Jesus DNA

[undead_rat]

Personally, i’d be happy if Science can prove once and for all that the image is not a painted forgery. That’d silence the claims of the late Walter McCrone and his followers, Joe Nickell and other Shroud sceptics.

The 1978 STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) did prove conclusively that the image on the Shroud is not composed of any kind of paint or dye and is not a burn or scorch mark.
Those two dozen scientists at STURP were volunteers who had no agenda. They expected to solve the mystery of the Image in a few days and go home. That didn’t happen.

But Joe Nickell and such do have an agenda, and that agenda is Atheism. For them, the Shroud can’t be authentic because for it to be real, God would have to exist.
Mr. Nickell will never be convinced or satisfied, no matter how much irrefutable evidence that he is presented with.
(I do enjoy seeing his frustration, though, with those who take an unbiased look at the Shroud’s science and hidden history and conclude, as they should, that it is real.)

 

[Fiasco]

I would think that science is so…perfect. But they already know there’s no paint there. No traces of any kind. The image isn’t even 1 fiber of linen thick. They say a razor bblade would take it away. They say you have to be 10 feet away to see a clear image.

Secondo Pia’s negative and the 3-D images are good evidence to start with. But the sceptics fall back on Leonardo da Vinci who they regard as a miracle worker, even making photographic chemicals. They start off with their biased opinions, and work backwards to make everything fit their opinions.

The 1978 STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) did prove conclusively that the image on the Shroud is not composed of any kind of paint or dye and is not a burn or scorch mark.
Those two dozen scientists at STURP were volunteers who had no agenda. They expected to solve the mystery of the Image in a few days and go home. That didn’t happen.

And McCrone insisted on breaking ranks. What was his grouch? Prejudice? Pride?

But Joe Nickell and such do have an agenda, and that agenda is Atheism. For them, the Shroud can’t be authentic because for it to be real, God would have to exist.
Mr. Nickell will never be convinced or satisfied, no matter how much irrefutable evidence that he is presented with.

You’re right, sadly.

(I do enjoy seeing his frustration, though, with those who take an unbiased look at the Shroud’s science and hidden history and conclude, as they should, that it is real.)

That’d be a sight for sore eyes.

Anyway, no other piece of cloth has caused such a stir. So many scientists and others wouldn’t be involved with it if it had been conclusively exposed as a forgery.
If DNA etc could be found, that’d be decisive.

 

[billcu1]

Secondo Pia’s negative and the 3-D images are good evidence to start with. But the sceptics fall back on Leonardo da Vinci who they regard as a miracle worker, even making photographic chemicals. They start off with their biased opinions, and work backwards to make everything fit their opinions.

And McCrone insisted on breaking ranks. What was his grouch? Prejudice? Pride?

You’re right, sadly.

That’d be a sight for sore eyes.



Anyway, no other piece of cloth has caused such a stir. So many scientists and others wouldn’t be involved with it if it had been conclusively exposed as a forgery.
If DNA etc could be found, that’d be decisive.

 

[undead_rat]

And McCrone insisted on breaking ranks.

Anyway, no other piece of cloth has caused such a stir. So many scientists and others wouldn’t be involved with it if it had been conclusively exposed as a forgery.
If DNA etc could be found, that’d be decisive.

Dr. McCrone was not a member of the STURP team that examined the Shroud. He never actually saw the Shroud in his lifetime. He obviously had his mind made up before he examined his Shroud threads.
He refused to attend STURP conferences to defend his ideas which were all self published.

The evidence already obtained from the Shroud is decisive. It is authentic.
What will be shocking to the atheists is when younger dates and even future dates are obtained from C-14 dating of Shroud samples that are closer to and inside of the Sacred Image.*

*TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

 

[billcu1]

I would think that science is so…perfect. But they already know there’s no paint there. No traces of any kind. The image isn’t even 1 fiber of linen thick. They say a razor bblade would take it away. They say you have to be 10 feet away to see a clear image.

Bill

That above is supposed to be “would not think”. Anyway I looked and I guess there is not mitochondria in Red Blood cells. No DNA to see. Not Chromosomal because there’s not nucleus let alone nucleolus. We who watched this show may have been had.

pimm.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/are-there-any-mitochondria-in-our-red-blood-cells/

 

[ericc]

Phorensic pollen analysis on the Shroud places the Shroud in Jerusalem 2017 years ago, and proves.it was used for anointing a body for burial also,
And proves it was in all the historical locations on earth with the correct dates in history (of where Shroud history says.the Shroud was hidden throughout.the centuries)

There were other crucifixions in that century around that area. Other Jews that went though that will follow similar burial processes. There is no proof that piece of cloth wrapped our Lord unless that piece of cloth has some thing supernatural about it. I think the Church is wise not to say too much about it unless she has some evidence to bear the Lord’s signature.

 

[GEddie]

There were other crucifixions in that century around that area. Other Jews that went though that will follow similar burial processes. There is no proof that piece of cloth wrapped our Lord unless that piece of cloth has some thing supernatural about it. I think the Church is wise not to say too much about it unless she has some evidence to bear the Lord’s signature.

There **are **no other shrouds from crucifixions; because of the amount of bleeding, both shroud and body would disintegrate rapidly. The Shroud is unique.

There were no skeletal relics from cruicifixion known until a skeleton was found in 1967, still with a Roman nail through both ankles.

ICXC NIKA

 

[undead_rat]

There were other crucifixions in that century around that area. Other Jews that went though that will follow similar burial processes. There is no proof that piece of cloth wrapped our Lord unless that piece of cloth has some thing supernatural about it. I think the Church is wise not to say too much about it unless she has some evidence to bear the Lord’s signature.

I must disagree. A great deal of evidence points to a miracle occurring here.
In the first place, corpses do not leave perfect photographic quality negative images on their burial linen. It is just not possible that a dead body does this. If it were, then we would have other examples, but there are none.
No shroud of John the Baptist or Elijah or Moses or Julius Caesar, etc. The negative image on the Shroud is not reproducible by any known technique, modern or ancient.
The conclusion of the 1978 STRUP investigation (24 scientists, 5 days, 8 tons of equipment) is that the image is not a painting.*

Then there is the infamous carbon fourteen dating of 1988. You might be interested to know that the three professors who so smugly presented the dates of “1260 to 1390” were not telling the whole story, lying actually.
The youngest date result was 540 years old (1448,) and the oldest was 795 years (1193.)
The British Museum didn’t like those outlying dates because the variance of 255 years was much too great for the dating of an item supposedly only about 700 years old. So the museum asked the labs to “average in” those extreme dates.**

The youngest date (1448) was from the part of the Shroud sample that was closest to the body image, and the oldest (1193) was from the part furthest away.
These dates show a linear progression: as the part of the sample that was tested gets closer to the image, its C-14 date result gets younger.
Something very strange is going on here. The only explanation is that the process that formed the image on the Shroud also affected its C-14 content.**
This is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis because it takes into account the Gospel of Matthew story that Jesus corpse disappeared from inside of a blocked, sealed, a guarded tomb. It postulates that this disappearance caused both the image and the enhanced C-14 content.
That is a miracle, and it is the only way to account for our Lord’s Sacred Image on His Burial Linen and the strange carbon dating results.

Why the Church does not confirm that the Shroud of Turin is authentic is a mystery in itself. My supposition is that the Church science committee was waiting for a final confirmation by C-14 dating.
When the strange result wasn’t what they expected, they were at a loss as to how to proceed (and still are.)

*REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Heller, 1983
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

 

[GEddie]

Why the Church does not confirm that the Shroud of Turin is authentic is a mystery in itself.

No mystery at all.

The Shroud cannot be proven to have ever been around our LORD. Full stop.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Peebo]

magiscenter.org/pdf/Science_and_the_Shroud_of_Turin.pdf

Here is a comprehensive analysis…

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”

 

[undead_rat]

The Shroud cannot be proven to have ever been around our LORD. Full stop.

The Shroud of Turin has been full of surprises. Already a great deal of evidence has been gathered which indicates that it is authentic.
A final absolute proof will be the validation of the Historically Consistent Hypothesis through carbon fourteen dating of new samples.
The prediction is that for each inch that the location of a Shroud sample moves from the edge of the Shroud towards the body image, the C-14 date will be about 100 years younger.
The oldest dates of about 800 years will come from the four corner areas, and one these corners has already been tested.
Younger and younger dates from new sample locations will be the result until present and then even impossible future dates are obtained.

So the idea that the Shroud of Turin can never be proven to be authentic is not correct.

 

[ericc]

I must disagree. A great deal of evidence points to a miracle occurring here.
In the first place, corpses do not leave perfect photographic quality negative images on their burial linen. It is just not possible that a dead body does this. If it were, then we would have other examples, but there are none.
No shroud of John the Baptist or Elijah or Moses or Julius Caesar, etc. The negative image on the Shroud is not reproducible by any known technique, modern or ancient.
The conclusion of the 1978 STRUP investigation (24 scientists, 5 days, 8 tons of equipment) is that the image is not a painting.*

Then there is the infamous carbon fourteen dating of 1988. You might be interested to know that the three professors who so smugly presented the dates of “1260 to 1390” were not telling the whole story, lying actually.
The youngest date result was 540 years old (1448,) and the oldest was 795 years (1193.)
The British Museum didn’t like those outlying dates because the variance of 255 years was much too great for the dating of an item supposedly only about 700 years old. So the museum asked the labs to “average in” those extreme dates.**

The youngest date (1448) was from the part of the Shroud sample that was closest to the body image, and the oldest (1193) was from the part furthest away.
These dates show a linear progression: as the part of the sample that was tested gets closer to the image, its C-14 date result gets younger.
Something very strange is going on here. The only explanation is that the process that formed the image on the Shroud also affected its C-14 content.**
This is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis because it takes into account the Gospel of Matthew story that Jesus corpse disappeared from inside of a blocked, sealed, a guarded tomb. It postulates that this disappearance caused both the image and the enhanced C-14 content.
That is a miracle, and it is the only way to account for our Lord’s Sacred Image on His Burial Linen and the strange carbon dating results.

There is no proof that it wrapped the Lord’s Body. Even if there are elements of the supernatural about the shroud, it suggests at the most that it could have but not prove it wrapped the Lord’s body. Even some holy saints have elements of the supernatural about them. And there were lots of holy people who died for Christ then in that century. The evidence points to certain things but far from determining the actual contents of the shroud.

Why the Church does not confirm that the Shroud of Turin is authentic is a mystery in itself. My supposition is that the Church science committee was waiting for a final confirmation by C-14 dating.
When the strange result wasn’t what they expected, they were at a loss as to how to proceed (and still are.)

*REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Heller, 1983
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

I’d think the Church is prudent with her stance since she doesn’t know for sure that it previously wrapped the Lord’s body. If you look at the history of the shroud, you wouldn’t make such a declaration with such surety when for most part of its history is unknown. If someone say I got this piece of cloth, I know not where it came from, it dates back to 1st century of a crucified man. There is an image imprinted there made by unknown techniques or processes. It may be a miracle. And therefore it is the Lord? That is terrible reasoning.

 

[undead_rat]

There is no proof that it wrapped the Lord’s Body.

If you look at the history of the shroud, you wouldn’t make such a declaration with such surety when for most part of its history is unknown. .

Actually there is a great deal of evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus. So much in fact that it is not even possible to list it all here.
The wounds of the corpse depicted by the Shroud’s image match those that the Gospels tell of Jesus receiving.
The dirt on the Shroud has a chemical signature that matches only that found in Jerusalem.
Then there is the simple fact that the Shroud is unique. No other such unexplainable image of a corpse on its burial cloth exists.
Furthermore Jesus Himself predicted a special sign that would be for an entire generation of people. His sacred image on His burial linen is the only miracle that fits this criterion.
Our Lord’s burial linen is the only artifact of the Crucifixion that is listed after that event occurred, and it is mentioned in all four Gospels. When St. Helena opened Jesus’ tomb she found many artifacts of the Crucifixion, but not the burial linen.

As for the history of the Shroud, that has been deciphered.* The de Charney family had reasons for their reticence as to how they had acquired the sacred cloth and where it had been.
We now are sure that the Shroud of Turin (as it is now known) was taken to the city of Edessa by the disciple Thaddeus where he used its facial image to heal King Abgar V.
It was first known as The Image of Edessa, “not made by hands,” and had to be hidden away for 500 years after the death of Abgar V.
In 944 the Byzantine Emperor Romanus Lepecanus used the threat of force and the payment of a large amount of silver to take possession of the Image of Edessa and bring it to Constantinople.
There the Shroud was enshrined with great ceremony and became known as the Holy Mandylion. August 16th, the date that the Shroud formally entered Constantinople, is still celebrated as the Holy Day of the Mandylion in the Orthodox Church.

In 1204 the French Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and confiscated the Shroud. It ended up in the possession of the Knights Templar who used its image in initiation ceremonies but kept this a secret.**
On October 13th, 1307 the King of France had all of the Templars in France arrested and imprisoned. Many were tortured but the King was never able to find the Sacred Image that they had been venerating.
As you already know, just fifty years later the Shroud became publicly exhibited by the de Charney family who were related to the former Templar Grand Master.

Sir, with all due respect, to say that there is no proof and no history is not correct.

*THE SHROUD, THE 2000-YEAR OLD MYSTERY SOLVED, Wilson, 2010.
**THE TEMPLARS AND THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, Frale (Vatican secret archives historian,) 2011

 

[undead_rat]

magiscenter.org/pdf/Science_and_the_Shroud_of_Turin.pdf

Here is a comprehensive analysis…

Thanks for the reference to an excellent paper published in May of 2015. Prof. Spitzer does not address the Historically Consistent Hypothesis (HCH) which is a competing theory to the Vacuum Ultraviolet Radiation Burst idea.
The HCH is the central idea of the book, TEST THE SHROUD, that also came out in 2015. It postulates that proton and neutron radiation left over from a corpse that had vanished into an alternate dimension are what account for the Shrouds unique features, including the aberrant carbon fourteen dating results.

Further C-14 dating of Shroud samples will determine which theory is correct. The HCH holds that no part of the Shroud will show a C-14 date of any older than about 800 years and that the dates of samples will become younger (not older) as the locations of these samples move closer to the Shroud’s image. Present and even impossible future dates are predicted!

 

[ericc]

Actually there is a great deal of evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus. So much in fact that it is not even possible to list it all here.
The wounds of the corpse depicted by the Shroud’s image match those that the Gospels tell of Jesus receiving.
The dirt on the Shroud has a chemical signature that matches only that found in Jerusalem.

But all you are saying still does not prove that it wrapped the Lord’s body. Those may resemble the wounds of the Lord (or the wounds of others crucified), or the general location of the area. The Romans could have very standardized method of crucifying anyone that would leave similar marks.

Then there is the simple fact that the Shroud is unique. No other such unexplainable image of a corpse on its burial cloth exists.

Uniqueness does not equate to proving Jesus being the body wrapped there. Unexplained findings do not determine an unwarranted conclusion. If the Devil so wish, he could easily produced one as well and it would have been supernatural too.

Furthermore Jesus Himself predicted a special sign that would be for an entire generation of people. His sacred image on His burial linen is the only miracle that fits this criterion.

No one knows what special sign did Jesus intended to leave behind. Jumping to that conclusion is unwarranted. We do not know that is his image there.

Our Lord’s burial linen is the only artifact of the Crucifixion that is listed after that event occurred, and it is mentioned in all four Gospels.

Yes, and there were no reports of anyone keeping it either.

When St. Helena opened Jesus’ tomb she found many artifacts of the Crucifixion, but not the burial linen.

Absence of evidence proves nothing.

We now are sure that the Shroud of Turin (as it is now known) was taken to the city of Edessa by the disciple Thaddeus where he used its facial image to heal King Abgar V. It was first known as The Image of Edessa, “not made by hands,” and had to be hidden away for 500 years after the death of Abgar V.

It is far from clear that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa. You said “we are now sure”. So how did you determine that surety? Source please. There a few competing accounts as to how the Image of Edessa got there. None of them are proven. The image of Edessa is described as made by a living Jesus. Copies of the image of Edessa are depicted with eyes open. The shroud is of a dead person with eyes closed.

Sir, with all due respect, to say that there is no proof and no history is not correct.

This is not evidence, just conjecture. For a start, how do we know what happened to the burial shrouds? Did someone took it, who took it, who kept it, what happened to it since then? There is no record of any early Christians, or Church Fathers reporting such a thing exist for hundreds of years. Or did the shroud simply rotted away with time? And many centuries later, this thing appeared and claims were made. Claims may be well-intentioned and pious but that is insufficient to establish proof. That is not evidence. I am not saying there is no shroud. There is a shroud but there is no way to know that Jesus is that person in there. Similarities in wounds are not in itself sufficient proof. I too very much want to know what Jesus looked like, physical evidence of his existence. But I don’t want to believe in a relic of dubious identity. But it is a strong reminder as to how our Lord endured such horrific sufferings for our sake.

 

[Fiasco]

Furthermore Jesus Himself predicted a special sign that would be for an entire generation of people.

No one knows what special sign did Jesus intended to leave behind. Jumping to that conclusion is unwarranted.

Not being a Scripture scholar, i’m lost. Our Lord said: “…the Sign of the prophet Jonah…”. Where else did He mention a sign?

But, for what it’s worth:

blog.adw.org/2010/02/what-is-the-sign-of-jonah-and-has-it-come-upon-us/

The destruction of Israel by Assyria.
The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Rome.
The destruction of the “Christian” West by…Islam?..or by…?

…We do not know that is his image there…

…I too very much want to know what Jesus looked like, physical evidence of his existence. But I don’t want to believe in a relic of dubious identity. But it is a strong reminder as to how our Lord endured such horrific sufferings for our sake.

Whether genuine or not, at least the face on the Shroud shows a decent image of a Semite, not like those disgusting/frightful and effeminate blond-haired, blue-eyed…ones!

 

[undead_rat]

Not being a Scripture scholar, i’m lost. Our Lord said: “…the Sign of the prophet Jonah…”. Where else did He mention a sign?

blog.adw.org/2010/02/what-is-the-sign-of-jonah-and-has-it-come-upon-us/

The destruction of Israel by Assyria.
The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Rome.
The destruction of the “Christian” West by…Islam?..or by…?
:

Thank you for the link. I see that the Sign of Jonah is not understood at all. Look at the problem this way: a “sign” has to be a miracle. That is what is meant by a “sign” in this context. That is what the Jewish religious leaders were asking for: some kind of miracle that they had heard reports of our Lord performing. They wanted to witness Him walking on water or bringing back to life a person who had been three days dead. Now even though Lazarus was there in Jerusalem, his presence did not qualify as a “sign” for them because they had not actually witnessed his death, three day burial, and his walk out of the tomb. Hearing the report about this miracle, even first hand, does not meet the requirement. The miracle must be witnessed by the person in order to qualify as a “sign” for that person.

The items you listed cannot qualify “signs” in this context because they are not miracles. And the same goes for the things that are mentioned in your video link.
Now Jesus’ reappearance in the flesh after His execution was certainly a miracle and therefore a “sign” for those few who witnessed both His death and His living reappearance.
But His death and reappearance were not witnessed by an entire generation of people, and that is what is specified in our Lord’s description of the Sign of Jonah. It is a miracle that will be witnessed by a generation.
So Jesus’ resurrection, although certainly a “sign” for some, cannot qualify as the mysterious Sign of Jonah.

The miraculous Sacred Image on the Shroud of Turin is witnessed by the whole world and is also very closely associated with our Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection. It perfectly fits the requirements of the Sign of Jonah.

 

[undead_rat]

The Romans could have very standardized method of crucifying anyone that would leave similar marks.

Uniqueness does not equate to proving Jesus being the body wrapped there. Unexplained findings do not determine an unwarranted conclusion. If the Devil so wish, he could easily produced one as well and it would have been supernatural too.
.

Indications are that the Roman soldiers were in the habit of varying the methods of crucifixion for their entertainment. However, there is only one known report of a crucifixion victim being capped with thorns and having those thorns beaten into His head.
Usually the victims legs were broken if the death needed to be hastened, but in this special case, the victim was speared in His right side. Scientists have determined that this spearing happened after the victim had died.

As for “uniqueness,” are you saying that you don’t believe that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial linen of Jesus because you think that Satan performed this miracle to deceive us? That seems very cynical to me.
Also illogical: why would Satan want to make a proof of Jesus’ existence, death, burial, and resurrection? No, Satan would like very much for the world to forget about these things and to believe that the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, never existed.

 

[undead_rat]

It is far from clear that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa. You said “we are now sure”. So how did you determine that surety? Source please. There a few competing accounts as to how the Image of Edessa got there. None of them are proven. The image of Edessa is described as made by a living Jesus. Copies of the image of Edessa are depicted with eyes open. The shroud is of a dead person with eyes closed.
.

I noted my source, but here is again:

THE SHROUD, 2000 YEAR OLD MYSTERY SOLVED, Wilson, 2010.

Prof. Ian Wilson is the world’s premier Shroud historian and has authored many books on this subject. In his 1978 book, THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Prof. Wilson put forth the theory that the Shroud of Turin was actually the ancient Image of Edessa.
After many years of research, Wilson proves this idea in his 2010 book.

The ancient Image of Edessa was not understood by people in general to be a burial cloth. As Wilson explains, in those times a bloody grave shroud was regarded as a terribly unclean and spiritually polluted object.
Even viewing such a thing could be harmful to a person’s soul. If anyone knew that the sacred cloth bearing our Lord’s image was actual a bloody burial shroud, they kept quiet about that fact.

The Shroud was folded in such a way as to only exhibit the facial portion, and the view of that faint image does not indicate that the person depicted is deceased. The image appears as simply a brownish stain that might have been left by someone pressing a cloth to his sweaty, dirty face. The eyes of this image actually appear to be open and staring straight ahead. That is what you find on the icons and mosaics of the Image of Edessa.

I could go on about these ideas for some time here. Why don’t you read Prof. Wilson’s books? His evidence is quite good.
Here are some other sources that mention the Image of Edessa:

The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle, Deleanu (translator), 2012

Eusebius’ ECCLESIATICAL HISTORY, Cruse (translator), 2015

EDESSA ‘THE BLESSED CITY,’ Segal, 1970

The Image of Edessa, Guscin, 2009

 

[ericc]

Indications are that the Roman soldiers were in the habit of varying the methods of crucifixion for their entertainment. However, there is only one known report of a crucifixion victim being capped with thorns and having those thorns beaten into His head.
Usually the victims legs were broken if the death needed to be hastened, but in this special case, the victim was speared in His right side. Scientists have determined that this spearing happened after the victim had died.

Again absence of information does not constitute proof. If you happen to know of only one case, there is a natural tendency to point towards that one sample. That could lead to fallacious reasoning. I very much agree that the crown of thorns SUPPORTS Jesus as the man in the shroud, but it is not irrefutable evidence. It is of very high probability no doubt.

As for “uniqueness,” are you saying that you don’t believe that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial linen of Jesus because you think that Satan performed this miracle to deceive us? That seems very cynical to me.

I think you missed the point I am trying to make. My point is not every supernatural event is of God. Whether the devil did or did not get involved is besides the point. Just trying to help you not go down the path of fallacious reasoning. Which is, it is supernatural, therefore Jesus.

Also illogical: why would Satan want to make a proof of Jesus’ existence, death, burial, and resurrection? No, Satan would like very much for the world to forget about these things and to believe that the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, never existed.

Having not able to tempt Jesus or thwart God’s plan, the next best course is to deceive and confuse believers. Every now and then, you will see self professed prophets, those who teach a new gospel, or a new way of life. Getting people to believe something is of God but not in fact, is a trick of the devil. But that is detracting from our argument of determining authenticity of the shroud. If after decades and centuries of devotion to the shroud, and new evidence were to emerge that suggest otherwise or reduce the probability that the person in the shroud is Jesus, one could conceivably be accused of idolatry. We don’t need the shroud to worship God. Blessed Sebastian Valfre wrote: The Cross received Jesus alive and returned Him dead; the Shroud received Jesus dead and returned Him alive. That is all we need to know. Whether we got pieces of the wood of the cross or the nails or the spear that pierced Him, or the whip, are at best circumferential to our worship.