Why Does The Shroud of Turin Still Exist?

Townhall.com ^ | July 28, 2019 | Myrah Kahn Adams

[Mom MD]

Scripture cannot be destructive. Every born again believer has the divinely authorized interpreter the Holy Spirit to open Scripture to them.

Your heresy is breathtaking. Now you assert Scripture is not only not sufficient, but it is actually dangerous without a Roman priest. God help you.

[GingisK]

No, I am not a monk. Perish the thought. I wouldn’t even be an idol kissing Catholic.

[Luircin]

What an incredibly rude thing to say when I have been nothing but polite to you this thread.

Shame on you.

[grey_whiskers]

(Sighs)
Hold on please, I’ll try to give a good faith non snarky reply tonight, after work.

[GingisK]

Explain how your artifacts fit into this picture:

Ephesians 2:8, For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.

John 3:16, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Neither of those passages refer to artifacts, priests, rituals, or Pope. The formula for Salvation is Faith in Christ alone. Church services are a means of spreading that Gospel, giving Thanks to God, and celebrating our release from the power of Satan.

[metmom]

Christ reveals Himself, yes; but we have other believers to talk to for guidance (more experienced; but also, which is too seldom noted, more devoted; those whose ears have been more often open to hear.)

While that is true, what they say must be in conformance with Scripture.

THAT'S what sola Scriptura is. Scripture is the final authority in all spiritual matters.

Here are a couple definitions for sola Scriptura that I've posted before and will continue to post until Catholics realize that the definition they are using is not what we mean by it and they are arguing against a strawman of Catholicism's own building.

Sola Scriptura explanation

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean/

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059418/posts?page=828#828

“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

[metmom]

So; just WHERE had it been for 13 centuries?

That's a *mystery of the faith* dontcha know?

Like all questions Catholics either don't want to answer or can't.

[metmom]

So the face was wrapped separately, eh?

That would disqualify the shroud as being authentic.

You know what else?

The image on the shroud is is too nice and neat. If it were wrapped around His head and pressed down around His face from all sides, then the image would look distorted. And a flat piece of cloth wrapped around a round object would have ceases in it and missing sections where folds occurred.

The shroud looks like someone took a flat sheet and put a picture on it.

[metmom]

Sigh.....

Spell check doesn’t catch it if it’s spelled right.

BEARD!!!!!

[metmom]

That simply isn’t the case with many people.

If someone knows Christ, their lives will show it and people will see it.

[metmom]

LOL!!!!!!!!!

[metmom]

Paul must be wrong. Timothy couldn’t have known the scriptures from infancy. The Roman church didn’t write the Bible til 325 AD!

Elsie, I do believe you've got some serious competition.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Fatima is still not a dogmatic truth, a part of the "Deposit of Faith". You can say "I don't think it's legit" and still be a good Catholic.

All the Vatican recognition means is that

(1)There's no prima facie evidence that the shepherd children were not credible witnesses, e.g. they were not known liars, drunk, delusional, drug-addled, paranoid-schizophrenic, threatened/blackmailed, paid off/profiteers, morons, etc.

(2)Nothing at Fatima contradicts Catholic Faith and Morals, e.g. the Vision didn't say 'I'm the Fourth Person of the Trinity," "Girls who wear Bloomers are going to Hell," "Marx was Right and Lenin is His Prophet", "Jesus hates the Catholic Church," "Adore Me, I am Aphrodite in a Nightie," or any such nonsense;

(3) To the extent that it upholds the traditional Mary doctrine ("Do whatever He tells you"), helps people to repent and believe the Good News, or inspires people to dedicate /rededicate themselves to Jesus Christ Our Lord, it's to be valued as an aid to devotion.

That's it.

Granted, maybe millions of Catholics find Our Lady of Fatima credible, as I do myself, but it is "Private Revelation" and therefore not Catholic dogma.

[metmom]

Yet He instituted a Church to preach His commandments and teachings, to be representatives of His authority on Earth.

Christ did not *institute* a church.

He said He was going to BUILD it.

And since the church, the Bride of Christ, is comprised of every born again believer, and we have been commissioned to go and preach the gospel and make disciples, then it is the job of every born again believer to do so.

In that way, the church is spreading the good news.

Christ did not write a single word down as far as we are aware, nor did He command the Apostles to write down a single word of the New Testament; rather, He commanded them to teach all nations:

So He didn't write it Himself. SO WHAT??????

The Holy spirit, the Spirit of Christ, AUTHORED Scripture. It is GOD breathed, Holy Spirit inspired revelation.

And you are wrong, too.

Revelation 1:9-11 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying,

“Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”

Revelation 1:17-19 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying,

“Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

Revelation 2:1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:

Revelation 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

Revelation 2:12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write:

Revelation 2:18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write:

Revelation 3:1 “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write:

Revelation 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

Revelation 3:14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

I don't see that being separated from Roman Catholicism is such a big deal.

Salvation is found in a person, that is Christ, not a religious system or organization.

And no sin we commit separates us from the love of Christ. We don't get saved by works and don't stay saved by works.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Very interesting! I did not know that about the Rh factor!

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Do you contradict Peter, then?

It’s a simple principle of logic: something that is interpreted wrongly can be destructive, just as medicine can be harmful if not taken according to proper directions. Even water can be deadly if ingested improperly, even though our bodies cannot survive without it. How much more, then, would improper interpretation of Holy Writ be fatal to our eternal salvation?

Is it possible to interpret Scripture incorrectly? This is without a doubt true, as history has attested to all the various heretics (such as the Arians) who based their errors on a faulty reading of Scripture. And did not the Pharisees interpret Scripture wrongly in denying Jesus as the Messiah?

Whose interpretation then, is correct?

All those that profess their reading as being assisted by the Holy Spirit cannot claim to speak objectively, for countless denominations profess their readings to be likewise assisted, yet they contradict each other (otherwise, they would be unified under one roof, as it were, bearing no separation amongst themselves). If one claims guidance of the Holy Spirit to profess ‘A’, while another claims likewise yet professes ‘Not A’, who then is true? They cannot both be right, and thus one’s subjective claim to divine inspiration is thus false.

Scripture points to an objective criterion of inspiration by the Holy Ghost: being in union with the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the true Church of Christ.

From the Council of Trent: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

[metmom]

Scripture can be destructive to one's salvation if you interpret it wrongly. Hence the need for a Divinely-authorized teacher, that Christ would be with until the consummation of the world.

Scripture can NEVER be destructive.

That is a lie from the pit of hell.

And we're to depend on the immoral, corrupt homosexual, drug using, child exploiting, pedo protecting cabal residing in Rome for our spiritual guidance?????

I'll take my chances on my own, thank you.

I may not get everything right, that that group in Rome is so sin blinded and soaked and disobedient to Christ, that I doubt they can get ANYTHING right because I'm quite sure that there's not a person in office at the Vatican that would recognize the Truth from God if it knocked them off a horse and blinded them..

[Hebrews 11:6]

Beautifully stated. Thank you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dear Iscool, read this, rejoicing, or even better, sing it:

1 John 1:1-4
That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked at
and our hands have touched—--
this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

The life appeared;
we have seen it
and testify to it,
and we proclaim to you the eternal life,
which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

We proclaim to you
what we have seen and heard,
so that you also may have fellowship with us.
And our fellowship is with the Father
and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

We write this to make our joy complete.

Jesus Himself is a Sign.(Matt 24:40; Luke 2:12 ; Luke 2:34).

Jesus Himself is Wisdom.

So it's not all "signs" and all "wisdom" we are warned against, but only signs and wisdom which are not perceived spiritually, which distract us rather than focus us, and which cause a soul to be puffed up, and not humbled.

Yes, in a way we're all either Jews or Greeks (or rather, Gentiles).

But God still accommodates our human limitations, our need to "hear, see with our eyes, look at, and touch with our hands."

Either the Gospel is packed with physical signs which God is tossing off wiht contempt toward us, embodied persons, who need to see, hear, and touch....

Or, God is doing this in sheer kindness, to accommodate our human way of knowing.

[Mom MD]

+1