Surely, an extraordinary imprint on Jesus’ burial cloth would imply something extraordinary having happened . . .
David B Marshall continues his look at De Wesselow’s book by dissecting Chapter 2. Here is tempting morsel:
When life gives you lemons, make lemonaide. Some of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity are often quarried from anti-Christian arguments. This book may prove a gold mine.
And there is this:
At the end of the chapter, Thomas even uses a word beloved of the skeptical community (see, for instance, Stephen Law’s attempt to extend Hume’s argument against miracles, and my response): "extraordinary." The usual soundbite is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." DW notes that two great mysteries seem to touch at this one small patch of time and space: what happened to Jesus after he died, and where this mysterious shroud came from:
How could two such grand enigmas resulting from the very same burial be unconnected? Surely, an extraordinary imprint on Jesus’ burial cloth would imply something extraordinary having happened to his body. (27)
As a skeptical art historian, apparently an atheist, DW points at that hotly-contested ground and renders the point emphatic and explicit:
The Shroud is extraordinary evidence. The stories about Jesus’ resurrection are equally extraordinary. So what is the connection?
Leave a Reply
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
Recent Comments