Jesus, in the Shroud of Turin is truly a revelation

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE ^ | 3/12 | Wired

[Wm Bach]

So then...it is or isn't the burial shroud of Jacques de Molay?

[Mr. Lucky]

You point deserves reiteration.

Whether the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus is of no moment to the Christian faith; rather, it is of utmost importance to the athiest faith.

[Kyrie]

Since the Gospels don't say anything about the soldiers being blinded by a bright light coming from within the tomb itself, for me this "relic" proves too much.

No, the Gospels say nothing about a bright light coming from within the tomb. But since they do say that it was a tomb carved into stone, with a large stone blocking the opening, and sealed, I'm not sure why one would expect even a bright light to pass through the stone and alert the soldiers.

[Alex Murphy]

...just for the record, what spectrum of light is visable to the human eye and what spectrum has science determined caused the image on the Shroud?...

I find the explanation that Jesus "emitted" radiation or some unidentified "energy source" in the tomb to be a peculiarly twentieth-century-sounding idea - hence my having fun with the "glow in the dark Jesus" comments :)

[weikel]

So what we can't duplicate greek fire either.

[Mr. Lucky]

Golly, are you suggesting that the Power of God may be greater than the mind of modern man?

[weikel]

I didn't stae I was 20 in my profile page how did you know? Just curious.

[Mr. Lucky]

You raise a good point. Why do you think so much more offort is made by materialist society to disprove the authenticity of the Shroud than to disprove what you believe to be other myths of antiquity?

[weikel]

No what im saying is that since the relic was dated to the 14th century when lots of relic fakes were made its much less likely the dating is inaccurate and thus its probably a fake. Ie if the thing was dated to the 4th century I'd be more willing to believe the RC dating is inaccurate. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[weikel]

Im not quite sure what your asking if you mean other fake relics from the High Middle Ages( though the 14th Century was sorta a low point in the High Middle Ages with the Black Plague and Papal Schisms) I guess there is less people who believe their authenticity than those who believe in the authenticity of the shroud.

[eastsider]

I'm not familiar enough with anthropology either to make any personal judgment concerning the ethnic features of the face in the shroud or to comment on how anthropologists see past facial hair, bruises, etc. Having read the book written by one of the scientists on the 1978 research project, I'd be interested in hearing Dr. D'Muhala speak in Raleigh on March 27 (see RightOnLine's post #22).

As for the effect the actual burial cloth of Jesus might have on one's Christian faith, it seems to me that our faith rests on the eyewitness of men who we believe not because their story has any verisimilitude with any of our common experience, but because these men chose death rather than deny that they had seen Jesus of Nazareth alive after he had been laid in the tomb. Ultimately, no tests can ever conclusively "prove" the authenticity of the shroud or come close to the testimony of the apostles.

Still, if nothing else, the search for a tangible artifact associated with the resurrection keeps one focused on the physical and temporal reality of the event, whereby Christian faith transcends philosophical speculation.

[Antoninus]

Alleluia! He is risen! Bump!

[Antoninus]

If you're interested in a really good discussion of the history of the Shroud of Turin, try this book:

[ZULU]

Perhaps. But the anatomical and forensic accuracy of the image is totally beyond the capabilities of the most intelligent and well-read fraud of that period. Go to one of the sites mentioned and read about this artifact. It might surprise you - especially the part about the thumb the wrist and crucifixtion. That method of execution was banned by Constantine sometime in the 300's and after 1000 years, I guess you could consider it a forgotten "skill".

[Antoninus]

Personally, the biggest vote agaist the Shroud for me is that the image in it looks like the Church art of the time: ie that the image looks like a shallow faced Western European, not like a full faced Mid-Easterner.

Funny you should say this... Do a quick web search of Byzantine art of the 5-10th century, particularly images of Christ as Pantocrator. Now compare that to the image on the Shroud of Turin... And remember, the theory is that the Shroud was in the hands of the Byzantine Greeks for hundreds of years before showing up in Europe after the Fourth Crusade.

[MEGoody]

This is very interesting, but my faith in Christ will not be moved based on whether or not the Shroud of Turin is proven to be legitimate. Neither will the non-faith of those who chose to reject Him. We all ultimately chose whether we will accept Him based on faith alone. If one choses not to believe, any evidence presented is dismissed out of hand.

[in_troth]

How tall was Jesus, I wonder. Seems the fellow in the shroud is supposed to somewhere between 6' 8" and 6' 11" (think Howard Stern sized, or OBL-sized even). Was Jesus that tall?

Of course, I recall hearing that if you wrap it a different way, I think it makes the person 4 foot something.

If it's Jesus, it's cool---but if it isn't, that's cool too. As many others here have said, faith doesn't require proof (otherwise it wouldn't be faith, by definition).

[ZULU]

Jacque was burned alive by Phillip the Fair. Consequently, the need for a shroud was minimal.

[ZULU]

I don't know what you have been reading, but best estimates of the man in the shroud is about 5'11" tall.

[Nam Vet]

" Whether the shroud is genuine or not is unimportant in the end. Faith is the issue. "

BINGO! That's it exactly.

Nam Vet