John Klotz has posted The Shroud of Turin and the Resurrection in his blog, Quantum Christ:
It is often stated that the Shroud of Turin doesn’t prove the Resurrection. That’s correct. But on Easter it is proper to discuss what the Shroud does prove in connection with the Resurrection. It certainly supports the possibility of the Resurrection and is consistent with it.
Resurrection was polyvalent in Second Temple Judaism, some hooked it on to the book of Daniel, others mixed it up with Greek philosophy. What does Jesus’ resurrection mean in Christianity? As the world-renowned New Testament scholar Father Joseph A. Fitzmyer put it, “Even though some biblical interpreters would like to dismiss the idea of a bodily resurrection of Jesus and are skeptical about the empty-tomb tradition, we must emphasize that the bodily resurrection of Jesus to glory is a basic part of the New Testament kerygmatic proclamation and a fundamental affirmation of Christian faith.”
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wisely developed his conception of an Omega point independent of the evolving universe. He thought about the Alpha, then went to the Omega. But what sense does the evolving universe, in between the Alpha and the Omega, make? The question of this evolving universe was tackled by Gould, an atheist, and Polkinghorne, an Anglican priest-scientist, to give just two examples. The former thought it was a joke, the latter that it will be eventually destroyed.
Isabel Piczek’s interpretation of the Shroud image makes sense in the context of an evolving universe, with the body of Jesus released from matter, at least no longer subject to it. I would hesitate to talk about “the possibility of the Resurrection”, but would certainly agree that there are signs that the Shroud “is consistent with it.”
Further to the above, for those interested in the “bottom up thinking” of our time, and how science cannot handle all the questions raised, see the introduction in the following interview:
Everybody a Happy Easter to start with.
I will put more evidents with this youtube movie.
It seems Thimoty has the shroud and ask for it
by that time he was in Turkey, guess what the King
hold the shroud while he was sick and get heal when he hold the shroud.
And that event is true, read and listen.
To me, the Shroud doesn’t prove at all the Resurrection but can be seen as a potential “proof” of the reality of the Incarnation of God in our humanity. What if the main message of the Shroud to us would not be about the Resurrection but about the Incarnation? Note that this is how Christians of the pre-STURP era were mainly understanding the silent message of the Shroud to us, while they were mostly believing the image was the one of the crucified Jesus at the time of his death that came from a natural image formation process (possibly related to the sweat that was covering his body and hair when he was placed in the tomb)…
Angel Wynton…….Can you provide contact information so that I can follow-up with you regarding the youtube movie entitled, “Solid Proof Turin Shroud is 1rst Century”?
Martin Buber became suspicious when it came to C.G. Jung and the fact is that neither of the two were to blame. While one was a philosopher, the other was a psychologist who had deep knowledge about many subjects. Jung was head and shoulders above Buber when it came to learning. There would be no misunderstanding or suspicion today, for Buber would have understood why Jung was not on the wrong track in his quest.
Jung sought help from the American-born Dominican Father Victor White, a psychologist and theologian at Blackfriars, Oxford, England, and a convert to Catholicism. He was strongly attracted to the Catholic Church but wanted some integration when it came to psychology and theology and Father White, who became his closest friend, could help him.
The differences arose as a result of Jung’s “Answer to Job” and closed the door to the possibility of the priest becoming his successor. White may not have understood that Jung must have read Harnack, just as he read Nietzsche.
But, despite the rift, the spiritual bond was still there. It is very likely that it was White who gave Jung a copy of the Shroud face, and he hung it behind a small curtain in his study. Was he hiding it? No, he wasn’t. Everyone knew that, whatever some of his writings on psychology, he was a Christian deep inside. Did he find something fascinating about the Shroud face because of some intuition? Could be.
Further to #1, my belief is that the Resurrection had to involve Jesus’s body, the kerygmatic proclamation in the Gospels is crystal clear that there was a Resurrection Movement, not an Empty Tomb Movement, which we today call the Jesus Movement, the Church in its early form.
This belief is considered to be outmoded by some theologians and archaeologists today. But the unbelief goes beyond that, it can take a sceptic to the Old Testament, where he fill find scepticism in the book of Ecclesiastes.
So why blame Gould, when he said that he would be comfortable discussing philosophy with Pope John Paul II, and presented the Vatican with his NOMA? He was being honest, much more open-minded than Pinker or Harris are today.
The Vatican is neutral when it comes to the TS, it does not say that it is a “snapshot” of the Resurrection, the canonisation process is for the authorities a much more visible sign of the “survival after death” that some Shroudies seem to be looking for, and confirms in the Church’s view what is called the “communion of saints”.
The reasons for Rome’s reluctance to go ahead with fresh carbon dating became clear recently, there will be no bowing to pressure, it has learnt from Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero’s mistakes.
Meanwhile scientists and scholars are doing their best to see what more can be discovered, we have St.Louis and Bari.
Scientists are intrigued by a force that pushes through matter at the universe at breakneck speed and is unexplained by gravitational forces. It is said that it may lie beyond the unobservable universe.
Carl Sagan said it was pointless to pray to the law of gravity, cited in the introduction to the interview-article:
He would now know another reason why it would be pointless to pray to the law of gravity, and Lüdemann should realise that it is futile to pray to the universe.
Sorry for one mistake above, I meant “observable universe”.
There are many more problems when it comes to consciousness, leading to clashes between Rome and US nuns. More science-theology dialogue is needed:
Comments are closed.