Late last night, one a web-based discussion forum called Christian Forums someone named SeekingTheKingdom began a discussion thread, first by quoting from John 20:7 and then adding a couple of loaded questions. The underlining, bolding and misspelling is his:
John 20:7 "And the napkin(face cloth) that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths(body cloths), but apart, wrapped up into one place."
So why Does the Church keep up the Lie? Its not just The RC either…Protestants beleive it.
So what is the truth?
A lively discussion followed. Check it out, at least read the first three comments by JoabAnias.
Yesterday I got an email from a reader, which read in part:
There are various opinions and researches of the shroud of Turin. Some people say that it is the genuine and some that it is the fake and the hoax. The fact is that the shroud of Turin doesn’t present Jesus of the Bible. If we can find even one evidence, which disprove the shroud of Turin theory, so the whole story shall be invalidated. We can find a large number of evidence from the Bible, which show that the shroud of Turin cannot be the shroud of the Lord Jesus.
The letter went on the say, “Certainly God would not be complicit in creating a graven image and if you persist in your whore of Babylon ways then you are complicit.”
Why do I get the feeling this person just discovered the word complicit in his copy of “It Pays to Increase Your Word Power?”
He went on to quote John 20:7, as well; and then to remind me that Paul said Jesus did not have long hair. It is amazing how some Biblical literalists get the literalism all wrong.
Lately most of the doubters of the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity have been Christian fundamentalists. At least that seems true from the emails I get and the blogs I read. Where have all the skeptics gone: the Intellectual Atheists, Secular Humanists, Free Thinkers, Rationalists and Brights gone?
The distinction between doubter and skeptic is important for skepticism implies a questioning attitude. There are exceptions. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince come to mind. And Joe Nickell. But they are fundamentalists of another kind, aren’t they?