Posted on 04/20/2017 10:51:49 AM PDT by NYer
Catholic ping!
Ping!
We have an empty shroud. The Master is not in it now. But unless we recognize the Master the witness does us no more good than any curio.
I have seen documentaries on this subject, a lot of different opinions on it...but I still feel, when God is ready, He will show us...kind of what He is doing now...if your listening...
There was considerable discussion of The Shroud here in earlier days. After reading tons of articles about it, here and elsewhere, it became obvious to me that the “scientific” rejection simply made no sense. Whether or not one believes that it was the actual burial shroud of Jesus or not, it is very, very difficult to explain how it could have been a forgery. The likeliest explanation, taking all the facts into consideration, is, yes, the Shroud is real.
That was my conclusion. The matter is far too complicated to justify it here in a brief comment. I’ll just say that the “scientists” in question were about as scientific as the Global Warmers.
It looks like it bears an imprint of supernatural origin. If it’s “that” shroud nobody can prove. But an empty shroud goes with an empty tomb in saying Jesus’s death is over. It did what it needed to do. Jesus need die no more.
While my Christian belief does not depend upon nor is much assisted by relics, nonetheless, the Shroud is an on-going amazement and mystery INDEED!
To imagine that there was someone(s) in Europe of the 1300s who was so skilled as to create an image on cloth that was essentially illegible without the photographic technology of 600 years in the future begs many questions for whom the skeptics provide almost no answers.
The old journalist rules of who, when, why, how and where; that just start the list. Artists and artisans of that era did not live in a vacuum, to live and work they had to have patronage, there was always works before and after that shows a pattern of learning and application of the same. The Shroud has nothing of this and there appears to be very little evidence of any ‘similar’ work that is not out-right fakery!
Regarding “dating tests carried out in 1988 were seriously flawed.” A friend told me that he read an article sometime after the 1988 tests that one of the people, possibly a Sister, who was directed to snip off fragments of the cloth, clipped, not that Shroud, but cloth from one of the repairs that are evident on it...thus the carbon dating showed the date of when one of the burnt portions was repaired, NOT the date of the Shroud itself.
I think it is our Savior’s shroud, but if it is proven that it is not -— My faith in Jesus will not change.
It looks the result of a very high intelligence.
The all wise God.
1. Nobody has been able to duplicate it.
2. It has all the characteristics of a photographic negative, but existed for at least several hundred years before photography was invented.
3. The physical characteristics of the person whose image appears on the Shroud doesn't match the conventional wisdom in the Middle Ages about the death of Jesus Christ (i.e., a forger would have gone to great lengths to create an image that matched paintings and other artwork of that era to help reinforce its authenticity).
The first time I heard about it was in the late 1968-1969. I believe it was ESQUIRE magazine that had a critical article making fun titled...WERE YOU THERE WHEN THEY PHOTOGRAPHED OUR LORD, a take off on an old country and western religious song at that time.
That seems almost perverse, that the dating scientists even picked the wrong place to get a piece. Someone who understood the shroud’s history ought to have guided them, and still even could.
Odd how mockery of the unbelievers works against itself.
The shroud is so beautiful but I don’t need it to know he is alive. The graphic artist that worked on it was brought to tears with the brutality he found.
Bttt.
5.56mm
And that His death is complete. No more death is on the agenda. It would be superfluous. He isn’t leaving shrouds around all over the place.
Clueless I had to ask my physics prof what that meant, "Shroud of Turin". He explained in great detail to the whole class what it was. He thought it was real. That was my first introduction to the Shroud of Turin.
I think the alleged Sister who did the clippings said she did not want to desecrate the actual shroud, thus chose what was obviously NOT a part of the shroud. The scientists did not select the portion for the sample.
To those that believe, no explanation is necessary.
To those that do not believe, no explanation is acceptable (to them).
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.