Yesterday, in the Evangelical Channel of Patheos, Jack Wellman asked, Is There Evidence Jesus Really Rose from the Dead? He discusses historical evidence, biblical evidence and . . .
The Shroud of Turin has been scientifically examined and the conclusion was that whoever it was had been badly scourged, and was crucified, but it appears there was some sort of crown of thorns, and that there was a stab wound in the side. A retired professor from Duke Medical Center, Dr. Alan Whanger, spent nearly his whole life studying medicine and since 1978 has spent years studying the Shroud of Turin. Initially, he may have studied it to debunk the idea that it was genuine and might have hoped to provide evidence that it was a fake, however the more he studied it using scientific methods, the more he became convinced that it was real.1 Dr. Whanger states that this is the single, most studied object in human history. Unlike paintings which are two-dimensional, the image of the Shroud is three-dimensional. Several findings indicated that the Shroud’s images were from Israel and apparently in the spring of AD 30 due to the identification of 28 species, 20 of which grow specifically in Jerusalem and the other 8 within a 12 mile radius of Jerusalem, and with a common blooming time of March and April which would have been around the Passover, the time that Jesus was crucified.
In 2010, the History Channel investigated and used computer technology to add a third dimension and with generally accepted color schemes for the body: hair, eyebrows, and even the bloodied body and they concluded that the image on the Shroud was not painted, nor was it dyed, nor made by any human effort.3 Ray Downing was the computer artist who helped to create the image using powerful computer imaging and he says that this is about as close as you can get to it actually looking like the very person that was wrapped in the shroud. The Shroud was transformed by computer imaging and color scheme graphics or digital artists to produce a 3-D image from the 2-D image contained within the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin is only one of the many threads of methods which we can examine.
Scepticism about the resurrection of Jesus is quite common today, be it among theologians or among laymen. Some theologians refer to the event in a sense that is not traditional, there are churchmen who are vague when it comes to definition and there are those laymen who pretend they believe in it when in fact they don’t.
When Jesus is not buried in Talpiot( east Jerusalem)
his remains are to be found in Kashmir (north India):
Both theories have hidden agendas.
No bones were found in the ossuary marked Jesus at Talpiot! I have read there was one small carpal bone.
Actually there are more flaws in the Talpiot tomb theory, one recently brought to light by Père E. Puech. The body of a crucified person was never brought into a family tomb, it would have to be buried alone for the “earth of Israel” to purify the bones of sin. The documentary kept quiet about this.
The James ossuary, which jokingly came to be called the “Protestant hoax”, was on the list of Discovery’s Top Ten Hoaxes, the IAA returned the bone box to the owner without authenticating the second part of the inscription.
When did the “single most studied object in human history” claim surface, and is there any truth in it at all? Stonehenge? The Great Pyramid? Uzi the Alp Man? The Domesday Book? Shakespeare’s will? Leonardo’s Last Supper? Any other candidates?
The real issue is the narrowness of the research ,e.g ( sorry to be a bore on this) focusing only on one route by which the Shroud might have reached Lirey when there are options that are much more probable than the Edessa route that has so many gaps in it – not a good thing for linen cloth that needs to be protected from the damp!
So focus research on areas such as Egypt where the damp is not a problem or areas where there were early Christian communities that survived over long periods, e.g Egypt again, and Rome. The latter satisfies the Vignon marking fans better than any eastern possiblitilty.
If research was widened then the Shroud might win out , but certainly not yet when much of the so-called research is simply repeating the same old points. The only new info. in Habermas’ lecture was the AD30 radiocarbon date and even that looks like turning out to be a red herring.
I think we should concentrate on the areas where no research has yet been done!
From the article: Several findings indicated that the Shroud’s images were from Israel and apparently in the spring of AD 30 due to the identification of 28 species, 20 of which grow specifically in Jerusalem and the other 8 within a 12 mile radius of Jerusalem, and with a common blooming time of March and April which would have been around the Passover, the time that Jesus was crucified.
How much of this has been verified?
Part of the conflict can be traced to the “brits” laughing at what the “yanks” had seen on the Shroud while turning a blind eye to what some of their own members also claimed to have seen. Just have a look at the older issues of the BSTS newsletter.
Yes, T. Litt questioned some of the findings by U. Baruch but his methodology was in turn dismissed by A. Danin. He had used a powerful, confocal lens, not removed and washed the grains for examination, and did not publish anything.
The result;A.Danin stands by what U.Baruch said he discovered.
Comments are closed.