The face on the shroud.
The Bindlestiff
Can anyone answer my question?
Assuming that the shroud of Turin is not a 14th century fake, and is indeed a first
century burial shroud, why does that make it the shroud that Jesus was buried in?
Eddge
wrote:
> Can anyone answer my question?
>
> Assuming that the shroud of Turin is not a 14th century fake, and is indeed a first
> century burial shroud, why does that make it the shroud that Jesus was buried in?
First off: No one can ever *prove* that the Shroud of Turin was ever
wrapped around our LORD, even if it were proven to be that old.
There's no way to prove it was wrapped around anybody.
However, dead human beings just do not, normally, produce images like
this one on their shrouds. Body decomposition (which did not occur on
the Shroud of Turin) does not make an image. There is no source of
energy in a dead human body to produce a detailed image such as the
one we see on the shroud. Something unique happened there.
The image on the shroud resembles the gospel descriptions of our LORD
in His death. So, if it is associated with anybody it would likely be
Him.
The Bindlestiff
>On Oct 11, 8:04?am, The Bindlestiff <the_bindlest...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Can anyone answer my question?
>>
>> Assuming that the shroud of Turin is not a 14th century fake, and is indeed a first
>> century burial shroud, why does that make it the shroud that Jesus was buried in?
>
>First off: No one can ever *prove* that the Shroud of Turin was ever
>wrapped around our LORD, even if it were proven to be that old.
>There's no way to prove it was wrapped around anybody.
Agreed.
>
>However, dead human beings just do not, normally, produce images like
>this one on their shrouds.
I wouldn't go that far, but I'll grant that I have never heard of it.
> Body decomposition (which did not occur on
>the Shroud of Turin) does not make an image. There is no source of
>energy in a dead human body to produce a detailed image such as the
>one we see on the shroud. Something unique happened there.
Perhaps, but it requires that you first make another unsupported assumption, if you are to
claim it is Jesus shroud, and that is that there actually was a Jesus, as described in the
bible.
>
>The image on the shroud resembles the gospel descriptions of our LORD
>in His death.
Are you suggesting that the bible description could not be the source of the detail?
> So, if it is associated with anybody it would likely be
>Him.
But that is basically saying, "I don't know how, it's magic, therefore it must be
god/Jesus".
That is not logical, nor even reasonable, based on the evidence, and the bible
descriptions.
KJV John 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself.
The other puzzle here, of course is why it didn't turn up until the fourteenth century.
KJV Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld
the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was
come to pass.
KJV John 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went
he not in.
KJV John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and Seth
the linen clothes lie,
KJV John 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself.
The cloths are mentioned in the bible, yet there is no mention of anyone taking them, or
of any imprint.
Yet, surely, such a thing would have been proclaimed the length and breadth of the land.
But not even a minor legend.
Also, there were two cloths, one around his head, yet there is no sigh of that cloth on
the shroud.
Had it been wrapped around his head, as the bible says, it would have pulled his hair in
against his head, yet there is no sign of that on the shroud.
From the bible's own description of his burial, that is NOT the shroud that wrapped him.
Stories were told about the cloak that they draped over him, and the spear that pierced
his side.
The cup he drank from at the last supper, was searched for, for centuries.
I even remember from my childhood, a story about the curse laid on the thirty pieces of
silver
But no mention of a shroud.
A miracle as great as anything that Jesus performed in life, perhaps greater even, the
imprint of a god.
But no.
For fourteen hundred years, it lay hidden, and not in the hands of experts who knew how to
preserve, but stored in a box, or a drawer,or a sack, or some such.
Moved from one place to another, susceptible to all the disasters that can happen to a bit
of cloth.
My mother had a ...
Actually, I don't really know what it was. I have a vague recollection that it was pure
white linen to make a bridal gown, or the underskirts for a bridal gown. but I wouldn't
swear to it.
At some time in it's past, it had been white.
It was, my mother assured me, the finest linen, a gift to one of my antecedents, from the
king of some place, some three hundred years earlier.
It was in a Sandalwood box, the same box that it was in when it was given to whichever
pirate, or noble, or (insert your own guess here), that I was descended from; you know how
family legends go.
Not really relevant.
The point is, it was supposedly just over three hundred years old, yellowed with age, and
fragile as sugar strands.
Then we have this linen sheet, four times that age at it's supposed discovery, and yet
robust enough to stand the rough handling of ignorant peasants.
My experience doesn't match the story.
Farther, it comes to mind that there was a piece of linen, found at Qumran, which would
put it in a similar age group to the shroud, yet the difference in condition between the
two, must surely leave the shroud in some doubt.
The piece from Qumran, lay undisturbed through all the centuries, protected in it's cave,
from the predations of mice, bugs, and whatever else.
Yet by comparison, the shroud is damn near pristine.
More magic?
...And why did the magic end in the fourteenth century, when it finally came into the
hands of the church.
Carbon dating is fine, but there are so many things wrong with the shroud, that carbon
dating is irrelevant.
However:
While rummaging through a very dusty memory, something else comes to mind.
A very good friend of mine, a RC priest, and I were having a discussion about strange
beliefs.
When, in the course of debate I pointed out that something was impossible, the numbers
just didn't add up, he pointed to a wooden crucifix, draped around a picture. and asked,
"do you know what that is?".
A crucifix.
But what is special about it?
I don't know.
It is made from the wood of the one true cross, on which our Lord Jesus died.
I laughed.
You're missing the lesson he said.
He continued, you and I both know that if all those crosses made from the one true cross,
were gathered together, into planks, you could build a fleet of ships with the wood.
Exactly, says I, they are not real.
That one's real, he said.
So I looked at him, and I looked at the bottle of Bushmills, between us, but he hadn't had
more than a couple of fingers, so, go on, I said, they are all fakes, except that one?
No, they are all real.
Then he explained.
You have taken communion, he said.
Yes.
What is it that the priest gives you?
Bread, and wine.
What does it represent?
Jesus flesh and blood.
The RC church teaches transubstantiation, the substitute becomes the real thing.
The same is true of that cross, and all the others.
It represents the original, it has been blessed, and the people want it to be so, so, by
the magic(his word) of transubstantiation, it is as much the original wood as if Jesus
himself was still nailed to it.
He then went on to apply the same reasoning to our debate.
So I was just wondering if the same might not apply to the shroud.
The belief that Jesus lived and died, as the bible tells, leads to the belief that there
was a real shroud.
The shroud you have is a fake, but it doesn't really matter. because the magic of
transubstantiation, MAKES it the real shroud.
?