|
Posted on 03/30/2012 1:16:09 AM PDT by Swordmaker
The Turin Shroud has baffled scholars through the ages but in his new book, The Sign, Thomas de Wesselow reveals a new theory linking the cloth to the Resurrection.
For centuries the Turin Shroud, regarded by some as the burial cloth of Jesus, by others as the most elaborate hoax in history, has inspired extraordinary and conflicting passions. Popes, princes and paupers have for 700 years been making pilgrimages the length of Europe to stand in its presence while scientists have dedicated their whole working lives to trying to explain rationally how the ghostly image on the cloth, even more striking when seen as a photographic negative, and matching in every last detail the crucifixion narrative, could have been created. And still a final, commonly agreed answer remains elusive, despite carbon-dating in 1988 having pronounced it a forgery.
“That’s what first attracted me,” says Thomas de Wesselow, an engagingly serious 40-year-old Cambridge academic. “I’ve always loved a mystery ever since I was a boy.” And so he became the latest in a long line to abandon everything to try to solve the riddle of the Shroud. Eight years ago, de Wesselow was a successful art historian, based at King’s College, making a name for himself in scholarly circles by taking a fresh look at centuries-old disputes over the attribution of masterpieces of Renaissance painting. Today, he still lives in the university city – we are sitting in its Fitzwilliam Museum café – but de Wesselow has thrown up his conventional career and any hopes of a professorial chair to join the ranks of what he laughingly calls “shrouds”.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
thanks for the post Swordmaker.
|
bflr
That's the thesis of the book, or the article about the book?
Thesis of the book... and the article is about the book, "The Sign"...
Yes, it is....and that’s why what could otherwise have been a good book is nonsense.
This guy lays out a good case for the authenticity of the Shroud (albeit he plows no new ground), THEN makes one hell of a leap in logic to declare that the disciples’ viewing of His image on the cloth is the entire basis for the resurrection (despite dozens of sightings of Christ post-crucifixion). Frankly, stuff like this just pisses me off.
Without a resurrection (not just viewing an image on a burial cloth), there IS no Christianity.
“the most elaborate hoax in history” sorry for off topic, but Obama is the most elaborate hoax, but it wont be fact for many years, when all are dead and buried.
He is risen indeed!
Remember the story of Doubting Thomas, and how Christ put his doubts to rest? Not an image, but live human flesh!
Luke 24:39 "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
Luke 24:40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
I can’t believe I read that whole article. I was expecting at least something interesting, but that was just dumb. It’s almost like the whole world is going nuts...
thanks for the warning
There is NOTHING that pisses me off worse than some theoretician or academic, so enamoured of their own opinion, or powers of persuasion, that they will actually attempt to make an argument like “second-hand smoke is MORE dangerous than smoking, itself”
Such theses aren’t “counter-intuitive.”
They’re insulting!
Precisely.
Know what an "expert" is? Someone who knows just this much more than you do on a particular subject....and lives more than 100 miles away.
The theory would be a plausible explanation for why some people 2000 years ago believed in spirits.
But as an explanation of the Shroud, it seems more dismissive.
Yeah. Brown smudges on a piece of cloth look JUST like a man walking through doors and talking and cooking fish on the beach and showing the wounds in his body.
What a crackpot.
Is there anything good coming out of UK? Condemned land!
How does anyone know that is what Jesus really looked like?
Yeah, and did the Shroud image eat a fish by the shore of Lake Galilee? Kinda of a silly thesis this guy has.
Te Shroud as an artifact could well have cemented and confirmed the appearance of the Resurrected Christ. But it was never wholly essential to the narrative.
So the disciples were so stupid that they ate with the Shroud?
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.
