So roughly a week ago I compiled all the posts I’ve done on here together into a lecture format for a hopeful upcoming presentation I’ll be giving on the Shroud of Turin and its acting as evidence for the Resurrection. This contains not only all the material I’ve done with revisions and some additions, but two new sections on the work of Walter McCrone vs Adler and Heller, but a brief reconstruction of the Shroud’s journey throughout history. While it is still only in a draft form, it takes about an hour and a half for me to read out loud, which may be a little long. I’m really looking for feedback so that this can be as best as it can be. Thank you, and please look at it via the link!
That link leads to 25 pages of well written, well researched material: the reason I got up early this morning. Read it. Please do. It’s good. This caught my attention, in particular.
At this point in the argument I am going to assume that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. The sections up to this point have largely been a justification for this assumption. The real excitement about the Shroud is when we start to examine it in the light of the first Easter.
There already exists voluminous studies on the Resurrection and what the apostles saw, largely in the camps of criticism and apologetics. My contention all along is that the Shroud adds unprecedented weight to the claims of the apologists, not only confirming the written record of the Gospels but giving us a primary document which supplies us with tar more information than we had previously.
Why then, a Resurrection? Couldn’t we just say that the image of Christ was made via a naturalistic process and that as eerily and unique it may be (eerily perhaps because of it’s uniqueness) it docs not prove the Resurrection? Yes and no.
Read on at The Argument From the Shroud [Lecture]
The picture is from scribd and I am assuming the uploader is the writer. I’ll hear.