PDA

View Full Version : The Shroud of Turin: Is it Authentic?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Berean Girl
April 3rd, 2009, 05:32 PM
From The Berean Call:

April 3, 2009

IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN REAL?

Shroud of Turin: Is It Authentic? [Excerpts]

An amazing cloth shroud....The cloth has a realistic imprint that looks like a man's face. According to tradition, the shroud was miraculously formed when it covered Jesus's body in the tomb. Some people quote Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53 to justify the possibility of this miracle.

These verses seem to indicate that a single cloth was used to wrap Jesus when He was taken off the cross. But was this same cloth wrapped around Jesus's body when it was placed in the tomb?

After the crucifixion, Jesus's body would have been bloody from Pilate's whipping (Matthew 27:26), the crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29), and the nails driven into His hands and feet (Acts 2:23). More blood flowed from the spear wound in His side (John 19:34). So this cloth would have absorbed a lot of blood.

Now did this cloth remain on Jesus's body as it was carried to the grave? From a cursory glance at the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you might think so. However, John reveals more details (John 19:38-40). Joseph of Arimathea took the body prior to its placement in the grave. Later Nicodemus joined him, applying about 75 pounds of spices and wrapping the body in several strips of linen.

To apply the spices, the caretakers must have removed the bloody linen covering Christ at the cross. We have no reason to assume that they reused this single cloth. Instead, we would expect them to follow Jewish customs of cleanliness.

Also, no Gospel author mentions a second single-cloth linen around Jesus's body-only a small cloth wrapped around Jesus' face and several other linen strips around the rest of his body (John 20:7).

At Jesus' resurrection, both John and Luke mention the strips of linen and the cloth on His face (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-7). They mention nothing else. We have no reason to assume any other cloths were present in the tomb. To do so requires us to impose our ideas on the Bible, contrary to reasonable inferences, which is not the way to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).

The Bible, read carefully in context, rules out the Shroud of Turin as Jesus's burial cloth. :preach

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/problematic-apologetics

Steve53
April 3rd, 2009, 05:47 PM
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=60221

there
April 3rd, 2009, 06:17 PM
Christ also incurred a beating while under arrest the night before. Luke 22:64

Funny how that has not shown up as far as I can see. Scanning of the shroud should have shown that. The beating was as we are told in Math 26:68 done by various men/soldiers with their fists. So I am quite sure it would have left some indicator considering it was done just hours prior to His death.

The shroud is a fake and I am sure it is out there for a reason and will possibly be brought forward and used in the maybe near future?

DAVEYBOY
April 4th, 2009, 04:00 PM
Christ also incurred a beating while under arrest the night before. Luke 22:64

Funny how that has not shown up as far as I can see. Scanning of the shroud should have shown that. The beating was as we are told in Math 26:68 done by various men/soldiers with their fists. So I am quite sure it would have left some indicator considering it was done just hours prior to His death.

The shroud is a fake and I am sure it is out there for a reason and will possibly be brought forward and used in the maybe near future?

I'm not so sure it's a fake. They did tests on spores found on the cloth and found that these spores were from vegetation found only in and around Jerusalem at the time of the first century. Also they could never find the means of just how the image became imprinted on the cloth. As far as the previous poster wondering why the shroud wasn't more bloody, keep in mind that Christ had lost a lot of blood before He actually died and also that we can assume that there was some kind of stormy activity happening at the time of His death which would have washed away a lot of blood.

Bibleman
April 4th, 2009, 11:59 PM
Beloved in Christ,

Biblical Archaeology Review magazine carried an extensive debate on this issue several years ago. The back issues would make a great study resource. The debate was a very interesting read, but it doesn't matter if it is real or not. Jesus never said "come to my shroud", He said "come to me".
:faint

Hootmon
April 5th, 2009, 11:33 AM
They did tests on spores found on the cloth and found that these spores were from vegetation found only in and around Jerusalem at the time of the first century. How would they know that?

Glory in print
April 5th, 2009, 11:39 AM
Beloved in Christ,

Biblical Archaeology Review magazine carried an extensive debate on this issue several years ago. The back issues would make a great study resource. The debate was a very interesting read, but it doesn't matter if it is real or not. Jesus never said "come to my shroud", He said "come to me".
:faintGreat post!

Glory in print
April 5th, 2009, 11:40 AM
I don't have a dogmatic position on whether the shroud is real, or not, I am open to it being real, but either way my faith is not in any shroud, but in a risen savior.

House of Light
April 5th, 2009, 01:47 PM
I'm not so sure it's a fake. They did tests on spores found on the cloth and found that these spores were from vegetation found only in and around Jerusalem at the time of the first century. Also they could never find the means of just how the image became imprinted on the cloth. As far as the previous poster wondering why the shroud wasn't more bloody, keep in mind that Christ had lost a lot of blood before He actually died and also that we can assume that there was some kind of stormy activity happening at the time of His death which would have washed away a lot of blood.

Actually...they have now proven that it is a "negative" image....like in photography. It is true that people like DaVinci and a few others already had that technology.....

Our Lord didn't need to leave behind a relic. We are to trust in him in faith alone.....

DAVEYBOY
April 5th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Actually...they have now proven that it is a "negative" image....like in photography. It is true that people like DaVinci and a few others already had that technology.....

Our Lord didn't need to leave behind a relic. We are to trust in him in faith alone.....

They also "proved" that the shroud came from a certain period which later they found to be incorrect. I truly don't care. I think that anything that sparks people's interest in Jesus is great. To think that you may actually be looking at the face of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ makes you downright giddy. I don't think people are worshipping this thing-although who knows these days. People worship rocks and trees for cryin' out loud!