I am a shroudie. I do not “believe” in the shroud. Just as I do not “believe” that the speed of light is constant. Just as I do not “believe” in the historicity of Jesus. I accept current understanding of the speed of light, and of Jesus as a historical person.
I believe in Jesus – I trust and entrust myself to him. I believe in the resurrection.
To use “belief” for historical or scientific concepts is to confuse categories of different types of knowledge and different ways of arriving at knowledge (epistemology).
I have followed shroud study (sindonolgy) for many years. I was fascinated by the 1988 carbon dating. I am interested in the contentions that the carbon dating is incorrect because of whatever process was involved in the formation of the shroud’s image, or because of the effect of water on the fibres, or because they didn’t test the actual shroud but a patch, or because they failed to adequately remove the accrued grime of centuries of handling of the shroud…
Thomas de Wesselow has brought out a new book The Sign (448 pages). Half of the book establishes the authenticity of the shroud; not based on first-hand research but gathering together the research of others (primarily of Ian Wilson).
The second half of the book is the result of an “epiphany”. De Wesselow is an art historian. He is an agnostic.
according to de Wesselow
The shroud, de Wesselow declares, is not evidence of Jesus’ resurrection – they all knew Jesus’ body was still back there in the full tomb. The shroud is Jesus’ resurrection. The shroud is Jesus risen!
The shroud is the origin of Christianity!
The image, he contends, is a purely natural phenomenon produced probably by a Maillard reaction as posited by Rogers and Arnoldi. We have no other example like it (Oh, sorry, I forget, there’s a 1981 handprint on a mattress, the “Jospice imprint”). It’s purely coincidence that the sole shroud-image was naturally caused by so-far-unrepeatable processes associated with a gruesome death of a very-good-story-telling peasant.
Someone would hold up the shroud with its image, and people would go, “No… I don’t see anything… Oh, yes… I see… that’s Jesus… look – that’s his head… see?!… yep, I’ll die for that!”
Resurrection – solved. Christianity – explained.
Whenever I see these books, articles, and “documentaries” about the shroud, I always think: “Why seek you the living among the dead?”
Good job. There were American media reports on Sunday that quoted some as saying (in conjunction with this) that Paul didn’t believe in Christ’s bodily resurrection, and so naturally the shroud’s authenticity is the beginning and the end of the search for Christian Truth.
I wanted to throw my TV out the window. Then I saw the posts on Twitter.
Sigh.
Karin, I gather some TVs now have a new invention – an “off” button 😉 Paul is quite a common name – did this particular Paul get interviewed? Easter Season blessings.
Is this “book” produced by the folk at The Onion? or Mad Magazine? Surely no-one is seriously claiming that the disciples, after removing a sheet from a body, left the body in the tomb (where it mysteriously became invisible to everyone else??), took the sheet, and proclaimed it The Resurrection?
Can you find out what substances this gentleman is imbibing? 🙂
Nope, Angie. The book is not claiming that the body of Jesus “mysteriously became invisible to everyone else”. The rest of your comment is correct.
Christ is risen! (and by that I mean it in the old-fashioned way)
Yes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-525993/Moses-high-hallucinogenic-drug-received-Ten-Commandments-claims-academic.html
They’re all at it. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bosco doesn’t have an acacia tree in his garden.
I’m surprised, MadPriest. Doesn’t everyone use shavings from the acacia tree mixed with the incense during the Easter Season? I thought that was standard.
Christ is risen!
I don’t use anything, Bosco.I don’t have a job, remember.
That’s incredible! That’s Amazing! That the shroud would have such powers – it must be something awesomely special about the ghostly image on the cloth to be able to transform a bunch of uneducated fishermen into the leaders of thousands of believers, and that they would hold so strongly to that belief they’d be martyred for it even. It sounds like there needs to be much more scientific testing on the shroud to find out how it managed to achieve such a transformation in the lives of the disciples. 😉
And to think, Claudia, that this realisation has been missed by one third of the planet who follow the Risen Christ, and all of the scholars for two millennia who have devoted their lives to reflecting on this faith. And now we finally, finally know and understand. Blessings.
As a devoted follower of the Risen Cloth, I beg you to reconsider your assessment of this Gospel of Thomas.
🙂
How does he make the leap from “the shroud has an image of a man on it” to “the shroud is a LIVING double of Jesus”?
I wouldn’t want to totally spoil the epiphany you will experience reading this book for yourself, Jeffrey, but it’s via “I’m an art historian and Jewish people experienced images differently back then…”
Easter Season blessings.
Shroud … Hmmm… a misspelling, perhaps, of “Shade” as in Ghost?… and are we to understand this is what “appeared” to the disciples on the Road to Emmaus? I’m picturing this in a movie… the “shroud”/”shade” coming and going – entering into various appearances that very day!
I laughed so hard at this post….
P.S. I had no idea there was an actual “term” for the pursuit of this area of “scholarship”.
I guess, TheraP, the movie, or at least the documentary will be next… Blessings.
There are various opinions and researches of the shroud of Turin. Some people say that it is the genuine and some that it is the fake and the hoax. The fact is that the shroud of Turin doesn’t present Jesus of the Bible. If we can find even one evidence, which disprove the shroud of Turin theory, so the whole story shall be invalidated. We can find a large number of evidence from the Bible, which show that the shroud of Turin cannot be the shroud of the Lord Jesus.
Source of the text; http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.html
Thanks, Telson, for your visit here and comment. As you say, there will be those who argue about the details of the link you provide. Blessings.