Yes, this is relevant to the Shroud of Turin. I’ll get to that.
Dale of Real Seeker Ministries had asked me, by way of a comment—seemingly quite innocently:
“Just a quick question for you Dan and then I won’t respond after your answer since it is not Shroud related. I’m just curious, you seem to advocate for the Christian Universalism position. Do you hold this position because you think that such a position is Biblically consistent to your mind or do you just not care what Scripture says as you deny Biblical inspiration/inerrancy on such issues?”
Ashlee found the comment insulting and said so:
“Hey seekerman, did you just write ‘do you just not care what Scripture says as you deny biblical inspiration/inerrancy on such issues’? I know you addressed this to Dan and I don’t know how he feels, but for some who are universalists like me—we are about half of all Christianity—I am insulted. I do care. Get real.”
Was what Ashlee said so bad? Maybe “get real” was unnecessary. But Dale responded:
“You need to grow up and stop lecturing good Christians like myself who simply ask people questions instead of making hasty false assumptions about others like you just did against me. Jesus is ashamed at you right now for how you treated me. Shame on you, Ashlee.”
Oh?
Dale’s question was directed at me, so let me respond. He had written: “You seem to advocate for the Christian Universalism position.”
I don’t think I advocate for it at all. But if someone believes in universalism and wants to advocate for it, I’m fine with that. As for me, I do sometimes feel that way, though not always. It’s one of those things I wrestle with. I think about it, read about it, pray about it, search the scriptures for guidance, and listen to thoughtful, intelligent sermons. But I don’t advocate for it: I’m not certain, and I’m not qualified to say much.
So when you ask, “Or do you just not care what Scripture says, as you deny Biblical inspiration/inerrancy on such issues?”—I have to say, I’m a bit miffed by your tone. I do care what Scripture says. But it’s not for you to judge me, nor to say how God will judge me. Just who are you, anyway?
I incline toward a hopeful and open form of Christian universalism—not because I dismiss Scripture, but because I interpret it through a broader theological lens: one that includes Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience—what Anglicans call the “three-legged stool” (sometimes expanded to four). I’m an Episcopalian of the Anglo-Catholic variety, part of what some affectionately call the “smells and bells” crowd—meaning we value many of the ancient practices of the Church.
Many in our tradition believe that God’s mercy is not limited to those who profess a particular doctrinal formula. I know this differs from more literalist or inerrantist readings of Scripture, but I don’t think one position is inherently more faithful than another, just rooted in different starting points.
This data is interesting:
Pew Research Center (2021) – U.S. Religious Landscape Study
- 58% of U.S. Christians believe that many religions can lead to eternal life—not just Christianity.
- Among mainline Protestants, 66% say non-Christians can be saved.
- Among Catholics, about 61% agree.
- Evangelical Protestants show lower support: only 21% say other religions can lead to salvation.
Barna Group (2011)
- 43% of practicing Christians agreed with the statement: “All people will experience the same outcome after death, regardless of their religious beliefs.”
- Universalist-leaning views were especially common among Millennials and Gen Z.
Now, let’s pivot for a moment.
Let’s assume—just for the sake of argument—that new C-14 tests definitively show the Shroud of Turin is from the time of Christ.
Now what?
The problem with trying to prove that the Shroud is “authentic” begins with the question: authentic to what? Are we attempting to validate an image? A historical narrative? A theological truth? Can we approach the study of the Shroud without being constrained by religious bias, especially the kind rooted in biblical literalism or strict views of inerrancy?
I may personally believe in a physical resurrection, but I have serious reservations about the open tomb narrative. Many serious scholars argue, based on historical-critical evidence, that the empty tomb accounts are later theological constructions. John Dominic Crossan, who taught for years at DePaul University (a Catholic institution), questioned whether Jesus was even buried.
Others who don’t espouse that theory nonetheless offer highly speculative alternatives. Author and attorney Mark Antonacci has suggested that Jesus exited the tomb through something like a wormhole. Nuclear scientist Bob Rucker has proposed a transition into another dimension. Physicist Frank Tipler, of Tulane University, theorizes that Jesus’ body decayed into neutrinos and antineutrinos, and then—over time—reassembled outside the tomb, consistent with extreme interpretations of quantum theory. John Jackson has floated the idea of a “mechanically transparent” body.
Do we need an open tomb? Crossan imagines Jesus may have been buried in a mass grave. Others don’t go that far, but still question whether the open tomb is a necessary feature of Christian faith.
For the record, I do believe in the open tomb—but I’m also delighted to see so much thought given to the topic. Two authors in particular have opened my mind to more poetic and metaphorical dimensions:
- Raymond E. Brown, Catholic biblical scholar, whose analysis of the two very different Virgin Birth stories models how deep faith and deep textual awareness can coexist.
- Hans Küng, the Catholic theologian, whose reflections on the Resurrection invite wonder, mystery, and belief even amid uncertainty.
And if the tomb was open and the body missing, how many burial cloths were there? Maybe none. Maybe many. The Gospels were written decades after the events they describe, and the resurrection accounts are full of contradictions and questionable details.
The default position, à la N.T. Wright or Gary Habermas, is fine—as long as we remain open to other possibilities. Consider also Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong, and Marcus Borg—Christian thinkers who have broadened our understanding of early Christian diversity and offered alternative theological frameworks.
What if the Shroud Was a Bier Cloth?
What if the Shroud of Turin wasn’t a burial shroud at all, but a bier cloth?
In Second Temple Judaism, burial was not a one-step event. The body might first be transported in a linen cloth—especially if death occurred shortly before the Sabbath—and later washed and wrapped in clean linen. According to Levitical purity laws, blood and corpse fluids rendered items ritually impure. So the blood-stained cloth might have been removed prior to final burial and, for that reason, preserved.
This would explain why the Shroud contains blood but no signs of decomposition—a forensic detail noted by experts like Pierre Barbet and Frederick Zugibe. It also supports the finding that the bloodstains formed before the image. The image itself may have been the result of continuing later chemical interactions, such as the Maillard reaction, occurring while the cloth was no longer in contact with the body.
In this scenario, the Shroud could have been stored, forgotten, rediscovered, or venerated—without ever having been the final burial wrapping. Its sudden appearance in the 14th century fits better with this theory than with claims of forgery or miraculous preservation.
Faith and Science
Science does not begin with Scripture. It begins with questions—with hypotheses—even ones we may not like.
When it comes to the Shroud, there may be two fundamental questions:
- What is it? What are all the possibilities—natural, artistic, devotional, forensic, or miraculous?
- How old is it? And if we assume it dates from the time of Christ, how did the image form?
Science proceeds by testing ideas and evaluating evidence. It ends—when it can—with conclusions grounded in logic, method, and repeatability.
After that, we ask: Does this help us understand what happened? And how does that understanding shape, inform, or challenge our beliefs?
Do we refine our theology? Or do we double down on beliefs rooted in literalism and inerrancy?
Can we be honest—with ourselves and with others?
So yes, if one could argue that the Shroud is from the time of Christ, then I do think that a bier cloth is more probable than a burial shroud.
Oh—and yes—I hope for widespread salvation among all of God’s people.
In the last days it will be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.
— Acts 2:17, NRSV
In the meantime, can we talk to each other with a bit more respect—and a little less whack-a-mole theology?
That was interesting I had never heard of a bier cloth before and the fact in 1st century Judea is was customary to covered the face with a veil, known as a soudarion, a linen napkin of sorts, (Sudarium?) and it was placed over the face during transport to the burial site. And I as well struggle with Christian Universalism but it fits with the nature and love of God that all can be saved right up to the judgement. It seems so out of character for an All Knowing, all Loving God to cast non believers into Hell but first holds a “Last Judgement” trial for the ones already condemned to eternal death. It does not make logical sense and would be torturous for everyone, believers with loved ones and the non believer. As the supreme, ultimate power in the universe, He does not need to hold trial, as an all knowing God, knowing the hearts and souls of All, he does not need to display this power. In my opinion, that would be the Satan’s pleasure. Besides it is evil and depraved. If you plan to get rid of non believers just do it. I think God has already given judgement and a face to face chance to repent. I believe some will deny Him to the end but His love is for all of us. He does not want to lose one soul. 2 Peter 3:9 “9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” I will stand by that as it seem aligned with the God in the bible.
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 2 Pe 3:9.
I’m not sure I understand your bier cloth hypothesis. Do you mean it was Jesus’ bier cloth? Or it was someone else’s bier cloth, but still from the time of Jesus? (That must mean you accept that the carbon dating was wrong?) Or it was the bier cloth of someone in the 14th century?
As I see it, the big question is whether it touched Jesus’ body and carries the image and the blood of Jesus, or not. If it did then it’s a holy relic of the Saviour and that’s what matters to me. Bier cloth or burial shroud, I don’t see how that would make a difference.
Unless you’re thinking about the Shroud as “proof of the resurrection” — as in, if the Shroud survived that means that Jesus did not remain wrapped into it — or, it shows the image of the risen Jesus (does it? I believe most scholars agree that the image is that of a dead man). If the Shroud wasn’t with Jesus in the tomb then this argument doesn’t stand.
If that is your point, first, it only makes sense if the Shroud is authentic, i.e., it’s the bier cloth or burial shroud *of Jesus*. If it was someone else’s cloth then it doesn’t matter at all.
Second, I guess that if you don’t believe the Gospels’ narrative, then the Shroud doesn’t prove anything anyway. The resurrection isn’t the only possible explanation for Jesus not remaining wrapped into it. For example, the disciples could have stolen the body. If anybody relies on the Shroud as the basis for his faith, that’s a shaky foundation.
So, sorry, if you believe you’ve had a great idea that changes the game — I’m afraid you haven’t.
Gerardo, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Let me clarify where I stand.
I do believe the carbon dating that places the Shroud in the medieval era is probably correct. But I also allow for the possibility that I’m wrong. If the cloth were somehow proven to be from the first century, then I believe it is more likely to have been a bier cloth rather than the burial shroud of Jesus. I don’t claim certainty, just a greater plausibility, given the historical and textual context.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
Jesus has just died. His followers, heartbroken and unsure of what to do next, manage to get permission—or are in the process of waiting for it—from Pilate. In fact, the Gospels (Mark 15:44–45) tell us Pilate was surprised Jesus had died so soon and even sent a centurion to confirm it. During that time, they need a place to respectfully lay the body, and a length of linen cloth would serve that purpose. In haste and reverence, they place his body on the cloth and cover his nakedness. Such a cloth can be called a bier cloth although I would love a better word for it.
It is a hot afternoon in Jerusalem. The body is wounded, perhaps still emitting fluids. Spices or oils might have been used. In the intense heat, a natural chemical reaction begins to affect the cloth and begins to create an image. After receiving the go-ahead, they move Jesus to the tomb. By now the cloth is soiled and stained, and out of care and respect, they replace it with a clean burial wrapping, as John’s Gospel seems to suggest. The original cloth—the one that was briefly in contact with his body while awaiting burial—might have been folded and set aside. That’s what I think the Shroud of Turin could be, if it’s from the first century.
This idea doesn’t require belief in supernatural radiation or metaphysical energy. It doesn’t prove the Resurrection, nor does it disprove it. But it gives a plausible, reverent explanation that fits both history and faith.
You’re right that “most scholars agree the image is of a dead man.” That’s compatible with either a bier cloth or a burial shroud. The difference is in function—and in theological implications. If it’s a bier cloth, it was sacred in context but not necessarily left in the tomb, and it doesn’t support a resurrection proof argument.
As for the Gospels, I see them as theological testimony, written decades after the events by communities shaped by profound experiences of faith. They’re not modern journalistic accounts, and they contain inconsistencies—but that doesn’t make them invalid. It just calls for a careful, humble reading.
In the end, I do believe in the Resurrection. But I don’t pin that belief on a relic. My faith is grounded in the witness of the early church and the enduring mystery of Christ—not in cloth, whether medieval or ancient.
So no, I’m not claiming to have changed the game. I’m just offering a possibility—one that seems more plausible to me than explanations involving miraculous energy or image-encoding radiation. We can’t know for sure what the Shroud is. But we can still reflect meaningfully on what it might be—and more importantly, on what it’s not required to be in order for faith to endure.
In 1624, the historian Jean-Jacques Chifflet, in ‘De Linteis sepulchralibus Christi Servatoris crisis historica,’ wrote that “Sindon Taurinensis refert Corpus Christi cruentum et recens de Cruce depositum; Sudarium vero Bisontinum exhibit illud jam lotus ac perunctum, et in Sepulchro compositum.” (“The Turin Shroud shows the bloody body of Christ just taken down from the Cross; the sudarium of Besançon shows the same, already washed and anointed and composed in the tomb.” Translation Dorothy Crispino)…
Thanks.
Unfortunately the Shroud of Besançon hasn’t survived, so we don’t know how it looked like exactly. But if I remember correctly, from the existing descriptions, it was only half as long as the Shroud of Turin and showed only the frontal image.
Then it is very unlikely that it could be Jesus’ burial shroud, because the Gospels say he was “wrapped into” a linen sheet, and while that description can fit with the Shroud of Turin being laid both over and under the body, it definitely doesn’t fit with a cloth being just laid over the body.
I think that, most probably, the Shroud of Besançon was just a copy of the Shroud of Turin. Chifflet believed that it showed Jesus “already washed and anointed” simply because the painter did not copy all the blood marks, so the image looked cleaner *as if* the body had been washed.
Hi, Dan and Everybody,
I think that there are two “elephants in the room” as to why the Shroud cannot be a bier cloth is how does one explain the body images. First, just carrying a body won’t do that. Lots of sweaty bodies have been carried in cloths that don’t have body images that end up appearing on them. I would imagine that, especially, during war-time that medics would have seen this occur–IF that’s possible, which I’m confident is not. Second, you have to explain how the scourge wounds look as they do. As Dr. Frederick Zugibe had pointed out (and after he asked for additional opinions from other forensic medical examiners) for those scourge wounds to look as they do, at minimum, those scourge wounds had first been washed and the bleed some more.
It does not seem plausible to me that someone washed Jesus’s body there at the foot of the Cross. I’m confident that they all wanted to get as far away from that area as quickly as they could and to take Jesus to the tomb as they were hurrying to finish because sunset was closely approaching to mark the Sabbath.
Best regards,
Teddi
Thanks, Teddi. A few thoughts in response.
First of all, I agree with you: it seems unlikely that Jesus’s body was washed at the foot of the Cross. I don’t think anyone was in a position—emotionally, ritually, or logistically—to do that right then and there. But that doesn’t mean we can’t imagine other plausible scenarios that would account for both the presence of a cloth and the appearance of the body image.
One very reasonable scenario is that a length of linen was used as a temporary covering or transport cloth—a bier cloth—to keep the body off the dirt. It would have been the simplest, most expedient act of reverence under urgent conditions. Once in the tomb, they could have removed that cloth and begun actual burial preparations.
This is also where Dr. Zugibe’s forensic observation may ironically help the bier cloth hypothesis. He pointed out that the scourge wounds appear to have been washed, and that bleeding may have resumed. But that’s exactly what might have happened in the tomb. Water can cause clotting wounds to re-open. So rather than disproving the bier cloth hypothesis, it fits within it—especially if we envision the image being formed not in the tomb, but earlier, when the body was briefly laid in contact with the cloth.
As for how the image formed, we don’t need to speculate wildly. Chemist Ray Rogers proposed a reaction between amino compounds (from a decomposing body) and saccharides (from starch or plant residues on the cloth), possibly something like a Maillard reaction. If the linen had trace amounts of plant gum or sap, as Rogers suggested, and if the cloth was exposed to heat and sunlight—as would have been the case at Calvary—the reaction could begin almost immediately. No known military or medical cloth would reproduce these exact chemical conditions, which may explain why we don’t see images forming in those modern settings. In short: it’s not that it can’t happen, it’s that the specific reactants and environmental factors haven’t been replicated.
Also, regarding the rush to burial: we don’t know the precise time of Jesus’s death, or whether Sabbath regulations stopped them instantly at sunset. Sunset in Jerusalem on April 3, 33 AD was around 6:18 PM, but ancient timekeeping lacked precision. The need for speed doesn’t rule out moments of care—nor does it prohibit a temporary wrap in one cloth and a final wrap in another.
Lastly, I think it’s worth saying plainly: many of us may want the image to be inexplicable—miraculous, even—and therefore resist natural explanations. But the fact is, the bier cloth scenario is more scientifically plausible than energy bursts, radiation, or photographic projections. And that matters.
It doesn’t prove the Shroud is a bier cloth, of course. But it keeps the question open—and it puts to rest the idea that it must be the burial shroud used after a full Jewish washing. It may not have been. And if so, the Shroud of Turin could still be ancient, and still deeply meaningful, without proving or disproving a resurrection.
Thanks again for your thoughtful engagement with all of this. It’s a fascinating subject that clearly won’t be settled anytime soon, if ever.
Dan.
So rather than disproving the bier cloth hypothesis, it fits within it—especially if we envision the image being formed not in the tomb, but earlier, when the body was briefly laid in contact with the cloth.
Read old Lavoie et al paper from the Shroud Spectrum International #8, September 1983:
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi08part3.pdf
The brief contact of bier cloth with a body is unlikely to produce so well preserved blood clots we see on the Shroud. Thus the Shroud of Turin most likely was used as a burial cloth.
Thanks, OK. I thought about Lavoie. The Lavoie et al. paper from Shroud Spectrum International is an important early contribution to Shroud research. That said, I don’t think it eliminates the possibility of a bier cloth.
The argument hinges on the idea that a brief contact between a body and cloth couldn’t preserve blood clots as well as the Shroud shows. But that conclusion assumes the body remained undisturbed (right?), and that no further bleeding occurred after death (right?). In reality, forensic science tells us that clotted wounds can resume bleeding when re-moistened, for instance during washing or from exposure to humidity—especially in a tomb setting.
It also assumes that image formation requires long burial contact. But Rogers proposed a plausible natural mechanism involving amino compounds and saccharides—perhaps even a Maillard-type reaction—triggered by body heat, environmental conditions, and surface starches or plant residues on the cloth. Under the hot sun such a reaction could begin very quickly—even if the body only rested on the cloth for a short time.
So while Lavoie raises a serious point, later work, even lab work in chemistry and forensics might open the door to alternate explanations not yet considered. The bier cloth hypothesis remains scientifically plausible, and arguably more so than speculative impossible radiation or supernatural image-formation models. The bier reamins higly plausible. The best answer is that we don’t have an answer. Opinion doesn’t count.
Dan:
That said, I don’t think it eliminates the possibility of a bier cloth
Makes it less likely, I think.
The argument hinges on the idea that a brief contact between a body and cloth couldn’t preserve blood clots as well as the Shroud shows. But that conclusion assumes the body remained undisturbed (right?), and that no further bleeding occurred after death (right?). In reality, forensic science tells us that clotted wounds can resume bleeding when re-moistened, for instance during washing or from exposure to humidity—especially in a tomb setting.
Also fibrinolisis (natural dissolution of the clots after several hours time)
From the paper of Faccini et al:
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ohiofaccini2.pdf
Blood traces on the head , and many blood traces staining the TS, have be en formed thanks to “fibrinolysis” ; this process allows the transfer o f blood fr om the skin to a linen sheet and it happens in a period of time of less than 36 hours ( Brillante, 1981; Brillante e t al., 2002 ). When put with in the TS, the TSM blood was probably dry, as blood normal l y dries fast in open air conditions so that, to stain the linen , blood crusts
must have been re-dissolved when the body was inside the humid TS.
Also read this:
https://leksykonsyndonologiczny.pl/en/history-of-the-research-on-the-shroud/chemical-analyses-of-the-shroud/blood-on-the-shroud/
Blood from different wounds soaked differently into the linen or formed droplets and clots and dissolved due to fibrinolysis, which resulted in differences in their physciso-chemical properties
You see how complex was the creation of the blood cloths on the Shroud (which might have formed in various ways at various moments when the body was covered with the Shroud). Which also makes the anti-authenticity claims less likely than the skeptics would like to admit. And the scenarios proposed (about 2 hours between death and placement in the tomb and <40 hours to the dissolving of the cloths due to fibrynolysis) are fully consistent with the Gospel account, and rather unknown to the alleged medieval "artist".
I think the bier cloth hypothesis is unlikely. But nevertheless you should consult a specialist, not me.
Hi, Dan,
Off the top of my head (and, unfortunately, I don’t have the time right now to check on this), but it would be interesting to know if Rogers specified how far the decomposition would have to get before creating the necessary conditions. But, again, other people have been wrapped in linen burial shrouds and, in a year, the cloth is removed and the bones put in an ossuary. The environmental conditions would have had to have been correct on countless occasions IF this was a viable hypothesis.
It’s rather clear that it on or about 3:00 pm in the afternoon when Jesus died, and Jesus’ disciples were in a rush to finish and get home before sunset. And, it wasn’t just about the Sabbath approaching, but it was Passover and after sunset (which then, technically, becomes the day after Passover but during the Feast of Unleavened Bread) is when the Passover meal is had. So, that was a big deal.
From research that I have done in the past, and, again, I’m going from memory here (it’s hard to keep every detail perfectly fresh and accurate in one’s mind) there are big exceptions to certain rules regarding the need to bury someone–particularly a person who has no one to bury them (a “met mitzvah.”) I’m not sure if Jesus’ body would have constituted a “met mitzvah” as His mother was around and His disciples. But, it was Joseph of Arimathea who claimed His body. But, I think that the main point is that they got Jesus entombed and enshrouded, so they could rush and get home and have their Passover meal. Although, now that I think about it, I’m not sure if they would have become ritually impure. It’s hard to know–especially regarding 1st century matters since the rules in the Mishnah might apply to the 1st century (or it might not.) Who knows. I’m not convinced (at least not yet) that we should be very confident about what was permissible for Jesus’ burial and what wasn’t.
Also, if there had been an additional cloth (a bier cloth), I suspect that we’d know about it–because just as the Holy Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo have been preserved–because people are aware of what they are, I think that if there were a bier cloth that this, too, would be something that we would have. And, for good measure, let’s add the Tunic of Argenteuil, too!
Also, Dale was mentioning that he was trying to post a response but that it was not showing up. Perhaps it’s in your spam folder again? Could you please check?
Thanks,
Teddi
Thanks, Teddi. You actually make an important point yourself: “I’m not convinced (at least not yet) that we should be very confident about what was permissible for Jesus’ burial and what wasn’t.” I agree—and I’d go a step further.
Much of what’s confidently asserted about the timing of Jesus’s death, the rush to burial, or who was present is built on Gospel texts written decades later, shaped by oral tradition, theological emphasis, and community memory. These texts were not forensic records, and their details often reflect liturgical or symbolic aims more than eyewitness reporting. Even the time of death—”about 3 p.m.”—or the involvement of Joseph of Arimathea, or whether it was Passover or even Friday, remains debated among scholars.
What’s more, we need to acknowledge that multiple burial scenarios are historically possible, including ones that don’t align with the Gospel accounts. John Dominic Crossan, for instance, taught that based on what we know of Roman crucifixion practices, Jesus may never have been buried at all. Perhaps his followers took him down and wrapped him in a cloth while seeking permission to bury him. Perhaps that permission was denied, and he was placed in a mass grave. Must we dismiss that possibility simply because the Gospels offer a more reverent narrative?
It raises the deeper question: how much of the Gospel account is history remembered, and how much is reverence mythologized? And how much of Shroud-proving involves using the Gospels to validate the Shroud, in order to use the Shroud to validate the Gospels? Why are we doing this? Is our faith really so fragile that it needs forensic confirmation?
I’m not trying to prove that the Shroud must have been a bier cloth. I’m simply saying that there’s at least one plausible alternative—and perhaps many more—if we’re willing to loosen our grip on scriptural literalism and let the evidence speak without theological pressure.
The beir makes more sense when you think about it.
It seems to me that the time sequence doesn’t work.
If I’m not mistaken, you’re suggesting that Jesus’ body was taken off the cross and first laid on a bier cloth (that would be the Shroud of Turin). Then they took the body to the tomb, washed it (or perhaps washed first and moved later?) and wrapped it into the final burial cloth (that wasn’t preserved).
If so, and if the washing made the scourge marks resume bleeding as suggested by Zugibe, how could they bleed on the cloth that wrapped the body *before* it was washed?
As for Rogers’ Maillard hypothesis, it would be far more credible if somebody had actually succeeded in demonstrating it (and if the generated image matched the characteristics of the Shroud image). I don’t say it can’t happen, but at the moment there is no evidence that it could, and lots of evidence that in most cases it doesn’t.
Hi Dan
Once again, thank you for the forum and blog.
Unfortunately, I am on vacation, but I wanted to respond to this as I have an interest. I hope to expand further on my response when I get home.
The Bible does not support nor espouse “Christian Universalism”. If this were true, there would be no need to evangelize and spread the Word.
The sad truth is that those who die without Christ are condemned to an eternity of hell.
Secondly, I believe the Bible and history support that on the first Easter they found the tomb empty. Christ had risen. I do not support or believe in alternative theories. Christ was dead and then the 3rd day, He was alive.
He appeared to the 12, including Thomas. He appeared to Paul.
Lastly, Christianity is a life that I encourage you or anyone to question. It will stand up to the challenge.
Hope to expound on this soon God Bless
Dennis
Deleted!
I fully respect your beliefs. But we are here to discuss the Shroud, not your particular beliefs pertaining to Christianity, particularly not about universalism and your beliefs about who is going to hell. End of discussion. Period. Responses to this, not directly about the Shroud, are being discarded. Take them to another forum, please. This post will be deleted soon.
Funny that you didn’t delete Dennis’ comment which had nothing to do with the Shroud at all. For the record, for the people on here, I didn’t say anything about Hell or Universalism or anything at all- I had my say on the last Blog and kept my promise not to mention it again. All I said here which Danny boy has deleted was to say thanks to Dennis for his post and his getting what I was trying to say.
Anyways, go ahead and delete this, it’s your Blog to be tyrannical dictator on if you want, I won’t post here again, your Blog is not worthy of my time and attention anyways- I only engage it for the sake of my fan requests from time to time anyways. Teddi is right, you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing!
Good luck to the lot of ya, I’m done!
What was it truman said about if you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen
Dan:
Much of what’s confidently asserted about the timing of Jesus’s death, the rush to burial, or who was present is built on Gospel texts written decades later, shaped by oral tradition, theological emphasis, and community memory. These texts were not forensic records, and their details often reflect liturgical or symbolic aims more than eyewitness reporting. Even the time of death—”about 3 p.m.”—or the involvement of Joseph of Arimathea, or whether it was Passover or even Friday, remains debated among scholars.
Everything can be debated by the so called “scholars” who build their careers by denigrating Christianity. You can always doubt Apollo moon landings or 9/11 attacks or whatever. But those are considered conspiracy theories. Similar conspiracy theories denying the traditional history of Christianity are taught and applauded in academic world.
What’s more, we need to acknowledge that multiple burial scenarios are historically possible, including ones that don’t align with the Gospel accounts. John Dominic Crossan, for instance, taught that based on what we know of Roman crucifixion practices, Jesus may never have been buried at all. Perhaps his followers took him down and wrapped him in a cloth while seeking permission to bury him. Perhaps that permission was denied, and he was placed in a mass grave. Must we dismiss that possibility simply because the Gospels offer a more reverent narrative?
And perhaps you should have much less admiration for guys like Crossan, Raymond E. Brown and other academic dodgers (and the trash they produce) -and more admiration for traditional Christian history. Which can be easily defended, I can assure you.
In Catholic world, the views of guys like those could be considered modernism (which is pseudo-scientific ideology, not supported by the evidence!), condemned in 1907 by the Pope Pius X. Nevertheless, the modernist tendencies returned, especially after Second Vatican Council. Becuase the sound “rational”, while they are completely irrational.
It raises the deeper question: how much of the Gospel account is history remembered, and how much is reverence mythologized?
The New Testament is virtually 100 % historically credible in my opinion. There are very minor issues like minimal differences between the Gospels about tertiary details or the problem of Theudas (which can be easily explained by Luke’s narrative method compressing various Gamaliel speeches into one).
The issues such as Nativity stories (which can be very easily reconciled), Star of Bethlehem, the trial and execution of Jesus, the empty tomb accounts etc. can be quite easily resolved and vindicated. I did it. Actually, the most complex problem in harmonizing the Gospel accounts, is in which direction the disciples sailed through the Sea of Galilee after the feeding of the 5000.
And how much of Shroud-proving involves using the Gospels to validate the Shroud, in order to use the Shroud to validate the Gospels? Why are we doing this? Is our faith really so fragile that it needs forensic confirmation?
Because we have the Shroud. And we have the Gospels. And they cross-validate each other.
Yes, yes, O.K, I am in total agreement with your final sentence , and I, myself, have argued this for years. People claim it’s circular reasoning, but such people do not really understand what circular reasoning is—which involves information from one source. Such as: the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. However, with the Holy Shroud and the Gospels and secular evidence, we have MULTIPLE lines of evidence which converge to point to important Truths.
All the best,
Teddi
Oh, to clarify, with the Holy Shroud, the Gospels and secular evidence (and, I should add additional evidence in the various books of the Holy Bible which were independent and not just part of one bound volume like we see now) we have an embarrassment of riches in terms of many INDEPENDENT lines of evidence that converge to point to many important Truths.
It comes down to faith. I know and discussed with Barry the effect probably had been caused by a blast of radiation. My son has thyroid cancer and given a massive dose of radiation via radioactive capsules. He soon went to sleep and the next day the outliine of where the sheet came on contact showed the same brown marks similar to a scorch. Since radiation was not harnessed in Jesus`s time. That made me a believer in the shroud being on Jesus at the time of resurrection, as his body was reanimated by a blast directed by the Lord.
That’s interesting, because there’s a theory that the carbon dating was skewed by radioactive emissions.
Did you keep that sheet?
Hi, Hugh,
Very interesting about what you mention about Chifflet, but it’s just a bald assertion by a historian. Any idea as to whether he backed that up with evidence that gives him a basis for that belief?
Best regards,
Teddi
Teddi.
You can find the book here: https://archive.org/details/jojacchiffletiid00chif/page/n5/mode/2up
And I wrote you e-mail response on gmail account, in case you did not check.
Regarding which human beings can be saved following the redemptive sacrifice of the Son of God, let’s see what Jesus himself said about this very question. The answer is in Mt 25:31-46. Hard to see how that could be stated any more plainly. No mention there of membership or of any of the specific Christian doctrines such as even baptism or participation in the Eucharist. Christian doctrines are important and they will have meaning but Matthew 25 tells us that love and service of our fellow human beings, particularly “the least of [Christ’s] brothers,” is the ticket to Heaven. This message has two prongs: a loving and generous heart will be rewarded by God with eternal life but the lack of such a heart will not be compensated by claims of Christian devotion, adherence to rules, or check lists of liturgical practices where there is no loving heart. In the end, we choose whether to be with God by the way we lived our life. Only God can know who we truly are and only God can judge–another thing that Jesus warned us against doing.
Hi, Dan,
You wrote: “It raises the deeper question: how much of the Gospel account is history remembered, and how much is reverence mythologized? And how much of Shroud-proving involves using the Gospels to validate the Shroud, in order to use the Shroud to validate the Gospels? Why are we doing this? Is our faith really so fragile that it needs forensic confirmation?”
Well, “faith” is fragile–or else it wouldn’t be “faith.” The fragility is built into the fact that “faith” is needed due to a lack of evidence (to at least a certain degree.) For people who know nothing about apologetical arguments, their faith can more easily be broken–particularly if they are critical thinkers and, especially, if they are educated critical thinkers. For people who know a lot of the big apologetical arguments for God’s existence, they have something more than mere faith helping them–they have evidence mixed with logic to fortify their belief in the Christian God. For people who have a popular level understanding of the scientific and historical evidence for the Holy Shroud, their beliefs become far more rock-solid. But, to have a deep knowledge of the scientific, forensic and medical aspects of the Holy Shroud, then, one can have iron-clad confidence that that the information contained in the Bible is True and that Jesus of Nazareth is God.
Jesus did not expect people to just blindly believe that His claim to be THE Son of God–as in DIVINE. No, He performed miracles and He made predictions that He would be killed and rise from the dead on the third day. And, well, we have the evidence in the form of the Holy Shroud to show a dead body (exhibiting rigor mortis) being blasted with life-giving energy and having the evidence to prove it. I mean, seriously, what more can people expect to get from God than all that He has given us to show us that the things which Jesus said are True? God gives us all enough rope to hang ourselves with endless doubts that seek to reject His many gifts to us. A lack of warm gratitude by someone who receives a gift typically does not go over very well with the gift giver. I think that is an important factor that few skeptics/anti-Shroudists think about. It should give one serious pause.
Let’s take an example with Eucharistic miracles. Typically, these are not studied as in-depth as the Shroud. And, who knows, maybe there are some situations where fraud is involved–and maybe not. And, while I might (hypothetically) exhibit some skepticism about some of them, I would honestly just be too scared to go on and on and on sowing doubt in people about whether they are real or not. Because, what if I’m wrong? I just would not want to take that chance. The Bible talks about how preachers need to be particularly careful about what they preach because of how bad teaching can lead people to Hell–and the preacher teaching bad theology could have some degree of culpability in helping this happen by leading people astray. Well, when people are known to have studied the Shroud for decades, whether they call themselves an “expert” or not, there is, indeed, the implication that they are one (unless the public realizes that the person is a total incompetent fool.) So, when one sows doubt in the minds of non-Christians concerning the Shroud, is there some culpability here? I’m going to guess that you think not. But, how sure can you possibly be about that?
Best regards,
Teddi