The Science of the Resurrection

[undead_rat]

Anyone who categorically states the Shroud is genuine is a liar.

Sir, as I have pointed out my very first post on this thread, Pope Pius XI stated exactly that in 1936. His statement was based on Pia’s astounding 1898 photograph, Vignon’s subsequent research, and the historical research of the Vatican experts.

“These are the Images of the Divine redeemer . . .it is absolutely certain that it is not the work of man.”

Having established that the image on the Shroud is both that of Jesus and also “no product of human hands,” the remaining question is “Was that Image a natural effect produced by the shrouded corpse, or was it miraculous?” Paul Vignon in THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, postulated that Jesus’ image was formed by a “vaporographic” process and not the result of a miracle. The 1978 STURP investigation confirmed what Pope Pius XI had said: the Shroud’s image of Jesus is NOT the work of artist, but that study could not come up with any theory as to how the image of Jesus had been formed and could not confirm Vignon’s ''vaporographic" idea.

If the 1988 C-14 data had showed an age of 2000 years, then that data would have indicated a date. Since it did not, and since the Shroud (as Pope Pius XI indicated) is proved to be 2000 years old, that data must be an indication of an event. Either the Shroud was taken to a nuclear reactor and subjected to a neutron flux, or the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse left a neutron flux. One of these events enhanced the C-14 content of the Shroud, and the evidence is that it was the second.

Of course atheists and those of the Bahai’ Faith have a very hard time accepting that the Shroud’s 1988 C-14 data is proof of the miracle that Jesus’ corpse vanished into another dimension. But you are not either of these. Therefore, I am having difficulty in understanding your ongoing antipathy to the idea that the Shroud of Turin is genuine and that its image is miraculous

 

[thistle]

“These are the Images of the Divine redeemer . . .it is absolutely certain that it is not the work of man.”

You must be joking. That is not proof of anything!!

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

“These are the Images of the Divine redeemer . . .it is absolutely certain that it is not the work of man.”
Pope Pius XI

You must be joking. That is not proof of anything!!

It is proof that your statement, “Anyone who catagorically states that the Shroud is genuine is a liar,” is not correct.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I wasn’t going to join in this time, but since I have been been mentioned, I’ll toss in a few pennyworth.

1. The “proof” that the Shroud is authentic is entirely a question of personal certainty. The evidence is available to everyone, but is insufficiently convincing to a large number of us. It is convincing to Undead_rat, and it was convincing to Pope Pius XI, but personal conviction is not grounds for universal acceptance. In my opinion ““Anyone who catagorically states that the Shroud is genuine” is incorrect, but not necessarily a liar.
2. I do not recall anywhere in the Gospels which describes Jesus vanishing from the tomb. Matthew, it is true, has the stone rolling away while the holy women watched, and the angel telling them that Jesus has already left. But vanished and rematerialised? Not necessarily. Perhaps he just woke up and walked through the stone. Explosive miracles were not Jesus’s style. The other Gospels have the door already open, so that Jesus could have simply walked through the doorway. Now Undead_rat knows all this very well, so why does he insist that “the Gospels” (more than one) “describe” Jesus “vanishing”, when they clearly don’t. Is it because he is a liar, and wishes to deceive us? I don’t think so. It is, of course, because he wishes to deceive himself.
3. It is quite true that I have not proved that the Shroud’s date is not due to a miracle. Proving a negative is notoriously an unreasonable demand on the part of a claimant of the extraordinary, But logically, the inability to prove that something isn’t so must leave a possibility, however remote, that it is so. This I accept, even though I do not believe it for a minute.
4. Unlike most claims of miracles, Mark Antonacci’s comes with a definite test. If the rest of the Shroud appears equally medieval, that his miracle hypothesis is utterly refuted. If the middle of the Shroud dates to thousands of years into the future, then his hypothesis is supported. Let’s go for it, I say, and get rid of this idea for once and for all.

 

[thistle]

It is proof that your statement, “Anyone who catagorically states that the Shroud is genuine is a liar,” is not correct.

Okay then let me rephrase it and yes I apply it to ALL. Anyone who categorically states as a fact that the Shroud is genuine is a liar or foolish for making such a comment.

Yes, even Pope’s say things which are foolish, e.g. Pope Gregory the Great when he said Mary Magdalene was a prostitute! Neither Scripture nor the Church backs that up.

 

[undead_rat]

The Gospel of Matthew describes how the two women went to Jesus’ tomb which was sealed and guarded. Then the angel broke the seal and opened the tomb and told the women that Jesus was not there. The angel invited the women to inspect the tomb for themselves. Jesus corpse was not there, and Jesus had not gotten up and walked out of His tomb as had Lazarus. While this account does not specifically say that Jesus’ corpse had vanished into another dimension, there is really no other conclusion to be had. While the other Gospels do not provide as much detail, they all state that Jesus’ tomb was found to be empty except for His burial linen. No account describes Jesus as walking out of His tomb.

In order to obfuscate the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse, one poster has postulated the occurrence of an “explosion.” But no such explosion is noted in any of the Gospels, and the Historically Consistent Hypothesis does not rely on that occurrence. Rather it states that Jesus’ corpse simply vanished into another dimension leaving a small amount of proton and neutron radiation. His Shroud then collapsed into that vacuum and in doing so was affected by the two radiations.

What is observed here is the desperation on the part of a skeptic to obfuscate the Historically Consistent Hypothesis by twisting the clear words of our Gospel accounts and by turning the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse into an “explosion.” My guess as to the source of this desperation is the undisclosed affiliation to a Faith that has its core values threatened by the idea of scientific proof that Jesus’ corpse vanished.

 

[undead_rat]

Yes, even Pope’s say things which are foolish, e.g. Pope Gregory the Great when he said Mary Magdalene was a prostitute! Neither Scripture nor the Church backs that up.

Pope Pius XI’s statement as to the authenticity of the Shroud was made after Vatican experts had spent several years studying and researching all of documents available about the Shroud, and was not made until 1936. Pia’s astounding Shroud photo had been revealed in 1898 and Vignon’s analysis, THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, was published in 1902. The Pope’s statement most certainly was not “foolish,” and you ought to ashamed of yourself for saying so.

 

[thistle]

Pope Pius XI’s statement as to the authenticity of the Shroud was made after Vatican experts had spent several years studying and researching all of documents available about the Shroud, and was not made until 1936. Pia’s astounding Shroud photo had been revealed in 1898 and Vignon’s analysis, THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, was published in 1902. The Pope’s statement most certainly was not “foolish,” and you ought to ashamed of yourself for saying so.

The Shroud has NOT BEEN PROVEN to be authentic. That is only in the minds of the fanatical supporters of it.
I repeat that you or any Pope or anyone is free to believe it is real but do not state that as a fact because it is NOT A FACT!!

 

[undead_rat]

With all due respect, sir, I do state that it is a fact that the Shroud has been proven to be authentic, and even more, that it’s image of Jesus has been scientifically proven to be the result of the miracle of the vanishing of His corpse. Neither you nor anyone else are required as a matter of the Catholic Faith to believe this, but I must object to your characterization of a great Pope of the Catholic Church as “foolish” for doing so.