The miracle of the image of Jesus on His burial linen is not about His resurrection. Rather it is only proof that His corpse vanished from the inside of a sealed tomb as explicitly stated in the Gospel of Matthew.
In Matthew's Gospel Jesus promises that He will leave the world the Sign of Jonah, and He states, "For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights."
But it wasn't 3 days and 3 nights. It was more like 36 hours
...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.
geez Martin, to use a minced swear.
More like an daintily euphemistic blasphemy surely?
@undead_rat But his corpse did not vanish! He rose from the dead. His body had holes in it. Thomas touched them.
The gospel does not say that Thomas touched them
No, but I'm sure if Thomas had done so he'd have found a very physically present Jesus with real wounds. The point is, Jesus wasn't a dis-embodied ghost but a physically raised being. Though, being able to appear inside a locked room is a neat trick that few can emulate (there are probably some magicians who manage it, or at least the reverse of getting out of a locked box).
I find it quite interesting that the Resurrection left Jesus scarred from His ordeal. God could certainly have healed the wounds that had been inflicted, but didn't. Imagine walking all that way to Emmaus with feet that a few hours earlier had had muckle great nails driven through them, and a gaping wound through your ribs where some Roman had stuck his spear. It would have been so much easier if those wounds had been healed.
Ah, but His friends didn't recognize Him, so He was wearing another body. And He must have had his gut, lung, bladder, coelom, bowels, liver, pancreas, spleen and stomach patched up pretty good, to Star Trek levels, to be able to walk. All that peritonitis. Blood poisoning. What little blood was left. Transfused too.
To me, this gives the gospel strength. The easiest thing to write would be that they did recognise him.
Are we now getting into the realms of thinking that Jesus' *resurrection body* was not, in fact, a human body at all?
Even though it looked like one etc. etc. etc.
In my case more of "it was a human body", but also God didn't do the full job on resurrection - back to life, healed enough to walk all the way to Emmaus but still carrying wounds. It's just an interesting set of strange things that gets my mind wandering. Was He left with wounds just so that He could show them off? Why would Jesus still wounded be more convincingly Jesus raised than Jesus with wounds all healed?
To me it emphasises that the resurrection does not disregard what has come before. It's not "throw away the old person, make a new person" - the past experiences of the body are an essential ingredient in the raised, glorified body.
It's a bit like the resurrection itself. Why bother with the empty tomb? Jesus could just have been provided with a new, better body "made from scratch" as it were. But instead there is continuity with the original body. He is raised, not replaced. Perhaps it didn't have to be that way. But it is more respectful to matter and to suffering, somehow.
ISTM that the continuity aspect is the important one, whatever the logistics might be, as it chimes in with our own hope of resurrection, if we acknowledge such a thing.
Though, it also raises questions about our own hope of resurrection. If we lose a leg in an accident, is that replaced when we're raised? Is it any different if someone had been born without a functioning leg, do they still whizz around heaven on their wheelchair, or does resurrection give them a leg? Is it about identity? A leg lost in an accident being replaced doesn't change who we are, but if someone was born without a leg that's always been part of who they are. We're all to a greater or lesser extent the product of our experiences; that relationship that failed, the success of good exams because the right questions turned up. The scars are part of who we are, though many we may wish we didn't have (if only we could be who we are but got there without the hurt). Does all of that continue post resurrection, or none, or something in between?
That point certainly leads one to the authenticity (or otherwise) of that poignant first-light encounter with Mary Magdalene.
Was it too dark?
Was she blinded by her tears?
Was Jesus somehow wearing *another* body?
Was it the gardener, after all?
And so on.
It was crepuscular.
(It wasn't just a two piece either:
'...the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.' John 20:4-7
later:)
11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around [looked behind her in to the silhouetting light] and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. 15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She [fully] turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
It always makes me tear up. As @Telford said, it all adds to the credibility, despite being written decades later.
'In 2018 an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or "didactic" representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.[125]'
What Kay Scarpetta says:
'Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[29][122]
...the analysis of a crucified Roman, discovered near Venice in 2007, shows heel wounds consistent with those found on Jehohanan and are not consistent with wounds depicted on the shroud. Also, neither of the crucifixion victims known to archaeology show evidence of wrist wounds.[124]'
The latter implying that the Turin artefact does, and the NT including Jesus says otherwise.
Faking holy relics was a major industry in the Middle Ages. I think that's the most likely explanation... but even if it's real, all that Science can prove is that it's the shroud of a man who was flogged and then crucified in first-century Palestine. There must have been more than one of them; crucifixion was the standard method of execution for criminal non-citizens.
Though, it also raises questions about our own hope of resurrection. If we lose a leg in an accident, is that replaced when we're raised? Is it any different if someone had been born without a functioning leg, do they still whizz around heaven on their wheelchair, or does resurrection give them a leg? Is it about identity? A leg lost in an accident being replaced doesn't change who we are, but if someone was born without a leg that's always been part of who they are. We're all to a greater or lesser extent the product of our experiences; that relationship that failed, the success of good exams because the right questions turned up. The scars are part of who we are, though many we may wish we didn't have (if only we could be who we are but got there without the hurt). Does all of that continue post resurrection, or none, or something in between?
Good questions. I have no idea what the answers might be, if, in fact, there are any answers.
IIRC, similar concerns were raised in the Yoof Group to which I belonged eons ago. I don't think they were answered back then, either, although it might have been said (by our Curate - who eventually became a Bishop) that we would be recognisable as ourselves...
One problem with the shroud being a fake. No one has managed to make anything like it, although there have been attempts.
How is that a problem? It is fake by Biblical and multiple scientific criteria. The Skull of Doom hasn't been replicated. I've watched multiple Open University programs on artefacts like two hundred year old English canal lock hinges and a thousand year old bridge in China that couldn't be replicated either. So they must have been magicked too.
Has anyone conclusively demonstrated this, because a neutron flux that could increase the 14C concentration in the cloth by more than 10% would have a lot of other effects as well? There would be a host of other isotopes produced given that there's a lot more than just nitrogen in the cloth. There would be no doubting which hole in a hillside is the tomb of Jesus, it would have a very unique isotopic signature to a few cm into the rock. Of course, that would also mean that anything analyzed for isotopic content to determine region of origin would also give an incorrect answer - so if you accept a neutron irradiation to alter the carbon isotope content then you're going to have to dismiss any other isotope ratios that point to a Judean origin. If you have a neutron irradiation that only changes carbon isotope ratios then you need a resurrection event that not only produced neutrons but also changed the physics of neutrons such that they only interacted with nitrogen.
See Production of Radiocarbon by Neutron Radiation on Linen,Lind, Antonacci, Fanti, Elmore, Guthrie
I do not know how to provide links on this forum. Perhaps it is not set up for that.
The points that you have raised are legitimate and have been considered by Rucker and other experts in this field. In Test the ShroudAntonacci recommends testing a Shroud sample for radioactive calcium and chlorine isotopes and the tomb as well.
'In 2018 an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or "didactic" representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.[125]'
What Kay Scarpetta says:
'Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[29][122]
French surgeon Pierre Barbet* arrived at a different conclusion regarding the blood flows and so did STuRP.
Skeptics seem to require that the image on the Shroud behave like a photograph, but that image was not created by photography even though it exhibits the characteristics of a photographic negative. Until the skeptics can show us how the Shroud's image was made, they have no credence in criticizing its proportionality. STuRP was very reserved in its conclusions of 1983, but they did say that the image found on the Shroud was not the work of an artist.
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
The sum total of all the doubtless well-meant and erudite stuff quoted (or referenced) by @undead_rat is simply *We don't know for certain*...
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
The sum total of all the doubtless well-meant and erudite stuff quoted (or referenced) by @undead_rat is simply *We don't know for certain*...
We do. It's not Jesus'. For Biblical and multiply scientific certain.
'In 2018 an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or "didactic" representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.[125]'
What Kay Scarpetta says:
'Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[29][122]
French surgeon Pierre Barbet* arrived at a different conclusion regarding the blood flows and so did STuRP.
Skeptics seem to require that the image on the Shroud behave like a photograph, but that image was not created by photography even though it exhibits the characteristics of a photographic negative. Until the skeptics can show us how the Shroud's image was made, they have no credence in criticizing its proportionality. STuRP was very reserved in its conclusions of 1983, but they did say that the image found on the Shroud was not the work of an artist.
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
Well, I guess the idea would be that if it's not Jesus, it would have to be some other guy whose body would be likely to emit a superabundance of radiation after death.
IOW, pretty much a miracle either way.
(Assuming that there is no scientific explanation for the image.)
Is the shape of the Shroud of Turin consistent with first century burial practices in Palestine? Traditional Orthodox iconography suggests that the shroud was long and narrow and wound around the body (like the swaddling cloths for a new-born child). Depiction of such a cloth is seen, for instance, in icons of the Myrrh-bearing Women, like this: https://www.monasteryicons.com/product/myrrhbearers-at-tomb-icon-464/icons-of-the-great-feasts
Nice @Ex_Organist. One would think that the Johannine double reference to strips plural aligns more with the above than with STuRP. But there is no accounting for cognitive bias.
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
The sum total of all the doubtless well-meant and erudite stuff quoted (or referenced) by @undead_rat is simply *We don't know for certain*...
Three clues.
The wound in the side
The thorns wounds
The fact that the shroud was preserved
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
Well, I guess the idea would be that if it's not Jesus, it would have to be some other guy whose body would be likely to emit a superabundance of radiation after death.
What reason is there to think Jesus' body would have emitted a superabundance of radiation after death?
There is also a theory knocking around the internet that the 14th century shroud date is genuine, because the blood belonged to Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Templars, who was executed in 1314. It goes along the lines that he was tortured quite badly, and the shroud was put over him whilst he was alive.
There are several historical leaps involved regarding the torturers "enacting" various things, including purported Templar rituals, Molay's physical condition, and identifying the first known owner as related to one of the other people burnt at the stake with him. However in its favour is the fact that if it existed the shroud may have been preserved as quite a few people considered him a martyr, and in the gap its true origins could be "forgotten", allowing it to have a change of identity.
There is also a theory knocking around the internet that the 14th century shroud date is genuine, because the blood belonged to Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Templars, who was executed in 1314. It goes along the lines that he was tortured quite badly, and the shroud was put over him whilst he was alive.
There are several historical leaps involved regarding the torturers "enacting" various things, including purported Templar rituals, Molay's physical condition, and identifying the first known owner as related to one of the other people burnt at the stake with him. However in its favour is the fact that if it existed the shroud may have been preserved as quite a few people considered him a martyr, and in the gap its true origins could be "forgotten", allowing it to have a change of identity.
Loving your enemies in 'Christian nations' was very popular back in those times.
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
The sum total of all the doubtless well-meant and erudite stuff quoted (or referenced) by @undead_rat is simply *We don't know for certain*...
Three clues.
The wound in the side
The thorns wounds
The fact that the shroud was preserved
Still not conclusive though
Clues to what? It isn't Jesus' shroud. His wasn't a onesy.
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
The sum total of all the doubtless well-meant and erudite stuff quoted (or referenced) by @undead_rat is simply *We don't know for certain*...
Three clues.
The wound in the side
The thorns wounds
The fact that the shroud was preserved
Still not conclusive though
Clues to what? It isn't Jesus' shroud. His wasn't a onesy.
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
The sum total of all the doubtless well-meant and erudite stuff quoted (or referenced) by @undead_rat is simply *We don't know for certain*...
Three clues.
The wound in the side
The thorns wounds
The fact that the shroud was preserved
Still not conclusive though
Clues to what? It isn't Jesus' shroud. His wasn't a onesy.
Does anyone know how the Shroud of Turin was supposed to have been wrapped around the body?
Most pictures that I've seen of shrouded bodies show an arrangement that does not look as though the imprint of a body would produce anything similar to a photograph, either negative or positive. In the SoT image, there don't seem to be any significant effects of folds or wrinkles, which I think would puzzle anyone who has ever tried to wrap an irregularly shaped present. And if the head was closely wrapped, it seems like the resulting image wouldn't look like a picture of a face - it would look more like a picture of an unwrapped face.
Does anyone know how the Shroud of Turin was supposed to have been wrapped around the body? .
The theory is that the body was laid on its back on one end of a very long piece of cloth and and the cloth was folded over his head and covered his front. This was not a proper burial. Jewish law said that the body must be entombed before the beginning of the Sabbath, and there was not time enough to do things properly. The markings on the shroud are consistent with this theory.
Does anyone know how the Shroud of Turin was supposed to have been wrapped around the body? .
The theory is that the body was laid on its back on one end of a very long piece of cloth and and the cloth was folded over his head and covered his front. This was not a proper burial. Jewish law said that the body must be entombed before the beginning of the Sabbath, and there was not time enough to do things properly. The markings on the shroud are consistent with this theory.
Does anyone know how the Shroud of Turin was supposed to have been wrapped around the body? .
The theory is that the body was laid on its back on one end of a very long piece of cloth and and the cloth was folded over his head and covered his front.
And then what? You can’t just lay a body down on a cloth, fold it over flat, and call it good, can you? You certainly can’t carry it that way. Even if they were rushed, they’d need to wrap it tighter than that, causing plenty of wrinkles and folds - and then any transferred image isn’t going to look so tidy.
I'm pretty neutral re the Shroud. But, if true, maybe it was put on Jesus after his body was taken to the tomb and washed.
You might do all that quickly , if you were in a rush, grieving, worried about people being after you for being associated with Jesus, worried about violating the Sabbath, worried about people being after you for violating the Sabbath, and so tired and sick (physically and heartsick) that you hope you can make it through the next 5 minutes, otherwise the Teacher will have a roommate.
Then you make it through the Sabbath as best you can. Then you go back the next day...and stuff happens.
The point is that a shroud is not going to stay flat balanced on the corpse's nose. It is going to drape itself over the body in folds, whether or not any human being takes time to wrap it round the corpse.
In my case more of "it was a human body", but also God didn't do the full job on resurrection
In Revelation He is still identifiable as the Lamb who was slain. It’s not a mistake or a botched resurrection. To paraphrase Os Guinness, Christianity is the only religion where God carries and will always carry the damage caused by evil. 🤯
Admittedly, it might help people who've been hurt believe that God understands. OTOH, it might seem like hurts can never be truly healed; like we're to worship *suffering*; and like God is *always* going to rub the price that was paid in our faces.
I've encountered those twists and interpretations. IMVHO, they're less than healthy, and can do a lot of harm.
. . .And where was the shroud (1) in the sixth century, and (2) in the centuries before that?
Legend has it that the disciple Thaddeus carried the Shroud to Edessa (in what is now southwestern Turkey) and used it there to heal King Abgar V of his leprosy. Edessa just happened to be an independent kingdom, just outside of the Roman Empire, so the Shroud was safe there. (It had an image, something prohibited by Jewish law, and was therefore illegal, but, without Roman military, Jewish authorities were relatively powerless.) When Abgar V's nephew gained the throne, he regressed back to the city's former paganism and persecuted Christianity, so the Shroud was hidden away.
Sometime in the early sixth century (after Christianity had become the state religion) the Shroud was discovered hidden in the West Gate (the Gate of Vaults) in Edessa. From that point, the history of the Image of Edessa (as the Shroud was then called) is more firmly documented, but that Image was not known as a burial shroud. One must understand the mindset of the ancient times regarding spiritual pollution and uncleanness. Remember Jesus' comment about inadvertently stepping on an unmarked grave. Such a mistake would render a person unclean. Simply looking at a bloody burial cloth would have the same terrible effect. Therefore, the ancient priests folded up the Shroud so that only the facial part was shown and then invented stories as to its origin.
One such story was that King Abgar sent his messenger, Hannan, to Galilee, to seek out the healer that he had heard of. When Hannan found Jesus, he attempted to paint His portrait. Jesus, noticing this, took the canvas and held it to His face, thereby leaving a faint, sepia image. (The problem with this tale is that it does not account for the Lord's facial bruises.)
Another fabrication was that, on His way to His crucifixion, a woman held up a towel to wipe His face and then discovered His image on that cloth. Some icons of the Image of Edessa show scenes of its history, this being one of them.
In the year 944 A.D. the Byzantine emperor had the Image of Edessa extracted to Constantinople where it became known as the Holy Mandylion. In 1204 A.D. the French Fourth Crusade invaded that city and expropriated all of its sacred relics. It appears that the Knights Templar eventually gained possession of the Mandylion. Rumors began to circulate in France that this secretive Order was engaged in the worship of some kind of mysterious facial image. On Friday, October 13th, 1307, the King of France had all Templars arrested on a trumped up charge of heresy for their worship of an image, but that king was not able to find what the Templars had been worshipping (despite subjecting many of the Templars to torture.)
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
Well, I guess the idea would be that if it's not Jesus, it would have to be some other guy whose body would be likely to emit a superabundance of radiation after death.
What reason is there to think Jesus' body would have emitted a superabundance of radiation after death?
Nothing really. It's just that, unless I'm misunderstanding things, once you eliminate the scientific explanations, that's the only real one left for how the image got onto the shroud.
But let me rework my point...
If the scientific explanations are all wrong, then the image must've gotten there by miraculous means. So, whether or not it's Jesus, we at least know we are dealing with something in the realm of the supernatural.
In the year 944 A.D. the Byzantine emperor had the Image of Edessa extracted to Constantinople where it became known as the Holy Mandylion. In 1204 A.D. the French Fourth Crusade invaded that city and expropriated all of its sacred relics. It appears that the Knights Templar eventually gained possession of the Mandylion. Rumors began to circulate in France that this secretive Order was engaged in the worship of some kind of mysterious facial image. On Friday, October 13th, 1307, the King of France had all Templars arrested on a trumped up charge of heresy for their worship of an image, but that king was not able to find what the Templars had been worshipping (despite subjecting many of the Templars to torture.)
I've skimmed through a book called The Hiram Key, by a couple of Freemason "historians", which made that exact claim about it being De Molay on the shroud. But the side-by-side images of the shroud and De Molay's face did not seem altogether convincing to me.
Though that could be a good opening for Christian fundamentalists to warn people against venerating the shroud, should no firm scientific rebuttal be forthcoming. "Sure, it was put there by supernatural means, but it was by the Templars, who were worshipping SATAN!!!"
Another reason Protestant fundamentalists would have a problem with "venerating the Shroud" is the Shroud kinda sorta crept into the world through Catholicism (which is to them--at best--massively wrong) would "put the kybosh on" (stop) accepting it. Plus things aren't to be venerated.
(Never mind that IIRC it was the Catholic church that persecuted De Molay and the other Templars.)
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
Well, I guess the idea would be that if it's not Jesus, it would have to be some other guy whose body would be likely to emit a superabundance of radiation after death.
What reason is there to think Jesus' body would have emitted a superabundance of radiation after death?
Nothing really. It's just that, unless I'm misunderstanding things, once you eliminate the scientific explanations, that's the only real one left for how the image got onto the shroud.
But let me rework my point...
If the scientific explanations are all wrong, then the image must've gotten there by miraculous means. So, whether or not it's Jesus, we at least know we are dealing with something in the realm of the supernatural.
Which of course is held to inconsistently -- just take a disused bible and start ripping pages out and see how quickly many of them at least discover a veneration of things.
If the scientific explanations are all wrong, then the image must've gotten there by miraculous means. So, whether or not it's Jesus, we at least know we are dealing with something in the realm of the supernatural.
"All" the scientific explanations? You mean there will never be any more than we have now?
Comments
So Jesus LIED?!?!?
More like an daintily euphemistic blasphemy surely?
Was it too dark?
Was she blinded by her tears?
Was Jesus somehow wearing *another* body?
Was it the gardener, after all?
And so on.
To me it emphasises that the resurrection does not disregard what has come before. It's not "throw away the old person, make a new person" - the past experiences of the body are an essential ingredient in the raised, glorified body.
It's a bit like the resurrection itself. Why bother with the empty tomb? Jesus could just have been provided with a new, better body "made from scratch" as it were. But instead there is continuity with the original body. He is raised, not replaced. Perhaps it didn't have to be that way. But it is more respectful to matter and to suffering, somehow.
It was crepuscular.
(It wasn't just a two piece either:
'...the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.' John 20:4-7
later:)
11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around [looked behind her in to the silhouetting light] and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. 15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She [fully] turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
It always makes me tear up. As @Telford said, it all adds to the credibility, despite being written decades later.
'In 2018 an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or "didactic" representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.[125]'
What Kay Scarpetta says:
'Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[29][122]
...the analysis of a crucified Roman, discovered near Venice in 2007, shows heel wounds consistent with those found on Jehohanan and are not consistent with wounds depicted on the shroud. Also, neither of the crucifixion victims known to archaeology show evidence of wrist wounds.[124]'
The latter implying that the Turin artefact does, and the NT including Jesus says otherwise.
Good questions. I have no idea what the answers might be, if, in fact, there are any answers.
IIRC, similar concerns were raised in the Yoof Group to which I belonged eons ago. I don't think they were answered back then, either, although it might have been said (by our Curate - who eventually became a Bishop) that we would be recognisable as ourselves...
Because they'd seen him with those wounds? And, in some cases, saw him get them?
BTW: By wounds all healed, do you mean no trace at all, or scars, or...?
How is that a problem? It is fake by Biblical and multiple scientific criteria. The Skull of Doom hasn't been replicated. I've watched multiple Open University programs on artefacts like two hundred year old English canal lock hinges and a thousand year old bridge in China that couldn't be replicated either. So they must have been magicked too.
See Production of Radiocarbon by Neutron Radiation on Linen,Lind, Antonacci, Fanti, Elmore, Guthrie
I do not know how to provide links on this forum. Perhaps it is not set up for that.
The points that you have raised are legitimate and have been considered by Rucker and other experts in this field. In Test the ShroudAntonacci recommends testing a Shroud sample for radioactive calcium and chlorine isotopes and the tomb as well.
French surgeon Pierre Barbet* arrived at a different conclusion regarding the blood flows and so did STuRP.
Skeptics seem to require that the image on the Shroud behave like a photograph, but that image was not created by photography even though it exhibits the characteristics of a photographic negative. Until the skeptics can show us how the Shroud's image was made, they have no credence in criticizing its proportionality. STuRP was very reserved in its conclusions of 1983, but they did say that the image found on the Shroud was not the work of an artist.
*A Doctor at Calvary,Barbet
You can, perhaps, prove that the imprint on the Shroud is really and truly that of a 1stC Jewish chap who was crucified, but how does that prove that the said chap is Jesus?
The sum total of all the doubtless well-meant and erudite stuff quoted (or referenced) by @undead_rat is simply *We don't know for certain*...
We do. It's not Jesus'. For Biblical and multiply scientific certain.
I'm no skeptic. It's not Jesus.
Well, I guess the idea would be that if it's not Jesus, it would have to be some other guy whose body would be likely to emit a superabundance of radiation after death.
IOW, pretty much a miracle either way.
(Assuming that there is no scientific explanation for the image.)
Three clues.
The wound in the side
The thorns wounds
The fact that the shroud was preserved
Still not conclusive though
What reason is there to think Jesus' body would have emitted a superabundance of radiation after death?
There are several historical leaps involved regarding the torturers "enacting" various things, including purported Templar rituals, Molay's physical condition, and identifying the first known owner as related to one of the other people burnt at the stake with him. However in its favour is the fact that if it existed the shroud may have been preserved as quite a few people considered him a martyr, and in the gap its true origins could be "forgotten", allowing it to have a change of identity.
Loving your enemies in 'Christian nations' was very popular back in those times.
Clues to what? It isn't Jesus' shroud. His wasn't a onesy.
Why?
Most pictures that I've seen of shrouded bodies show an arrangement that does not look as though the imprint of a body would produce anything similar to a photograph, either negative or positive. In the SoT image, there don't seem to be any significant effects of folds or wrinkles, which I think would puzzle anyone who has ever tried to wrap an irregularly shaped present. And if the head was closely wrapped, it seems like the resulting image wouldn't look like a picture of a face - it would look more like a picture of an unwrapped face.
The theory is that the body was laid on its back on one end of a very long piece of cloth and and the cloth was folded over his head and covered his front. This was not a proper burial. Jewish law said that the body must be entombed before the beginning of the Sabbath, and there was not time enough to do things properly. The markings on the shroud are consistent with this theory.
Jesus didn't have a shroud.
I'm pretty neutral re the Shroud. But, if true, maybe it was put on Jesus after his body was taken to the tomb and washed.
You might do all that quickly , if you were in a rush, grieving, worried about people being after you for being associated with Jesus, worried about violating the Sabbath, worried about people being after you for violating the Sabbath, and so tired and sick (physically and heartsick) that you hope you can make it through the next 5 minutes, otherwise the Teacher will have a roommate.
Then you make it through the Sabbath as best you can. Then you go back the next day...and stuff happens.
Seems reasonable. First fruits of those who have fallen asleep 1 Cor 15:20. He is the first new creation being.
Personally, I’m not sold on the shroud, though.
In Revelation He is still identifiable as the Lamb who was slain. It’s not a mistake or a botched resurrection. To paraphrase Os Guinness, Christianity is the only religion where God carries and will always carry the damage caused by evil. 🤯
Hmmm...and you think that's a good thing?
Admittedly, it might help people who've been hurt believe that God understands. OTOH, it might seem like hurts can never be truly healed; like we're to worship *suffering*; and like God is *always* going to rub the price that was paid in our faces.
I've encountered those twists and interpretations. IMVHO, they're less than healthy, and can do a lot of harm.
Sometime in the early sixth century (after Christianity had become the state religion) the Shroud was discovered hidden in the West Gate (the Gate of Vaults) in Edessa. From that point, the history of the Image of Edessa (as the Shroud was then called) is more firmly documented, but that Image was not known as a burial shroud. One must understand the mindset of the ancient times regarding spiritual pollution and uncleanness. Remember Jesus' comment about inadvertently stepping on an unmarked grave. Such a mistake would render a person unclean. Simply looking at a bloody burial cloth would have the same terrible effect. Therefore, the ancient priests folded up the Shroud so that only the facial part was shown and then invented stories as to its origin.
One such story was that King Abgar sent his messenger, Hannan, to Galilee, to seek out the healer that he had heard of. When Hannan found Jesus, he attempted to paint His portrait. Jesus, noticing this, took the canvas and held it to His face, thereby leaving a faint, sepia image. (The problem with this tale is that it does not account for the Lord's facial bruises.)
Another fabrication was that, on His way to His crucifixion, a woman held up a towel to wipe His face and then discovered His image on that cloth. Some icons of the Image of Edessa show scenes of its history, this being one of them.
In the year 944 A.D. the Byzantine emperor had the Image of Edessa extracted to Constantinople where it became known as the Holy Mandylion. In 1204 A.D. the French Fourth Crusade invaded that city and expropriated all of its sacred relics. It appears that the Knights Templar eventually gained possession of the Mandylion. Rumors began to circulate in France that this secretive Order was engaged in the worship of some kind of mysterious facial image. On Friday, October 13th, 1307, the King of France had all Templars arrested on a trumped up charge of heresy for their worship of an image, but that king was not able to find what the Templars had been worshipping (despite subjecting many of the Templars to torture.)
Re image worship:
The Baphomet story?
BTW, a question: You don't have to answer this, but I'm wondering if your Ship name is a reference to the character Death of Rats in Terry Pratchett's Disc World Books? (L-space)
Nothing really. It's just that, unless I'm misunderstanding things, once you eliminate the scientific explanations, that's the only real one left for how the image got onto the shroud.
But let me rework my point...
If the scientific explanations are all wrong, then the image must've gotten there by miraculous means. So, whether or not it's Jesus, we at least know we are dealing with something in the realm of the supernatural.
If that is the case it's more likely to point to the limitations of current scientific knowledge.
I've skimmed through a book called The Hiram Key, by a couple of Freemason "historians", which made that exact claim about it being De Molay on the shroud. But the side-by-side images of the shroud and De Molay's face did not seem altogether convincing to me.
Though that could be a good opening for Christian fundamentalists to warn people against venerating the shroud, should no firm scientific rebuttal be forthcoming. "Sure, it was put there by supernatural means, but it was by the Templars, who were worshipping SATAN!!!"
(Never mind that IIRC it was the Catholic church that persecuted De Molay and the other Templars.)
By that reasoning aliens built the pyramids.
Which of course is held to inconsistently -- just take a disused bible and start ripping pages out and see how quickly many of them at least discover a veneration of things.
"All" the scientific explanations? You mean there will never be any more than we have now?
I believe that "Baphomet" was the name given by their accusers to the alleged image that the Templars were using in their initiation ceremonies.
and
Sorry, the zombie rodent moniker was invented for entertainment value.
Oh, don't worry, the conspiracy theorists have got that one covered.