Posted on 12/20/2015 2:34:41 PM PST by marshmallow
Rome, Italy, Dec 19, 2015 / 03:39 pm (CNA).- The Shroud of Turin has different meanings for many people: some see it as an object of veneration, others a forgery, still others a medieval curiosity. For one Jewish scientist, however, the evidence has led him to see it as a meeting point between science and faith.
"The Shroud challenges (many people's core beliefs) because there's a strong implication that there is something beyond the basic science going on here," Barrie Schwortz, one of the leading scientific experts on the Shroud of Turin, told CNA.
Admitting that he did not know whether there was something beyond science at play, he added: "That's not what convinced me: it was the science that convinced me."
The Shroud of Turin is among the most well-known relics believed to be connected with Christ's Passion. Venerated for centuries by Christians as the burial shroud of Jesus, it has been subject to intense scientific study to ascertain its authenticity, and the origins of the image.
The image on the 14 feet long, three-and-a-half feet wide cloth is stained with the postmortem image of a man - front and back - who has been brutally tortured and crucified.
Schwortz, now a retired technical photographer and frequent lecturer on the shroud, was a member of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project which brought prestigious scientists together to examine the ancient artifact.
As a non-practicing Jew at the time, he was hesitant to be part of the team and skeptical as to the shroud's authenticity - presuming it was nothing more than an elaborate painting. Nonetheless, he was intrigued by the scientific questions raised by the image.
Despite his reservations, Schwortz recounts being persuaded to remain on the project by a fellow scientist on the team.....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
test
I wasn’t speaking of you at all.
Only NOW, because he is risen.
.
Don’t we live in such a time? Certainly miracles are few and far between. The Mass, whose sheer beauty and heavenly order has constituted evidence of the truth of the gospels for millions of people, was destroyed (insofar as its beauty is concerned) 45 years ago. The intellectual clarity, the iron logic, of Catholic statements of the Faith, are gone. What we have instead is the ravings of a stupid, dishonest old man—who is a sock puppet of the international totalitarians.
Our time is no better or worse than any other time. We are, as Americans, healthier, better fed, housed and clothed, safer and free to practice our faith.
And to WHICH stupid, dishonest old man are you referring? There are SO many of them, even on this site.
And, there are as many stupid, dishonest old women to match them...even on this site.
So, are YOU so smart and honest? Every one has a lacuna in his life. Even you.
Acts 2:27
For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
Psalm 16:10
For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 2:31
he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
Note that the above verse is in past tense. It is not that His resurrected flesh will not see corruption, although that is also true, it is that His mortal flesh did not see corruption.
1 Peter 1:18-19
knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
Note that this is also past tense. It is not about being redeemed presently but having been redeemed when His blood was shed on the cross. This blood, flowing through the veins of His mortal body, NEVER was corrupted. It is incorruptible.
So you are mistaken according to scripture.
So ALL the blood shed by Jesus—as a child, as a youth, as a man—has stayed perfectly fresh, liquid, bright red, etc., for 2000 years? Where is it? All his hair, all his fingernail and toenail clippings—they’re all perfectly incorrupt, somewhere?
You thing THAT is what Scripture was teaching?
The obvious meaning of the Scriptures you have ransacked is that Jesus would rise from the dead before his body corrupted in the tomb.
Regarding the 2nd Commandment. I think that the Shroud of Turin is a legitimate artifact. It does NOT affect my faith in Jesus and His sacrifice for my and our salvation.
For anyone to base their Christian faith on whether or not the Shroud is the burial shroud of Jesus, is totally misplaced.
I “believe in it” in the same manner that I believe that the coat of Abraham Lincoln was wearing when he was assassinated is “the real thing.” or when I saw the first Sherman tank that rolled into Bastogne at the head of Patton’s breakthrough is the actual tank, based upon its serial number. All of those are physical things to be known but not to be prayed to or to base one’s faith upon.
“You thing THAT is what Scripture was teaching?”
I just showed what the scripture says.
The body and blood of Christ were incorruptible. It is clear from the passages that this is miraculous. It is something God said He would make sure of.
You can superimpose your rationale and logic onto scripture all you want.
Christ’s physical body started with the miracle of His conception by the Holy Spirit and continued through His earthly life, all the way through His death, burial, and resurrection. All of these things are miraculous. It is no more difficult to believe in Christ’s physical body and blood being incorruptible than it is to believe in the virgin birth and resurrection from the dead.
Why do you have a problem accepting what the scripture says?
I don't have any problem with what Scripture says. I have a problem with what you claim Scripture MEANS.
You objected to the idea that when Christ bled, his blood--on the ground, on the Shroud--could dry, corrupt, etc., supposedly on the basis of Scripture.
Then you ignored my question, which is: When Christ bled, is all the blood he shed incorruptible? Are all his hair, toenail clippings, fingernail clippings, skin cells he shed incorruptible?
All of His flesh and blood throughout His earthly life was incorruptible. That is not me interpreting the Bible. It is what it specifically says. All you have to do is read it and believe what it says.
It says that God would not allow His flesh to see corruption. And His blood was not corruptible.
Again, I see no reason why someone who accepts the virgin birth and resurrection would have a problem accepting that Christ’s earthly body and blood never went through any kind of corruption.
It is a miracle, like the resurrection and virgin birth. You do not need to know the means by which God did this. Just know that it is true.
Funny thing nobody has been able to recreate this “forgery”.
Once again, you have ignored my question: Were his hair clippings, fingernail clippings, toenail clippings incorruptible? Was any blood that left his body incorruptible?
You argued that the blood on the Shroud, if it is the blood of Jesus, could not have corrupted during the last 2,000 years. Is that what you meant to say?
You have now ignored that issue multiple times, and just keep repeating like a parrot that Scripture says...Scripture says...Scripture says...
Well, Scripture DOESN’T say what you are claiming.
“Well, Scripture DOESN’T say what you are claiming.”
I posted the actual words of scripture. It says what it says. You obviously have a problem with the actual words because it does not fit into your pet manmade doctrines.
The reason I have ignored your repeated attempts to engage in silly debates about the shroud and finger nails is because they are irrelevant. The scripture does not tell us that the grave clothes of Christ were preserved for the church to keep as relics of the faith.
I am unaware of any passages that specifically indicate Christ bled other than on the cross. Is it possible or probable that He bled at other times? Perhaps. But that is speculation.
We know when He prayed in the garden His sweat appeared as blood. Was this His blood? I do not know.
When He was taken to be circumcised eight days after His birth, did He bleed? I do not know. But it is reasonable to think so.
It seems to me that if He did not bleed, the passage would have probably indicated so. But again, this is speculation. The words of scripture are what we can rely on.
Did He bleed when He was beaten, scourged, or had a crown of thorns pounded onto His head? Surely, it would have told us if it was otherwise.
I think there are eight times when He bled, but this opinion is not an essential doctrine of faith. Trusting in the sanctity, reliability, sufficiency, and efficiency of Christ’s blood is essential. It is faith in His blood that brings redemption.
Romans 3:25
Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has 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.
Speculation is unnecessary. This is what I do know: Not one single cell of His flesh and blood from conception to ascension ever went through any kind of decay or corruption.
Whether His blood poured on the ground, soaked His clothes, or stained His cross, God clearly is able to gather every last blood cell.
According to Hebrews 9, it was by His own blood He entered into the Heavenly temple and offered Himself as our eternal sacrifice.
Hebrews 9:11-12
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
The Scriptures do not mention computers. HOW DARE YOU use a computer?
So? The genuineness of the Shroud is no part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. No one thinks the genuineness of the Shroud is taught in Scripture, although every detail ever discovered on the Shroud is perfectly consistent with Scripture.
If the Shroud were in some manner INCONSISTENT with Scripture, this would be a problem for the Shroud. The mere ABSENCE of the Shroud from Scripture does not militate against the Shroud. It simply means that belief in the genuineness of the Shroud rests on scientific investigation, not Scripture.
As I noted before, if you argue that belief in the Shroud is forbidden, on the grounds that it is absent from Scripture, then you are obligated to throw out your computer, because computers are not mentioned in Scripture.
In response to both 54 and 55, I am not arguing against using geography or archeology as supporting evidence of Christian faith.
We do know that Jesus was wrapped in grave clothes when He was buried. Those clothes could still be with us, or they may not.
My point is that if it possible that any of Christ’s blood remains here on earth, in the ground, on the wood of the cross, on the crown of thorns, on the grave clothes, etc. then that blood would not have any corruption such as oxidation. My initial comment was on your speculation about what happened to the blood of Christ that we may reasonably suppose was soaked into His grave clothes. You indicated that His blood could undergo some type of decay. And I pointed out that this is not possible.
Whether I use a computer or not is completely unrelated to the logic of my argument. The Bible does not forbid computers. It does not deny computers exist or would ever exist. It is simply silent.
On the blood of Christ, the scripture is not silent. We may speculate about things like the shroud, but it is not reasonable to put forth theories which contradict the Bible if your premise is based on a genuine belief in the resurrection.
Thank you for clarifying the issue.
My position is that the Scriptures you cite are
1) saying that Jesus Christ would never see corruption IN THE TOMB, because he would rise from the dead on the third day, because the flesh of Jesus is untouched by Original Sin or any personal sin, and that
2) the Scriptures are not making the trivial, silly, and magical prediction that each drop of blood, each strand of hair, each fingernail clipping, each skin cell (all of which are ALREADY DEAD on the surface of every living human being) are EACH and EVERY one of them incorruptible.
If the traces of blood on the Shroud are blood shed by Jesus, does Scripture teach that they MUST be moist, fresh, red, and ALIVE? Nonsense. Since they are not moist, fresh, red, and alive, does Scripture compel us to disbelieve that they are from Jesus? Also nonsense. Scripture (OT) tells us that Jesus Christ would rise from the dead, and the NT tells us that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead. Scripture tells us nothing about what would happen to each shed skin cell and each shed drop of blood.
When Scripture talks about what is "incorruptible," are you so sure it is talking about biological, chemical incorruptibility, and not incorruptibility by sin? I presume you accept the principle that no RESPONSIBLE theologizing can be done on the basis of any translation of Scripture. Pious reflection or theorizing, fine, but to base any theological position on a modern translation is the rankest amateurism.
Apparently, The Shroud changed at least the author’s beliefs.
“because the flesh of Jesus is untouched by Original Sin”
Actually, the opposite is true.
1 Peter 2:24
who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.
But I do know what you are referring to. He was unblemished. As the head of a new human race, He was untainted by the original sin. But our sins were placed on Him. He carried them bodily. His blood washed them away.
“Scripture tells us nothing about what would happen to each shed skin cell and each shed drop of blood.”
I did not say that it tells us specifically what happened. The scripture tells us His body and blood were incorruptible. His body and blood were physical and not just a form or appearance of flesh and blood. Their never going through any kind of corruption is a physical attribute. One of the passages I cited earlier contrasts Christ’s blood with gold which IS corruptible. Gold is resistant to rust, but it does oxidize (tarnish). (See James 5:3.) In contrast, Peter stated that Christ’s blood was not corruptible.
1 Peter 1:18-19
knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
“the Scriptures are not making the trivial, silly, and magical prediction”
The same sort of mocking language might be used by those who reject the virgin birth or resurrection.
It appears from a careful reading of Hebrews 9 that Christ presented His own blood to the Father as a sacrifice in the temple in Heaven.
Do you deny this? If not, how was His blood transported there?
1 John 1:7b
the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Hebrews 9:11-14
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
The blood of Christ is precious. It’s worth is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. Would God allow the most precious substance in the universe to be discarded as refuse? If God ordained for Christ’s blood to be presented as a sacrifice in Heaven, would it be unreasonable to believe every drop of His blood is either part of that offering or in some other fashion efficiating the atonement of sins?
It appears from a careful reading of Hebrews 9 that Christ presented His own blood to the Father as a sacrifice in the temple in Heaven.
Do you think Hebrews means that Jesus has this tank or vat full of blood, and presents that to the Father? First of all, the Father is pure spirit.
Jesus, for all eternity, in some manner, constantly presents to the Father the perfect act of his divine and human wills, acting in perfect accord, by which he offered his entire self--in particular his human life--on the cross. This is the meaning of "Christ presents his blood to the Father."
You seem to interpret every statement in Scripture, even those that clearly are using physical things or images of physical things to represent spiritual realities, as bald statements of physical events.
And, no, what I am saying is NOT Docetism. The body and blood of Jesus, united hypostatically to the Word, are as physical as yours and mine.
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.