New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin

[Adonia]

I for one am not convinced of the authenticity of the shroud and in the great scheme of things it means nothing. Maybe as you say it would help some people in their faith journey as a reinforcement if it were authentic, but we really do not have any concrete proof that this is so. I do believe that while the Catholic Church believes in it's authenticity, this is one issue where the faithful can decide to accept or reject it, no one is compelled to believe.

 

[Adonia]

Professor I appreciate what you have shown us here but I believe the best witness I can show another to compel them to follow Christ, is tell them what Christ has done in my life... Go home and tell your friends what the Lord has done for you... Brother Glen

Amen to that brother! I have had on occasion prayers answered affirmatively and there is no doubt in my mind that it was the Lord responding to my supplication.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Personally, have no doubt in my mind this shroud is not what ppl think it is. I find it amazing how the imprint looks like a 16th century guy who posed for Da Vinci.

 

[rsr]

While I am so, so impressed by the original poster's credentials, air of superiority and gentle manner toward the unwashed and ignorant Baptists here in their sola ghetto, I don't understand enthusiasm for a piece of fabric of questionable provenance.

How this fabric is supposed to lend credence in the resurrection among skeptics I cannot fathom. Somehow we are to believe that the existence of the shroud will lead skeptics not only to believe in resurrection but the resurrection of a specific person whom they don't necessarily believe even existed. The shroud can never establish resurrection, let alone the resurrection of Jesus. It is, from the skeptic's point of view, just as likely (or more so) that the "radiation" marks were the result of hominoid aliens.

And what, pray tell, would happen to all these pseudo converts when the next piece of scientific evidence proves that the shroud is a fake?

You, of course, are welcome to believe the shroud is authentic. Just don't expect me to think that it is some astounding proof of the claims of Christianity.

 

[SovereignGrace]

In my view this posted video is the most thrilling and faith inspiring video ever posted on the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...D7AE9063394E8B1A66FAD7AE9063394E8B1&FORM=VIRE

7 facts stand out for me about the most recent Shroud of Turin research:
(1) Shroud fragments tested by C-14 dating have been scientifically shown to be a later Medieval repair job.
(2) Other independent dating techniques have dated the Shroud to a range that includes Jesus' crucifixion.
(3) Both the rare blood type AB and the blood spatter pattern are the same on both the Shroud and the Soudarion of Oviedo (Jesus' face cloth). But that face cloth was brought from Jerusalem to Spain around 400 AD. So that already shatters the alleged medieval date of the Shroud.
(4) Israeli fabric experts have demonstrated that ancient Hebrew measurements (Hebrew cubits) and composition requirements were meticulously used to satisfy ancient Jewish standards for the Shroud.
(5) The Shroud contains pollen from plants unique to the Palestine region.
(6) Scientists can't explain how the image on the Shroud was created, but it shows all the signs of having covered a body tortured by a Roman flagrum and then crucified.
(7) The Shroud's image seems to have been created by an unknow radiation source (not by a burn). I'm thrilled by the possibility that this radiation many have been produced by the act of bodily Resurrection!

Soooo, the scriptures are not enough for ppl to believe in a resurrection? This reeks of Judaism which always sought for a sign.

 

[SovereignGrace]

While I am so, so impressed by the original poster's credentials, air of superiority and gentle manner toward the unwashed and ignorant Baptists here in their sola ghetto, I don't understand enthusiasm for a piece of fabric of questionable provenance.

How this fabric is supposed to lend credence in the resurrection among skeptics I cannot fathom. Somehow we are to believe that the existence of the shroud will lead skeptics not only to believe in resurrection but the resurrection of a specific person whom they don't necessarily believe even existed. The shroud can never establish resurrection, let alone the resurrection of Jesus. It is, from the skeptic's point of view, just as likely (or more so) that the "radiation" marks were the result of hominoid aliens.

And what, pray tell, would happen to all these pseudo converts when the next piece of scientific evidence proves that the shroud is a fake?

You, of course, are welcome to believe the shroud is authentic. Just don't expect me to think that it is some astounding proof of the claims of Christianity.

I mean, come on, get with it man. Ppl have seen His likeness in cloud formations and burnt toast.

 

[Deadworm]

rsr: "While I am so, so impressed by... the gentle manner toward the unwashed and ignorant Baptists here in their sola ghetto, I don't understand enthusiasm for a piece of fabric of questionable provenance.

First, I stand by my Baptist Ghetto remark. Baptist posters here are rude and routinely pontificate without reading the OP or its elaboration and without watching the posted relevant videos.
Second, many modern intellectuals doubt that the historical Jesus even existed. Yet they are now often seriously considering the possibility that His alleged Shroud is authentic. And bear in mind that many of them dismiss the Gospel resurrection narratives on the grounds that they exhibit many fatal inconsistencies and contradictions.

rsr: "How this fabric is supposed to lend credence in the resurrection among skeptics I cannot fathom."
First, your snide remarks betray that you lack the integrity to watch the posted videos that make my case. Do you even try to witness in personal evangelism? Well, I do and I find that the Shroud, NDEs, and ADCs open closed minds to reconsider Gospel claims they have previously dismissed as absurd.
Second, scientists are unable to determine how the Shroud's image was made, and yet, they recognize that the image seems to have been made by some unknow radiation process, but not one involving heat. This recognition in itself opens their minds to consider the possibility that the image was made by the actual supernatural process of resurrection.
Third, Theology professors have told me that they reject Jesus' resurrection precisely because of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Gospel narrative. You seem oblivious to this problem;
So stay tuned for my upcoming thread that address this issue head-on.

Your Ghetto mentality seems to blind you to the most rational interpretation of the empty tomb, namely that Roman soldiers followed their standard practice of going to the tomb on Saturday night after the Sabbath and removing Jesus' corpse to thrown in the common pit reserved for criminals such as the thieves on the other 2 crosses. Did you forget about them?

rsr: "And what, pray tell, would happen to all these pseudo converts when the next piece of scientific evidence proves that the shroud is a fake?"

First, evangelicals often qualify their apologetics to ensure that their position is unfalsifiable, even in principle. What they don't get is that this ploy makes their defense epistemologically meaningless. Intelligent seekers admire cases for spiritual truth that are testable and, yes, therefore in principle falsifiable because they realize that this is how scientific knowledge develops.
Second, the ineptness of evangelical apologetics is precisely the reason why I stress the power of self-authenticating Christian mystical experience such as speaking in tongues to persuade because the experiential approach to faith works in a way that a more rational approach cannot.

rsr: "You, of course, are welcome to believe the shroud is authentic. Just don't expect me to think that it is some astounding proof of the claims of Christianity."

I hate to break this to you, but there is nothing even remotely equivalent to "proof of the claims of Christianity! That is why educated young people are jumping out of church windows to escape the church and that is why an increasingly more educated public summarily dismisses Christian claims and why I seek out unconventional apologetic topics like NDEs, ADEs, and yes, even the Shroud of Turin to open minds to my witness. And my approach has proven very effective.
"

 

[SovereignGrace]

The word of God needs nothing added to it. If ppl are saved, its not because someone told them about a shroud, but about the risen Christ, and this via His gospel.

 

[robycop3]

The priests who wanted Jesus dead tried their best, using their authority, to try to suppress the fact of His resurrection, even when it was told to them by some of the Romans guarding the tomb. They paid those Romans good money to keep silent about it, & spread the story that Jesus' disciples stole His body. (But they couldn't explain how the large stone in fronta the tomb entrance had been moved!)

However, Jesus' disciples all told of seeing Him alive after His death, and John even went so far as to BEAR RECORD of seeing and talking to Jesus!

In Roman law, "bearing record" was equivalent to a sworn affidavit of today, a written statement that's supposed to be 100% truth. The penalties for falsely bearing record in Rome were much-harsher than those of today, and a non-roman such as John could've been executed for falsifying.

I believe John bore record for emphasis that the rest of his writings were absolutely true.

 

[rsr]

First, I stand by my Baptist Ghetto remark. Baptist posters here are rude and routinely pontificate without reading the OP or its elaboration and without watching the posted relevant videos.

Of course you do. It's also rude to post a video that last 73 minutes and get all in a twist when everyone doesn't watch it.

Second, many modern intellectuals doubt that the historical Jesus even existed. Yet they are now often seriously considering the possibility that His alleged Shroud is authentic. And bear in mind that many of them dismiss the Gospel resurrection narratives on the grounds that they exhibit many fatal inconsistencies and contradictions.

I admitted that. But there is nothing new in that revelation.

First, your snide remarks betray that you lack the integrity to watch the posted videos that make my case.

Ah, there you go again with your winning ways. The fact that I don't want to waste so much time on a propaganda piece does not mean I lack integrity. You purportedly summarized its contents; I responded to them.

Second, scientists are unable to determine how the Shroud's image was made, and yet, they recognize that the image seems to have been made by some unknow radiation process, but not one involving heat. This recognition in itself opens their minds to consider the possibility that the image was made by the actual supernatural process of resurrection.

Third, Theology professors have told me that they reject Jesus' resurrection precisely because of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Gospel narrative. You seem oblivious to this problem;[/quote]

Nope. Not oblivious. But the shroud does nothing to bolster any resurrection, much less that of Jesus. Given the predominant intellectual climate, it's better proof of a landing by extraterrestrial aliens than it is of the Word made flesh.

Your Ghetto mentality seems to blind you to the most rational interpretation of the empty tomb, namely that Roman soldiers followed their standard practice of going to the tomb on Saturday night after the Sabbath and removing Jesus' corpse to thrown in the common pit reserved for criminals such as the thieves on the other 2 crosses. Did you forget about them?

Not at all. But the shroud does nothing to disprove that explanation. The authenticity of the shroud only makes sense if you accept the framework of the resurrection described in the New Testament.

First, evangelicals often qualify their apologetics to ensure that their position is unfalsifiable, even in principle. What they don't get is that this ploy makes their defense epistemologically meaningless. Intelligent seekers admire cases for spiritual truth that are testable and, yes, therefore in principle falsifiable because they realize that this is how scientific knowledge develops.
Second, the ineptness of evangelical apologetics is precisely the reason why I stress the power of self-authenticating Christian mystical experience such as speaking in tongues to persuade because the experiential approach to faith works in a way that a more rational approach cannot.

So which is it? Do want a faith that is testable on scientific grounds or one predicated on a "self-authenticating" mystical experience?

 

[Rob_BW]

Professor Deadworm, this isn't your classroom, this is the internet. Things work differently here. Like nobody is in fear that their relationship with you might affect their grade and/or future employment.

So feel free to take a moment to adapt to this new environment. Keep posting what you'd like; it is interesting. Just don't take it personally if a bunch of us Baptist yokels don't immediately accept your opinions as fact.

As for myself, I'm still trying figure you out. I have never encountered a Methodist so enamored of Catholicism before.

 

[InTheLight]

If I were to spin a yarn that there were chipped off stones from the boulder that sealed Jesus' tomb and they were exhibiting traces of radiation that scientists could not explain the origin thereof, should that be added to the "proof" of resurrection provided by the Shroud, ADE's, and NDE's or would most people dismiss it as a wild story?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The so called "shroud of Turin" is no more than a very good HOAX. It is NOT the cloth that was used to wrap the body of Jesus Christ in. Exactly why would the Lord allow for this piece of cloth to have been preserved? True Christianity is a FAITH, that is not because of what we SEE, no need for graves, cloths, bones, etc, etc. But the Infallible, Inerrant, and Unique Word of Almighty God, the Holy Bible, and the Truth it contains, to save lost sinners. This "shroud" is too Roman Catholic to be genuine! Interesting that it even turns up in Italy!!!

 

[tyndale1946]

That's like asking, "Why need do you need your family albums?" Because you love your family members and old friends and you love to revive old memories and see your loved ones at different stages of their lives. I don't know about you, but I revere the thought of gazing on His blood stains that atoned for my sins. I also long to one day see Him face to face and that love has a collateral longing to know what He looked like when He once walked this earth.

Also, because scientists can't explain the unknown radiation (not a heart source!) that created the Shroud's image, I',m fascinated by speculation that this image may have been produced by the actual event of bodily resurrection.

Professor what do you think the Bible is, its Gods Family Album... Jesus Christ the Son Of God is in every book in the Bible 66 books to be exact... This is my Son hear ye him... I've seen the face of Jesus and so have all these brethren on here and we can tell what he looks like... He is the very essence and epitome of Gods redeeming LOVE!... Brother Glen

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

[Deadworm]

The potential apologetic value of the Shroud of Turin can be likened to the Nazareth house that early Byzantine tradition identified as the house where Joseph and Mary lived.:

https://www.livescience.com/49997-jesus-house-possibly-found-nazareth.html

This tradition was not taken seriously until Prof. Dark's demonstration that the house was occupied precisely in the first century AD. Fragments of ancient household wares were found inside. If the early Byzantine tradition were mistaken, I doubt that the house's origin could be traced to the time Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth. This is an exciting and potentially confirmatory coincidence.

I encouraged a retired architect in my church Bible study to volunteer for a dig at Bethsaida (where some of Jesus' disciples lived) and his amateur archaeological career has proven so successful that he was featured on the science program "Nova" last year. He was invited by an Israeli archaeologist to help work on the problem of opening up a large empty space behind a wall of this first-century Nazareth house to see if anything of archaeological interest is there. Their problem is how to do this with a minimum level of damage to the house. So far, my friend has declined the offer.

A new Carbon-14 test is needed on a patch of the Shroud that has not been subjected to a Medieval reweaving with cotton. Other scientific tests date the Shroud within the range of Jesus' lifetime, but Carbon-14 dating is more accurate. If new C-14 dating can confirm a first-century origin for the Shroud, then it is likely genuine, a revered relic of the early Jerusalem church. As with the alleged Jesus house in Nazareth, a first-century date for the Shroud would in my view be too coincidental to be insignificant. A Medieval provenance would be expected for a French forgery.

No, I have not summarized all the video evidence for the Shroud's authenticity. It amuses me that rsr does not deem the quest for sacred truth worth watching a pretty long video. On his reckoning, a skeptic would be right to dismiss the claims of Christ on the grounds that it takes too long to read the New Testament or even the Gospels. As for me, I would watch or read just about anything if I thought this would open the door for effective personal evangelism. And as I have said, the Shroud, ADCs, and NDEs have proven effective evangelistic tools for me. What I actually believe is that Baptists here don't really care about what is required for effective evangelism as much as they think they do--and that is what I'll tell others about lessons I've learned from this site.

Meanwhile, here is a list of evidential aspects of Shroud research demonstrating that it should be taken seriously:
(a) a rare blood type AB that is also found of the Oviedo soudarium, Jesus' alleged burial face cloth known to have been brought from Jerusalem in the 600s.
(b) a shared blood spatter pattern consistent with crucifixion on both the Shroud and the soudarium, suggesting that both once wrapped the same crucified body
(c) abundant forensic evidence that the Shroud image was made with an actually crucified corpse
(d) proof that the style of the Shroud complies with actual strict Jewish fabric regulations and measurements that fit Jesus' era, but not the Medieval period
(e) an inability of the best scientists to explain how a Shroud forgery might have been made, except that the image was produced by some type of radiation (but not from heat). The problematic inconsistencies in Gospel resurrection narratives provide value for the tantalizing suggestion that this radiation was produced by the actual resurrection event. The very fact that skeptics are intrigued by this possibility makes it relevant to Christian witness and apologetics.
pollen on the Shroud unique to the Jerusalem area and Turkey, but not to the Europe

 

[Rob_BW]

What I actually believe is that Baptists here don't really care about what is required for effective evangelism as much as they think they do--and that is what I'll tell others about lessons I've learned from this site.

Lol, that almost sounds like a threat.

And sorry, but the Shroud of Turin is not required for evangelism. So conflating our indifference to the Shroud of Turin with the requirements of evangelism is a fallacious slander.

(Though I am curious how much the average Methodist would care about Baptists' beliefs on this subject. Or were the "others" you speak of Catholics?)

 

[Scarlett O.]

From post #3:

"...Academically trained Bible scholars are unanimous in their consensus that our Gospels offer no "proof" of Jesus' resurrection. In fact, the Gospel resurrection narratives are riddled with inconsistencies that prompt many scholars to dismiss the reports as all legends..."

Unanimous in their consensus that the Bible cannot be believed??? Unanimous in their academic training?

What academic institution did they unanimously attend?

I am not a scholar in the sense that I have attended no seminary. However, I have read and taught the Bible for 32 of my 57 years. To pre-schoolers, adults, teenagers, older students at Christian schools, and adults in community Bible classes. To women, to children, to men, to believers, to newbies, and to nonbelievers who are seeking.

I don't know everything but I know this:

• The gospels, which I have read and studied deeply multiple times, are not "riddled with inconsistencies that prompt people to dismiss them as legends". Are there some details given by different view points with different audiences for different purposes that with study can be reconciled fairly easily? Yes. But reading the Bible once and dismissing it as "legendary" …...no.
• The shroud does NOT match the description of the dead body of Christ given in Isaiah. Isaiah prophecies that his beard would be pulled out. The shroud shows an intact beard. Isaiah also prophecies that he would not look human. I see no such evidence of that kind of abuse in the shroud. The gospels describe beating "again and again" about the head. I see no swollen features from that kind of beating and no hematomas.

If these "unanimous scholars" believe the gospels to be legendary, then they are not Christians. For they do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This statement from post #3 is one of the upsetting things I have read on the internet in a long time.

 

[Deadworm]

Baptist disinterest in the Shroud is the equivalent a family indifference to the photo albums of cherished deceased loved ones. As for me, I treasure the redemptive significance of the blood of Jesus on the Shroud and my love for Him creates pleasure in the very thought that the reconstructed face of Jesus from the Shroud might actually portray my Lord's appearance during His earthly lifetime. Most Baptists here have watched neither the longer or shorter posted videos. Nor have they considered the evidential value of the Shroud that I summarized in my preceding post. I'm confident that they will realize the value of this evidence when they discover all the inconsistencies and apparent contradictions in the Gospel Resurrection narratives that I will outline and seek to reconcile in my anticipated future thread. Indeed, I know a very bright published theologian who once walked down an aisle to commit life life to Christ who now rejects the Resurrection accounts precisely because of these problems. Indeed, I challenge any Baptist here to create an exhaustive and consistent chronological narrative of the sequence of events during the discovery of the empty tomb and subsequent Easter visions.

My sojourn here is no ego trip. I am a published scholar who has ego investment in what my academic peers think of the papers I've presented at national and international academic conferences. No, I see my job here as pastoral--to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Baptists here do and will resent my confrontational style, but I believe that when I abandon this site, they will have more grist for their apologetic mill and thus be more effective defenders of the Gospel. Like Paul, I recognize that effective ministry often requires disdain for "approval seeking" (Galatians ):10).

 

[Rob_BW]

Is belief in the Shroud of Turin a requirement for effective evangelism?

 

[tyndale1946]

Most Baptists here have watched neither the longer or shorter posted videos. Nor have they considered the evidential value of the Shroud that I summarized in my preceding post. I'm confident that they will realize the value of this evidence when they discover all the inconsistencies and apparent contradictions in the Gospel Resurrection narratives that I will outline and seek to reconcile in my anticipated future thread.

Professor let me tell you something in all the kindness I can muster from a Baptist that has been this board a long time... What I highlighted in red there are no inconsistencies or apparent contradictions in the Gospel Resurrection narratives... If there is any contradiction it is the reader not the writer... And God wrote the book!... You talk about anticipated future threads?... You are walking a fine line Professor and your future on here may be limited!... I apologize to all the moderators and administrators on this board but I had to say something!... Brother Glen