Posted on 07/17/2018 1:36:35 AM PDT by Sontagged
My post to you on another thread was confusing. I asked what your thoughts were about this author’s take on the Shroud.
I never accepted TSoT because it was a perfectly folded, perfect image of a man that was not hastily entombed (as per the scriptures) but carefully placed, centered and no evidence of a round body that would have imprinted wider than the perfect image of a man.
Also, God commands us from having idols of any kind, and I suppose you could qualify the Shroud as an idol/image that could induce one to worship.
It’s a 3D image that was burned into the shroud the moment Christ arose from His “death”.
To this day, technology has not been able to duplicate.
Don’t need CNN to tell us this.
True, but the author here gets into pertinent details beyond CNN.
I don’t have to “believe” in the Shroud of Turin, but it’s very interesting, even more so if it’s genuine.
I’m fairly certain that laying a body down on a long piece of cloth and then folding over the feet or head would go much faster than wrapping strips around it. They were in a hurry, Sabbath was approaching; they still had to get to the tomb, place Him there, leave and be purified from handling a corpse. They only had to place enough spices to fit whatever minimum was required. In another gospel, the women brought spices on the third day, perhaps the balance to finish the ritual. In John 20:17, a head cloth is mentioned as folded neatly and in a separate area, so that would make two pieces of fabric minimum. For all we know, there might have been more layers, but they didn’t survive.
We are unlikely to know the truth on this side of Heaven. It’s all very debatable, so, no, don’t put your faith in the cloth. Jesus is where our faith belongs. If nothing else, the shroud certainly makes opportunities to talk about Him.
How could anyone figure that back then?
People knew all about natural chemicals that could do that, going back ages.
I think the shroud is a nice thought, but Jesus’ following was so small back then I doubt very much that anyone would be keeping a “burial shroud” in their back closet for hundreds of years.
But, common sense isn’t really common these days.
“people would just read and believe the Bible, they would not so easily be duped by such falsely purported artifacts as the Shroud of Turin being Jesus’ burial cloth.”
1. In RC, the Bible (a) isn’t read much and, if it is, (b) takes second or third place, behind words from men.
2. All of the shroud stuff: More fantasy. Probably started as a revenue-generating scheme.
Posted that a long time ago. It’s a fraud.
What do I think about this article? It’s why I don’t argue with religious zealots about the Shroud. I follow the science. You and he don’t bother with facts and mistake opinion for evidence.
I think that anyone who can make an entire argument about the grave clothes were LEFT BEHIND ON THE STONE NICHE of the tomb, and then say "Both walked out of their tombs while still wrapped in grave cloths" is lacking a few cogs in their logical machinery. Those are irreconcilable and cannot both be true.
Shroud of Turin Ping!
If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.
But it's a moneymaker for the Church and investigators.
“1. In RC, the Bible (a) isn’t read much and, if it is, (b) takes second or third place, behind words from men.”
Actually, we wrote the New Testament. And we know the Bible better than you do.
“2. All of the shroud stuff: More fantasy. Probably started as a revenue-generating scheme.”
Except there’s no evidence it’s a fantasy. It exists. It’s pretty darn hard to explain away. Just the evidence about the coins alone is hard to explain away: https://aleteia.org/2017/04/26/shroud-of-turin-coins-may-finally-have-been-identified/
right on.
That’s interesting, and something I hadn’t seen before.
There are many aspects of the shroud, ranging from the imprint itself to fibers that are from plants from the area of Israel, that lend credence to it's authenticity and don't add up with the results of the carbon-dating. It would have to be a darn good hoax, both technically and historically, even by modern standards, let alone medieval. Also remember, the shroud was documented as early as 500 AD, and throughout the early-mid medieval period by multiple sources. Different shrouds being conflated with the one in Turin? Maybe. Maybe not.
Much of this article isn't especially persuasive. Hinging your argument on the plural "wrappings" -- well, who is to say that one large piece that is wrapped around repeatedly isn't "wrappingS"? More so, who says that the Shroud of Turin was the only wrapping? It is slightly short (again, a very clever detail for a hoax circa 1350), and there could just as easily have been many other pieces of linen that were not preserved . The Shroud of Turin may have been just the first layer of wrapping. What I'm driving at, is most of the article is a bunch of conjecture and "says you".
Either way, the Shroud of Turin is not an article of faith, so it ultimately doesn't matter.
Which is a perfectly reasonable explanation...
Until analysis of the shroud can’t explain the image with man made means.
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.
