Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Yet another opinion about the Shroud of Turin

At least you admit, you chose to believe despite what the evidence may indicate.

Any there anything else in your life you chose to believe against the evidence?

So, back to the actual topic of the thread, the Shroud of Turin. I have no idea if it is real and it can never be proved one way or another conclusively, so it really isn't much more than an interesting artifact.

However, it can still be fun to address a few things. First, Christ died at about three in the afternoon on a Friday. That is significant because the Jewish tradition was that bodies had to be buried on the same day and being Friday, the Sabbath started at sundown.

Jesus being an executed criminal, his body belonged to the Romans. Than meant Joseph of Arimathea had to go ask Pilate for his body. Then they had to go retrieve his body from the soldiers. And then they had to transport it and prepare it for burial. It is hard to imagine in any scenario where the permission and just getting back to the cross to get the body took less than two or three hours, leaving just a couple hours at most to transport the body, prepare it for burial, and be back indoors before the Sabbath began.

So, it is very doubtful that the body would have been cleaned and washed in the normal fashion as that was something that usually took hours. It is unlikely it was cleaned at all. And secondly, while the normal practice was to wrap the body in long strips of linen, do you think people rushing about trying to get a body in the tomb in just a short time would have done that? Remember, if Jesus was a criminal worthy of execution, then so too potentially were his followers and they would not have wanted to give any of the Jewish authorities an excuse to stone them. So, it was far more likely they simply wrapped him as tightly as they could in a single large piece of linen in a process that could have been done in seconds.

Finally, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Sudarium of Oveido. It has a longer history of association with Christ than the Shroud of Turin and has been known since the 4th or 5th century. Sudarium of Oviedo

Finally, I don't have much problem believing these items survived. If you had been a disciple of other close follower of Christ, would you have thrown those things away? Or would you have saved them? And it also makes sense that the first time they are heard of was in the 4th and 5th centuries because before then, they would have been artifacts of a semi-illegal cult, but after that, cherished relics of the Lord.

Biblical inerrancy isn't a necessary condition for conveying knowledge, truth, wisdom, or even trust. Incompleteness or imperfection (IF that's the case) doesn't render something completely invalid.

antelope_sniper gets it. You "Christians" who place your opinions above the Bible are failing to convince the world to believe in a God Who can't accurately convey His Message down through history. They may accept some god you convince them exists.

Once you start down the road of compromise, where do you stop? Did the patriarch live 900 years? Was the Flood world wide? Did Elijah go to Heaven without dying? Was Jesus born to a virgin? Did Jesus really raise from the dead? Did Jesus ascend into Heaven? Is the Same Jesus Who ascended returning?

I'd care to guess most Christians don't care one way or another about this sheet. There is nothing Holy about relics, regardless of what importance some may try to give them.

You shouldn't be surprised that no one has mentioned the Sudarium of Oveido. The reason no one has mentioned it is that few people know about it. Few people know about it because it is not "shrouded" in mystery. It has actual blood stains, and it is clear how they got there. Regarding the Shroud, on the other hand, no one knows how the image got on the cloth. People are always more interested in the mysterious, and the media has never talked up the Sudarium of Oveido because there is nothing mysterious about it, other than it's old.


Again, these facts are about as straight forward as they can be, so they don't get the publicity the Shroud gets. Therefore, few people know about the Sudarium of Oveido.

Neither artifact, however, places either the crucifixion or the resurrection in the realm of empirical certainty. Nor do they prove the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. No artifact can prove Jesus lived. The best evidence of it comes from the New Testament documents, and the lifechanging effect he had on his disciples. It's hard to believe all of them would hold to a story throughout their lives, disseminate the message, and be willing to die horrible deaths for what they believed.

Steve.

Yup, if it's not the real deal it's very cool because nobody has figured out how to reproduce it. On the other hand if it's genuine it's uber-cool. I question if it's even theologically possible to prove the shroud is genuine, best you can do is generate a range of probabilities. Not that it's important as a matter of faith.

As I understand it the samples that were carbon dated were taken from the edges of the shroud where repairs over the ages would've been made, so you can't be sure the samples were correct. A fascinating object no matter how you consider it.

...some folks� grasp on their religious beliefs is so tenuous, so shaky that they�re afraid the least puff of knowledge and reason will blow it away...!
If your faith in God and His saving grace depends upon an 'inerrant' Bible, or the non-existence of dinosaurs that lived on earth over 70 million years ago, or the universe not being billions of years old...then you�re in deeper trouble than you can imagine...oh Ye of little faith.

If you're referring to Catholics, the answer is no. The Church holds no opinion on the Shroud's authenticity as the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Only that it is a historical relic of Christianity.

...some folks� grasp on their religious beliefs is so tenuous, so shaky that they�re afraid the least puff of knowledge and reason will blow it away...!
If your faith in God and His saving grace depends upon an 'inerrant' Bible, or the non-existence of dinosaurs that lived on earth over 70 million years ago, or the universe not being billions of years old...then you�re in deeper trouble than you can imagine...oh Ye of little faith. [/quote




You're wasting your time. In essence, Ringman believes in a dead man who depended on his followers to transmit his life-giving message. Biblical scholars are indispensable in Ringman's plan of redemption. Forget about the foolish business of becoming like a little child to understand the message.

The idea of a risen Jesus who lives TODAY and is still bridging the chasm that separates man from a Holy God is foreign to him.

You can have a conversation with Antelope Sniper........ but not with Ringman.

I see "Christians" would rather believe in a man made myth than accept the Word of the Creator. You folks don't believe the creator of language is able to have His writers write accurately what He wants.

It is obvious some don't understand my opinion of Bible scholars. When I was a new believer I studied all kinds of commentaries. Finally I either gave them away or burned them. If one wants to be saved from the bondage of sin read the Bible and obey It. Don't trust in fallible man's prejudice opinions.

The Bible is the word of God. All experience, evidence, and whatever else that contradicts it, must be rejected. That isn't to say that all contradictory experience or evidence is wrong, that is merely to say that when it appears to contradict the Bible, then our understanding of either it or the Bible is in error. But for there to be any Faith at all, it must be grounded on the Bible and the message of The Cross found in it.

I think it is possible for a person to believe that there are errors in the Bible and still posses The Faith, but it is very dangerous. Who can say where to believe and where to question if one brings in the issue of doubt? Why believe any of it if some of it is wrong? And that said, the Bible is not a book that can be believed by intellectual capacity alone. The Holy Spirit must convict one of the truth of it before one can accept it.

Is that why the forbidden fruit was on the Tree of Knowledge?

I can't believe there is 2 whole pages about a dirty old bed sheet.

You just need to have faith.....

My theory on the Shroud:



Been some comprehension issues lately, so in case you don't get it, Jesus = Forrest.

" You folks don't believe the creator of language is able to have His writers write accurately what He wants."

It's not that He COULDN'T............ I reject the notion that He WOULD.

He saw what men did to the messages He sent through Prophets - how they were corrupted to serve political agendas.

You think Jesus was a slow learner? Gonna try the same thing again?

The Jesus message is simple and direct. "He who has an ear, let him hear". Sound familiar?

So........ who's gonna give Antelope Sniper an ear to hear? You...... with all your patented nonsense derived from taking everything in the bible literally?

Or the Teacher that Jesus promised? The Holy Spirit.

Why would you believe anything some mystical spirit might or might not tell you if you didn't have some authority, like the Bible, to tell you it could happen?

I mean, what makes your feelings of spiritual matters superior to or different from the rantings of a pygmy in Africa or a whirling dervish absent that authority? Do you claim a special line to the divine not shared by the rest of humanity?

I've never been too impressed with the Shroud. First, it showed up during the middle ages when the Catholic Church was...well for the sake of being diplomatic, let's say their track record could have been better. The only thing that interests me is that as a likely fake, how did they do it? Modern scientific brainiacs have not answered that one yet. Not too surprising as people back in the day were probably smarter than they are.

Second, the man on the shroud had long hair. Paul stated that long hair on a man was shameful which likely reflected the Jewish customs of his day. The man on the shroud looked a lot like what I call "European Jesus" .....the blond haired blue eyed hippy looking fellow we see in medieval art. I don't think as a Jewish Rabbi, Jesus was sporting the hippy look.

So no, my relationship with Christ has nothing to do with a rag.....even if it turns out to be the actual rag he was buried in. Christ drank from a cup but it was just a cup. He was crucified on a cross but it was just a piece of wood. He was stabbed with a spear but it was just a spear. Same with the rag they wrapped his body in for his burial was a rag. Same with all other "venerated relics" that Christians never should have venerated in the first place. Let the pagans keep the idols. We don't worship created things, we worship the creator, the Risen Lord....or at least we should.

Next you'll be extolling works over words.

You'll be tough to reticule, but folks will work on it.