The Shroud of Turin

Exactly. God provided proof to the early disciples so that they could then testify to us. Their testimony, in accordance with the old testament scriptures, and the facts we know of the cost of preaching a resurrected Jesus to the apostles is more than enough to convince us of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Paul, when proving the resurrection of Jesus to the Corinthians referring to three things - the gospel he had preached to them which first taught the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the old testament scriptures, and the more than 500 witnesses. Why would he omit the shroud if it was real? It seems like convincing evidence to me, if true.

God has left us precious few physical evidences of the things in scripture. The ark is who knows where. Nearly no reference to the Israelites in Egypt. Very few corroborations for scriptural events from outside sources. Why is this? I say it's because we aren't to believe the bible because of physical evidence, but rather because of faith. Consider the existence of Belshazzar. For years secular historians used lack of secular evidence of him to blast the bible. Well, turns out they found a cylinder his father wrote and he is named on it. We didn't need that evidence to believe the bible, for years believers has known Belshazzar existed because they had faith in God to accurately inspire His word. Now people doubt Darius the Median existed. I don't. Who was he? People have their theories. It really doesn't matter. The bible says he existed, and we are to believe it. Physical evidence is not needed for belief, only faith.

 

It always struck me as just another attempt of the Catholic Church to claim its own significance, and shift the focus of the faith to Rome.

 

Exactly. Look at what the Jews did with their religious relics. At one point they treated the ark as if it could deliver them from their enemies. Later on Hezekiah destroyed the brass serpent moses made because the Jews were offering to it. That's what man does before long, we start worshipping the object more than God. The Jews were proud of their precious temple, and even the apostles got caught up in that telling Jesus how wonderful it looked. He responded by telling them it would be destroyed. We are to worship God in spirit and in truth.

 

Why? Because they have it and we don't? The Church has never pronounced it to be the burial cloth of Christ. They haven't even brought it into the Vatican. It is still in Turin and you would think if that were their design (to shift the focus of the faith to Rome), they would bring it to Rome and declare it to be genuine.

 

So really there is no real reason for not believing that the Shroud is genuine except for personal opinion and bias against the RCC.

It is interesting that for most people, the more factual information they get about the Shroud, the more apt they are to believe it is genuine.

And those with the least information about the Shroud are more apt to disbelieve it.

Why would God choose men to perserve the Shroud? Why not? It is a silent witness to the Resurrection of Christ - the cornerstone and foundation of our faith.

1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

 

And if you would read earlier in 1 Corinthians 15 you would see that Paul provides 3 witnesses - the gospel he preached to them that they also received, the old testament scriptures, and the over 500 eyewitnesses. He does not mention one piece of physical evidence. All of his evidence requires faith to believe it.

 

The biggest problem I have is the "scientific" proof. You cannot claim a supernatural act has occurred using natural means. I don't believe "radiation burst forth" from His body like the scientists claim. He raised the dead, and in those instances there is no account in the gospels where we are told something spectacular occurred like they are claiming occurred in the making of the shroud. Has nothing to do with the RCC.

 

The Shroud is unique in human history. There is nothing like it anywhere, nor has there been anything like it at any time.

Jesus is unique in human history. There is nothing like Him anywhere, nor will there be anything like Him ever again.

I don't think it requires any more faith to believe that the Shroud is genuine than it does to believe that God became Man to take away our sins, died, and rose again on the third day.

Read some books for yourself, look at evidence on the website www.shroud.com, watch "The Real Face of Jesus?" and then you can make an informed, rational decision as to whether or not the Shroud is genuine, instead of the standby "if the RCC endorses it, it ain't true" reflex.

 

Except, of course, for the fact that one is in the word of God and the other is human guesswork.

 

Is this 'contempt prior to investigation' Ann?? Or have you researched this thourghly and decided the evidence to be faulty or weak?? Just curious.

 

The evidence is overreaching.

 

1. It is a matter of valid scientific proof--there is none.
2. It is a matter of credibility--the RCC has next to zero.

Did you know that if you could gather all the pieces of wood in the world that have been blessed by various priests and bishops, and have been claimed to be a part of the cross that Christ was crucified on, you could build a mansion? It is a matter of credibility. Not every Catholic can have a piece of the cross that Christ was crucified on.

 

Well, maybe the Church did not officially declare it such, but I just found it funny that something like this would be in Italy (not all that far from Rome, and thus near the seat of RCC power and influence).

 

Actually, the jury is out on this one, Ann. I can't say I have thoroughly researched although I find much of the evidence for it being the actual burial cloth to be compelling.

 

It hasn't always been there. I haven't heard of anyone making accusations that the team of scientists that examined the shroud were pro-Catholic. It is my understanding that several were non-believers or agnostic.

Maybe someone else has information on their backgrounds.