Proof of the Resurrection?

imageJoe Marino was kind enough to send me a clear text version of the press release for Mark Antonacci’s new book. It was much easier to read than the fuzzy one in my previous posting. (I’ve put a copy below the fold).

Anyway, I was reading the release and I noticed this:

[Antonacci] contends that we now live in a singular moment of history. These new scientific test results, combined with previous unparalleled evidence, would confirm that the passion, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ were actual events in history.

Really? Proof of the Resurrection?

Glancing over my desk, I saw Critical Summary 3.0 sitting on my iPad. What was it that it said on this matter?

The "Fall-Through" hypothesis is strictly data driven and is not intended to offer a "proof" of the Resurrection. To the contrary, Jackson does  not think the Resurrection can ever be "proven". The philosophy of science includes the stipulation to work to "disprove" rather than to "prove". 

— page 83

Got to go with Jackson et al. on this one.

New Press Release:

LE Press, LLC: Mark Antonacci, world-renowned expert on the Shroud of Turin, has just released his second book on the Shroud entitled “Test the Shroud,” a captivating read which reviews and thoroughly explains all of the evidence discovered to date on this unique burial cloth, and confidently proposes further specific testing methods that could prove the Shroud’s authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, and answer all of its outstanding questions.

Antonacci, an attorney, has studied the evidence acquired from this burial cloth for almost 34 years. He gave the keynote address at the International Shroud Conference held in conjunction with the cloth’s exhibition in 2010, and his leading hypothesis has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. His accurate description of all of the unique features on the Shroud of Turin allows him to convincingly argue that this is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Written in a way that is easy to comprehend, whether a scientist or someone simply fascinated with this one-of-a-kind burial garment and its evidence, Antonacci takes the reader on a journey throughout history, describing every aspect of the Shroud and its unprecedented features. He presents a very testable hypothesis that particle radiation emanating from the dead, crucified body wrapped within the Shroud caused its unprecedented, full-length body images, its still-red blood marks, its erroneous carbon dating and so many other unforgeable features. Antonacci further describes advanced scientific testing techniques that could be applied to the cloth (and its human bloodstains) at the atomic and molecular levels. These sophisticated techniques could demonstrate whether this miraculous event actually occurred to the corpse wrapped within it, and if so, when it happened, where this happened, the actual age of the burial cloth and the identity of the victim.

He contends that we now live in a singular moment of history. These new scientific test results, combined with previous unparalleled evidence, would confirm that the passion, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ were actual events in history.

To place an order, visit or email

Test the Shroud will be available soon on as well as other fine bookstores.

7 thoughts on “Proof of the Resurrection?”

  1. Many convicted criminals go to jail on the basis of eyewitness testimony. This is considered “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” in American jurisprudence. If there is reason to doubt the testimony, responsible jurors will refuse to convict on the grounds that the case wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the New Testament we have the testimony of eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. These are individuals who dedicated their lives thereafter to telling this story and suffered brutal martyrdoms without recanting. In the eyes of the law, that is proof of the resurrection. It’s proof in my eyes, too. And if there are any lawyers reading this comment who wish to challenge the assertion on the basis of being hearsay evidence (testimony that is not subject to cross-examination), I would remind them that “dying declaration” is an exception to the hearsay rule.

    As for believers for whom no proof is necessary, this is foolish. Beliefs that cannot withstand scrutiny in the context of the world in which we live, such as belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, are rightly called childish. There is nothing about Christianity, or the Shroud of Turin for that matter, that falls in the category of belief without proof.

  2. For myself the Shroud does not establish much of anything we don’t already know. Assuming it is authentic of course It proves Jesus existed, but we already know that. It proves he was crucified, but we already know that. It proves he was buried, but we really already know that was likely anyway. It nearly proves the empty tomb, but again we already know the empty tomb is likely. So I think what the Shroud does best is further the case for the reliability of the Gospels, and bring up some interesting thoughts about the Resurrection like why do the blood stains look how they do why is there no clear evidence of manual extraction? Then of course the image and what caused that. Is it a byproduct of the Resurrection? BTW, that image in this post could easily be replaced with “something natural happens”.

  3. Mark means “proof beyond any reasonable doubt” in the legal sense, not 100% scientific proof (not sure that even exists) or like proving a math theorem. Mark’s a lawyer.
    As far as the historicity of His Bodily Resurrection is concerned; that kind of proof has been long established, without the Cloth. Mark is using the Shroud as exhibit A in this sort of line of evidence concerning this event. History matches the observations.
    Occam’s razor. Just like any jury member, you decide the best answer to ALL of the evidence. Unbiased.
    Jackson himself would agree that the probability Jesus’ Resurrection being in some way responsible for the data is a very high probability.

  4. We need to keep in mind the distinction between knowledge and faith-based belief. A mathematical proof cannot be denied, but might only be refined. A scientific proof may be questioned, but once all the data are in, most would be obliged to accept it, otherwise it can’t be called a proof. A jury verdict may be questioned, and incorrect decisions have been recorded. One analogy between faith and knowledge involving true parentage is sometimes cited. Mrs Brown knows she is the mother of her children; but Mr Brown on the basis of faith-based reason probably does not require a DNA test to satisfy himself the children are his, unless genuine questions of paternity arise. John Klotz has often mentioned a legal basis of proof, that we do not seek to order our lives beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Most of the matters mentioned by Matthew L are I think more matters of a rationally-based faith rather than matters of knowledge as he claims them to be. Others they could not be doubted by humanist skeptics, who for the most part might be considered to be otherwise quite reasonable people.

    The Shroud therefore may have the potential to be a useful means of providing a historical basis to these faith-based assertions.

Comments are closed.