Shroud of Turin

[DRDS]

Say, Bippy when I'm on youtube from time to time viewing some of the shroud of Turin videos usually many of the shroud's detractors not necessarily come from atheist skeptics but from other Christians and quite shockingly many of them are the run of the mill conservative Baptist type Christians like I am.

And many times their objections are usually quite the same I remember first hearing about them from Kent Hovind believe it or not. He actually is a big shroud skeptic and these are the reasons why he doesn't think the shroud is Christ's burial cloth.

First he says that 1st. century Jews did not bury their dead like that, he claims they wrap them up like mummies in little strips of linen or cloth and he claims that Christ was buried in that manner, but he never has given any evidence to my knowledge that supports that view.

Also he and others who share his view claim that Christ had short hair, I mean really short hair. And because the shroud shows his hair being shoulder length (was I've heard is not considered long in 1st. century Jewish standards) this couldn't be from the real Jesus since they somehow just "know" that Christ had super short hair.

I guess you have seen just like I have, paintings or drawings usually either in Sunday school or in children's bible story books of Christ having what we consider today being short hair. I think I have even seen films about the life of Christ where the actor playing Christ has short hair.

Those objections along with the objection that claims that the shroud was in the hands of the catholic church, and thus since the catholic church is heretical and untrustworthy thus the shroud shouldn't be considered to be the real thing.

So in conclusion, those are the primary objections I see raised by Christians regarding the shroud. What do you usually say to these folks who raise these objections? Thanks.

[bippy123]

Hey DRDS, I'm on my iPod now so I'll give a short summary. The problem that Kent hovind has here are a few. Many theologians have interpreted the verses in Corinthians as being addressed to the group in that town because they (the men)were known for wearing extra long hair to the point that they were hard to tell apart from the women. The difference in hair has predominantly been used most of the times in distinguishing between men and women. So what is considered long now was most likely not considered long back then. Remember that this was also written to the Greek culture 20 years after Jesus .

Another problem with Kent hovind's statement is that he didn't take into account that Jesus was also considered a holy man and was frequently called rabbi by many including his disciples. If you look at the rabbis of today they definitely didn't have what we would call short hair. True some of the earliest mosaics show Jesus as clean shaven with short hair and no beard, but those seemed to also be mosaics that reflected the culture of those times from the 2nd century.

I also wanted to point out one error where I named Debbie Jackson as the wife of physicist John Jackson. Her name is actually Rebecca Jackson . She definitely had no problem with the burial in the shroud of Turin since she was the sturp teams expert in this area and she was an orthodox Jew before she converted.

As far as it being in the possession of the catholic church, the catholic church has no official position on the shroud as the church says it's no needed for our faith. If the catholic church really made this up they would have pushed the shroud big time and milked it for everything they could get out of it. Instead they only show the shroud every 15 to 20 years to the public.

As far as Catholics not being Christians my brothers friend was trying to tell me that because I'm catholic that I'm not Christian. We had a pretty long discussion on Christian history after this, and we agreed to disagree.
I see the shroud as being for all Christians who hold the basic orthodox views of the trinity and Christ's resurrection, and most Christians do believe that it's authentic so they aren't seeing this as an exclusive catholic relic and on this point I agree, or else big Christian scholars lime Gary habermas who I believe is a baptist leans towards the shrouds authenticity.

You brought up very tough and very good points though , and I remember the hair length point was something that had me banging my head against the wall for weeks until I got deep into shroud studies.

The second objection you brought up is much easier to answer because we have the top experts on Jewish burials that say that the shrouds burial was consistent with Jewish customs, I'll try to bring mote info on that tomorrow.

DRDS, whew, you gave me a tough workout on this one , but it's great because we are pushing each other to the limit, this way we will be able to answer the skeptics. We should call this thread
Shroud of Turin bootcamp lol

[bippy123]

Remember also that in isiah 50:5-6 in which the prophet talks about the pulling from Jesus's beard the hair out, this messianic prophecy also debunks the clean shaven Jesus depicted in the early Hellenic artwork and fits quite well with the beard on the image of the cloth.

[bippy123]

Ok, I finally found a biblical scholar who talks about the length of Jesus's hair from shroud.com



***

Q: Could you give some insight as to the length of the hair the men wore during the time of Christ? This question came up in light of the scripture reference found in I Corinthians 11: 14, 15, where it indicates that nature itself teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. The image on the Shroud appears to have shoulder length or longer hair.. Therefore, it does not seem feasible that Jesus would do something that he did not want his followers to do and give them instruction on how to appear in regards to the grooming of their hair if he wore his hair in direct opposition of the instructions he gave to them.

Once again I asked Rev. Albert "Kim" Dreisbach, a biblical scholar, theologian and Shroud historian to draft the response to this question. Here is his reply:
A: Recently I had a very similar question posed by a young man from Indiana. My response was as follows:
I'm afraid that your "Jewish authority" is mistaken with regard to the length of hair for Jewish males in the first century C.E. (i.e. Common Era).

According to R.C. Dentan in an article written for The Interpreter's Bible Dictionary:
"HAIR. The hair's capacity for constant growth has always made it seem an important seat of life and, therefore, religiously significant. The most notable example of this in the Bible is in the case of the NAZIRITE VOW (Num. 6:12 1; Judg. 13:5; 16:17; 1 Sam. 1: I 1), one aspect of which was to allow the hair to grow long so that it might be presented to God as an offering (Num. 6: 18; Acts 18:18; 21:23-24). Samson's hair, in the final form of the story (Judg. 13:5), appears to have been left long in fulfillment of such a vow, although originally it had a more primitive significance as the repository of his strength Judg. 16:19, 22). The shaving of the head in mourning (Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 7:18) and the offering of the hair to the dead were part of ancient religious practice, but forbidden to the Hebrews (Deut. 14: 1). Indeed, the complete shaving of the head was forbidden to them for any purpose (Lev. 19:27; cf. Jer. 9:26; Ezek. 44:20). In the OT, long hair on men was greatly admired (II Sam. 14:25-26; cf. Song of S. 5:2, 1 1), but in the NT it is frowned upon as contrary to nature (I Cor. II: 14). Although women wore their hair long (I Cor. 11:15), the biblical writers deplore the excessive ornamentation of it (Isa. 3:24; 1 Pet. 3:3). The hair is a symbol of the fine (Judg. 20:16), the small (Luke 21:18),and the numerous (Matt. 10:30)."

When it comes to the passage from I Cor. 11:14-15, one must remember that it was written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus. Closer study will reveal that it is simply Paul's personal opinion and certainly not a regulation which would have applied to Jesus during his lifetime. Once again a quote from The Interpreter's Bible volume devoted to I Corinthians may prove useful in this case:

"[Today it would be] considered folly to argue, as Paul implies, that men are likely to be less spiritually sensitive or alert because their hair is worn long, or that a woman loses spiritual and social standing because her hair is short, or because she appears in public with her head uncovered. The argument would have been unconvincing, in some respects at least, even in Paul's day; for Greek heroes often wore long hair, and many ancient philosophers, as well as their modern counterparts, followed the same practice. Paul is entitled to his opinion and to his adherence to social custom. He is not entitled to make his personal opinion, or the prevalent social customs of his time, the basis of a moral law or of a categorical imperative of the Kantian order. What is permanent in all this discussion is that the conduct of church affairs, and public worship in particular, should be marked by reverence and order, by dignity and decency. Nothing should be permitted that attracts undue attention to itself." [Emphasis added.]

A careful study of the Shroud of Turin will reveal that not only did this man have shoulder length hair and a beard, but if you study the dorsal or back side you can also detect an unplaited ponytail - a hairstyle favored by young men at that time. Logic alone would seem to indicate that one wouldn't have enough hair for a ponytail unless at least that hair on the back of the head was long.

Though Jesus was not a Nazarite, this group is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as:

A body of Israelites specially consecrated to the service of God who were under vows to abstain from drinking the produce of the vine, to let their hair grow and to avoid defilement by contact with the dead (Num. 6).

Once again we have evidence that at least some Jewish males wore long hair.

If you study art from the Byzantine to Western European, Jesus is traditionally portrayed with long (i.e. shoulder length) hair. The objection to this style is relatively modern and is probably based on a bias to its making the wearer appear too feminine.

The Rev. Albert R. Dreisbach, Jr.
http://www.shroud.com/faq.htm#7

I'll try to check more of reverend Albert research out.

As I said, Kent hovinds second objection is much easier to debunk

[bippy123]

Hey DRDS, it looks like alot of conservative baptists dont share the few that Kent Hovind does as this link will show.
GARY R. HABERMAS, Ph.D. LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Mark Heim, A baptist Pastor

In fact Habermas who did his phd dissertation on the Resurrection sees nothing in the image that is against Ancient Jewish burial customs and he is probably the top expert on the Resurrection. They nicknamed him the Resurrection man for a reason. The reason why Habermas is one of my favorites is that he is so knowledgable in the resurrection but he is so down to earth that you could probably go fishing with the guy.

Below is the article from Reverend Gary Dreisbach, and I believed he passed away before he was supposed to present it to an audience in Italy.




http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/dreisbach4.pdf

Even a conservative biblical scholar like Gary Habermas is quite forth right in
proclaiming:

Especially distressing are some evangelical critiques based on partial
information.... One uncanny facet becomes immediately obvious in a
study of the shroud. What looks at first report to be rather problematical
has repeatedly turned out to fit very closely with the known facts....
An exegetical study of the relevant portions of the NT does not
render the shroud fraudulent. To the contrary: Not only are there no
discrepancies, but the shroud is compatible with the data, and certain texts
(such as John 11:44 and 20:67) actually favor the type of burial depicted in
the shroud. Second, burial like that of the m a n of the shroud was
apparently practiced by Jews in Jesus' time as revealed by the Essene
community, the Code of Jewish Law and the Mishna ... Since we have
found that the shroud is neither proven nor unproven by the gospel texts
and that it is a viable option, a third point might now be stated. The actual
authenticity of the shroud must be made on other grounds, such as
scientific and histor ical investigation....
[In fact,] not only does the shroud provide some exciting new
evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but it complements the extremely
strong historical evidence for this event as well. In fact, the evidence from
the shroud is strong enough that if Jesus was not buried in this garment ,
then we might have a problem, for it would seem that someone else
would have appeared to have risen from the dead.
7
[Emphasis added.]

All are agreed that there were no human witnesses to the actual moment of Resurrection.
Therefore it should come as no surprise that the trend in biblical scholarship has been to
focus on the subjective impact of this event rather than upon the rather scanty objective
traces of same which are available for a more empirical analysis. The Resurrection was
primarily an objective event wh ich involved matter and occurred in space and time. As
such, there should be no a priori reason to eliminate the possibility that this event left a
physical trace - a "trace" which we still have with us to this day and known as the Shroud
of Turin. If the artifacts of Jericho are legitimate physical traces studied to trace the

4
empirical history of that city, why should the Shroud - possibly the only artifact of the
most important event of all time - be dismissed as unworthy of the most exacting analysis
of which man is capable? Surprisingly enough, biblical scholars seem to overlook the
fact that the Shroud is the only relic mentioned in the Bible after the Resurrection [ Jn
20:5-7]. The Cross isn't mentioned after the Crucifixion, or the Crown of Thorns, or
anything else, just the Shroud. Why?
8

Mark Heim, a Baptist pastor, goes beyond Habermas in his own carefully developed line
of reasoning which argues that:

Jesus being truly human such traces did exist and , for all I know, still exist unless
a first century Marty [i.e. The Rev. Dr. Martin Marty, Lutheran and publisher of
an influential Protestant journal, The Christian Century,] followed him about
tidying up. Dangers of abuse of any such remnant there surely are, but that does
not mean we should resolutely purge ourselves of any intimation that the
resurrection was nastily tangible - was , well, real: like a cloth you can hold in
your hand.. What changed [the apostles] was not the moral impact of anyone, but
rather a firsthand encounter with reality, the resurrection witnessed to them by
Christ's actual presence by what we loosely call evidence. Evidence
did not and could not compel them to believe, but it was the occasion for their
believing . If it were not to play even this role, then why any resurrection
appearances at all? Were the disciples simply to make up the idea of the
resurrection on their own? Were they like initiates, simply supposed to "get
it"? That is not what the Gospels indicate. The disciples got it, but prodding was
required".
9
[Italics added.]

[PaulSacramento]

I think that many people are wary of putting faith in a "thing" because of the fear that if that thing is shown to be false, one's faith can be "compromised".
I would think that would probably be the biggest reason to aggressively doubt the Shroud.

[RickD]

I think that many people are wary of putting faith in a "thing" because of the fear that if that thing is shown to be false, one's faith can be "compromised".
I would think that would probably be the biggest reason to aggressively doubt the Shroud.

I put my faith in the authenticity of the shroud, because Kent Hovind believes it's fake. It's usually a safe bet to go the opposite of what Hovind believes.

[Byblos]

I put my faith in the authenticity of the shroud, because Kent Hovind believes it's fake. It's usually a safe bet to go the opposite of what Hovind believes.

Wait a minute, Hovind is a die-hard Protestant. Rick does that mean you're crossing the Tiber and really coming home?

[Philip]

As for the shroud, even if perfectly authenticated, it would be but one more astounding evidence for the reality of God, albeit amongst mountains of other evidences.

Psalm 19 tells us that, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." But one man can look up at the heavens, study physics and astronomy, and stand in awe of God's nightly glory. Whilst another beside him can find them beautiful, but a witness to "nothing" but a spectacular, cosmic coincidence. Astronomers and scientists are trained to understand (what of it CAN be understood about) the beginning, mechanisms and functions that run our universe. But so few of them also believe in God. And if the universe can't convince a man of science, with its unfathomable complexity, precision, beauty and mysteries, WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD?

Father Abraham, in the parable of Lazarus, tells the rich man in hell: "‘If they do not hear qMoses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” Clearly, the last of the quoted verse refers to Jesus overcoming death on the Cross. God is telling us that it takes faith to believe and that, at least for SOME people, no miracle will be great enough, because they are determined to remain in unbelief. Nonetheless, we read in John 14: "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of THE WORKS THEMSELVES. Jesus is telling us that evidences CAN and DO lead to faith, but that even the most powerful evidences will not overcome the stubbornly unrepentant.

And so Paul is right - we have to be extraordinarily careful about utilizing evidences, however powerful they might appear. But really, the COLLECTIVE evidences for God and His Creation are unreasonable to deny, and yet many nonetheless do. And so Father Abraham was right!

[bippy123]

I think that many people are wary of putting faith in a "thing" because of the fear that if that thing is shown to be false, one's faith can be "compromised".
I would think that would probably be the biggest reason to aggressively doubt the Shroud.

Yes Paul and this is why I have always thought of the shroud as a supplement or bonus anot what the foundation of faith is, but dont tell that to Rebecca Jackson who was Orthodox Jewish before researching the shroud or Mark Antonacci who was agnostic before the shroud. Jesus has always thrown us clues. Heck that is probably why he appeared bodily before the disciples and others for 40 days before he ascended into heaven.

This is also why Christianity has the best historicity of any religion on earth hands down!!, and that historicity isnt even dependent on the shroud.

[bippy123]

As for the shroud, even if perfectly authenticated, it would be but one more astounding evidence for the reality of God, albeit amongst mountains of other evidences.

Psalm 19 tells us that, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." But one man can look up at the heavens, study physics and astronomy, and stand in awe of God's nightly glory. Whilst another beside him can find them beautiful, but a witness to "nothing" but a spectacular, cosmic coincidence. Astronomers and scientists are trained to understand (what of it CAN be understood about) the beginning, mechanisms and functions that run our universe. But so few of them also believe in God. And if the universe can't convince a man of science, with its unfathomable complexity, precision, beauty and mysteries, WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD?

Father Abraham, in the parable of Lazarus, tells the rich man in hell: "‘If they do not hear qMoses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” Clearly, the last of the quoted verse refers to Jesus overcoming death on the Cross. God is telling us that it takes faith to believe and that, at least for SOME people, no miracle will be great enough, because they are determined to remain in unbelief. Nonetheless, we read in John 14: "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of THE WORKS THEMSELVES. Jesus is telling us that evidences CAN and DO lead to faith, but that even the most powerful evidences will not overcome the stubbornly unrepentant.

And so Paul is right - we have to be extraordinarily careful about utilizing evidences, however powerful they might appear. But really, the COLLECTIVE evidences for God and His Creation are unreasonable to deny, and yet many nonetheless do. And so Father Abraham was right!

Awesome, awesome, awesome post Philip:), sometimes it takes a post like this to wake me up and remember:)
Totally agree

[bippy123]

I think that many people are wary of putting faith in a "thing" because of the fear that if that thing is shown to be false, one's faith can be "compromised".
I would think that would probably be the biggest reason to aggressively doubt the Shroud.

I put my faith in the authenticity of the shroud, because Kent Hovind believes it's fake. It's usually a safe bet to go the opposite of what Hovind believes.

lol I don't know much about Hovind except for the video debate he had with Hugh Ross. I like Hugh's website and visit it often.

[RickD]

I put my faith in the authenticity of the shroud, because Kent Hovind believes it's fake. It's usually a safe bet to go the opposite of what Hovind believes.

Wait a minute, Hovind is a die-hard Protestant. Rick does that mean you're crossing the Tiber and really coming home?

Put it this way, Byblos...If Hovind were the spokesman for protestantism, then I'd definitely "cross the Tiber", and come home, as you say.

BTW Byblos, do you and Twinc, live in the same "home" that I'm supposed to come home to?

[RickD]

I think that many people are wary of putting faith in a "thing" because of the fear that if that thing is shown to be false, one's faith can be "compromised".
I would think that would probably be the biggest reason to aggressively doubt the Shroud.

I put my faith in the authenticity of the shroud, because Kent Hovind believes it's fake. It's usually a safe bet to go the opposite of what Hovind believes.

lol I don't know much about Hovind except for the video debate he had with Hugh Ross. I like Hugh's website and visit it often.

Bippy, I'm sure Kent Hovind is a swell guy, once you get to know him. Actually, I owe Kent Hovind a debt of gratitude. If it weren't for Mr. Hovind, I wouldn't have found this website, where you all can enjoy my wit and wisdom.

[Philip]

Rick said: "lol I don't know much about Hovind except for the video debate he had with Hugh Ross. I like Hugh's website and visit it often."

Yes, Rick, I also am a HUGE fan of RTB, Ross Inc. In the debate with Ross, every time Hovind makes a statement, you can look over at Ross and can tell he must be thinking to himself, "This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel - with a MACHINEGUN!"

If only more of Hovind's fans knew a wee bit of basic astronomy and physical science, they'd realize he's a snake oil salesman. I almost feel bad for the guy, it's THAT embarrassing.