Methodist Bishop Refutes Claims Against Bodily Resurrection
Edmond Chua writes in the Singapore edition of the Christian Post (apparently not yet picked up by the US or International editions):
Authors James D. Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici of The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity and Thomas de Wesselow of The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection claim in their books to offer evidence that may oppose the historical Christian teaching that Christ rose bodily when He was resurrected.
The books seem to suggest that Christ may not have physically resurrected, that His physical body could well have decomposed and decayed, that His resurrection could have really been spiritual and that He could have gained a new spiritual body distinct from His physical one.
In view of the apparent theological challenge, The Christian Post invited [Methodist] Bishop Dr. Robert M. Solomon [(pictured here with his wife)] to explore the evangelical view and response to such a viewpoint of the Resurrection. The Bishop responded with his thoughts on the two books and the issue that was raised.
and concludes:
"Christians must rest assured that such spurious and sensational claims by people like Jacobovici and de Wesselow are extremely weak and readily dismissed by the professional experts," said the Bishop. "They may make good money from their sensational books, but they fail to make any dent in the strong historical Christian teaching (and the evidence for it in the Bible and in history) that Jesus rose bodily from the dead."
Source: Bishop Refutes Claims Against Bodily Resurrection of Christ | The Christian Post Singapore
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
The good Bishop seems to assert that the Shroud is fake (carbon dating again) and that is why de Wesselow is wrong. Lord save us from our friend.