Shroud of Turin

[Byblos]

FL, it is very clear you have not spent any time reading any of the material presented in this thread. I mean forget the iconic symbolism and all that. If the shroud is acutally authentic, and all indications are that it is, it would be proof positive not only for the death of Christ, but more importantly, compelling evidence for his resurrection. As a Christian surely you ought to take the subject a little more seriously. Or at a minimum refrain from making fun of those who do. But that's just me.

[Kurieuo]

If I were not a Christian, I would say that atheist forums are for dummies. Since I am a Christian, I'll say that the atheist forums I've visited are filled with filthy talk, bad spelling and poor grammar. People who don't seem to have much education congregate there.

I think there is a type of personality that needs mystery or magic...I don't understand why. Both unbelievers and those who believe in God can be prone to such unsubstantiated beliefs.

So...listen, if you want to believe that the Shroud is the real thing, go ahead. As for me, the Shroud is in the same category as Tongues, being slain in the Spirit, KJV Onlyism and so on.

FL

I was like that too, until I read the posts about a year ago in this thread.
There's some quite compelling recent evidence.

It seems to have changed in the last couple of years, such that it has for me swung in the favour of authenticity.
I can't picture ever using it as an apologetic though, as I'd expect your exact same reaction.
And I hate relics. Seems so religious. So Catholic. So Byblos-like.

[Byblos]

I was like that too, until I read the posts about a year ago in this thread.
There's some quite compelling recent evidence.

It seems to have changed in the last couple of years, such that it has for me swung in the favour of authenticity.
I can picture ever using it as an apologetic though, as I'd expect your exact same reaction.
And I hate relics. Seems so religious. So Catholic. So Byblos-like.

Why thank you sir, I think that's probably the best compliment I've ever received on here.

Seriously though, like you K, I wouldn't use the shroud in any apologetic topic either and it is nothing I would hang my faith on. As an evidence tool, on the other hand, I'd be a fool to summarily dismiss it out of hand.

[RickD]

I think K and Byblos hit the nail on the head. After what I've read on this thread, with kudos to Bippy and others, I can't see anything that has shown it is not authentic.

But other than that, it's nothing to hang our faith upon.

If it leads someone to Christ, that's great.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

FL, it is very clear you have not spent any time reading any of the material presented in this thread. I mean forget the iconic symbolism and all that. If the shroud is acutally authentic, and all indications are that it is, it would be proof positive not only for the death of Christ, but more importantly, compelling evidence for his resurrection. As a Christian surely you ought to take the subject a little more seriously. Or at a minimum refrain from making fun of those who do. But that's just me.

You are right, I haven't bothered to read the material presented in this thread, any more than I bother to read magazines on UFOs... Some things are self-evident: You don't have to be a meteorologist to see that the sky is cloudy. As for the Shroud being ''compelling evidence for his resurrection'' I doubt many non-believers would buy that. For those who would, fine. As I've said before, some people need the paraphernalia of religions: the ceremony, the candles, the holidays, the statues, the icons, the blessed garments/water/oil, the fancy buildings, the genuine shavings of Jesus' cross, the chants...some people need this stuff to solidify/focus/anchor their faith. I'm fine with that.

I don't take the Shroud seriously any more than I take Tongues seriously. Some people need this type of ''evidence'' and the reason probably has more to do with psychology than anything else. Sorry.

FL

[Byblos]

FL, it is very clear you have not spent any time reading any of the material presented in this thread. I mean forget the iconic symbolism and all that. If the shroud is acutally authentic, and all indications are that it is, it would be proof positive not only for the death of Christ, but more importantly, compelling evidence for his resurrection. As a Christian surely you ought to take the subject a little more seriously. Or at a minimum refrain from making fun of those who do. But that's just me.

You are right, I haven't bothered to read the material presented in this thread, any more than I bother to read magazines on UFOs... Some things are self-evident: You don't have to be a meteorologist to see that the sky is cloudy. As for the Shroud being ''compelling evidence for his resurrection'' I doubt many non-believers would buy that. For those who would, fine. As I've said before, some people need the paraphernalia of religions: the ceremony, the candles, the holidays, the statues, the icons, the blessed garments/water/oil, the fancy buildings, the genuine shavings of Jesus' cross, the chants...some people need this stuff to solidify/focus/anchor their faith. I'm fine with that.

I don't take the Shroud seriously any more than I take Tongues seriously. Some people need this type of ''evidence'' and the reason probably has more to do with psychology than anything else. Sorry.

FL

If you would simply set aside your biases and read the material you would actually see it has nothing to do with icons or relics or psychology and everything to do with as authentic a physical evidence to Christ and his resurrection as any.

But I understand your self-inflicted blindess. It is rather unfortunate though since this is precisely the attitude most atheists have towards Christianity.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

If you would simply set aside your biases and read the material you would actually see it has nothing to do with icons or relics or psychology and everything to do with as authentic a physical evidence to Christ and his resurrection as any.

Biases? My major objection has to do with Isaiah's description of the Christ vs. the Shroud image. Isaiah spoke of an ordinary-Joe whereas the Shroud shows a muscular man that would have towered over the men of his time.

But I understand your self-inflicted blindess. It is rather unfortunate though since this is precisely the attitude most atheists have towards Christianity.

A funny coincidence here: I was discussing with a UFO enthusiast a few days ago who also insisted that I suffered from ''self-inflicted blindness'' about flying tableware from beyond our Solar System. This guy even suggested that Drake's Equation gave a 50% chance of there being another advanced civilization in our Galaxy. The answer I gave him was something to the effect that he believed anything that argued for his side, and that most of the ''data'' in Drake's Equation was supposition.

FL

[Byblos]

If you would simply set aside your biases and read the material you would actually see it has nothing to do with icons or relics or psychology and everything to do with as authentic a physical evidence to Christ and his resurrection as any.

Biases? My major objection has to do with Isaiah's description of the Christ vs. the Shroud image. Isaiah spoke of an ordinary-Joe whereas the Shroud shows a muscular man that would have towered over the men of his time.

But I understand your self-inflicted blindess. It is rather unfortunate though since this is precisely the attitude most atheists have towards Christianity.

A funny coincidence here: I was discussing with a UFO enthusiast a few days ago who also insisted that I suffered from ''self-inflicted blindness'' about flying tableware from beyond our Solar System. This guy even suggested that Drake's Equation gave a 50% chance of there being another advanced civilization in our Galaxy. The answer I gave him was something to the effect that he believed anything that argued for his side, and that most of the ''data'' in Drake's Equation was supposition.

Except there are no suppositions in the countless scientific tests and published articles referenced in this thread. But to each his own. I really don't care whether or not you're convinced the shroud is a fake. What I do care about is Christians knocking other Christians down over a topic they ought to either converge on or at a minimum one side ought to keep quiet out of respect.

And really? Are you serious with the Isaiah reference?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

. What I do care about is Christians knocking other Christians down over a topic they ought to either converge on or at a minimum one side ought to keep quiet out of respect.

I did keep quiet, which is why I didn't participate in this discussion. As for ''knocking over other Christians'', I am not doing that. All I'm saying is, in essence, ''If you want to believe that those shavings actually came from Jesus' cross, go ahead. Set up a home altar to them!''

And really? Are you serious with the Isaiah reference?

Yes, I'm serious.

FL

[PaulSacramento]

To me I never really cared either way about the shroud.
Then I read this thread AND I investigated for myself.
The simple FACT ( not opinion, but fact) that NO ONE has been able to duplicate the shroud speaks volumes.
The fact that the only possible explanation for the image have ALL the characteristic that it has is that it was exposed to radiation of the type that even NOW can't be created by humans outside of the most advanced nuclear laboratories, made me reconsider what the shroud is and WHO the image is of.

Here is the thing though, IF it is NOT of Christ then it is of another "human like being" that emitted so much radiation AFTER "his" death that his "image" was permanently "etched" into the material of this shroud in such a way that even TODAY it can't be duplicate outside of advanced nuclear laboratories.

If the image is NOT of Christ then WHO was it?

In regards to FL comment on Isaiah's description of the "suffering servant":
Let us look at the passage:

Isaiah 53 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Suffering Servant
53 Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3 He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9 His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.

In terms of an actual PHYSICAL description all we have is this:

He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.

What we see described is a man that had NO features out of the norm, indeed , someone plain that was no different than anyone else.
He would have been beaten and physically marked from various afflictions ( there are different scholarly views on t his, including the view that He bore the physical marks of ALL the illnesses He healed).
He would have been pierced.


And we see ALL that in the image of the shroud.

There is no "muscular man" so I am not sure where that comment came from...
The image on the shroud shows a bruised and beaten male, thin and non-descript.

The ONLY POSSIBLE issue with the image on the shroud compared to to Jesus would be, possibly, the height of the person.

But since we have NO indication of Jesus' height, we simply don't know.

NOTE: in regards to the height of Jesus, some have stated that He was short because of how this passage could be read to indicate that Jesus had a small stature:

Zaccheus Converted
19 He entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. 3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way.

Some read this as Zaccheus was short and others as Jesus was short.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

To me I never really cared either way about the shroud.

Same for me.

There is no "muscular man" so I am not sure where that comment came from...

My brother-in-law has a life-size image of the Shroud. It shows a muscular man, more Mr Universe than Mr Everybody. Those who believe the Shroud to be genuine will say that Jesus was a carpenter, so he must have been muscular. I don't know. The only carpenters I've known have been pot-bellied...but - to be honest - I haven't met many carpenters...and carpenters in the first century didn't have pickup trucks, power tools and Miller Time.

The image's height is important. In a world of tall men being 5-foot-5 (1,65m) the ''Shroud Jesus'' would have towered over them. As far as I'm concerned, the Shroud is a fake because of the image's height, its musculature and its repeated dating to the Middle Ages.

But...why is this even important? why does a Shroud thread like this one get over 40,000+ visits?! That in itself is suspicious and leads me to believe that it is the Roman Catholic version of Tongues or YEC vs OEC.

FL

[Byblos]

But...why is this even important? why does a Shroud thread like this one get over 40,000+ visits?! That in itself is suspicious and leads me to believe that it is the Roman Catholic version of Tongues or YEC vs OEC.

Your objedctions are easily unaswerable (if you bother to read the material). The farce is that you keep insisting you're not biased.

[Kurieuo]

But...why is this even important? why does a Shroud thread like this one get over 40,000+ visits?! That in itself is suspicious and leads me to believe that it is the Roman Catholic version of Tongues or YEC vs OEC.

Your objedctions are easily unaswerable (if you bother to read the material). The farce is that you keep insisting you're not biased.

Byblos, you should cut FL some slack.
He just prefers to believe in more reasonable things, like YEC.
(sorry FL, couldn't resist that low blow! )

[Jac3510]

FL, I don't think you are taking an appropriate position here. Who knows what apologetic value the shroud has. But suppose it would convince absolutely no one (which seems absolutely absurd to me, but let that pass). Does that mean the only reason it has value would be apologetic? Take any argument for God's existence . . . the KCA, the design argument, my favorite First Way. Take any of them. Suppose they didn't convince anyone. Or just suppose that they don't convince you (the KCA, for instance, doesn't convince me--at least, not as WLC states it). Does that mean that those arguments have no value? That they are not important? Of course not! Apologetics has a personal value as well. And if the Shroud is real (and there seems to be good reason to think that it is), then it just stands as another awe inspiring evidence for the event that happened 2000 years ago.

The bottom line--let's not be derogatory about what draws some people into a deeper relationship with Christ. I find start lit skies deeply profound. Some people don't. Does that mean I need "magic"? Of course not. It means that is one way in which I experience the numinous. And do I NEED the stars to prove God's existence? Of course not. But if seeing it gives me a profound sense of the reality of God, then so much the better.

And so it is with the Shroud. We ought to be rejoicing that God has seen it fit to give His church such an evidence, if indeed it is real, as the evidence seems to suggest is the case (on my reading, anyway).

[RickD]

Jac,

Let's see, Aquinas, the shroud...if you didn't tell me otherwise, I'd swear you were catholic.