A reader writes:
Dear Dr. Roemer:
You start your slide show with a fairly good summary of some of the recent scientific discoveries about the shroud’s image. Then you quote some ancient documents in a rather untidy way, I think to tell us that the Image of Edessa is the Shroud of Turin. I have no issue with that.
Then come these exact words of yours, in order. The bullets are added.
That’s it? Gnostics may have been capable and if so the technique is lost and there were maybe a lot of Gnostics in Edessa. That’s it? I find this no more compelling then speculations like ‘da Vinci did it’ or ‘it is an image of Jacques de Molay.’
Original posting with comments: Was the Shroud of Turin created by Gnostics?
The question is what theory is most probable, not which one is compelling. The Shroud is unlikely to be the burial cloth of Jesus because
1) The blood marks are not smeared.
2) The image is highly detailed, as with a photograph or a painting.
3) The cloth is narrow and long and could serve no other purpose than to create a double image.
4) It assumes that the discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus is an historical event. The empty tomb story is just one tradition in the Gospels. There are other sources of the historical fact that the followers of Jesus swore up and down that He appeared to them after He died.
Most probable theory? Okay lets break this down to your points; 1 ‘The blood marks are not smeared’ Okay so assuming they (Gnostics), used a tortured corpse, how could they possibly pull this off? If they used the corpse to create the image, how did they get the sheet off the corpse without leaving sweared blood or no blood so they may paint them? -if they somehow managed this, How did they imprint the blood marks themselfs on the sheet without any signs of brush strokes, blotching, directionality and with invisible to the eye sirum stains etc;~most unlikely and rediculous.
2. “The image is highly detailed, as with a photograph or painting”- We know quite conclusively they didn’t have cameras in the first three centuries, so you would assume they ‘painted’ this? Then why a body? Have you ‘ever’ seen a painting with the detail this Shroud image has?, I haven’t and especially with 3D distance information! Furthermore if they had somehow used the body to create the image, you would have to assume these people had the ‘present’ knowledge of chemical decomposition and the milliard reactions and would have known exactly when to pull the sheet off the body~again most unlikely and rediculous. 3 “The cloth is narrow and long and could serve no other purpose then to create a double image”, I could go on for hours on this statement alone, but lets keep it simple; That is one HUGH assumption. No other burial cloth from that era/local exists to this day, simply because they would have decayed very quickly, only remnants exist. So no clue as to thier size or style. Scriptures say “a burial sheet was purchased”, not sheets, so one may conclude this sheet was quite large. Furthermore if this long narrow sheet was not the proper burial garment, then why would some early century Gnostics use such a sheet to conjure a ‘hoax’? most preposturous. Wouldn’t their contemperaries question this? And why the double image? When a simple frontal image would surfice?….laughable.4. “It assumes the discovery of the empty tomb is an historical event…” Do you have any proof that is wasn’t? Would the disciples make this up, when any contemporary could simply check it out for themselfs? No scholar to my knowledge with any credibility challenges the empty tomb, as all the writers mention it. You say “there are other sources of historical fact that the followers of Jesus swore up and down that he appeared to them after He died” so we are to pick and choose what is fact or fiction? Those same followers also stated the FACT that the tomb was empty~ no word for this ;-)
Taking all the comments that have been put forth here by the present bloggers, I think it’s quite safe to say; It is a total illusion to think the Gnostics had anything whatsoever to do with this Shroud, that is my humble opinion.
Ron
I second that opinion !
Your point #1, that the blood marks are not smeared: no, they would have been DRY by then. Jesus hung on the cross for a time after he died, before his followers got permission to take him down and bury him. The blood would have left an imprint but would not have been “runny” by that time.
Also, his disciples and the women would most likely have wiped away the worst of it, the best they could, before they laid Christ in the tomb. This is why the women returned early on Sunday, so they could finish preparing the body. They probably covered up the body lightly on Friday, just enough for decency. And brought more supplies with them on Sunday morning, to finish the job.
Also, there is some indication from the crucifixion account that Jesus had almost no blood left when he died. When the soldier pierced his side and blood mixed with water ran out: medical experts say this is an indication that his blood loss was very severe. So there wouldn’t have been enough blood left in his body to be able to run, spread or smear. It was more like he was spotted with whatever was remaining of his blood — rather than dripping with it.
This is consistent with the idea of the animal sacrifice where the blood was drained from the animal. It’s a gross comparison, but there’s nothing about the crucifixion that is attractive.
The point is, Jesus gave up every last DROP of blood, He gave it all… showing HIs followers that He was indeed a sacrifice, a complete sacrifice, an adequate sacrifice, and a totally committed sacrifice. Jesus gave absolutely everything He had, every last DROP, in order to fully complete his mission to END the need for ANY other atonement sacrifice.
As for your other points, I always find it amusing that skeptics eliminate any supernatural cause for phenomena. As if there is no such thing as supernatural. In spite of the fact that people see things, hear things, sense things that are beyond the “natural” all the time, every day. Even animals have indicated they see, hear, sense these things too, when they are happening. The stories are so abundant that IMO, they MUST be considered as part of intelligent evaluation.
But atheists refuse to consider the possibility of anything beyond what is natural even though they “believe” in other invisible things such as nutrinos and electrons etc.
Which, IMO, is fulfilment of the Bible verse in Romans 1:21-22 which says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.”
Scientists are fascinated with the possibilities of light and sound… The Bible says that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. It’s easy for a Believer to assume that something supernatural happened to that Shroud. It may have been Infused and supercharged with light, energy, or the elusive element of LIFE, which scientists STILL do not know what LIFE is. And if science still does not understand why LIFE is what is IS, then why is it so hard to understand there is more on this earth than what merely “natural.”
God is a supernatural being because God exists and is above nature. God also created the universe of finite beings. He inspired the human authors of the Bible to tell us about life-after-death. The Bible, especially the beginning of John, says that God created the universe from nothing. The discovery that the universe began to exist 14 billion years ago is a reason to believe in the Bible.
The discovery that the universe began 14 billion years ago raises another question: What caused this to happen? There are four possible answers:
1) God did it.
2) An evil angel did it. (This is the belief of Gnostics.)
3) The universe is not intelligible.
4) Science will discover why with further applications of the scientific method.
If the universe is not intelligible, then we can’t be sure God exists. No. 1 and No. 2 is equivalent to saying there are mysteries in science. The central mystery that atheists cannot grasp is: What is a human being? You don’t help atheists to understand this by bringing up mysteries in science. Atheists don’t see the difference between the questions: What caused the Big Bang? and What is a human being? To atheists, these are both mysteries that will be solved by the scientific method. The important thing is to grasp the difference between the two types of question.
Quote : “I find this no more compelling then speculations like ‘da Vinci did it’ or ‘it is an image of Jacques de Molay.”
And what about the Aliens ??? ;-)
Really, the Shroud is one of the best thing to attract every illuminated people in the Western world !