Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: The Shroud of Turin

undead_ratundead_rat Shipmate
edited October 2021 in Limbo
Perhaps this subject has been discussed before and now belongs in the Dead Horses category, but I searched through many "discussions" and did not notice it.

According to the newspaper headlines of 1989 the Shroud was proved by carbon fourteen dating to be a fake, a medieval creation. I find that most people today still believe those reports. A recent book, The Shroud of Turin, First Century After Christ!,by Professor Malfi has proven that the facial image found on the Shroud was the model for the images of Jesus engraved on the sixth century gold coins of Byzantium. He developed three alternative dating methods which put the date of the Shroud's linen at 35 B.C. +/- 250 years with a 95% certainty.

Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain why the Shroud has a greater ration of carbon fourteen than would be expected of 2000 year old linen fabric. All of these, with one exception, has been falsified including the "invisible reweaving" idea. In 1988 Prof. Phillips of Harvard University wrote a letter to the British Museum in which he warned that the Shroud might have been subjected to a neutron radiation event and that this would have increased the C-14 content of the Shroud's linen. Prof. Hedges replied that, in analyzing the Shroud's C-14 data, the Museum would not consider that possibility.

In 2017 Christian Casabianca managed to retrieve the Shroud's original C-14 data through a freedom of information request. He subjected that data to statistical analysis and found that it did not pass the normal tests. He concluded that the Shroud's C-14 data was "heterogeneous," meaning that it was not a scientifically legitimate act to average the disparate readings into a single date. That means that the sub-sample of the Shroud that dated to 1448 must have originated at that date. Since we know that the Shroud made its first European public appearance in 1354, we have a problem. Something is very wrong here.

Robert Rucker is a nuclear engineer of thirty years experience and runs a website, shroudresearch.net, were he has published many papers dealing with the hypothesis that the disappearance of Jesus' corpse from the sealed tomb caused a neutron flux. I find that his work is credible and recommend a visit there.
«13456715

Comments

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    "the disappearance of Jesus' corpse from the sealed tomb caused a neutron flux"
    You say he has many papers on this topic? Priceless.
  • The whole Shroud of Turin thingy rather misses the point. Actually, misses a number of points. The discussions surrounding it are of more interest than the object itself.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    As a nuclear scientist* of thirty years experience (most of it in a department that has two 14C dating labs) maybe I should set up a website as well ...

    For the record, my views are that the 14C dating was an imperfect job, conducted on a section of the Shroud that isn't ideal to answer the question of when the cloth was made. The main issues being whether the sample was contaminated by more recent material - threads from a repair or mould being possible, giving a younger age than the real age of the cloth. But, though this does put a question mark over the date, the balance of probability is that it's a later artefact (but could still be a few centuries earlier than the date reported).

    * does that trump an engineer?
  • Why is it always engineers who think they can out-science actual scientists?

    In any case the Shroud goes in my "probably fake but can't entirely rule out the possibility that it isn't" pile. It's a big pile.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    It's a big pile.

    More or less what I was thinking...
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    What scientific training and qualifications do you have @undead_rat? How do you measure credibility?

    What would happen to a winding sheet soused in oils, unguents and spices; spikenard, olibanum, myrrh when 65l of pure vacuum happens inside it?

    Not a lightning strike.
  • Many years ago I saw a 3D image of the figurine on the Shroud. It certainly looked like Jesus, but as I recall, I think it was a Northern European Jesus.
  • probably fake but can't entirely rule out the possibility that it isn't
    Along with relics of the True Cross, the True Manger, the Holy Grail, ad infinitum et ad nauseam.
  • Not to mention The Holy Prepuce:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
  • It goes in my ho-hum pile. Has no effect on my life in the least. A quaint curiosity. Meanwhile I have prayers I'm not praying and good deeds I'm not doing and a family to feed and keep alive. Ho hum.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    It goes in my ho-hum pile. Has no effect on my life in the least. A quaint curiosity. Meanwhile I have prayers I'm not praying and good deeds I'm not doing and a family to feed and keep alive. Ho hum.
    This.

  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    The carbon dating that concluded the shroud dated to the Middle Ages was one of fourteen scientific tests. The other thirteen ruled out a European origin of the cloth.

    The only two I remember are that the woven style of the cloth is typical of ancient Palestine and unknown in medieval Europe. The other is that the cloth has pollen imbedded in it from plants that were common in ancient Palestine and unknown in medieval Europe.
  • I've got a copy of the pollen monograph, which was fascinating. It was done by experts from our local botanical garden, which is a world-class institution. It doesn't prove anything, of course, because even a fake could have been transported to that area of the world soon after its construction, and exposed to a very similar population of plants. But I do value it because for some reason it had never occurred to me that those who buried Jesus might have placed flowers beside him--in spite of that being a pretty common human impulse throughout human cultures. It seemed to bring the scene home to me in a way that I hadn't experienced before. Though of course it may all be wrong, or someone else's.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Nothing trumps radiological dating. Which is unaffected by lightning (which fluxes neutrons...). If you were a first class fraudster, with standards, you'd use cloth from Jerusalem, the flora of which wouldn't be any different now let alone then. Always thought it looks like a Da Vinci.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If you were a first class fraudster, with standards, you'd use cloth from Jerusalem, the flora of which wouldn't be any different now let alone then. .

    The shroud came to light in medieval France. I seriously doubt that anyone back then knew about the cloth weave commonly used in ancient Palestine or about pollen embedded in cloth.

  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    But, it could have been picked up by someone on pilgrimage in Jerusalem and taken to France. Why couldn't someone in Jerusalem have produced it? In which case, the local pollen would be expected.
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    undead_rat wrote: »
    A recent book, The Shroud of Turin, First Century After Christ!,by Professor Malfi has proven that the facial image found on the Shroud was the model for the images of Jesus engraved on the sixth century gold coins of Byzantium.

    Proven how? And where was the shroud (1) in the sixth century, and (2) in the centuries before that?

  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    mousethief wrote: »
    It goes in my ho-hum pile. Has no effect on my life in the least. A quaint curiosity. Meanwhile I have prayers I'm not praying and good deeds I'm not doing and a family to feed and keep alive. Ho hum.

    Well, this too. Saying that the shroud has the image of Jesus merely proves that Jesus was buried in a shroud. This is hardly earth-shattering stuff.

    Similarly, the idea that an image of a body was imprinted on a shroud is quite interesting no matter whose image it is - though I suppose that if it's Jesus every body can shout "miracle!" instead of "unusual process!". It's a bit like how a really nice drawing suddenly becomes 100 times more valuable when it turns out to have been drawn by Renoir.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Many years ago I saw a 3D image of the figurine on the Shroud. It certainly looked like Jesus....
    I'll have to take your word for that. Personally, I never met the man. I have no idea what he actually looked like.

  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Many years ago I saw a 3D image of the figurine on the Shroud. It certainly looked like Jesus....
    I'll have to take your word for that. Personally, I never met the man. I have no idea what he actually looked like.

    It rather demonstrates a flaw in the thinking. In the absence of actual pictures of Jesus, of course artists would use an image based on how men in that time and place typically looked like.

    And then of course, whenever the Shroud comes into being, what are the odds of the image on the Shroud being similar to how men in that time and place typically look? Quite high.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Here is a summary of the report made by the STURP project in 1981.

    I am not convinced that the shroud is genuine. but I have a problem with all the specific arguments that it is a fake.

    I might also add that it has nothing to do with my religious faith. I see it as a fascinating intellectual problem. My interest is whetted by the fact that I knew two of the people involved in the hands-on research.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Moo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If you were a first class fraudster, with standards, you'd use cloth from Jerusalem, the flora of which wouldn't be any different now let alone then. .

    The shroud came to light in medieval France. I seriously doubt that anyone back then knew about the cloth weave commonly used in ancient Palestine or about pollen embedded in cloth.

    A crusader bought it in Jerusalem and brought it home. So? The original fraudster lived in Jerusalem. No French fraudster with class needed.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Many years ago I saw a 3D image of the figurine on the Shroud. It certainly looked like Jesus....
    I'll have to take your word for that. Personally, I never met the man. I have no idea what he actually looked like.

    Oh, that's easy. Here you go!
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Many years ago I saw a 3D image of the figurine on the Shroud. It certainly looked like Jesus....
    I'll have to take your word for that. Personally, I never met the man. I have no idea what he actually looked like.

    The rest of Gramps' sentence, in which he said it looked like "a Northern European Jesus", led me to conclude he didn't really think the image looked like Jesus.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Nothing trumps radiological dating. Which is unaffected by lightning (which fluxes neutrons...). If you were a first class fraudster, with standards, you'd use cloth from Jerusalem, the flora of which wouldn't be any different now let alone then. Always thought it looks like a Da Vinci.

    Or, as an art historian might term it, from the Workshop of the Unknown (Unknowable?) Master.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host

    But, it could have been picked up by someone on pilgrimage in Jerusalem and taken to France. Why couldn't someone in Jerusalem have produced it? In which case, the local pollen would be expected.

    Aside from the cloth weave and the pollen, there are other problems. Here is a quote from the STURP summary
    No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it.

    Another weird feature is that the image is a negative image. Until photography was invented in the nineteenth century, the concept of a negative image was unknown. If the image on the shroud were positive, it would be much clearer. Why would anyone go to the trouble of making a negative image when a positive one would have been clearer.?
  • @undead_rat

    Why are you interested in the provenance of the Shroud of Turin? Does it impact upon the strength of your faith? If it could be proved that the Shroud of Turin was genuine, do you think that would convince the world to become Christians?

    The Shroud of Turin and other relics are interesting to me because they say something about how people interacted with God and the story of Jesus Christ in the past. It is likely that there are many people today who interact with the sacred in the same or similar ways. I don't. I don't need further proof to bolster my faith. My faith is experiential, a continuing experience of salvific love in my life, a sense of personal redemption through Christ. Relics like the Shroud are irrelevant to me, an Irish Catholic Australian returnee to the fold.

    I dismissed and ridiculed your post on the last of the Popes, but the responses of some shipmates who I respect showed me that it needed to be taken seriously, at least as a phenomenon, an aspect of Christian belief.

    I also remembered a book of my Grandmother's that I intend to have re-bound one day. Its title is: Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God with the History of the Devotion to Her completed by the Traditions of the East by the Abbe M. Orsini, Vicar General of Gap, Member of the Historic Institutes of France and Brazil, Knight of the Legion of Honor. It is missing the publication date, sadly, but was printed here in Melbourne.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    @undead_rat

    Why are you interested in the provenance of the Shroud of Turin? Does it impact upon the strength of your faith? If it could be proved that the Shroud of Turin was genuine, do you think that would convince the world to become Christians?

    The Shroud of Turin and other relics are interesting to me because they say something about how people interacted with God and the story of Jesus Christ in the past. It is likely that there are many people today who interact with the sacred in the same or similar ways. I don't. I don't need further proof to bolster my faith. My faith is experiential, a continuing experience of salvific love in my life, a sense of personal redemption through Christ. Relics like the Shroud are irrelevant to me, an Irish Catholic Australian returnee to the fold.

    I dismissed and ridiculed your post on the last of the Popes, but the responses of some shipmates who I respect showed me that it needed to be taken seriously, at least as a phenomenon, an aspect of Christian belief.

    I also remembered a book of my Grandmother's that I intend to have re-bound one day. Its title is: Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God with the History of the Devotion to Her completed by the Traditions of the East by the Abbe M. Orsini, Vicar General of Gap, Member of the Historic Institutes of France and Brazil, Knight of the Legion of Honor. It is missing the publication date, sadly, but was printed here in Melbourne.

    People in general find "relics" of all sorts to be very interesting because of their putative associations with important persons or events or places ... So lots of them end up in museums and people pay fees to see them -- Abe Lincoln's top hat, Neil Armstrong's moonwalk space suit, etc. ...
  • Moo wrote: »
    Here is a summary of the report made by the STURP project in 1981.

    I am not convinced that the shroud is genuine. but I have a problem with all the specific arguments that it is a fake.

    I might also add that it has nothing to do with my religious faith. I see it as a fascinating intellectual problem. My interest is whetted by the fact that I knew two of the people involved in the hands-on research.

    I'm in roughly the same place as Moo. There are lots of unanswered (unanswerable?) questions about the Shroud. The curious part of me would love to have some of these questions addressed using up to date technologies. But even if it WERE proven to be genuinely 1st C and from Palestine, I doubt that it would affect my faith much.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    The Shroud is in my "don't know" pile (which includes most things, actually). Jesus is in a similar pile: more of the "I don't know; but might be very important to me, if true; but I'm finally settled into a comfortable, cope-able place; and I can work on personal actions and living" kind of place.

    I think the Shroud is interesting. I don't have a problem with it maybe being real. I'm not sure how it could be used to prove Jesus and the resurrection, and I think that's the reason for much of the interest.

    If I knew for sure, or nearly sure, that it's real, I think I'd be interested in it. I'd probably want to touch it, the way you touch something connected to an absent person you care about. But I wouldn't be able to do that.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited January 2021
    Moo wrote: »
    But, it could have been picked up by someone on pilgrimage in Jerusalem and taken to France. Why couldn't someone in Jerusalem have produced it? In which case, the local pollen would be expected.

    Aside from the cloth weave and the pollen, there are other problems. Here is a quote from the STURP summary
    No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it.

    Another weird feature is that the image is a negative image. Until photography was invented in the nineteenth century, the concept of a negative image was unknown. If the image on the shroud were positive, it would be much clearer. Why would anyone go to the trouble of making a negative image when a positive one would have been clearer.?

    There are no 'problems' at all.

    The quote is insignificant.

    No paint was involved. That's it.

    'the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it', aka a human facsimile done once. This reads like an ID claim.

    The claim of weirdness is followed by fallacy. Like an ID or other unparsimonious creationist claim.

    The only valid part of the conclusion is 'We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form'.

    That's it.

    Statistically thorough DNA and C14 tests would account for mould, pollen and handling sweat affecting the C14 dating, which I very much doubt is significant. The ultimate, multiple repeat experiments need to be done involving scourged, crucified corpses or living volunteers (not that any could survive what was done to Jesus, no one survived Roman scourging), in Syrian cloth, in Jerusalem, thoroughly contaminated with mould spores, dusted with local pollen, with and without corona discharge. The shrouds would have to be kept in a cool dry place and sampled as above for a century at a time for a thousand years, to cover the most of the age range, and then treated like the shroud from the C14th for another 500.

    That would give a nice data set no? Please critique my experimental 'design' @Alan Cresswell

    The first sentence in the major paragraph would suffice of course, but of course that will never be done.

    Funny that.

    Experiments with C14 dated cloth from C1th onwards, treated similarly in the lab with human blood and sweat, and above all subject to the same mould contamination would help no?
  • ...Neil Armstrong's moonwalk space suit, etc. ...

    Which, for some people is insufficient evidence that America went to the moon.

    Never mind God, some people can’t find their butt with both hands.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @undead_rat

    ...I dismissed and ridiculed your post on the last of the Popes, but the responses of some shipmates who I respect showed me that it needed to be taken seriously, at least as a phenomenon, an aspect of Christian belief.

    So you need to take 'prophecy' of the last Pope seriously? And or the shroud? They speak of the psychology of religion, not Christianity distinctively.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    It goes in my ho-hum pile. Has no effect on my life in the least. A quaint curiosity. Meanwhile I have prayers I'm not praying and good deeds I'm not doing and a family to feed and keep alive. Ho hum.

    I think this is my view on it too, broadly. It is probably fake. It might be real. But even if it is real, so what? What effect does it have on my own faith? None.

    And, for the record, I am a firm believer that Jesus was real, did live and die according to the testimony of the Gospels. The shroud, however, does nothing to alter that faith, whether real or fake.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    There are no 'problems' at all.
    The quote is insignificant.
    No paint was involved. That's it.
    What medium do you think was used to create the image?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Moo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    There are no 'problems' at all.
    The quote is insignificant.
    No paint was involved. That's it.
    What medium do you think was used to create the image?

    A shroud wrapped bloodied person. What else? Nothing else is necessary to be postulated. That has to be empirically eliminated. Like evolution and all other 100% explanatory physicalism.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    There are actually two kinds of image on the shroud. The figure is a negative image, but the bloodstains are positive. This indicates that the bloodstains were made by direct contact while the image of the figure was made in some other way
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited January 2021
    Indicates is a good word there. I'd need to see the results of the fullest possible empirical scientific rational enquiry such as I outlined, exhausting all known physical phenomena by DNA and C14 analyses, before I sought an hypothesis for unknown ones. Anyone got a billion dollars for that?
  • Not to mention The Holy Prepuce:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

    Now that's a relic that you can believe there'd be many pieces of, because every time it gets rubbed....

    Slightly more seriously, I don't care whether the Shroud of Turin is 1st century AD or not, whatever it is, it is very, very unusual, and fascinating for that. I can't say that I'm hugely surprised at a claim that the carbon dating data does not match standards as they have changed dramatically in the 30 years since it was dated, but given the scientific content of the final sentence of the OP I'd need a quantity of sodium chloride somewhere about the size of Mrs Lot just to start me believing any of it.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Moo wrote: »
    There are actually two kinds of image on the shroud. The figure is a negative image, but the bloodstains are positive. This indicates that the bloodstains were made by direct contact while the image of the figure was made in some other way
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Indicates is a good word there. I'd need to see the results of the fullest possible empirical scientific rational enquiry such as I outlined, exhausting all known physical phenomena by DNA and C14 analyses, before I sought an hypothesis for unknown ones. Anyone got a I don't see howbillion dollars for that?

    I don't see how DNA or C14 analyses could clarify the question of how the image was made.

    As far as DNA is concerned, it's probably impossible to get any from the shroud The researchers did well to establish the fact that the blood was primate blood--human or ape.

    Nothing can be done about C14 analysis unless someone invents a non-destructive test.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited January 2021
    So the default medieval fraud stands.
  • Theologically speaking, I wonder what it would imply about the Resurrection if we concluded that it was the sort of event that would create a radioactive imprint upon the burial cloth.

    Seems a little...materialist? Something in the vicinity of "a conjuring trick with bones"?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited January 2021
    I've always thought that of the magical claims. A bit carny for the 'Workshop of the Unknown (Unknowable?) Master.' who never, ever, breaks the statistical surface. All the what about about the image is irrelevant. Prove it's not a medieval forgery as the C14 says it is. Prove the C14 is >1000 years out due to microbial growth from 31 AD. It would have to be a lot of late growth. To go with the late fire smoke.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    The greatest microbial growth would be associated with the times of growth medium inoculation. That would be primarily from a fresh, leaking or otherwise blood and unguent and essence smeared body. A living, unwashed male one would exude sweat, have traces of urine, faeces, semen, saliva and mucus. A washed dead one much less. But more soap. The C14 clocks of all of which would be basically synchronized.

    How much and what mouldy inoculum would have had to be applied in 1250 to utterly overwhelm the 30 AD C14?

  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Many years ago I saw a 3D image of the figurine on the Shroud. It certainly looked like Jesus....
    I'll have to take your word for that. Personally, I never met the man. I have no idea what he actually looked like.

    Here is a much more refined image of the head of Jesus from the Shroud of Turan.

    This is the likely image of Jesus (see figure #4).

    Judge for yourself.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    No it C14ly isn't.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    How much and what mouldy inoculum would have had to be applied in 1250 to utterly overwhelm the 30 AD C14?
    The mould could be more recent than that; the date would be an average of the cloth and contaminants (including mould) that was included. The scientists running the date would have been aware of this and tried their best to get a date from uncontaminated material - but if the contaminant was very modern it would have elevated 14C above modern and only a small amount would have totally thrown off the date - if it was pre-1940s contamination then more would be needed to give a medieval date for an authentic first century sample.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    stetson wrote: »
    Theologically speaking, I wonder what it would imply about the Resurrection if we concluded that it was the sort of event that would create a radioactive imprint upon the burial cloth.

    Seems a little...materialist? Something in the vicinity of "a conjuring trick with bones"?

    The thing is, EVERYTHING God does in this world is materialist in some way. If our science were far enough along, you could have wired up Elijah or Isaiah and seen the visions happening in their brain cells real-time. Mary's pregnancy doubtless produced a certain amount of mess afterward (amniotic fluid etc.) Jesus' blood certainly got trampled into the mud around the cross. Why shouldn't his resurrection produce random detectable effects on the universe it became a part of?

    I think maybe the real problem is that our cartoons etc. have taught us to think of "energy bursts" and the like as woo-woo foolishness--as cartoonish, in fact. It's our aesthetic sense that is offended, not our logic. One feels that Jesus should have been minimalist about his resurrection--the whole thing should have gone off without so much as scaring a sparrow, leaving no trace behind. And perhaps it did.

    Or perhaps not.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Theologically speaking, I wonder what it would imply about the Resurrection if we concluded that it was the sort of event that would create a radioactive imprint upon the burial cloth.

    Seems a little...materialist? Something in the vicinity of "a conjuring trick with bones"?
    The thing is, EVERYTHING God does in this world is materialist in some way.
    The Incarnation, baptism and the Eucharist being primary cases in point.

  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    I'm rather sensitive to the problem because I live betwixt and between two cultures, one of which (the American one) likes to mess around with minimalism and simplicity in worship. Thus the pottery chalices, the solid blocks of almost abstract embroidery on stoles, the stained glass windows which are purely geometric and come in only four colors. And then there's the Vietnamese aesthetic, which holds that nothing can ever be goldy enough for God, which adds Byzantine levels of decoration upon decoration to altars, pictures, shrines, which would happily blow the church budget for a year on paraments (no, we put our foot down on that; whatever gaudy stuff we have (and boy do we have it) has all been donated). If they had been allowed to stage the Resurrection, there would have been several brass bands, a parade down Main Street, and legions of angels blowing their horns overhead, as Jesus himself glowed like a thousand lightbulbs...

    But aesthetics do not a theology make. They may reflect one, but as often they reflect the culture in which the onlooker has been raised.
Sign In or Register to comment.