "believe." Believe is an action word, not a passive word. If people believe it's important to eat right--but don't--the passive, inward beliefs profits them nothing. Just so with Christ. If we are to believe in Him, we are to do all that He has instructed us. Yet, the Protestants throw out what they don't understand just as some of Jesus's disciples did in John 6:27-68.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Sadly, you stopped your bold printing three words too soon. That is where you fail. Just as in the rest of your quotes from Romans, St Paul is talking about Works of the Law, not works of charity (love). Clearing up the misunderstanding makes it possible for you to understand so much more: there will no longer be a conflict between St Paul and St James; you can understand how we are told multiple times that we will be rewarded for what we have done (Rom 2:5-8, 2 Cor 11:15, Col 3:24-25, 1 Peter 1:17, Rev 20:12-13); and you will understand how there is more than passive belief in following Christ (Matt 19:16-17).
Do you believe Paul was lying?
No. I believe you are wrong.
Please try to find a bible and read it for once:
You are to do? How pompous and arrogant. I can’t do anything without Him doing it through me. The best thing you ever did was still as a dirty rag to Him. I don’t do anything that pleases God. It’s Christ in me that does the doing as far as anything good is concerned.
>> Sadly, you stopped your bold printing three words too soon. That is where you fail.<<
Everything you call “works” or “what we must do” is legalistic and law. If you call it a command it becomes a legalistic requirement. Don’t play word games. If you claim it must be done it’s a law. It then is “works of law”.
>> we will be rewarded for what we have done<<
Good grief man. In Romans 2 he is talking to people who are being legalistic. Look at the beginning of the chapter. He starts out with “1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. He isn’t talking about how God judges us he’s talking about how they judge each other and have set up their legalistic approach to salvation. He’s rebuking the Romans. Read on in chapter 3.
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
There you can see that he continued on to say that the Romans were being legalistic and goes on to say that the righteousness of God is without the law but is by faith.
Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Boasting that the works you do is excluded. Don’t try to put people back under the law of the RCC which Paul is clearly rebuking.
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.