David Goulet wrote:
Each of us has boldly claimed that whether the Shroud is authentic or a fake, that it doesn’t really matter as to what we believe about Christ. Looking at our reactions to each other on this blog at times, I think we’re not being honest with ourselves.
Mattias chimed in:
Great point. Many here DO seem to be clinging to Shroud authenticity to support their faith, despite what they say
And Mike M added:
You are absolutely right. By the same token I have also noticed people clinging to fantasies to support their lack of faith, despite what they say( that they are only interested in scientific proofs and so forth).
And then, too, Louis also added:
No one has noticed that there are bloggers who react to other bloggers depending on how yet other bloggers react?
I wonder this every now and then? I think we should ask ourselves if we are being honest with ourselves and others.
Hi Dan, why was my comment left out? Was it inconvenient?
The following quote from Karen Horney sheds light on why people can be unintelligent, irrational, and dishonest about religion:
“Let us consider for example, a person listening to a paper and having critical thoughts about it. A minor inhibition would consist in a timidity about expressing the criticism; a strong inhibition would prevent him from organizing his thoughts, with the result that they would occur to him only after the discussion was over, or the next morning. But the inhibition may go so far as not to permit the critical thoughts to come up at all, and in this case, assuming that he really feels critical, he will be inclined to accept blindly what has been said or even to admire it; and he will be quite unaware of having any inhibitions. In other words, if an inhibition goes so far as to check wished or impulses there can be no awareness of its existence.” (The Neurotic Personality of Our Time, Karen Horney, M.D., New York: Norton, 1937, p. 55 )
David, how do you distinguish a person that have no inhibitions from one that inhibition goes so far as to check wished or impulses there can be no awareness of its existence?
Aren’t relics intended to bolster faith? As a relic the Shroud is tantalizing as it touches the heart of the Christian faith – The Resurrection. So I can understand why people have a lot invested in it.
Relics are sacramentals and help you avoid sin by giving you grace if you venerate them. The Holy Shroud is an official relic of the Catholic Church and you get indulgences by praying before it. What bolsters faith are signs or reasons to believe in revelation.
Because of my personal spiritual experience of God, I can say this: In the eyes of our Father in Heaven, we got much more “indulgences” when we forgive our brother or sister who have hurt us than when we “venerate” a material object like the Shroud…
To complete my thoughts about this, I would say that my point of view is pretty much the same as we can see in the Bible between the physical circumcision and the spiritual circumcision (often called “circumcision of the heart”), which possess much more value in God’s eyes than the first one… Devotion to the Shroud can be helpful to some person, but it is surely not the greatest thing in the eyes of God. Blessed are those who believe without seeing, remember?
The faith that is in question here on the blog is not so much the faith we have or not in Jésus-Christ, the Son of God, but much more the faith we have or not in the authenticity of his alleged burial cloth… That’s the first thing I wanted to say about David’s interesting comment.
The second is this: No matter what kind of faith is in question somewhere (whether it concern the divinity of Jesus, the authenticity of his shroud or something else), it ALWAYS produce strong debates (personally, I have no problem with such debates, as long as it is done honestly) because it greatly affects our emotions… This is part of human nature and once you understand this, it’s much easier to forgive someone who throw some cheap shots at you.
Dan, perhaps you didn’t notice it? I am still waiting for a response to # 1.
Louis, why don’t you post it here… I don’t think Dan will disagree.
Here it is:
February 8, 2014 at 6:44 pm | #6 Reply | Quote
No one has noticed that there are bloggers who react to other bloggers depending on how yet other bloggers react?
Any disagreement does not worry me, all I’m looking for is a response. We are talking about honesty and who is and is not a Christian, aren’t we?
“honesty” is the key word, well before “being a Christian or not” or “acting like a Christian or not”. A comment can be very strong against someone (and can be seen as “not being Christian”), but if it’s done with honesty and only in search of the truth, I have absolutely no problem with it.
Anonymous, I am waiting for Dan’s response. You said “I don’t think Dan will disagree.”
Here is my 2cents in this subject. The question of the shroud being authentic or not is a scientific question not a faith question. As long as we get this right, everyone will be happy. They are 2 different issues. I don’t believe in the shroud because I am a christian. And I don’t believe in Jesus because I believe in the shroud. This is why I can understand the position of the Catholic Church (and my Coptic Orthodox Church, as per my priest) in this matter. The question of the authenticity has no bearing in our faith in Jesus. I understand that the shroud can get people who don’t believe in Jesus to think about believing in Jesus. but ultimately they have to lay down their life to Jesus, praying for the Shroud will not save them. this is why there are Christians who don’t believe the shroud to be authentic, and there are Jews/agnostic/atheists who believe the shroud belongs to the historic Jesus. The importance of the shroud to me though is that it gives me the chance in the 21st century to “behold the man”, to see how much Jesus suffered for me. It is also very dear to my heart that Jesus would leave such an imprint, His true likeness, His Photograph if you will, etched on a piece of linen for us to connect with Him. I think it’s priceless.
The Doctrine of Addai demonstrates that the principle of a visual aid in evangelisation was established very early indeed. Did Bishop Avercius of Hieropolis use the Shroud in this way when he baptised the court of King Abgar VIII the Great in Edessa around 195AD, with “his fish of great size”? Nevertheless Avicius says that “Faith led him onward!” Is the Shroud Jesus’ love letter to humanity? Or is it his receipt for the cloth? We may not rest our faith on the Shroud, but nevertheless it has the potential to reinforce faith, and may yet prove to be a key evangelising tool to our rude and skeptical generation!
Concerning evangelisation, I don’t think the Shroud is much different than any crucifix you can see on a wall. As Christian, we can use both objects to help our meditation of God love for all mankind. But having say this, I truly don’t think the Shroud has much more power to convert this “skeptical generation” than a normal crucifix… Personally, I haven’t seen one case of an atheist who convert to Christianism because of the Shroud. There might be some but I’m sure this is anecdotal…
And for your first question, I would answer: extremely doubtful, since we don’t have any serious piece of evidence from history and art to think the Shroud of Christ ever spent even just one day in Edessa…
Hi Anonymous, alias Yannick, or is it the other way round?! Yes, there is no doubt that the Shroud will not bring atheists and sceptics closer to belief because, as I stressed more than once, the relic will not answer doubts about the rest of the story, which is big. It may answer some of the doubts of sceptics commenting on this blog posing as Christians, but then they will want to make sure that it brings along some record of the Resurrection.
The Shroud is a reason to believe in Jesus because there is no scientific explanation of how the image was created. The Resurrection of Jesus is a reason to believe because there is no historical explanation for it.
I will always elevate my voice against such a weak link… There are a lot of things in our universe that science is not able to explain yet. Does it mean we must believe in God because of all those “mysteries”? Surely not because even just 10 or 20 years from now, there were even more things that science was still seeking to explain!
How can anyone be certain if the “mystery” of the Shroud image will not be fully explain with the known laws of nature when the Vatican will eventually allow a new series of direct researches on the cloth? And if this day ever come, what will happen with your faith if a good portion of it is based on the kind of link you just did?
True faith should never be an intellectual belief but a true spiritual relationship with God. Read again what Jesus said to the women at the well: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” God don’t want people to believe in him because of some unsolved mystery regarding the image on his shroud, but because we simply have enough faith to trust him and have confidence in him to help us on a daily base and because we want to live a true Relationship with him. That’s what I think…
Faith is both a decision and a gift from God. If we figure out how the Gnostics created the Holy Shroud, that will be one less reason to believe in life after death. An important reason for believing is that those who don’t believe give bad reasons for not believing.
David, I think you should pay more respect for those who say they do not believe in God because, most of the time, I (and every Christian who believe God is Love and nothing else than Love) agree with the kind of God they reject!
Effectively, most of the time, when someone say he doesn’t believe in God, it’s only because he has not yet meet the only one that exist and so, he don’t know him and reject a false image of God (most of the time a God who is pretty much like a supreme judge of the universe and who strictly apply the old Jewish law of talion) he receive when he was young…
In my mind, those who are the worst off are not those kind of intelligent and sensible persons who refuse such a monster-God who would be ready to send a portion of his children to hell, but much more those who kneel before such a false idol who never existed except in the tortuous mind of some human being…
Louis, I’m sorry. It was about 4:00 in the morning when I was posting. I swiped in a bunch of text with my mouse any pasted it into the editor window. Your comment should have been a part of the process and I guess I goofed. I went to pour a first cup of coffee, came back, did a bit of formatting and pushed the button. I have fixed the posting above. Your comment should have been there.
As for you having to wait for a response from me: Despite the accusations from Colin suggesting that this is a well funded work effort on my part, this blog is a hobby, something I do in retirement. Nobody pays me and I work on it when I want to. I usually try to publish something every day. Then I go off and do other things. The only time my iPhone shakes in my pocket is when the blogging software notifies me that a comment is being held up in the moderation queue. I quickly read that comment and make a decision. More often than not it is spam and I reject it. Otherwise I read comments when I get a chance. Today, my wife and I went out for breakfast. Then we drove to nearby Beaufort to shop. We had lunch, walked the dog, checked out the new Grand Cherokee Jeep, bought groceries for dinner. After putting dinner in the oven I read the comments from today and noticed that all day long you had been waiting for a reply from me. Sorry, you had to wait. Sorry for the omission. Anyway, your comment rings true. Thanks for making that observation.
So why rubbish my most important blog postings , Daniel Robert Porter – like that Lirey pilgrim’s badge – which you yourself had never seen fit to address yourself until I posted (April 2012)?
Never mind, I’m making up for it now on my current postings. The truth will out, as they say. Yes, the devil is in the detail, as any hard-nosed researcher will tell you.
OK, I know we boring over-specialised scientists, retired ones especially, are not supposed to comment on ancient history, or indeed cultural matters in general.
To which we boring over-specialised scientists are minded to respond – NUTS. Or perhaps you would prefer a more anatomically-correct term.
Dan, many thanks, I can understand, I can see the spirit of Christ, which brings with it a sense of fair play, is well alive and kicking inside you. Good for you and for us.
This blog is the best forum we Shroudies have to express opinions and invite constructive criticism, so keep it up. You didn’t even have to mention that the blog is a hobby and you don’t get paid for it – at least to me, because I have known that all along.
Continue with the good work and make sure your Grand Cherokee Jeep keeps you comfortable when you are seated, it helps avoid problems in the back. It is a great vehicle.
What’s for dinner? Thanks for all of the work you do on the blog.
If one were able to figure out if and how the Gnostics created the Holy Shroud, (other than the details of the technique) would it really be all that different from Michelangelo carving marble to make an inspirational statue? If man-made, there’s a mystery in the how and when, but once you get over that…belief in life after death involves so much more than any relic, genuine or imagined.
Amen.
Dear Kelly,
That is exactly what I am saying. If we can figure out how the Shroud was made it will become nothing more than an inspirational statue. The point is that we can’t figure out how it was made. It is for the time being a sign, or a reason to believe in life after death. People who advocate the authenticity of the Shroud destroy this sign by linking it with another sign: the Resurrection of Jesus. To Shroudies there is one miracle: The Resurrection. To me there are two miracles: The Resurrection and the Shroud.
Now that the comments have drifted towards gnosticism and the after-life, there is a saying inscribed on the Gateway of Victory (Buland Darwaza) in the beautiful city of Fatehpur Sikri, in the north of India, built by Akbar the great, one of the Mughal (Muslim) emperors.
It says:
“Jesus said, The World is a Bridge, pass over it, but build no houses on it. He who hopes for a day may hope for eternity, but the World endures but an hour. Spend it in prayer, for the rest is unseen.”
I’m not convinced that we can’t figure out how it was made, or at least significantly increase our understanding of what it may or may not be. If you believe that you can’t figure it out, then there’s your answer, the needle will stay stuck right in that groove. No disrespect intended, but I’d like to hear what’s on the B side. And maybe even spin it backwards in places-who knows what you might find?
Kelly: There is no B-side. If there was any hope of explaining scientifically the image the two atheists who wrote books arguing that the Shroud was authentic would have said so. They completely ignored the question of how the image was created.
If that works for you, great-Have to be moving on
This is an internal exercise only. There’s no discussion about who’s being honest or dishonest.
Because we’re all human beings (= sinners), you should know Andy that we’re always somewhere in-between those two extremes!!! People should stop seeing everything black or white. Life’s told me that there is never black or white but always grey (with different shades of grey)…
When I say that no one is perfectly honest all the time, this doesn’t mean we should not at least try hard to be the more honest we can be… Always!
To me, a “good” Christian is not someone who is perfect, but someone who know he’s not and who try hard to ameliorate himself WHILE RELYING ON THE GRACE OF GOD TO DO SO.
And concerning the Shroud, I think that, because it is primarily a scientifc quest, being the more honest that we can should equal trying hard to avoid wild assumptions and speculations, while trying also hard to rely on FACTS AND THE MOST SOLID DATA that exist. This is not what I often see going on around here where imagination (often related to bad religious feelings) is often flying high.
The sum of my remarks were both honest & sincere-I’m not sure the intention of the thread is to necessarily call anyone out
I’m interested in both the scientific and faith aspects of the Shroud-I believe it’s possible to separate one’s own personal beliefs from experimentation at the lab bench-it’s the hallmark of a professional scientist. Speaking both as a scientist and a Christian, if you compromise your objectivity and feel it necessary to selectively favor those data that support your own personal beliefs, while ignoring those that don’t, then what good is that-you’re not really interested in the truth, just a biased version of it. That is false integrity for either a scientist or a Christian.
True faith withstands the flame. So does true data. Put it to the test as many different ways as you can. if you truly believe something scientifically, you should try to disprove it, not support it at all costs. If the Shroud is real, it’s real, if it’s not, it’s not. I think science can help increase our understanding either way. The Shroud enhances my faith, certainly, but my faith is not dependent on it-there are too many other things that enhance and nurture it. Well, there you go, Andy, that’s about as honest as I can be!
“Casting you pearls before swine” means being judicious in the presentation of your beliefs. If you think the Shroud is authentic you should keep it to yourself. Any rational person examining the image will conclude is it was created by an artist or craftsman. Believing the Shroud is authentic is some kind of faith response to the Resurrection.
Earlier you referenced two atheists who wrote books arguing that the Shroud was authentic-was this some kind of faith response to the Resurrection? If a person believes the Shroud is authentic, why should they keep it to themselves? Any rational person would be reaching for the tin foil right about now, speaking of which…
The atheists (Locken and de Wesselow) were attempting to give an historical explanation for the Resurrection of Jesus. Their desire to persuade people not to believe in God clouded their judgment. They stated that there was a natural explanation for the image.
There is no historical explanation for the Resurrection. However, there is a scientific explanation for the Shroud: it was created by artisans or artists. You should not say the Shroud is authentic because it means you think the image was formed supernaturally.
David,
Dude… I think this is the most confusing thread i have ever been to.. Honestly I don’t know where you are coming from. You have these cut and paste posts that you keep repeating. You make absolutely whatsoever no sense. You wrote off the shroud as fake, yet you call it holy. You never said why its fake. You think the Gnostics did it but the method is lost in time, well how can that be proof of anything. You say people believe in the shroud because they believe in the resurrection..where is your proof for that claim?. Once and for good.. Your augments make absolutely no sense, just so you know.
1) The Shroud is holy because it is an official relic. The Catholic Church grants indulgences to people who pray before the Shroud. 2) It is a reason to believe in Jesus because there is no explanation for how the image was created. 3) The Shroud may be a fake because it was created by Gnostics, and Gnostics may have told people it was the burial shroud of Jesus. 4) It is a work of art because the blood stains are not smeared and because the image is so detailed. Which statement don’t you understand?
One last time:
1- I don’t understand YOU calling it holy. Even if the Catholic Church says it’s an official relic. YOU say it’s fake, how can YOU reconcile that. According to you, if it’s fake, it should be wrong calling it Holy, but you still do it?
2- this is argument from ignorance. I can’t understand it so it must be Jesus. Nothing can be further from true faith.
3-The Gnostic thing again, you have absolutely no evidence for that claim except from some ancient text that shows the Gnostics have seen the shroud. This doesn’t mean they made it.
4-the blood is not smeared and the image detail is not evidence of fabrication, Especially when you still have no explanation for how the Gnostics did it. These are evidence for authenticity because if the shroud was a byproduct of the resurrection (result of some type of radiation that left a photographic like imprint) when the body came back to life, both would be true.
1, 2, 3 and 4.
Paulette, Ditto.
The Shroud can be both authentic and formed by natural means. The link between authenticity and supernatural is not absolute. There is a responsibility that comes with waving the science flag-if you can’t list any specifics other than “no one knows”, it is mandatory to switch from regular thickness to heavy duty foil.
I don’t think heavy duty foil will do it. You need one of those heavy lead shields the use in X-Ray
To Mike and Paulette:
1) Perhaps the Gnostics created the Shroud to tell the story of Jesus’ passion, and told people it was a fabrication. In this case it would be both holy and not a fake.
2) I am giving my reasons for believing in Jesus. I am summoning you to believe, but am not demanding it. I am not arguing that Jesus is alive. The difference between arguing and summoning is the difference between faith and reason. It is a matter of reason that God exists. It is a matter of faith that He has communicated Himself to us.
3) Who else but a Gnostic would crucify someone to get a relic?
4) We see the image and ask, “How was it created?” We invent the theory, “It was done by an artist.” We marshal the evidence: 1) All known images are created by humans. 2) The blood stains are not smeared. The Resurrection of Jesus is an historical event. It does not have any “by product.” The historical event was the renewed fellowship of His disciples after He was crucified, the belief that He was the Messiah, the emphasis on the Jewish belief in life after death, the beginning of worship on Sunday, the appearances of Jesus to Paul and others.
I give up.. You think the Gnostics crucified someone to create a relic, and you still call it holy and you think this is reason (you are giving to me) to believe in Jesus. I am just speechless.
David should understand once and for all that if the Shroud is the product of a forger who used a real crucified body to do his work, it is almost impossible to think such a forger could have been a gnostic because those heretics were generally believing that Jesus had only a divine nature and that he did not had a real human physical body. Consequently, they believed he did not truly suffered on the cross. All this heretical system of belief is CONTRADICTED by what we see on the Shroud!!! Therefore, there’s no way such a relic could have been created by someone who was a member of a gnostic group.
We must be rational when it’s time to consider all the possible options versus the Shroud and truly, the idea of a gnostic forgery.is not one of those…
Yannik, that thread had been anything but rational
The reason to believe in Jesus is that there is no explanation of how the Gnostics created the image. What difference does it make whether the image was created miraculously in the tomb or miraculously by Gnostics? You destroy the apologetic value of the artifact by linking it to the Resurrection. You have only one miracle to tell about, but I have two.
David Roemer post #40 “There is no historical explanation for the Resurrection”
David Roemer post #47 “The resurrection of Jesus is an historical event. The historical event was the renewed fellowship..etc.”
Just so you know how confusing and contradictory you can be.
There is nothing confusing or contradictory about the following two statements:
1) The Resurrection is an historical event with no historical explanation.
2) The Resurrection is the renewed fellowship of Jesus’ followers.
Proposition #2 is not an explanation, it just states what the historical event was.
Sorry David, I have to stop here. I can tell you one thing, I know why they wouldn’t give you permission to speak in that church
{[:)
No! The C14 results and the image properties point to the medieval wizard Merlin and his magic wand. End of discussion.