Skip to comments.
Jesus, in the Shroud of Turin is truly a revelation
WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE ^
| 3/12
| Wired
Posted on 03/15/2002 6:57:35 AM PST by OPS4
WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE Evidence of the risen Christ? Special Easter report sheds new light on reputed burial cloths of Jesus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: March 12, 2002 1:08 p.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
The March edition of WND's acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower concludes with an in-depth and stunning report on the Shroud of Turin the 14-foot-long piece of linen believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
The most studied artifact in human history, the image of a crucified man mysteriously emblazoned upon it in a way modern technology has been unable to duplicate is breathtaking.
Experts the gurus of science and medicine, the professors of history and art cannot agree on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Skeptics have tried, unsuccessfully, to recreate the image they insist is a pious fake. Most who reject the Shroud put their faith in the carbon-14 testing results that date the linen as from the 14th century. Others respond that the storage conditions over the years and at least one fire forestall any accurate dating using carbon-14 tests.
Believers point to the growing body of scientific and historical evidence that bolster the authenticity of the Shroud.
How, ask Shroud supporters, is it possible that a clever fake shroud could be made in the 1300s as a perfect photographic negative that would not be properly seen until modern photography was invented? And what of the incredible fact that the fabric areas on the Shroud where the image is contained are only one fiber deep? No paint or stain would remain on the top surface of the first layer of the fibrils.
And how was a fraudulent relic-monger to know the medical truths that recent medical science has just learned? The medical details of crucifixion are so complex that no modern artist has and no medieval artist could have duplicated the precise geometry of the body in extremis.
And most compelling, why has no copy been achieved, given the vast science and technology at our command?
Skeptics have a difficult time, say Shroud proponents, with the mounting scientific and historical corroboration that should force an open-minded investigator to reconsider his objections.
One historian of the Shroud mused, Their refusal to believe the evidence is itself not a scientific attitude. The real problem, claim Shroud supporters, is not that an ancient cloth that covered a crucified victim still exists after two thousand years. Said one researcher: Do you think that if the ancient burial sheet of a sandal maker had been discovered with a scroll that read, here lies Benjamin the Sandal Maker, that the scientific world fall all over itself to prove that it could not be Benjamin the Sandal Maker?
No. They only compromise their scientific witness because the peculiarities of the wounds of this victim reveal him to be no sandal maker, but the Son of God. If they could, they would get rid of all the physical evidence of Christianity that Jesus lived, died and was buried. And then Christians would have nothing to believe in. Then, after two thousand years, Christians would finally die out.
The March edition of Whistleblower is dedicated to the rampant persecution of Christians in today's world. But in honor of Easter, WND's editors included this special section on the Shroud of Turin. Titled "The first Christian martyr," this eye-opening report on the Shroud as well as the lesser known Sudarium of Oveido, believed to be the face-cloth of the entombed Jesus begins with the reactions of visitors who view the Shroud in person:
You look at it and you cannot escape it: His body was horribly, horribly wounded. I choked up, said one visitor to the millennium Shroud of Turin exhibit.
Another viewer summed up his experience, I realized that this image is a message that was left for us. The resurrection truly happened. The man they tried to extinguish, lives. And we will too, no matter what the world tries to do to us, we will rise again with Him.
Whistleblower's special report by Mary Jo Anderson includes five remarkable, high-quality photographs taken by Barrie M. Schwortz, a member of the historic 1978 scientific team that was allowed to examine the Shroud. One of them is the full-length negative of the Shroud that clearly reveals the detailed and deeply gripping image of a crucified man.
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ascendedlord; jesus; miracles; shroudofturin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-172 next last
To: farmfriend
So then...it is or isn't the burial shroud of Jacques de Molay?
81
posted on
03/15/2002 9:09:17 AM PST
by
Wm Bach
To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
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.
To: Alex Murphy
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.
83
posted on
03/15/2002 9:25:06 AM PST
by
Kyrie
To: Mr. Lucky
...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 :)
To: Stand Watch Listen
So what we can't duplicate greek fire either.
85
posted on
03/15/2002 9:29:50 AM PST
by
weikel
To: Alex Murphy
Golly, are you suggesting that the Power of God may be greater than the mind of modern man?
To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
I didn't stae I was 20 in my profile page how did you know? Just curious.
87
posted on
03/15/2002 9:32:33 AM PST
by
weikel
To: weikel
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?
To: cmak9
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.
89
posted on
03/15/2002 9:37:59 AM PST
by
weikel
To: Mr. Lucky
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.
90
posted on
03/15/2002 9:41:09 AM PST
by
weikel
To: discostu
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.
To: OPS4
Alleluia! He is risen! Bump!
To: weikel
If you're interested in a really good discussion of the history of the Shroud of Turin, try this book:
To: farmfriend
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".
94
posted on
03/15/2002 9:51:18 AM PST
by
ZULU
To: discostu
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.
To: OPS4
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.
96
posted on
03/15/2002 10:01:49 AM PST
by
MEGoody
To: all
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).
97
posted on
03/15/2002 10:03:30 AM PST
by
in_troth
To: Wm Bach
Jacque was burned alive by Phillip the Fair. Consequently, the need for a shroud was minimal.
98
posted on
03/15/2002 10:04:32 AM PST
by
ZULU
To: in_troth
I don't know what you have been reading, but best estimates of the man in the shroud is about 5'11" tall.
99
posted on
03/15/2002 10:05:54 AM PST
by
ZULU
To: Clara Lou
" Whether the shroud is genuine or not is unimportant in the end. Faith is the issue. "
BINGO! That's it exactly.
Nam Vet
100
posted on
03/15/2002 10:07:01 AM PST
by
Nam Vet
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-172 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson