Posted on 08/21/2024 8:04:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sometime in the mid-'80s, I remember going to Atlanta with a group from my church to see the Shroud of Turin, the linen cloth that some have claimed was the cloth that Joseph of Arimathea used to bury Jesus and place Him in the tomb. I remember images and videos in that crowded exhibit hall that told the story of the shroud, and of course, the shroud itself was on display in a glass case.
I was probably 12 or 13, so I wasn’t mature enough in my faith to be able to conclude whether it was real. I do remember the controversy surrounding the dating of the artifact even then, and there were rumors that people were experiencing healing after coming near the shroud. Nevertheless, it fascinated me enough to keep an eye on any news I see about it even today.
The Shroud of Turin first came to prominence in the 1350s, and by the 16th century, it had a permanent home in Turin, Italy. For hundreds of years, the faithful believed that it was Jesus’ burial cloth, and plenty of people believe it today. But in the ‘80s, some researchers concluded that the shroud only dated to the Middle Ages.
Now, a group of Italian researchers have used a new technique called Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) to study the shroud. Comparing the shroud to another linen sample that dates to the New Testament era, they conclude that the cloth dates back to the time of Jesus.
Scientific Technique Dates Shroud of Turin to Around the Time of Christ’s Death and Resurrection
Liberato De Caro discusses his peer-reviewed findings, based on an X-ray method of research, used to determine the age of the shroud’s fibers.⤵️ https://t.co/uLzCh09gCt— National Catholic Register (@NCRegister)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
No, I'm pointing out that the passage in question can't definitively be read one way or the other.
Because why? Well, I’ll refrain from “mind reading” and let everyone else make their own speculations as to why.
That's OK; I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions about your motives as well. Have a blessed day.
“No, I’m pointing out that the passage in question can’t definitively be read one way or the other.”
In that case I think I’ll err on the side of caution as the most prudent course of action.
You have a good one.
I just told you I didn't. I think I know better what is going on in my mind when I pray than you do.
IT is GOD that forbids it. Your church says it is wrong yet permits it. Doesn’t correct anyone, encourages it.
As I said, the Church explicitly teaches against it. I could take the trouble to show you where in Church teaching it teaches this if I didn't know you would just ignore it. The teaching is there for all to see; it is not the Church's fault that many Catholics are too lazy to learn their Faith at an adult level.
My question to you, is WHY would you kneel and pray to an IMAGE of Mary when God invites you into a personal relationship with him as FATHER through the Holy Spirit and Jesus.
Catholics don't pray to images, they pray to the Saint in heaven who is represented by the statue. When non-Catholics kneel beside their bed with a Bible in their hands, they are not praying to their bible (I hope) but to God.
It's been said a billion times in these forums but I'll just repeat it for those who are not closed-minded anti-Catholics: Praying to Saints is just the same as one Christian asking another to pray for them. The only reason Protestants see this as worship is because they have an impoverished idea of worship where prayer and singing is the highest form of worship there is. Catholics recognize that worship is much more than that, thus we have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which Christ himself instituted at the Last Supper and which thereafter the Church, beginning with the Apostles, followed his commandment to "do this in memory of me).
Sorry, but I don't have time to get bogged down in the same endless debates repeatedly dug up by rabid anti-Catholics in these forums again and again, ad nauseum. Don't have a sincere desire to understand Catholic teaching, then don't be a Catholic. It's as easy as that. Have a blessed evening.
Catholics don’t pray to images, they pray to the Saint in heaven who is represented by the statue. When non-Catholics kneel beside their bed with a Bible in their hands, they are not praying to their bible (I hope) but to God.
Is not one obviously better than the other?
The only conclusion I can arrive at is YOU DO NOT HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD THE FATHER.
He is a JEALOUS GOD. JEALOUS IS HIS NAME
There is a huge difference between Gods Word and an image of Mary. The problem is you see the Bible as just another relic. God is a living God and His Word is living, he not far away.
If my earthly father were still alive, I would go directly to him, not through his accountant or business organization. But you make your own choice.
I do not say the above to prove I am right and you are wrong. I say the above to remind us both of who God is.
This is why I hate having these arguments with anti-Catholics. I did answer your question, but you ignored it. Praying to Saints is no different than asking a fellow Christian. Why ever ask a fellow Christian to pray for you? What if you asked a fellow Christian asked for your prayers and they said, "You stupid pagan! Stop worshipping me by asking for my prayers! Pray straight to God!"
The only conclusion I can arrive at is YOU DO NOT HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD THE FATHER.
You draw aa false conclusion based on your ignorance and animosity toward the Catholic Faith. In any case, you are not the one to take the place of God to decide that.
There is a huge difference between Gods Word and an image of Mary.
The point I was making was if praying before a plaster statue of Mary is worshipping her, then praying in front of a Bible is worshipping the Bible--your physical Bible made of paper and leather. We put our faith in the Word of God, not in a statue or in the paper and ink of a book. It is what they represent and how they bring us closer to God, in different ways, that matters. Is asking Mary to pray as important as the inspired Word of God found in the Bible? Nobody says it is, but just because something is less important, doesn't mean it isn't helpful in it's own way. To deny this shows an incapacity to reason and make distinctions.
The problem is you see the Bible as just another relic. God is a living God and His Word is living, he not far away.
You have no idea how I regard the Bible, Mr. Wannabe Mind Reader. If you you knew how much time I spent in the Bible--studying it, teaching it. and living it-- you would be ashamed to make such an ignorant charge.
Don't believe in praying to Mary? Then don't do it. It's as easy as that. From my standpoint, one would be remiss in not soliciting the prayers of a holy person--either on earth or in heaven-- but that's just me. YMMV.
The s is we ignore the tired and old anti Catholic arguments.
You’re just throwing out invectives against the Church.
I do find it funny that the Bible is trying to be used against us since the Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.
They're not very different things. The first is a prohibition on worshipping a god other than the Lord. The second is a prohibition on making or worshipping an idol of such a god. The first encompasses the second; if you can't worship another god, you certainly can't worship an idol of another god.
This is basically a mistranslation. The Hebrew pesel definitely means an idol. In other places, God directly commands the use of images, e.g., the angels surmounting the Ark of the Covenant.
Gary co-authored two books on the Shroud in the eighties. He also mentions it a lot in his books on the Resurrection.
“So some guy in the 1300s went to the time, trouble and expense, to purchase a thousand year old piece of linen? Assuming he could even find something like that, why would he do it? To fool people 700 years in the future, using tests he could never even conceive of?”
I kinda love this answer.❤️
Good one.
“So some guy in the 1300s went to the time, trouble and expense, to purchase a thousand year old piece of linen? Assuming he could even find something like that, why would he do it? To fool people 700 years in the future, using tests he could never even conceive of?”
It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theory.
We know the shroud wasn’t found util the 14th century.
Some guy found a piece of blank cloth (of unknown age at that time) in the 14th century and decided to paint something on it—for reasons completely unknown at to us now.
Is that any less believable than: The burial cloth used by Jesus, due to a miracle, contained his image, and Christians decided to remain silent and keep it hidden away until the 14th century?
Jesus’ burial cloth is mentioned in the Gospels. Had it miraculously contained his image, it would certainly been mentioned by Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John?
Surely Acts or one of the Epistles would have mentioned it. Yet, it’s not mentioned at all.
I know something can’t be proved from silence, but it would seem to be a glaring omission from the Bible that such a high profile and unusual miracle isn’t mentioned at all.
“If it could have been added, then it clearly could be reproduced. But it can’t be reproduced.”
That’s logically incorrect.
The fact that we currently don’t know the process, doesn’t mean they didn’t know the process then.
Remember, the process to make something as basic as CONCRETE was lost for centuries.
People utilized concrete structures created by the Romans for centuries with no idea how they built them.
A process getting lost is not uncommon.
We don't know that. There are multiple artistic representations and references to objects, prior to the 14th century that could, in fact, be the shroud.
"Some guy found a piece of blank cloth (of unknown age at that time) in the 14th century and decided to paint something on it—for reasons completely unknown at to us now."
It wasn't painted. We have no idea how some simple 14th century artist created the image - despite batteries of hands-on tests, conducted by scientific professionals who worked at places like JPL, Sandia Labs, and Los Alamos during their day jobs. This unknown artistic titan, at least 100 years before Leonardo di Vinci, apparently invented an entirely new art form that was photorealistic, with the added twist of depicting his subject in the negative. And then included dozens of details that would be completely unobservable or understood for hundreds of years.
"I know something can’t be proved from silence, but it would seem to be a glaring omission from the Bible that such a high profile and unusual miracle isn’t mentioned at all."
Offhand, I can think of a couple of reasons: The disciples were still essentially Jews. They still went to the Temple. There were prohibitions against handling things that had contacted a dead body. I could see wanting to hang on to something that was all that remained from the greatest person to ever walk the earth, despite any prohibitions. But you wouldn't brag about it. I could also see not talking about it precisely because they wouldn't want it to become an object of worship; they had the example of Hezekiah and the bronze serpent. Frankly, if you are a believing Christian, the supernatural comes with the territory. It may very well be, the disciples were inspired to quietly put this thing away for a later, faithless time.
We have written records documenting a chain-of-custody back to the 14th Century. There are reports of a burial shroud being venerated before then -- specifically of one in Constantinople which may have been stolen and brought to the West in the 4th Crusade -- but they can't be definitively connected to the Shroud of Turin.
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.