'He Is Risen!' - Physical Evidence of Christ's Resurrection?

Townhall.com ^ | April 1, 2018 | Myra Adams

[Kaslin]

[circlecity]

500 eyewitnesses is pretty good direct evidence.

[Drango]

Zero evidence that the Shroud of Turin was over Jesus in the tomb. Zip, nadda, squatro...Just “believed” to be.

[Alberta's Child]

Then what is it?

[Drango]

That’s not evidence.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

It’s certainly enigmatic, but after reading the Byzantine history of the Mandylion, which many believe was the shroud, I believe the prototype was a piece of statuary that lay concealed for five centuries, covered with the cloth. Ionizing radiation from radioactive elements within the statuary, over time, caused the changes in the cloth that we see as the image.

[grania]

Last year, I was fortunate to attend a lecture by David M. Onysko of Cleveland, OH. He is a very well-informed student and speaker about the Shroud. His rational and fact-based presentation left no doubt that the Shroud of Turin is for real. If it's not the Shroud, it would have to be something even more impossible to explain.

That was my take-a-way from the lecture.

[Simon Green]

Zero evidence that the Shroud of Turin was over Jesus in the tomb. Zip, nadda, squatro...Just “believed” to be.

Given that it dates from the 12th to 13th Century...yeah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Material_chemical_analysis

After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD. This 13th to 14th century dating is much too recent for the shroud to have been associated with Jesus of Nazareth. The dating does on the other hand match the first appearance of the shroud in church history.

[Terry Mross]

The Shroud does not prove Jesus rose from the dead. As Jesus said “Blessed is he has not seen and believes.”

[Simon Green]

Given that it dates from the 12th to 13th Century...yeah.

Mistyped. Make that 13th to 14th Century.

[Terry Mross]

That piece of clothing was taken from a patch that was sewn on the Shroud in the 12fh or 13th century.

A botanist front San Antonio discovered pollen that came from a plant that only grows in the Middle East.

[Simon Green]

That piece of clothing was taken from a patch that was sewn on the Shroud in the 12fh or 13th century.

Apparently not.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf

[Flag_This]

"I believe the prototype was a piece of statuary that lay concealed for five centuries, covered with the cloth..."

Wouldn't this theory require that somebody, centuries ago, understood that ionizing radiation could potentially cause an image to form on the cloth over a long period of time? And what was their purpose for doing this? Or is it your view that the image was formed accidentally, on a cloth that was draped, coincidentally enough, over an extremely realistic sculpture of an individual who appeared to have been crucified?

[tom h]

What if God left a real intriguing clue that the man who died, whose head was covered by the shroud, was truly divine? Say, for example, that the human DNA residue was a “perfect” or otherwise humanly impossible sequence. Now THAT would be wild!

[xkaydet65]

The visible image is very faint and hard to discern. The negative image is very detailed. How and why would a medieval forger create such a faint image that would expose great detail on the reverse. Pop Photography years ago demonstrated the how, using medieval tech, but did not address the why. In any event proof is irrelevant. Enough to know the scars of torture and crucifixion shown are so like those suffered by Christ for us all.

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

Well, there was something special about His burial cloth to be repeatedly emphasized in scriptureand also made people believe instantly.

Gospel Jn 20:1-9

On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don't know where they put him." So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first; he bent down and saw the burial cloths there, but did not go in. When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths there, and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place. Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed. For they did not yet understand the Scripture that he had to rise from the dead.

[Alberta's Child]

True. Actually, there’s probably nothing that would ever constitute “evidence” along those lines anyway.

[circlecity]

"Say, for example, that the human DNA residue was a “perfect” or otherwise humanly impossible sequence. Now THAT would be wild!"

Then people would just worship the source of that DNA as an icon. Through history God seems to have strenuously avoided doing things just like that. There's a reason there are no contemporary portraits of Jesus.

[ichabod1]

Remember: Any headline that ends with a question mark means the answer to the question is “No”.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for that.

This will help you keep up:

FTA: “The carbon dating controversy centers around tiny samples of the Shroud cut from an outer corner of the cloth. The area cut is from the most held and handled section thought to have been added during the Middle Ages as a repair or a re-weave. Then, in 2005, evidence for the repair was published in a peer-reviewed journal by chemist Ray Rogers, a STURP team member. Furthermore, a new Shroud dating analysis method originating at Padua University in Italy was published in 2013. That research dated the Shroud between 280 BC - AD 220, a 500-year timeframe that includes AD 33, the year traditionally associated with Christ’s crucifixion.”