Shroud of Turin

[preachinjesus]

I've talked with a number of peers who are evidential apologists and they think the Shroud is a strong link to the historical crucifixion of Jesus. I'm not so certain.

I do think it is a burial shroud from a Roman crucifixion contemporary the first century. I do think it is a burial shroud associated with a traditional Jewish burial contemporary the first century. However...we can't know if it is Jesus' burial shroud.

Though it has many links it is still too difficult historically to place it at the tomb. There are, of course, other issues but as a whole it is interesting but not definite.

 

[justmichael]

I don't see the clothes or wrappings describe as such. But it does not matter, I'm new to this forum and at first I stated my opinion that I believed it was his burial cloth. I'm only here to read and learn. But it turns out to be no different than all the other secular forums I've been on.

 

[Amy.G]

I think Scarlett brought up an excellent point about the face on the shroud not being beaten. According to the bible Jesus was beaten so severely that he didn't even look human. The scourging he took actually ripped the flesh off of His bones. The thorn crown would have left many deep wounds, not to mention he was struck many times in the face by the Roman soldiers and his beard was ripped out while they mocked Him. The face on the shroud doesn't resemble that description in the slightest!

 

[justmichael]

The verse that was provided was John 20:7, :And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." It really does not go into detail about what the linen clothes were. All I stated was that it didn't not really explain that The face cloth was on His face during the resurrection, only the face cloth was found not lying with the linen clothes.

 

[justmichael]

Too many people here who have the I'm right and you're wrong attitude. You only know my name and not my story.

 

[OldRegular]

I must have missed it or read it wrong. My apologies. All I saw was a Bible verse.

That is the proof. At least it should be!

 

[Amy.G]

I don't see the clothes or wrappings describe as such. But it does not matter, I'm new to this forum and at first I stated my opinion that I believed it was his burial cloth. I'm only here to read and learn. But it turns out to be no different than all the other secular forums I've been on.

Now don't get all offended Michael. This is the debate portion of the board and that's what we do. It's not personal against you. :flower:

 

[Amy.G]

Too many people here who have the I'm right and you're wrong attitude. You only know my name and not my story.

That's the nature of "debate". I've been called unsaved, a heretic, loud mouthed woman..you name it. But so what? PPPHHHHHTTTTTTT....God knows who I am! That's what matters!

Jesus knows me, this I love. :love2:

 

[HankD]

What do yo do with this verse:
John 20:7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself.

How do suppose the facial image got on the large cloth of the shroud when the bible makes it clear the face was wrapped in a separate cloth?

If memory of my reading concerning the semitic culture is accurate the face was annointed and covered/wrapped first in linen strips or a linen face cloth. Then after the aloe and myrrh annointing procedure the entire body, (previously wrapped head included) was wrapped in linen strips and then (if enough funds were available), a body shroud. He was annointed and wrapped but not embalmed.

There are several sites which attempt to historically/culturally describe His burial.

http://bible.org/seriespage/burial-and-resurrection-jesus-christ-john-19388211209

We dont know what kind of unearthly energy was utilized by Jesus for Him to step out of the wrappings and shroud.
If He passed through all the wrappings and the shroud then presumably that energy could have left its trace behind on everything He passed through.

Remember He passed through walls at will after the resurrection.

How much of His body was still marred by the crucifixion we don't know except for the scars in hands and the wound from the Roman sword.

Having said that, I wouldn't trust anything which comes out of Italy and the "tradition" (official or popular) of the Church of Rome.

In addition here is a question per the scriptures:

Luke 24:5b ... Why seek ye the living among the dead?​

HankD​

 

[Oldtimer]

Amy, again, relying on the documentary I saw, the wounds indicated on the Shroud match the beating He took, stabs of thorns, and the gash in His side, etc.

Uhmmmm......

Found it.

The Real Face of Jesus?
The Shroud of Turin
http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus/articles/about-the-shroud-of-turin

Read some of the reviews on the DVD of this program that the History channel is selling. http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=261203&v=history&ecid=PRF-2102467&pa=PRF-2102467 I read the first 20 listed and they are pretty much in agreement with what I remember seeing.

 

[Oldtimer]

I don't see the clothes or wrappings describe as such. But it does not matter, I'm new to this forum and at first I stated my opinion that I believed it was his burial cloth. I'm only here to read and learn. But it turns out to be no different than all the other secular forums I've been on.

I'm not sure that I understand your last comment. As you can tell from my post count, I haven't been here long either. And, I'm here for the very same reason, to read and learn. People are people, regardless of whether you meet them in person or in forums - secular or otherwise.

While I don't agree with everyone who posts here, I've also learned a lot since coming here, too. That's what makes it all worthwhile, IMHO, even when some people may sharply disagree with something I have to say. As long as they are civil, I'm OK with that.

Even when I don't agree, I do try to leave open the door to the idea that I just might be the one who needs to change my viewpoint, in this quest for the truth in God's word.

In closing, one of my favorite Bible verses:
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[agedman]

I'm not sure that I understand your last comment. As you can tell from my post count, I haven't been here long either. And, I'm here for the very same reason, to read and learn. People are people, regardless of whether you meet them in person or in forums - secular or otherwise.

While I don't agree with everyone who posts here, I've also learned a lot since coming here, too. That's what makes it all worthwhile, IMHO, even when some people may sharply disagree with something I have to say. As long as they are civil, I'm OK with that.

Even when I don't agree, I do try to leave open the door to the idea that I just might be the one who needs to change my viewpoint, in this quest for the truth in God's word.

In closing, one of my favorite Bible verses:
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This is an excellent post, old man.

I wish you would post more often!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[preachinjesus]

BTW, the biblical text doesn't do much either way for the evidentiary value of the Shroud. It can be seen as helpful or dismissive depending on what scholar you talk to, just like a lot of things.

 

[freeatlast]

I personally believe the shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus. I believe this because of scripture.

John 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.


The shroud is one piece of fabric with the face of the victim on it. Jesus burial clothes would have had the face on the napkin not on the cloth that was on his body.

[SIZE=+2]Q: [/SIZE]In the Bible (John 19:38-42), it says that Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural). There was also another cloth that was wrapped around his head. The Shroud is only one piece of cloth. I was wondering if there was any explanation.
I asked Rev. Albert "Kim" Dreisbach, a biblical scholar, theologian and Shroud historian to draft the response to this question. Here is his reply:
[SIZE=+2]A: [/SIZE]The Shroud and Other "Cloths" Used in Jesus' Burial
Students new to the study to the Shroud are sometimes confused by apparent inconsistencies in the description of Jesus' burial cloth or cloths. In truth, the Bible - when read in Greek - uses a variety of terms to describe them.
The Synoptic Gospels use the word sindon in the singular to designate the Shroud (Matt. 27:59; Mk. 15:46 (twice); Lk. 23:53). Sindon appears only six times in all of the New Testament. In an anecdote unique to Mark, it is used twice in 14: 51-52 to describe the linen cloth left by an unnamed young man when he fled naked from the Garden of Gethsemane.
In Jn. 19:40, the Fourth Gospeller uses the word othonia [Gk.] (plural) to describe the linen cloths used in the Burial. Othonia, a word of uncertain meaning, but probably best translated as a generic plural for grave clothes. The same word is used by Luke or his scribe in Lk.24:12 what had previously been described as the sindon in Lk. 23:53. Note: vs. l2 (But Peter rose and ran to the tomb, stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths (plural) by themselves; and he went home wondering what happened.) does not appear in the most ancient manuscripts, but is added by later ancient authorities.
Next we discover (keirias) [Gk.] translated by the RSV as bandages in Jn. 11:44's description of the raising of Lazarus. In actuality, linen strips used to bind the wrists and ankles and probably also used on the outside at the neck, waist and ankles to secure the Shroud to the body.
Finally we come to the word sudarion [Gk.] which is found in the canonical texts solely in John (11:44. 20:7) and Luke (l9:20; Acts l9:12). It is translated by the RSV as "the napkin which had been on his head" (Jn. 20:7) and earlier in 11:44 as the cloth with which Lazarus' face was wrapped. Scholars like the late Dr. John A.T Robinson ( "The Shroud of Turin and the Grave Cloths of the Gospels") and J.N. Sanders regard it as a chin band going around the face/head for the purpose of keeping the corpse's jaws closed. Certainly this appears to be the intent of the artist who drew the manuscript illustration for the Hungarian Pray mss, Fol. 27v, Budapest of 1192-95 which clearly illustrates that the Shroud's full length image(s) were known in the 12th century. (See Ian Wilson, 1986, The Mysterious Shroud, Garden City, NY; Doubleday & Company, p.115. See also Bercovits, I. 1969, Dublin: Irish University Press. Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, pl. III.) .
http://www.shroud.com/faq.htm#2

 

[Arbo]

The evidence that I have seen indicate that the injuries to the individual depicted on the shroud are consistent with a first century crucifixion. There are indications, such as pollen from plants found only in the area around Jerusalem and blood flow patterns that further add to the argument that it may be authentic.

Is it the burial shroud of Our Lord? I do not know, but I would like to say yes.

 

[HAMel]

Someone please explain why this piece of cloth is even relevant? What would be the purpose of it just recently being discovered? Planted by our Lord for a future find?

It seems to me that we would first need to consider what Jesus actually looked like. He was a Jew. I really doubt he had blue eyes, blond hair and otherwise looked like a Scandinavian.

By viewing pictures of this shroud puts me in mind of a large person. I can think that Jesus was just an ordinary looking Jew of that era and there were probably untold thousands who were speared in their sides.

 

[agedman]

Someone please explain why this piece of cloth is even relevant? What would be the purpose of it just recently being discovered? Planted by our Lord for a future find?

It seems to me that we would first need to consider what Jesus actually looked like. He was a Jew. I really doubt he had blue eyes, blond hair and otherwise looked like a Scandinavian.

By viewing pictures of this shroud puts me in mind of a large person. I can think that Jesus was just an ordinary looking Jew of that era and there were probably untold thousands who were speared in their sides.

It has always been that people have desired to "picture" what our Lord looked like.

In my opinion, that is one reason Jesus stated, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

It is also an occasion for the world to be deceived into glorifying as sacred something that our Lord may or may not have discarded.

And, it remains a tool to take one from the central truth of the Scriptures and to subtlety place it upon science to prove what is truth and false.

Bringing doubt to the Word of God was the first tease the enemy offered in Eden.

 

[Amy.G]

One would think if there were an image on Jesus' burial cloth(s), either the women, the disciples or Joseph of Arimethea would have taken it, or it would have been written about either in the NT or the ECF's. Just a random thought.

 

[Alive in Christ]

From the TV stuff that I have seen I believe there is enough evidence to say that it *might* in fact be the burial shroud of Christ...but not enough evidence to say that it is "difinitively" His shroud.

Either way, I have 100% certainty that Christ rose from the dead, so it doesnt really matter to me if it is or isn't.

Now, if someone pinned me down and said that I HAD to give a YES or a NO...I would probably say "Yes". With the reason being that some of the things that were on the TV shows I have seen were pretty darn convincing.

 

[plain_n_simple]

It does not matter to our faith. Yet it is very interesting. If it is the true shroud, there are still more questions and I don't know if it would ever really edify or help anyones belief. If this is a "picture" of Jesus, then I'd have to ask when it was taken? At the moment He was made alive, or the split second before? It would explain why there is a reconizable man as opposed to a man beaten so bad you could not tell. I think this will be an endless subject.