This brilliant Sidney Harris cartoon captures what is so deeply unscientific about the scientific study of the Shroud of Turin: the mixing of miracles with science. Even without the speech balloon, the meaning is clear.
The cartoon can also be turned on its head: Instead of two scientists trying to explain a process, imagine two shroud apologists trying to explain how the image was formed within the miracle of the Resurrection. Change the wording of step 2 so it reads, “THEN A NATURAL PROCESS OCCURS.” That is what we do when we try to explain how the image on the Shroud was formed by radiation, free electrons or energy.
What kind of process? Bob Rucker suggests vertically collimated radiation. John Jackson proposes a body that becomes mechanically transparent, allowing the image to form as the cloth falls through the body. Others are not so specific.
It’s not just about the image, either. Bob Rucker suggests that the radiation he thinks formed the image might have elevated the cloth’s carbon-14 levels, making the Shroud appear to be from the medieval era. Mark Antonacci suggests that Jesus could have exited his tomb through a wormhole in spacetime. In contrast, Bob proposes that Jesus might have departed the tomb by transitioning into a fifth dimension. He thinks this method might be more feasible than a wormhole, especially when considering so many post-resurrection appearances. Charles Rogers suggests that “an interface opened between our world and a higher dimensionality to swallow the body, while leaving behind [a] void populated by electrons and photons that created an image on cloth.” Frank Tipler suggests that Jesus resurrected himself by first annihilating himself by smashing baryon and antibaryon particles together. This, he suggests, would emit a shower of supernatural energy that created the image on the Shroud.
Meanwhile, Teddi Pappas suggests, that instead of emitting supernatural energy, Jesus used a supernatural energy to resurrect himself:
When a body is dead, the energy that once gave it life is depleted. And, for a body to be resurrected, that energy needs to be restored in the body. These are, actually, straight-forward concepts. I believe that it only makes total sense that God would use a supernatural type of energy to resurrect Himself –why, after all, would the Creator of the Universe dabble in using energy that we inferior humans could harness? To me, it is quite obvious –given the context that surrounds the Shroud– that it does, indeed, give breathtaking and compelling evidence that Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead, and that the energy used to resurrect Him is what, simultaneously, gives us His image.
Except for the last five words (a subject for another day) I like what Teddi says. It has theological oomph. It is wonderfully open to numerous interpretations. For instance, if we mean biological energy is depleted, then we might imagine, in this, some sort of reanimation like Jesus walking forth victoriously from his tomb in glowing white robes. Others might see — as I quite imagine — an earthy, cave-like stillness, a nothingness that explains everything; for he is gone. Others, still, in maybe thinking of the supernatural energy as spiritual energy, might see, divine shared apparitions of the risen Christ on that Easter day and in the days to follow. Some biblical scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, while teaching New Testament at DePaul University, a Catholic school in Chicago, argued that the empty tomb narratives are later additions to scripture meant to illustrate what his followers believed: he is risen. And because many Christians believe in a spiritual resurrection rather than physical resurrection, “supernatural energy” is a useful metaphor.
To my way of thinking, all of the many ways of understanding the Resurrection are acceptable. Teddi writes with wonderful aplomb. I can’t. I equivocate. Mark helps us with this. When Jesus is asked to heal a boy who is possessed by a demon, the boy’s father cries out, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24).
The real Resurrection, probably, far and away, transcends anything any of us can imagine or logically believe in. As the Catholic theologian, Hans Küng, puts it:
For the raising of Jesus is not a miracle violating the laws of nature, verifiable within the present world, not a supernatural intervention which can be located and dated in space and time.
Didn’t C. S. Lewis remind us:
The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation. They say that God became Man. Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this.
Wouldn’t supernatural energy, unlike that of us “inferior humans,” already reside in the hypostatic union? It is something else to ponder.
When it comes to the Shroud, with its theoretical constructs such as vertically collimated radiation, wormholes, fifth dimensions, baryon annihilations, pools of free electrons – and the mixing of the supernatural with the natural – science has become too much like an Agatha Christie mystery, filled with outlandish theories that only a Poirot can imagine. And solve.
Consider, instead, the wisdom of many great thinkers:
- “The resurrection is a mystery, not a problem to be solved. It is something to be believed, not understood.” – C.S. Lewis
- “The resurrection is a mystery that cannot be fully understood by human reason. – Hans Küng, Catholic Theologian
- “No one can say how it came about physically. Still less was its innermost essence, his passing over to another life, perceptible to the senses.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church
- “We cannot explain the resurrection, but we can experience it.” – Billy Graham
- “The resurrection is not a mystery to be solved . . . the most incomprehensible event in human history.” – Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury
- “The resurrection is a mystery beyond our comprehension. We cannot understand how a dead man can come back to life. But we can know that it happened, because the evidence is overwhelming.” – N.T. Wright
- “The resurrection is a miracle that defies all explanation. It is an event that is beyond our full comprehension. But it is also an event that has changed the world forever.” – C.S. Lewis
The Westminster Confession of Faith (ca. 1640) contains instructive sentence that conveys the message that God is beyond our full comprehension, and that there are some things that we will never fully understand. Intended, in part, to quash outlandish ideas afoot in merry olde England, the quote is as follows:
Of God there is no comprehension but what he is pleased to reveal of himself, either by word or by works, in the book of nature or of Scripture.
And the Shroud? I don’t think so. It is not a third book. It is not a sign from God, not proof, not even evidence until we really know what it is. I see nothing from interpretation, logic, or reasoning in Shroud science to convince me that the image was a product of the Resurrection or that the Shroud is authentic. Not yet.
Hi, Dan,
I would like to correct and clarify a few points. I had not proposed that Jesus resurrected Himself –instead, I had mentioned that I think that the God the Father resurrected God the Son. But, since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, one could still, technically, say that Jesus (as part of the Godhead) resurrected Himself. But, I don’t think Jesus as the Son did it –it makes more sense to me that the Father performed the miracle for His Son.
While I am convinced that energy was used to resurrect Jesus (I think it would be unreasonable to think that a dead body could be resurrected without an infusion of some sort of supernatural energy), this does not preclude (as you seem to think that I meant) that this energy could still be emitted from Jesus’ body –to then form the body image that we see on the Holy Shroud. It’s not an “either/or” proposition. Both can happen.
Anyone who has deeply studied Shroud scholarship knows that, like with God, there is a paradox. We end up knowing more and, simultaneously, knowing less –because new mysteries emerge in the midst of our discovering new knowledge. It is a rather exhilarating place to be in one’s mind! When realized, this exhilaration stems from the understanding that we are dealing with something that we, at least while on earth, are incapable of understanding. Yet, we are given enough information that will voluntarily draw some of us in so tightly that it feels to us like we are pressed to the the very bosom of God.
This, Dan, is why God allows us enough knowledge –but not too much (so as to not overcome the free-will of those who wish to be naysayers)– to be drawn to Him so closely. To KNOW Him and to sense Him in a way that goes beyond the “mere faith” that average Christians have in God (without the benefit of deep knowledge about the Holy Shroud.)
For some strange reason, many Christians focus too much on the mystery of God, and they ignore the many things that God provides us with to give us knowledge of Him.
Intelligent Design goes a very long way into proving beyond a reasonable doubt that some sort of Creator put all of this intelligence into motion. One does not, for example, see an automobile and think that it just randomly came into existence like that. No, that would be unreasonable. Intelligent design comes from an intelligent creator. And, to create a universe’s worth of intelligent beings and have them interact with things around them –to maintain their existence– this is what is unreasonable to think occurs just from absolute nothingness.
Best regards,
Teddi
And, like “Detective Columbo,” there’s always “one more thing . . .”
Again, on the issue of “mystery” –God has laid so much information at our feet. We just need to look at it and grapple with what it all means –and with the Holy Shroud evidencing the supernatural realm, this is the absolute “cherry on top!”
Again, we have the Bible instructing us about many things –both with Old Testament prophecy and what the New Testament tells us –especially the Gospels. We know that Jesus, repeatedly, indicated His divine nature. Jesus has told us who He is, and people for nearly 2,000 years have continued to pass along the most important message that anyone can pass along. And, people did this under the threat of torture and execution –not just of themselves but their children and spouses and extended family.
We must remember that Jesus foretold His death and resurrection, so the Holy Shroud has a context in which to fall into. It is not some cloth that just exists in isolation to itself. No, no. The cloth is (if you’ll pardon the pun) the material evidence of the fulfillment of Jesus’ falsifiable claim.
That’s powerful stuff. Just mind-blowing.
Best regards,
Teddi
I liked your summation, Dan, until the last paragraph:
“And the Shroud? I don’t think so. It is not a third book. It is not a sign from God, not proof, not even evidence until we really know what it is. I see nothing from interpretation, logic, or reasoning in Shroud science to convince me that the image was a product of the Resurrection or that the Shroud is authentic. Not yet.”
The Shroud is or is not a sign from God whether we know it or not and regardless of what evidence we have produced to support either conclusion. Our task is simply to seek the most and best knowledge on the subject that we can.
As I have said before, all the speculation about how God might have created the Shroud image using scientifically knowable means from our natural universe is essentially pointless. It serves no purpose other than to possibly identify a natural means of creating the image which would then rule out God’s participation. But it will never go the other way because God does not operate within the limits of the natural universe.
All logic and reasoning, however, points to authenticity unless one starts from the premise that there is nothing outside the natural universe. In this latter case, logic and reasoning are tethered to such a diminished version of reality that claims of resurrection from the dead (those not susceptible to NDE recoveries) is impossible and mysteries such as the Shroud of Turin can only be explained as human or natural creations. Otherwise, they simply remain as just another unsolved puzzle in mankind’s existence.
But if God’s reality is accepted, then logic and reasoning operate in a powerful way to point to authenticity: a) the Shroud image is a portrait of the price paid by the Son of God for our salvation; b) its inexplicable existence supports the testimony of eyewitnesses that Jesus rose from the dead; c) the inability to explain how the image was created points to divine authorship; d) the nature of the image is contrary to anything that a human being would logically create in that the powerful image does not appear unless the negative and positive of photography is employed to reveal the hidden image; and e) the uniqueness of this object is absolutely contrary to human thought process and practice which would never confine itself to a single demonstration. For example, if the Shroud image could be created by medieval minds, there would be other images as well, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary rising to heaven or Peter crucified upside down. Certainly the market for such imagery would have been unlimited.
If there were to ever come a time when the Shroud is proved to be inauthentic–which will require far more than the questionable carbon-14 tests–it will be more of a mystery than if it is truly of divine origin.
I should have said: “But it will never go the other way because God does not operate within the limits of the natural universe when He performs miracles.”
Hello, Dan,
You wrote the following in the context of a discussion about the process of going from a dead body to a resurrected one:
“Others might see — as I quite imagine — an earthy, cave-like stillness, a nothingness that explains everything; for he is gone.”
Could you please explain what you mean here? It seems like you are saying that you do not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. But, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’m asking for clarification (in case I am misunderstanding you.)
Thanks,
Teddi
Hi Teddi. You write, ” It seems like you are saying that you do not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.”
Not at all. John 20:5-10 tells us:
“He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their homes.” (NRSV)
***** He is not there, at least not in their seeing. I call verse 10 the great duh!
Dan wrote,
“And the Shroud? I don’t think so. It is not a third book. It is not a sign from God, not proof, not even evidence until we really know what it is. I see nothing from interpretation, logic, or reasoning in Shroud science to convince me that the image was a product of the Resurrection or that the Shroud is authentic. Not yet.”
I’m curious to know what for you would qualify for us “know(ing) what it is? Since the Shroud images have never been satisfactorily explained, and all the wounds match exactly to what happened to Jesus, is it really that far-fetched to use logic and reasoning to believe the Shroud at least may be authentic? Perhaps the way you phrased it leaves room for that but you didn’t seem to be willing to go that far.
Just to play devil’s advocate for a minute, I want to throw out some possibly disjointed but hopefully interconnected questions.
Skeptics constantly try to give rational explanations for the Resurrection. None of them make sense given the evidence. Do you think it would be possible to ever come up with a rational explanation for the Resurrection that a large number of people would believe?
Do you think you could ever really get to the point that we really know what the Shroud is? Of course, even if you did get to that point, there will be some people that would not accept your verdict.
The Resurrection, of course, is foundational to Christianity and the Shroud is not. But don’t the Resurrection and belief in the authenticity of the Shroud basically come down to some degree of faith? Is it not possible that God left the Shroud not as proof but as a sign to nurture faith? Since the images on the Shroud are so consistent with the wounds as described in the gospels, is it that far of a stretch to believe that there is a probable connection between the two?
Sorry to throw so many questions out there, but I think they need to be asked for us to be able to come to our decisions about whether the Shroud is authentic or not.
Joe, let’s try one part of one question first. You wrote: “Do you think it would be possible to ever come up with a rational explanation for the Resurrection that a large number of people would believe?”
No. I don’t think so. I believe in the Resurrection. It is a matter of faith for me, not rational explanation. I think in the formative years of my faith, had I heard about wormholes, fifth dimensions, radiation, infusions of supernatural energy, etc., I might have walked away and never come back.
I believe in miracles but I don’t believe we can mentally dissect a miracle to try to explain how it works. I think it’s fine to believe the Shroud is real, as you do (and as I might again someday if Shroud science can get its act back together — back to the days when Ray Rogers was around to tamp down extreme ideas), but I think we are in danger of messing with people’s minds in trying to use the Shroud to try to come up with a rational explanation for the Resurrection.
Hi, Dan,
But, we have this cloth that is simultaneously explicable (to a certain extent and to varying degrees of certainty) yet inexplicable. We know enough to where we should come to the reasonable realization that this Image is like Gods Incarnate, Himself —of this world, but not of this world.
For a human body to be resurrected from death —in a way that mere humans would accept as being within the parameters of such a definition— this, necessarily, involves the infusion of energy into a dead body.
But, dead bodies being infused with energy and being resurrected is not normal. Ergo, it is a miracle! While resurrections were not novel to Jesus (since this miracle occurred, I think, 7 times in the Old Testament —along with 5 times in the New Testament for a total number of the VERY SYMBOLIC number 12 (like the 12 apostles), Jesus’ was the 13th resurrection! (!!!)
Is it not 100% reasonable that Jesus’ resurrection would be distinguished in some way from the other 12 “mere’ humans who were resurrected?
OF COURSE!
None of the others had a burial shroud with their Divine Portrait on it (that cannot be replicated by human hands) via what was, most likely, done through the process of Divine Photography —as Professor Giulio Fanti has hypothesizes.
This is all quite logical and quite reasonable within the context of what the Gospels and secular historians have informed us about, as well as all of the natural possibilities that science has excluded as an explanation for the Image that is seen on the Holy Shroud.
All the best,
Teddi
POSSIBLE ERROR, (but not sure.)
Hello, Everybody,
I the past, Hugh had mentioned 5 resurrections in the New Testament, and I had then gotten curious to see how many were in the Old Testament. I ended up with the number 12 (in terms of how many people had been resurrected aside from Jesus.)
But, in looking on the internet now, I’m seeing a variety of different numbers –since some situations are in dispute –such as whether Jonah was resurrected or not. . .
So, the bottom line is that I’m not sure if my 12 + 1 symbolism is correct or not.
Best regards,
Teddi
Dan, your response prompted a few more thoughts:
*God could have validated Jesus’ mission in any number of ways. He chose the Resurrection. Presumably he didn’t ask for advice from any other entity. He no doubt knew that some people would say the body was stolen, the women went to the wrong tomb, there was mass hallucinations, etc. Extreme ideas. That didn’t prevent him with going ahead with his plan.
*God seemingly uses other people, visions, locutions, synchronicities and myriad other means to interact with us. Possibly extreme ideas. The fact that not everybody accepts that it’s God interacting with us didn’t prevent him with using these means.
*IF the Shroud is authentic, we need to be open to the idea that God, without having asked for our input, decided to leave it behind to boost the faith of some. He no doubt knew that some people would say the images were formed by wormholes, fifth dimensions, radiation, infusions of supernatural energy, etc. Extreme ideas. But given how he dealt with the Resurrection and also using other people, visions, locutions, synchronicities and myriad other means, I don’t believe he was worried about messing with people’s minds by having certain people trying to connect wormholes, etc. with the Resurrection. If he decided to do it that way, who are we to say he shouldn’t have had?
*The late Rev. Sox once said he didn’t believe the Shroud was authentic because (words to the effect) “God doesn’t operate that way.” There were no qualifications like, “I think” or “I believe.” I’m always uncomfortable when someone is too confident about knowing what’s in the mind of God.
Ah, YES! Who are we to presume to know what God thinks, or, for that matter, how he chooses to work within the time/space continnum. God’s time (Kairos) is not completely separate from human time (Chronos). To assume this limits our ability to use our God-given scientific knowledge to better understand how ALL Creation is interconnected.
Hello, Dan,
Thanks so much for the clarification —and the great laugh:
“ I call verse 10 the great duh!”.
PRICELESS! Thanks (and I’m going to have to borrow that line!🤣🤣🤣)
Cheers,
Teddi