Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, April 16, 2017

With his comforting words to Mary, the angel Gabriel explains the miracle not only of Jesus's conception but also of his resurrection, which we celebrate tomorrow. We who know the Risen Lord know that at Easter we commemorate the supreme event in all of human history, and so any physical proof we find of Christ's resurrection demands our attention and awe. Countless Christians worldwide maintain that such proof exists: It is the Shroud of Turin, revered as the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The earliest undisputed historical records place the Shroud in Lirey, France, between 1353 and 1357. Before that, according to various written sources, the Shroud traveled around the Middle East and Europe. It had once been in the possession of the Knights Templar, according to a researcher at the Vatican Secret Archives.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If you think the shroud isn't real then prove that Abraham Lincoln didn't fart at 10:02 am on the Tuesday before he was assassinated.

If you can't prove that the shroud is obviously real!

-- about half of the people who post here

#1 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-04-16 08:18 PM | Reply

Could be faked.
www.cnn.com

#2 | Posted by bored at 2017-04-16 09:17 PM | Reply

www.nationalreview.com

aleteia.org

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-16 09:39 PM | Reply

most likely the Shroud is not real.

Though it is interesting

#4 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-04-17 01:47 AM | Reply

I don't see how it could be faked, since all of 21st century can't duplicate it.

Yeah, I used to think it was another 14th century Templar fake, but if that was the case why aren't there more shrouds? We should be seeing more artifacts made the same way....

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-04-17 02:35 AM | Reply

I don't see how it could be faked, since all of 21st century can't duplicate it.

#5 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2017-04-17 02:35 AM | FLAG:

It's been done, with multiple techniques. It's a fake.

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 07:53 AM | Reply

#6

Last time I looked, the debunking evidence was more ambiguous than the affirming evidence.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2017-04-17 08:28 AM | Reply

Radio-carbon dating puts the date somewhere around 1300 AD.

If that's wrong, then Jesus rode raptors and God put fossils in the ground for us to find.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 08:41 AM | Reply

#8

Those carbon dating results are in dispute. They were done on Medieval material used as mending.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2017-04-17 08:51 AM | Reply

#9

Read a Joe Nickel "expose" on paint residue on the shroud. He got a new ------- ripped on that one, by experts more concerned with finding out than what Joe likes to do.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2017-04-17 08:54 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

It's as much in dispute as Global Warming. Actual experts believe the testing is reliable. Opponents are operating on faith.

en.wikipedia.org

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 09:02 AM | Reply

Radio-carbon dating puts the date somewhere around 1300 AD.

----

True but the sample used for the dating was problematic. It's been determined that the sample used contained a rewoven section.

Rogers also found evidence of a "splice site," suggesting that this patch of the cloth had not only been dyed but also repaired and rewoven. He suspects that the dye and repair job was probably done in the Near East during the Middle Ages, coinciding with the carbon dating results.

"The 1988 date was undoubtedly accurate for the sample supplied. However, there is no question that the radiocarbon sampling area has a completely different chemical composition than the main part of the shroud," Rogers said. "The published date for the sample was not the time at which the cloth was produced."

news.nationalgeographic.com

#12 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 09:51 AM | Reply

Ray Rogers was part of the original team of scientist to study the shroud. He thought it was a fake but changed his mind after he tried to debunk the reweave claim only to find it out it was accurate.

At the time he argued firmly that the shroud, which bears a Christlike image, was a clever forgery.

But in a video made shortly before his death three years ago, he said facts had come to light that indicated the shroud could be genuine.

Rogers, a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said: "I don't believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature. After the 1988 investigation I'd given up on the shroud.

"But now I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus."

www.telegraph.co.uk

#13 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 09:57 AM | Reply

No, it was not problematic at all. The original tests went out of their way to ensure it was a sample of the original material. It has been determined, multiple times by multiple experts, that the claim the sample was from a re-woven section is false. No piece of fabric has been tested and investigated so thoroughly at any point in history. The radio-carbon dating of the piece, an original piece of the shroud, exceeds the minimum acceptable threshold for test accuracy.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 10:02 AM | Reply

The Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed Ray Rogers findings.

In his presentation today at The Ohio State University's Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton.

www.ohioshroudconference.com

#15 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 10:02 AM | Reply

Repair claims are debunked.

Like I said, climate change. Experts did all their due diligence. The piece is original, the results are the results. The faithful don't like the results. It's that simple.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 10:03 AM | Reply

From the previous link:

Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair.

#17 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 10:04 AM | Reply

Robert Villarreal's findings were debunked. See the link, his paper is included.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 10:05 AM | Reply

We're back to the problem. There are experts who say the carbon dating is valid and there are experts who say the carbon dating is invalid. Where you stand on the Shroud will determine which experts you believe.

#19 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 10:12 AM | Reply

Global Warming indeed... but just like that issue, only 1 side is right, and on this issue, all of the evidence leans towards the 1300 AD date and the fabric being an original piece.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 10:24 AM | Reply

I come into this knowing that anything and everything concerning Christ is opposed by the world.

So it's no surprise their experts discount the Shroud. they discount everything. with science.

#21 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-04-17 10:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I wouldn't say all the evidence. There's many other data sets pointing to its authenticity.

If it's a forgery, then the forger is on the Da Vinci level of genius (and insanity). That something that gets completely ignored by the forgery claims. Who is the forger?

#22 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 10:36 AM | Reply

I come into this knowing that anything and everything concerning Christ is opposed by the world.

#21 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2017-04-17 10:34 AM | REPLY

It's 2017 AD. Remind me, what does the AD part mean again?

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 10:49 AM | Reply

wouldn't say all the evidence. There's many other data sets pointing to its authenticity.

#22 | POSTED BY PIRATE AT 2017-04-17 10:36 AM | FLAG:

Enough empirical evidence exists, with peer review, to conclusively state that it's a 700ish year old piece of fabric.

It doesn't matter who made it or why, that has zero effect on the test results.

#24 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 11:02 AM | Reply

Enough empirical evidence exists, with peer review, to conclusively state that it's a 700ish year old piece of fabric.
It doesn't matter who made it or why, that has zero effect on the test results.

----

I disagree. If it's a forgery, then it's the first documented man-made photographic negative. Personally, I think that's something that can't casually be dismissed.

#25 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 11:19 AM | Reply

It is interesting from a photographic historical perspective, that's why there's a PhD paper on it, where the image was recreated using techniques from the 14th century Book of Optics, using techniques and materials only available at that time. Even the first reference in history for the shroud, a letter to Pope Clement, from the same time period radio carbon dating places it, says it's a forgery created by an artist.

Dating = 1300s. First reference = 1300s. Books from the 1300s detailing the photographic techniques of the period and how to create it.

It's interesting to say the least, but everything interesting about it means the science is correct.

#26 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 11:34 AM | Reply

It's 2017 AD. Remind me, what does the AD part mean again?
#23 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

You obviously haven't met this guy - www.theflatearthsociety.org

"The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).

Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.

The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden."

#27 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-04-17 11:37 AM | Reply

- radio carbon dating

I'm not a believer.

#28 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-04-17 11:40 AM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2017-04-17 11:40 AM | REPLY

Remember that when you're harping on somebody over Man Made Global Warming.

#29 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 11:50 AM | Reply

If you're referring to Nicholas Allen's theory, Barry Schwarz (STURP photographer) doesn't buy it.

www.shroud.com

One side makes a claim, the other side debunks it. Rinse and repeat.

#30 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 11:53 AM | Reply

Remember that when you're harping on somebody over Man Made Global Warming.
#29 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

I don't harp over it at all. I know we're polluting the earth, but the climate change may be entirely natural.

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-04-17 12:04 PM | Reply

Barry Schwarz (STURP photographer) doesn't buy it.

#30 | POSTED BY PIRATE AT 2017-04-17 11:53 AM | REPLY

Schwarz makes 1 interesting point about light direction on 1 part of the image, but has some glaring logical fallacies littered throughout his rebuttal.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 12:38 PM | Reply

Here we go again.

#33 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-17 02:03 PM | Reply

This is an interesting reference I found in the comments section below the article.

John 20:6-7

6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen

#34 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-17 02:35 PM | Reply

If I'm wrong someone correct me. If this person was wrapped in strips, how did we get an entire sheet of cloth that covered the whole body?

#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-17 02:50 PM | Reply

#34

see #3 links

"Jerusalem was apparently not a safe place for the relic, and it was taken from that city in the 610s just ahead of the invading Persian armies. It was then carried to Spain by way of Northern Africa. It eventually found permanent housing in the northern Spanish town of Oviedo."

The Sudarium of Oviedo, the face cloth with the same blood type as the Shroud, AB, and the same wound marks, has a provenance from the 7th century.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-17 03:26 PM | Reply

www.historicmysteries.com

above quote

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-17 03:27 PM | Reply

From your link:

"There is actually a biblical basis for this belief: in chapter 20 of the Gospel of John it explicitly says that there was a cloth, separate from the burial shroud, that was used to wrap around Jesus' head"

Peter never mentioned "shroud" he saw strips of linen as well as a cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' head. My question is how you get a one piece shroud from "strips of linen and a cloth wrapped around Jesus' head.

#38 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-17 03:45 PM | Reply

There's something else very peculiar about verse 7 that begs for an explanation

Peter said the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' head was "still lying in its place, separate from the linen"
I've never picked up on that one before but to me, if a cloth used to burial wrap a persons head was still in place, it sounds like it still could have been on his head.

#39 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-17 03:50 PM | Reply

Or it could mean it was lying where his head once was but either way you can't come up with a linen cloth longer than a human body from "strips".

#40 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-17 03:52 PM | Reply

7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself

www.biblegateway.com

a better translation

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-17 04:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

has some glaring logical fallacies littered throughout his rebuttal.

----

Agreed to a certain point. The problem with Allen's theory is there's nothing to back it up and his recreations don't match all the aspects of the original. Keep in mind Schwortz was a part of STURP so he's no dummy on the shroud.

But how the image stays on the cloth when the silver is removed, and how mediaeval forgers gathered all this sophisticated knowledge about optics and chemistry without there being any trace in surviving documents poses problems for the idea. So do various issues about the exact shape and contrast of an image made this way. For most Turin Shroud theorists, Allen's idea is a triumph of ingenuity over plausibility.

www.bbc.com

#42 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-17 05:07 PM | Reply

When there's evidence for and against the fact that something magic happened, I tend to go the evidence against.

#43 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-04-17 05:14 PM | Reply

"Magic's just science that we don't understand yet."

― Arthur C. Clarke

People use circular logic about the Shroud... "Anyone who says it happened must be wrong because that doesn't happen and anyone who says it does is a bad reporter because that doesn't happen and anyone who says it happened must be wrong... " ad infinitum.

If in the 1950's you told someone that it is possible for man to walk on the moon, they might say the same thing.

"Magic" is just something we don't understand yet, whether the understanding eventually comes from science or not.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-17 05:57 PM | Reply

This isn't magic. There is zero science supporting it being 2000 years old. There is plenty of empirical science dating it to the 1300s, along with its first mention to a pope describing it as an admitted fraud created by an artist.

#45 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 06:03 PM | Reply

Yea, but walking on the moon didn't just happen. If there was a natural process to create the shroud, it would still be around, or scientists could reverse process it.
The concept that technology appears as magic only works backward.

#46 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-04-17 06:08 PM | Reply

700 years old rather. 13th century.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-17 06:15 PM | Reply

#36

If the Sudarium of Oviedo fits, you must acquit. (see links in #3}

But then, you've likely never heard of it.

And there is other science in support of a 1st century Jerusalem dating...

"a very special, almost invisible stitching with which the edges were finished" which is visible only on the Shroud's under-side[13]. In her forty years of working on historic textiles Flury-Lemberg had only once before found an "essentially identical" type of stitching: that found in first-century textiles at Masada, the Jewish fortress overrun by the Romans in AD 73[16] and never occupied again[17].

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com

"The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ."

www.usatoday.com

www.newgeology.us

news.nationalgeographic.com

There is plenty of room for doubt about a Medieval origin.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-17 06:31 PM | Reply

-or scientists could reverse process it.

I see. So since science cannot reverse engineer dark matter it doesn't exist?

Futurists are not limited by the science of today, nor are historians.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-17 06:34 PM | Reply

If there was a natural process to create the shroud, it would still be around, or scientists could reverse process it.

Not necessarily there are process that made sense at the time used that later fell out of use due to advancing technology many of those are lost to history, there are dyes that can no longer be made because the components don't exist any longer. The shroud could have been faked and the methods lost conversely the exact conditions that caused it's creation might never exist again.

I don't have an opinion, it is interesting for sure; but interesting that a fake could be so well done, or interesting in that it might be a miracle, I don't know.

#50 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-04-17 06:47 PM | Reply

Corky. Please answer for the strips of linen. Or else go home.

#51 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-17 07:58 PM | Reply

It is the Shroud of Turin, revered as the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

Jesus killed Glaurung?

A way better miracle than dying on a cross before coming back to life!

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2017-04-17 11:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I see. So since science cannot reverse engineer dark matter it doesn't exist?
Futurists are not limited by the science of today, nor are historians.
#49 | POSTED BY CORKY

Poor analogy considering dark matter is a theoretical version of matter to make the numbers add up who's existence we can only infer (as far as I know...).

The shroud, be it authentic or a forgery, is very much real and can be empirically tested.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2017-04-17 11:32 PM | Reply

So is the running message here encompassing the notion that this shroud is the ONLY evidence of miracle work?

Zero explanation as to how the image appeared on the cloth? Paint? Dusty imprint? Burned?

Or just straight up MIRACLE? As part of God's plan, this seems quite curious. Why allow only one piece of evidence to remain of Christ's miracles? Why leave any evidence at all? Isn't that the point behind faith? If god wants people to convert to Christianity based on facts, why not provide other evidence? If he wanted people to convert to Christianity based on faith, why allow the shroud to be part of the plan at all?

I know ... I know... requesting logic from the all knowing, omnipotent being that just can't keep it's ---- straight is such a silly and useless endeavour, and yet it's a bad habit I've had since 19 y/o. Or is it a good habit? I'm happier now than I was then. So that's GOT to say something, right?

#54 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-04-18 12:16 AM | Reply

You see, if I were a devout Christian, such as the Corkster, it most likely would have been based upon faith, not some factual evidence that there was a Christ. Not mostly, entirely!! Which is why I question those devout Christians that hold this up to be evidence...no, proof of Christ's existence. Not only that, but proof of his divinity (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, CORKY). But I'd be upset that something like this was in existence. The central focus of Christianity is faith. There's no need for evidence to prove Christ's existence or teachings, and yet here it is. At least that's what many Christians would like us to believe. But why? Doesn't necessitating proof completely undermine the philosophy behind faith, which is the central tenant of Christianity? Again, what's the purpose of the Shroud within God's grand plan? (Obviously rhetorical; I don't expect anyone to honestly attempt to answer for God, but kudos to you folks who step up to the plate to make this just a TAD bit more interesting of a conversation.)

#55 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-04-18 12:24 AM | Reply

Something tells me his DNA will prove that he won't look anything like the accepted artists renditions..... Lol

#56 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2017-04-18 12:56 AM | Reply

The Shroud of Turin is a medevil camera obscura technique photograph.

#57 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-04-18 01:02 AM | Reply

#55 God here: couldn't help but touch the shroud when resurrecting Jesus. And like everything touched by me, it is now holy. Like the Ark of the Covenant, etc....

#58 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-04-18 01:48 AM | Reply

I am not saying the shroud is not real but I have great doubts about it.

First reason is that the person portrayed in the shroud would be unusually tall for a for a Jewish man of that era 2nd his hair on the shroud is straight Jewish peoples hair in the era was fairly curly.

I would imagine at the very least the Bible would of mention that Jesus was a tall man if he was but it does not mention this at all.

I as a believer in Christ of course would love the shroud to be real but I kind of doubt that it is, but that does not effect my faith ether way.

#59 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-04-18 01:50 AM | Reply

#57 Camera obscura doesn't make photographic negatives that are only burned into the upper two layers of the cloth, such that they can be removed with a razor blade. The blood actually seeped beneath the image. Explain that?

#60 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-04-18 01:51 AM | Reply

Your right in the fact that we don't know how it was really made but that is far from proof that it is real, It could also be proof that the person who made it was a very clever and a great artist in how it was made.

#61 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-04-18 02:08 AM | Reply

#57 Camera obscura doesn't make photographic negatives that are only burned into the upper two layers of the cloth, such that they can be removed with a razor blade. The blood actually seeped beneath the image. Explain that?

#60 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2017-04-18 01:51 AM | FLAG:

While you're at it please explain to us how you got a one piece intergal cloth longer and wider than a human body from strips of linen and a handkerchief !?!?

Peter saw strips of linen. And a cloth wrapped around jesus' head. If you're not willing to approach the Bible's explanation of what was there then you have no business even posting #60.

#62 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-18 05:40 AM | Reply

#62

I gave you the answer in #41.... "linen cloths", not "strips" of linen is a better translation from the NKJV.

#55

Evidence isn't needed, it's just fun to have.

see the links in my #3

The Shroud of Turin, Authenticated Again

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com

Most people have never even heard of the Sudarium of Oviedo, the face cloth that has the same rare AB blood type as the Shroud and the same wound marks... and also has a provenance since at least the 7th century.

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-18 12:52 PM | Reply

John 20:6-7

6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen

So you're going to delegitimize your own scripture just so you can be right?

#64 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-18 01:00 PM | Reply

-delegitimize

A newer, better translation is not a delegitimization... it is a more accurate improvement. Are you going to refuse a better translation just so you can be right, lol?

You can check through all the different translations at this link.... I didn't see "strip" in any of the few I checked.

www.biblegateway.com

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-18 01:05 PM | Reply

The body of Jesus (as a Jew of a religious family) would have been wrapped in a long sheet and tied with strips of cloth at the neck, at the wrists and feet, and at the torso, and as here, at the knees.

Here, as elsewhere, context is crucial to our understanding of οθονια. In this passage, it is informed by the meaning of the verb, εδησαν, from δεω ,"tie," "bind," or "fasten," but not "wind," as given in some translations. This seemingly small point is important because skeptics have suggested that a shroud such as we have would not have been used in first century Judea, because Jesus, it is claimed, would have been wrapped in strips of cloth. But there is no evidence for this ancient Egyptian custom among Jews living in Roman Palestine. Quite the opposite: Long shrouds wrapped under and over the body have in fact been excavated.

I think it likely that the plural form οθονια in John and Luke refers to both the σινδων and the κειριαι, the
strips which tied the hands and feet, etc.. (See below.)

...

I would not go so far as to claim that a text can in any way verify the Shroud. But the words of the New Testament, considered carefully in context, fully support the physical characteristics of the cloth: Σινδων, unlike some other
words that might have been used -- λινον, λεντιον, κειρια -- to describe the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus, suggests material such as that of the Shroud of Turin - very high quality linen that is "soft to the touch." It's description as καθαρος implies its Levitical purity required by "the burial custom of the Jews," and directly connects the burial cloth of Jesus to ritual requirements of early Judaism.

www.shroud.com

#66 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-18 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The body of Jesus (as a Jew of a religious family) would have been wrapped in a long sheet and tied with strips of cloth at the neck, at the wrists and feet, and at the torso, and as here, at the knees.

Here, as elsewhere, context is crucial to our understanding of οθονια. In this passage, it is informed by the meaning of the verb, εδησαν, from δεω ,"tie," "bind," or "fasten," but not "wind," as given in some translations. This seemingly small point is important because skeptics have suggested that a shroud such as we have would not have been used in first century Judea, because Jesus, it is claimed, would have been wrapped in strips of cloth. But there is no evidence for this ancient Egyptian custom among Jews living in Roman Palestine. Quite the opposite: Long shrouds wrapped under and over the body have in fact been excavated.

I think it likely that the plural form οθονια in John and Luke refers to both the σινδων and the κειριαι, the
strips which tied the hands and feet, etc.. (See below.)

...

I would not go so far as to claim that a text can in any way verify the Shroud. But the words of the New Testament, considered carefully in context, fully support the physical characteristics of the cloth: Σινδων, unlike some other
words that might have been used -- λινον, λεντιον, κειρια -- to describe the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus, suggests material such as that of the Shroud of Turin - very high quality linen that is "soft to the touch." It's description as καθαρος implies its Levitical purity required by "the burial custom of the Jews," and directly connects the burial cloth of Jesus to ritual requirements of early Judaism.

www.shroud.com

#67 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-18 01:34 PM | Reply

Doh, sorry for the double post.

#68 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-04-18 01:34 PM | Reply

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-18 01:05 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

I used the NIV, figured it was pretty much up to date.

BTY the Dark Ages called..... they still want to control the minds of the people with fear tactics.

#69 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-18 02:09 PM | Reply

- to control the minds of the people with fear tactics.

Not sure what you are talking about, but if you are afraid of something, turn some more lights on.... in the room or maybe in your mind.

Pirate's post is expository of where the "strips" word might have been used; tying up the linen cloths that most translations mention.

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-18 02:25 PM | Reply

No. Science does not back the Shroud's authenticity. Which really is irrelevant to the whole question anyway. Either you are the type of person who places faith in holy relics or you are not. If you are, then no amount of science will convince the Shroud is not genuine. If you are not, this whole topic is bogus nonsense from beginning to end.

#71 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-04-18 02:29 PM | Reply

Gotta love the declarative statement in lieu of argument.

It's so.... inconsequential.

#72 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-18 02:34 PM | Reply

- to control the minds of the people with fear tactics.
Not sure what you are talking about, but if you are afraid of something, turn some more lights on.... in the room or maybe in your mind.

Corky

What an ------- "Sorry, but if you believe his way you gotta deal with hell".. you're so special.

#73 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-18 08:54 PM | Reply

You believe in "hell" Corky

#74 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-18 08:58 PM | Reply

?

#75 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-04-18 09:00 PM | Reply

Only when I read your posts.....

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-19 12:51 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort