Not Proof Of But Instead Best Explained By

imageIn  his blog, Donald E. Hester, while introducing a paper he wrote, “Examining the Evidence of the Shroud of Turin,” for a course at Biola University, explains:

Here is a paper I wrote last spring on the Shroud of Turin. I have to admit that I was beyond skeptical about the Shroud. I thought it was a medieval forgery and that Christians that claimed it was one of the burial cloths of Christ were bringing discredit to Christians in general. My intent in writing the paper was actually do some research so that I could speak intelligently about it being a forgery. However, facts are relentless, and the week before I started to write the paper a new dating test conclude the Shroud dates from the 1st century. If you take one fact, the carbon dating in 1988, you will come to the conclusion that it is a medieval forgery. However, all other data, points to a relic from the first century. What changed my mind was three pieces of evidence, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the fact that the piece dated in 1988 came from a part that was repaired during the 1500’s, and the new dating tests that utilize non-destructive dating methods.

Click here to read the paper

One final note: The Shroud of Turin is not something that proves the Resurrection of Jesus. However, the Resurrection of Jesus is currently the best explanation as to how the image got on the Shroud.

It is a good paper. Do read it.

2 thoughts on “Not Proof Of But Instead Best Explained By”

  1. There is something astir. We are getting an avalanche of new insights into the Shroud and interest. Brothers and sisters, “fasten your seat belts.” This is going to be a glorious “bumpy ride.” [Apologies to Bette Davis and “All about Eve.”]

  2. ‘However, the Resurrection of Jesus is currently the best explanation as to how the image got on the Shroud.’

    Here here

Comments are closed.