Explaining the Resurrection

[ServusDei1]

All being subsides ultimately in God. As such, God has control over the fundamentals of reality itself and can easily raise someone from the dead if he chooses to. It’s not scienctific, but it’s a good philosophical argument.

 

[undead_rat]

No, that is not known. It is no more than one hypothesis among several.

In his 2010 book, THE SHROUD, Prof. Ian Wilson details the Shroud’s history all the way back to 33 AD when the disciple Thaddeus displayed its facial image to King Abgar V of Edessa. Thereafter the Shroud was known as The Image of Edessa until 944 AD when it was expropriated to Constantinople. There it was called the Holy Mandylion. In 1204 the French 4th Crusade invaded Constantinople, and the Knights Templar ended up with the possession of the Mandylion. In 1307 the king of France disbanded the Templars but was unable to locate their sacred cloth. Just fifty years later the Shroud appeared in Lirey, France. Its new owners could not, of course, reveal that they had received it from the Templars whose property had been confiscated by the king.

The Shroud of Turin does have a 2000 year history. Its divine image cannot be reproduced even with the most advanced human technology.
What more do you want?

 

[brian_custer]

nicely said

thank you

 

[BartholomewB]

In his 2010 book, THE SHROUD, Prof. Ian Wilson details the Shroud’s history all the way back to 33 AD

Look what I found on the Amazon.com website! The publisher’s blurb for Ian Wilson’s book The Shroud.

Two decades after radiocarbon dating declared the Turin Shroud a mediaeval fake, brand-new historical discoveries strongly suggest that this famous cloth, with its extraordinary photographic imprint, is genuinely Christ’s shroud after all.

“Strongly suggest,” it says. Not “conclusively prove.” Do you understand the difference?

https://www.amazon.com/Shroud-2000-...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1533121925&sr=1-3

 

[undead_rat]

Thank you for the reference. Prof. Wilson has researched the Shroud’s hidden history for forty years, and his 2010 book solves the mystery of where the Shroud was in ancient times. What Wilson was unable to accomplish was to solve the mysteries of the Shroud’s strange radiocarbon data and of the mechanism for the formation of its image.

The solution to those mysteries would need the dogged persistence of a former prosecuting attorney combined with the scientific knowledge of a nuclear physicist of thirty years experience. Together, the Antonacci/Rucker team has formulated the Historically Consistent Hypothesis which accounts for the Shroud’s image, its many strange features, and its C-14 data. Their book, TEST THE SHROUD, is a real eye-opener as to the devious devices employed by the C-14 labs and the British Museum in shutting out all of the scientists with first hand knowledge about the Shroud and in “reworking” its C-14 data in order to be able to present a date.

Since Wilson’s research proves that the Shroud has a 2000 year history, the only credible explanation for its C-14 data and for its unreproduceable image is the idea that the vanishing of Jesus corpse left residual proton and neutron radiations. Of course the atheists cannot swallow this hypothesis, but we are not members of that crowd.

Amazon.com

 

[BartholomewB]

Since Wilson’s research proves that the Shroud has a 2000 year history,

No, it doesn’t. Even Wilson’s publishers don’t make that claim for his book. “Strongly suggest,” remember?

 

[undead_rat]

Frenchman Paul Vignon published THE SHROUD OF CHRIST in 1902. His main problem was the the Shroud’s missing 150 years between 1204 when the French 4th Crusade invaded Constantinople and 1357 when the Shroud made its first public appearance in France. Vignon was easily able to make the connection between the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa. The 1970 edition of his book includes a forward that quotes the words of Pope Pius XI:

"After Vatican experts had spent some years studying and verifying all the historical documents connected with the Shroud, Pope Pius XI said this in 1936:
These are the images of the Divine Redeemer . . .They derive from the object, surrounded by mystery, which — this can safely be said — it has now been established is no product of human hands. It is the Holy Shroud at Turin. . . .it is absolultely certain that it is not the work of man."

The British Museum is an institution of great authority both in the scientific world and in the public’s eye. It committed great errors when it asked the C-14 labs to “average in” the Shroud’s outlying C-14 data and when it allowed the atheist Prof Edward Hall to direct the interpretation of that reworked data. Those deliberate errors amounted to nothing less than the crime of bearing false witness against our Lord Jesus Christ.
But since the Museum has such an impecable reputation, it is not surprising that the Vatican has deemed it best to presently refrain from officially pronouncing the Holy Shroud as “authentic” as Pope Pius XI did in 1936.

I regard the words of Pope Pius XI as a far greater authority than those of the publishers of Wilson’s book.