Posted on 02/12/2005 11:59:27 AM PST by NYer
Rome, Feb. 11, 2005 (CNA) - Forensic scientists in Italy are working on a different kind of investigation—one that dates back 2000 years.
In an astounding announcement, the scientists think they may have re-created an image of Jesus Christ when He was a 12-year old boy.
Using the Shroud of Turin, a centuries-old linen cloth, which many believe bears the face of the crucified Christ, the investigators first created a computer-modeled, composite picture of the Christ’s face.
Dr. Carlo Bui, one of the scientists said that, “the face of the man on the shroud is the face of a suffering man. He has a deeply ruined nose. It was certainly struck."
Then, using techniques usually reserved for investigating missing persons, they back dated the image to create the closest thing many will ever see to a photograph of the young Christ.
“Without a doubt, the eyes... That is, the deepness of the eyes, the central part of the face in its complexity”, said forensic scientist Andrea Amore, one of the chief investigators who made the discovery.
The shroud itself, a 14-foot long by 3.5-foot wide woven cloth believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus, is receiving renewed attention lately.
A Los Alamos, New Mexico scientist has recently cast grave doubt that the carbon dating originally used to date the shroud was valid. This would suggest that the shroud may in fact be 2000 years old after all, placing it precisely in the period of Christ’s crucifixion.
I will fully admit that the Pope, being only human, is fallible. But then, I'm not Roman Catholic.
That being said, who is better suited to interpret Scripture, a council of Biblical scholars in the Vatican or some guy in Alabama? (or wherever). Even as a non-Roman Catholic, I'm much more inclined to listen to the experts.
You did not debunk my comment that the Bible does not refer to the Bible in the Bible. It refers to "Scripture", an undefined canon. No doubt what is in the Bible is referred to, but at no point in the composition of the Bible except perhaps when John wrote his Gospel were all of the other books in what we call "The Bible" yet in existence, and there was no agreement then on which of the many Christian texts were "Scripture". Also, by the time John wrote his Gospels, Christians and Jews had stopped agreeing on what was in the Hebrew Bible. Whenever a Biblical author (a human being, in each case) wrote "Scripture", whatever he was referring to was certainly NOT the specific corpus of literature which you and I hold when we hold the Bible.
Of course at this point we are just going to be repetitive in an "Is not" "Is so" sort of way. That the Bible be what you think it is, and the Bible be what the Bible means by "Scripture" is a necessary assumption of your Sola Scriptura belief system. In the Bible, "Scripture" means...well, which Bible DOES it mean? Does it mean the Protestant Bible? Or the Catholic/Orthodox Bible?
As to Lourdes, the medical dossiers of the International Scientific Commitee which has documented what goes on at the site for a century now, are available on line. You are invited to peruse the medically, scientifically documented astounding events, thousands of them. The doctors who operate there are not all Catholics or believers. Their work is peer reviewed. There is all the scientific documentation of amazing cures there that anyone could want. And it is all available for public scrutiny on line. Faith healing the blind in a Shrine devoted to Mary. Must be that the devil is casting out devils...no, wait, Jesus said that doesn't work...
Suppose, for an instant, that the Shroud is NOT a fake or a forgery, but was actually what Jesus left in his tomb when he was resurrected. It has a powerful image on it - an awesome image. Anyone looking at it is astonished by it and wonders if it's real.
Actually, intellectual agnostics, as I was before I gave my life to Christ, are non-plussed. They see people who appear to be obsessed with the shroud as, quite frankly, weak minded and superstitious. It will always be controversial in as much as it proves nothing, because its authenticity cannot be proven. Only “true believers” in the shroud are moved. Unfortunately, the controversy does far more harm than good to the Way.
Consider, even, the comment in the Gospel of John. John looks in and sees the empty tomb and the wrappings. He waits for Peter. Peter goes in. John goes in and sees the wrappings, AND HE BELIEVES.
As well he should. But it is not the wrappings that convince him. It is the fact that the wrappings are all that is left.
If the Shroud is the real burial shroud of Jesus, and that powerful image was burnt into it by the Resurrection and left in the tomb, Jesus MEANT for his apostles to find it. He didn't leave ANY written words at all, but he DID leave the Shroud with that incredible image on it (assuming it is real).
The key word there is “if.” And since it is not verifiable, It is a dangerous distraction from the true Word Of God, which is sufficient. Remember this from the NT:
Luke 16:19-31
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
We need no shroud to believe, for we have His Word.
God never does anything superfluous.
With that I most definitely agree.
So,just assume for a minute that the Shroud of Turin actually is the burial shroud of Christ, and that the startling image burnt into it was left there by the Resurrection of Christ. If it really was, then please remember that it was GOD who left that shroud there, in that tomb, for the apostles to find. He INTENDED for us to have it. It is NOT a graven image at all, if it was made by God, and God does not do things to no purpose. When one thinks that WHAT John saw was the Shroud, and that the Gospel records "And he believed" at that instant gives us an indication of WHAT Jesus INTENDED that Shroud to do to his followers, to give them stunning evidence, so that they would believe.
And for me, that is strong evidence to support the belief that the shroud is fake. That is, the claim that it is what it say it is does not reconcile itself to the personality of the God of the Bible. It is not the way He does things.
Of course if the Shroud is a forgery made by human hands, that is all bunk. But if it actually the burial Shroud of Jesus, then that image was burnt into that shroud by God and we were MEANT to find it.
Yes, but it is a big if. And as I stated just above that comment, the evidence of the very personality of the God of the Bible precludes me from a default position that this could be what it is claimed to be.
Jesus didn't leave one written word, but if the Shroud is real, he DID leave that.
My God leaves human testimony in the form of the written word and the subsequent changed lives. Physical evidence of this kind is simply superfluous.
I am uncomfortable denigrating the record of a miracle which Jesus intended to leave to us. I think we need to treat it as a great mystery, left by God for us. God does nothing unintentional. If that Shroud is authentic, God didn't leave it by accident. He left it as a powerful, awesome record of what he did in that tomb.
My opinion is that if the shroud were authentic, there would be no controversy.
I think that we should respect God's judgment...if it's real. And then focus our science on deciding whether it's real or nor.
Science cannot possibly determine if it is real. They CAN confirm that it is fake, but beyond that, it is left to the observer. What if they could confirm, within a few years, that the shroud was from the time of Jesus’ death? That would still only convince the “True Believers” in the shroud. After all, a fake can be made at any time.
All of the miracles Jesus performed had a practical application, as well as the proof of His omnipotence – Healings, bringing back the dead, walking on water, etc.
The only reason for the shroud would be to prove his omnipotence. That puts it in the category of crying statues and Mary apparitions and other superstitious nonsense.
A faith based on the shroud, would be a tenuous one at best. Again, from Luke 16: 31
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
If you want to present the Gospel, the Bible and a changed life is all you need.
And lastly, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Well .. when you take the statement out of context .. what do you expect.
The scripture you are quoting was Isaiah's prophecy of what Jesus would look like WHEN HE WAS HANGING ON THE CROSS. If you continue reading, I believe Isaiah gives an even better description of Jesus in HELL - paralyzing the devil. How come you left out that part ..??
Nah, not interested in contesting Lourdes.
There are no regenerated limbs at Lourdes, if that's what you're looking for.
I remain curious as to which translation of the Bible you use, and why you use that one.
I appreciate your post.
Unfortunately, I think that where our discussion will probably come off the rails pretty quickly is in the discussion of miracles.
A miracle, by my lights, is something astonishing that defies the laws of nature, including the laws of probability. I believe that God and his angels, and the Devil and his, interact constantly with the world. Therefore, when I look at the Bible, and then I look forward to the miracles of the saints, the voices of Joan of Arc, the healings at Lourdes, Marian apparitions and the like, I see God continuing to behave now as he did in Biblical times. Then, he healed the blind by faith. He still does, especially at Lourdes. Then, great figures from the past appeared with Jesus on the hilltop. I think they still do, sometimes, in the Marian apparitions, in St. Joan's voices, etc. Obviously the whole litany of saints and miracles since the First Century are not in the Bible per se, but then, this is another difference in the two sorts of Christianity.
Yours, I'd imagine, is rooted very much in a book, the Bible.
In mine, the Bible is an important part of the tradition, but the acts of the saints and their words and deeds are the continued prophetic works that are the same thing as what the prophets were doing before Jesus. In other words, God still behaves now as He always did, and there is still plenty of interaction between the world of spirits and angels and God, and the Devil, and the world of men. So, when I read of St. Joan and her voices and miracles, I see a French Gideon. Same thing, same astonishing success. When I read of Mary at Lourdes, I see the transfiguration on the Mount. Same interaction between the divine and man, to the same effect. I see in the pool at Lourdes the pool at Siloam, and for the same reason - the same God acting the same way he always does.
And in the Shroud, I see God doing the same thing He did when He was so specific about the pomegranates and the lampstands, the hooks and threads and cloths and songs of the Tent and the Tabernacle and the Temple. When I read how God thought back in Moses' day, I see that God was very concerned about the visual impression he would leave on impressionable man. I see know different when I see Jesus walking across that lake. Why such a grand gesture? Or in calling out Lazarus before the crowd. Or in bothering with animal sacrifices and great bronze bulls to hold the cleansing pool. Or even in having Moses' staff eat the other serpent staves, the water run red, locusts and frogs. The God of the Bible has a great sense of the dramatic. And He does so for effect: to be believeable and to be believed.
Why have an earthquake and tear the veil in the Temple in two? Why show His pierced hands to Thomas? Why have Peter haul in the teeming net, or pull the coin out of the mouth of a fish? (Or is the latter just very imaged language for getting a coin from one of the faithful "fish" in the marketplace?)
Anyway, it is not worth fighting over.
I think that the Books of the Saints are effectively the continuations of the prophets, more or less. I know you don't agree. I don't think that I'm superstitious in the least. You do. To me, the Shroud is - potentially - a very powerful and tangible sign that God left, like Lot's wife as the pillar of salt, or the brazen serpent of Moses.
To you it is superfluous and unneccessary, a distraction.
Where we part ways scientifically is that I think that if science can show that it isn't man made, and it is first century and has Jerusalem pollen on it, etc., that it's the burial cloth of Jesus. Why ELSE would it have been saved, of all the burial cloths of the First Century? And if it is, then I think that God meant for us to have it, and even preserved it from a terrible fire in the Middle Ages. And if the details of this Shroud are so exacting and perfect, I think that what the Shroud does is give the modern cynical, scientific mind - not you, but someone who wants scientific proof of everything - a marvelous bridge to the First Century, which kicks aside the objection of the scientist and indeed uses hard forensic science itself as a powerful avenue for the hard-bitten scientifically-trained skeptic to be able to believe. He cannot do what you do and simply believe, because to him it is all absurd nonsense, superstition, a fairy tale.
But with this concrete evidence that God left, suddenly there is a tangible object. And with that object, he looks, and he is astounded. And from that astonishment comes the possibility of faith for those for whom their own rational minds would otherwise bar the door. I think God left the Shroud...if He did...in order to reach those people too.
Ok.
Do you consider the Deuterocanonica to be the Bible, or are they apocryphal?
The existence of miracles neither proves nor disproves the propositions of Roman Catholicism or Christianity.
Can a miracle happen if God does not power it?
Yes or no.
Only those in the likeness of Christ will be in heaven.
Yes. All events in the universe are subject to the sovereign will of God.
I personally do not think Jesus looked like the fellow that Time magazine "created" a couple of years ago. My dad had a life-after-life experience and saw Jesus. When asked, my dad said that Jesus looked just like his pictures. The Shroud and 90% of early Western art work is probably closer to the mark than modern revisionist anthropologists.
I'd imagine the years of carpentry would have built up his arms and shoulders more than the "swimmer's body" he's sometimes portrayed with.
"Similarly, Christ quotes all but four of the Old Testament books--never quoting the apocrypha."
We disagree.
I could show you 118 separate citations of the Deuterocanonical works in the New Testament.
We also disagree that the Jews "never considered these works canonical". The Septuagint was translated by scribes of the Jewish Temple. We also know that the Deuterocanonica appear on the early lists of the canon.
At any rate, if we are to be Sola Scripturalists, one problem is that Scripture never defines the canon of Scripture. Jesus refers at some points to "The Law and the Prophets", but that is only a small sampling of the OT books. Jews, of course, do not give equal weight to all of the OT books at any rate. And, of course, Jesus and the apostles cited to the Deuterocanonical works at times (I will provide a list of some citations if I really must, but it will require me going home and digging it out. I do not have it handy.) And, of course, Jude cites to a truly apocryphal book by name.
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.