The shroud is so intriguing. My college professor Dr. Gary Habermas did a ton of work it back in the day, and wrote a couple of books about it. When I was in his classes we would press him on details about it and he would ask us, “well, what would an alternate plausible explanation be, if it is not the burial cloth of Christ?” We could never come up with one.
I - oddly - feel much the same way about the Shroud as I did about ultrasounds when I was pregnant: deeply uncomfortable. Am I looking at something that is so holy and mysterious that I’m not actually supposed to be seeing it? Has this truly been given me to see, or am I stepping out of turn and looking at that which isn’t mine to view?
Right now, I’m inclined to be skeptical about the Shroud, though I intend to listen to Alisa’s podcast on it and may change my mind. What really stands out to me is that the Shroud’s first appearance in recorded history was in 1354 in France. Recently, I’ve been listening to Dr. Timothy Easley’s excellent podcast, “Church History and Theology,” and I am currently listening to the episodes on the late medieval church. One thing Dr. Easley emphasizes is how much the theology of relics exploded in the West during the High Middle Ages, and especially after the Black Death, which began in 1348. This is honestly the exact time you’d expect a fake relic of this nature to appear. And not only that, the local bishop at the time called it a fake and said he knew the guy that drew it! At the time, relics were in such high demand, and all the incentives were for there to be more genuine relics in the church. The bishop would have had no reason to discredit the relic unless he truly had reason to believe it wasn’t real.
Besides, if this was really the burial shroud of Jesus, why was it never mentioned in the East (where, provided it was genuine, it most likely was until the Crusades)? If anyone knew of this shroud, say, in the 8th century when Nicea II was going on, it would have provided the perfect argument for the iconophile side - here we have a divinely created icon, so it must be licit for humans to create them, too! (I wouldn’t buy that argument, but it’s better than the arguments they actually used at Nicea II…they were that bad.) To be fair, it’s not impossible that it just was lost until Western Christians found it, but that seems rather unlikely to me, given that, if genuine, the cloth was probably saved by someone close to Jesus and kept in the church. Would they really just lose an important memento like that, so early on that we have no record of its existence?
The scientific evidence does have the potential to sway my opinion, though. But it’s as you said, Anne: in the end, the center of our faith is not the Shroud, but the crucified and resurrected Christ himself. To him be the glory.
The Book of Job is possibly the oldest written work in the Bible and it never ceases to amaze me.
Job suffers the death of his children, abandonment by his wife, loss of all his wealth, and the infliction of a disease where he is covered in boils. Even his “friends” manage to increase his suffering and yet Job cries out (Job 19:25-27) “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God.”
What a mystic statement of faith in the unseen! Nineteen chapters later God speaks to Job and restores him.
I believe the Shroud is legitimate and is a revealing for such a time as this to the doubting believers in this difficult time.
It remains in truth, John 20:29 “Jesus said to him, Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.
Well now I will have to find out who is talking about the Shroud and why they’re talking about it now. What is the nature of the discussion around this? I mean, as many have already pointed out, it most likely is a Christian relic that speaks more to the nature of medieval European Christianity rather than to a genuine miracle that occurred in 1st Century Palestine. I guess the fascination can all be good fun unless it turns into something like the Nehushtan that eventually made its way to the high places so that Hezekiah had to destroy what was once a symbol of God’s saving grace.
I haven't heard all the evidence, but I'm inclined to believe that the Shroud is not legitimate. If there had been actual physical evidence of the Resurrection, wouldn't Jesus's disciples have shouted about it from every rooftop? It's hard to believe that it would have disappeared for over a thousand years with no mention of its existence anywhere. A similar argument can be made about the Holy Grail.
I was completely skeptical until I heard the evidence. It's astounding, and I assure you I'm not a relic enthusiast. I recommend Michael Knowles' interview of Jeremiah Johnston. One thing he didn't really get into was that the image is superficial; it is not any kind of dye or pigment and it is only just barely on the surface of the fabric. There is no natural explanation for how it could have been forged.
Well, just because the image on the Shroud can't be explained doesn't necessarily mean that the image is of Jesus. It's similar to people saying that aliens must be real because there are fast moving lights in the sky that can't be explained.
Another thing to consider is that Jesus was probably a middle-eastern man and thus looked different than he is usually depicted. Does the image on the Shroud look like the face of middle-eastern man? I don't think it does.
I agree that that alone doesn’t prove anything, but it is an important factor. There’s a lot more evidence, but I bring up the superficial image because of the idea that it’s a medieval forgery.
I don’t think you can actually tell that much about the ethnic features of the face on the shroud. Also, Jesus was deformed at the time of his death.
As I wrote above, I agree that the Shroud is probably not genuine, but I do want to push back a little on your statement that the disciples would have shown the Shroud to everyone as physical evidence of the resurrection. Provided the Shroud was genuine, it probably just looked like a bloody, dirty cloth at the time. The image would have become clearer as the cloth aged and the red blood degraded and became less visible.
Well, what you are saying is just speculation. A supernatural event like the Resurrection could have removed the blood. But if the Shroud had just been a bloody, dirty cloth at the time like you say, then why would it have been preserved? I guess it's possible that one of Jesus's followers could have kept the Shroud, but it surely wouldn't have been very long before they discovered the image on it.
“I can’t wait to get to heaven where there will be no more money to stress us out and occupy our thoughts!” (When I tell people that they just look at me with a blank stare.)
You could start a long reader supported thread with “I can’t wait to get to heaven where there will be no more (finish the thought.)
You’re right about that last part. I guess in my mind I was being generous and giving about 70-100 years before the cloth aged enough to show the image clearly. At that point your other consideration comes into play - where are all the mentions of it in church history?
The first historical record of the Shroud of Turin was in 1354. Thirteen hundred years after the Resurrection! I find it hard to believe that this relic would have remained invisible for so long if it was legitimate.
The shroud is so intriguing. My college professor Dr. Gary Habermas did a ton of work it back in the day, and wrote a couple of books about it. When I was in his classes we would press him on details about it and he would ask us, “well, what would an alternate plausible explanation be, if it is not the burial cloth of Christ?” We could never come up with one.
Scott! I didn't know you followed Anne. Awesome!
I - oddly - feel much the same way about the Shroud as I did about ultrasounds when I was pregnant: deeply uncomfortable. Am I looking at something that is so holy and mysterious that I’m not actually supposed to be seeing it? Has this truly been given me to see, or am I stepping out of turn and looking at that which isn’t mine to view?
Right now, I’m inclined to be skeptical about the Shroud, though I intend to listen to Alisa’s podcast on it and may change my mind. What really stands out to me is that the Shroud’s first appearance in recorded history was in 1354 in France. Recently, I’ve been listening to Dr. Timothy Easley’s excellent podcast, “Church History and Theology,” and I am currently listening to the episodes on the late medieval church. One thing Dr. Easley emphasizes is how much the theology of relics exploded in the West during the High Middle Ages, and especially after the Black Death, which began in 1348. This is honestly the exact time you’d expect a fake relic of this nature to appear. And not only that, the local bishop at the time called it a fake and said he knew the guy that drew it! At the time, relics were in such high demand, and all the incentives were for there to be more genuine relics in the church. The bishop would have had no reason to discredit the relic unless he truly had reason to believe it wasn’t real.
Besides, if this was really the burial shroud of Jesus, why was it never mentioned in the East (where, provided it was genuine, it most likely was until the Crusades)? If anyone knew of this shroud, say, in the 8th century when Nicea II was going on, it would have provided the perfect argument for the iconophile side - here we have a divinely created icon, so it must be licit for humans to create them, too! (I wouldn’t buy that argument, but it’s better than the arguments they actually used at Nicea II…they were that bad.) To be fair, it’s not impossible that it just was lost until Western Christians found it, but that seems rather unlikely to me, given that, if genuine, the cloth was probably saved by someone close to Jesus and kept in the church. Would they really just lose an important memento like that, so early on that we have no record of its existence?
The scientific evidence does have the potential to sway my opinion, though. But it’s as you said, Anne: in the end, the center of our faith is not the Shroud, but the crucified and resurrected Christ himself. To him be the glory.
I know next to nothing about church history, so I appreciate you sharing the Easley podcast as a resource.
The Book of Job is possibly the oldest written work in the Bible and it never ceases to amaze me.
Job suffers the death of his children, abandonment by his wife, loss of all his wealth, and the infliction of a disease where he is covered in boils. Even his “friends” manage to increase his suffering and yet Job cries out (Job 19:25-27) “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God.”
What a mystic statement of faith in the unseen! Nineteen chapters later God speaks to Job and restores him.
I believe the Shroud is legitimate and is a revealing for such a time as this to the doubting believers in this difficult time.
It remains in truth, John 20:29 “Jesus said to him, Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.
😢
Well now I will have to find out who is talking about the Shroud and why they’re talking about it now. What is the nature of the discussion around this? I mean, as many have already pointed out, it most likely is a Christian relic that speaks more to the nature of medieval European Christianity rather than to a genuine miracle that occurred in 1st Century Palestine. I guess the fascination can all be good fun unless it turns into something like the Nehushtan that eventually made its way to the high places so that Hezekiah had to destroy what was once a symbol of God’s saving grace.
I haven't heard all the evidence, but I'm inclined to believe that the Shroud is not legitimate. If there had been actual physical evidence of the Resurrection, wouldn't Jesus's disciples have shouted about it from every rooftop? It's hard to believe that it would have disappeared for over a thousand years with no mention of its existence anywhere. A similar argument can be made about the Holy Grail.
I was completely skeptical until I heard the evidence. It's astounding, and I assure you I'm not a relic enthusiast. I recommend Michael Knowles' interview of Jeremiah Johnston. One thing he didn't really get into was that the image is superficial; it is not any kind of dye or pigment and it is only just barely on the surface of the fabric. There is no natural explanation for how it could have been forged.
Well, just because the image on the Shroud can't be explained doesn't necessarily mean that the image is of Jesus. It's similar to people saying that aliens must be real because there are fast moving lights in the sky that can't be explained.
Another thing to consider is that Jesus was probably a middle-eastern man and thus looked different than he is usually depicted. Does the image on the Shroud look like the face of middle-eastern man? I don't think it does.
I agree that that alone doesn’t prove anything, but it is an important factor. There’s a lot more evidence, but I bring up the superficial image because of the idea that it’s a medieval forgery.
I don’t think you can actually tell that much about the ethnic features of the face on the shroud. Also, Jesus was deformed at the time of his death.
As I wrote above, I agree that the Shroud is probably not genuine, but I do want to push back a little on your statement that the disciples would have shown the Shroud to everyone as physical evidence of the resurrection. Provided the Shroud was genuine, it probably just looked like a bloody, dirty cloth at the time. The image would have become clearer as the cloth aged and the red blood degraded and became less visible.
Well, what you are saying is just speculation. A supernatural event like the Resurrection could have removed the blood. But if the Shroud had just been a bloody, dirty cloth at the time like you say, then why would it have been preserved? I guess it's possible that one of Jesus's followers could have kept the Shroud, but it surely wouldn't have been very long before they discovered the image on it.
“I can’t wait to get to heaven where there will be no more money to stress us out and occupy our thoughts!” (When I tell people that they just look at me with a blank stare.)
You could start a long reader supported thread with “I can’t wait to get to heaven where there will be no more (finish the thought.)
You’re right about that last part. I guess in my mind I was being generous and giving about 70-100 years before the cloth aged enough to show the image clearly. At that point your other consideration comes into play - where are all the mentions of it in church history?
The first historical record of the Shroud of Turin was in 1354. Thirteen hundred years after the Resurrection! I find it hard to believe that this relic would have remained invisible for so long if it was legitimate.