Sunday, February 19, 2006

Biblical historicity goodness...

I clearly don't read enough jargon-y scientific journals. Because somehow I missed out on new evidence supporting the validity of the Shroud of Turin.

If you can get through the more complex terminology in the faq, I highly recommend that too. Fascinating stuff.


Captain Midnight said...

I read the article, and it is very interesting. The last I had heard about the shroud was that carbon dating had pegged it to the middle ages.

Whether this is actually the shroud of Christ or not isn't that critical to me. I believe that we live our lives through faith, and concrete proof would rob us of that faith.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus actually lived, but it is my faith that tells me He is the Son of God. And that's good enough for me.

Still, a very interesting article.

Ornithophobe said...

Oh, definitely- belief in Christ is a matter of faith, not proof. That's part and parcel of Christianity.

But the shroud has always fascinated me. I have long wondered if it were fraudulent, how it was made, and why? Especially in light of the fact the negative image was not perceptible until the modern era. It seems entirely too much work for a period where you could grab any splinter of wood, call it a piece of the true cross, and make money. So as an article of historic importance, it has immense value. As a relic, it is intriguing. But no, you are correct, it is not necessary to "prove" anything- all it proves is a man was crucified. That doesn't tell us who was under the sheet, definitively. But I'd surely like to think it was Christ. I'd like to think here is a little tangible piece of the resurrection, a physical link to Jesus on earth. I'd give most anything to see it, smell it, touch it with my own two hands.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know how it was made. I figure it has one of three sources: first, it could have been caused by the body and/or resurrection of Christ, second, used as a wrapping for another person, or third, a fake created by someone who understands negative images.

Because of my chemistry background I'd like to know the physical processes that created the image regardless of the source. My faith can sustain me, but the knowledge of how this was made would be neat.

Captain Midnight said...

That was me, not Mr. Anonymous. I think hitting preview lost my info.