Why Protestants doubt the Shroud of Turin but believe "Heaven is for Real" Jesus is really Him

[pianistclare]

**Unless these statements were a belated April Fools’ joke, I wish statements like these weren’t made, because they are not very charitable and misrepresent the views of many of us Protestant Christians. **For me, I hope the Shroud of Turin is the real burial cloth of Christ but I think the jury is still out on that. I want it to be true but some analysis puts it in the 1100’s or 1200’s AD like someone else mentioned. However, it still could be the real deal.

As for the “Heaven is for Real” movie, I don’t necessarily believe of disbelieve that one, either.

It could be a fabrication, but I find it interesting that the little boy spoke of meeting his sister in heaven that his mother miscarried whom she hadn’t ever mentioned before, at least not around him.

Also, the boy had never seen pictures of his grandfather in his prime, but the boy later saw a random photo among others and said, “That’s Grandpa” or something to that effect, which I find interesting because he said that’s how his grandfather looked in heaven when he met him. .

Regardless of their authenticity, I am going to remain a steadfast follower of Christ so these things won’t change my faith one iota in that regard.

Agreed.
Thanks Tommy.
While it’s true that some really belittle Catholics, I’ve found that those who are on this forum with a couple of notable exceptions are pretty open and not judgmental.
I strive to be that as well.
God bless you and have a beautiful Easter Tommy!

What is important about relics is that they recall to us the reality of our salvation.
We can debate fro the next 1000 years as to their authenticity, and indeed, there are countless doubting Thomas’s out there. But we should all agree on is what they represent.
When we give God the glory, there is nothing to fear.

 

[GKC]

I know very little about the shroud, but I was listening to an audio book where the speaker explained the dating issue like this. The dating was from a small piece from the very edge of the shroud. The speaker said that some have suggested that the piece tested was a mend to the original, so the dating speaks to the time of the mend, not the origin of the original shroud. The problem is that it is not possible to perform these tests without doing damage to it, and people are usually reluctant to damage valuable artifacts. Maybe someone will perform another test in the future.

My wife is from a very anti-Catholic family. Their view of Catholicism is basically like a Chick tract (yes, they do pass out Chick tracts). However, her father still believes that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. This is not insignificant, since he is a skeptic who even ridicules purported miracles from other Protestants.

Just FYI, in former days, ghostly was used as a synonym for spiritual (in the sense of Holy Spirit/Ghost), so Catholics might refer to a priest as “ghostly father.”

The most recent disagreements on the carbon dating is focused on precisely that. One expert critic, and long time sindonologist, the late Raymond Rogers (Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project), who was a skeptic at the time of the 1988 dating, was converted to the “re-weaving” thesis in 2005.

The story goes on.

GKC

 

[siamus2k13]

What makes you think Protestants don’t believe in the Shroud of Turin? Many might not; but many Protestants don’t believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Trinity Broadcast Network shows programs about the Shroud all the time and there is not hostility or skepticism shown towards it just because the Vatican owns it. tbn.org/watch-us/our-programs/behold-the-man-the-shroud-of-turin

Call me a Protestant.

Something Catholics around here seem to assume is that Protestants are closed minded and aren’t willing to hear others out. That may be true with some, but I’m sure many find things like the Shroud of Turin kind of interesting.

Something Protestants are very careful of is idolatry.

 

[Thorolfr]

Hard to find something generally accepted, across Anglicanism. But somewhere around here I have a book by a number of Episcopal clerics and academics taking the Spongster head-on.
Reception was …um…mixed.

GKC

I like John Shelby Spong and heard him speak about 15 years ago. Afterwards, I talked to him briefly and he autographed one of his books for me. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I still get a lot out of his books.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Agreed.
Thanks Tommy.
While it’s true that some really belittle Catholics, I’ve found that those who are on this forum with a couple of notable exceptions are pretty open and not judgmental.
I strive to be that as well.
God bless you and have a beautiful Easter Tommy!

What is important about relics is that they recall to us the reality of our salvation.
We can debate fro the next 1000 years as to their authenticity, and indeed, there are countless doubting Thomas’s out there. But we should all agree on is what they represent.
When we give God the glory, there is nothing to fear.

I wouldn’t have put it how he did, but there is some truth to what he said. For a lot of Protestants, Catholicism is something foreign and even frightening, so they might be predisposed to reject things Catholics say without duly examining them. That’s just human nature.In the age of the Reformation, Protestants tended to be very skeptical of Catholic accounts of miracles or of relics (saying that the saints’ bones are just dog bones, all the pieces of the True Cross would make a forest, etc.), which was undoubtedly motivated by a reaction against things generally Catholic. Even today in what you might call “traditional Protestantism” (I have in mind chiefly the confessional Reformed and Lutheran churches), the traditional position is cessationism, which holds that miracles generally ceased after the time of the Apostles. It goes both ways too. St. Francis de Sales, for example, argues against the Protestant Reformers saying that the Catholic Church is supported by her miracles and that the Reformers could be easily rejected since they had no miracles. My point being that the existence of miracles had a polemical significance to the early Protestants, which can help us understand why many Protestants might be predisposed to deny alleged miracles. In other cases, some Protestants may believe in miracles as a common thing, but be wary when they here of miracles among Catholics (think of a crying statue or something) because of their conception of Catholicism.

I am happy when people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, can appreciate relics together without resorting to polemics.

The most recent disagreements on the carbon dating is focused on precisely that. One expert critic, and long time sindonologist, the late Raymond Rogers (Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project), who was a skeptic at the time of the 1988 dating, was converted to the “re-weaving” thesis in 2005.

The story goes on.

GKC

Thanks for the additional info.

 

[GKC]

I wouldn’t have put it how he did, but there is some truth to what he said. For a lot of Protestants, Catholicism is something foreign and even frightening, so they might be predisposed to reject things Catholics say without duly examining them. That’s just human nature.In the age of the Reformation, Protestants tended to be very skeptical of Catholic accounts of miracles or of relics (saying that the saints’ bones are just dog bones, all the pieces of the True Cross would make a forest, etc.), which was undoubtedly motivated by a reaction against things generally Catholic. Even today in what you might call “traditional Protestantism” (I have in mind chiefly the confessional Reformed and Lutheran churches), the traditional position is cessationism, which holds that miracles generally ceased after the time of the Apostles. It goes both ways too. St. Francis de Sales, for example, argues against the Protestant Reformers saying that the Catholic Church is supported by her miracles and that the Reformers could be easily rejected since they had no miracles. My point being that the existence of miracles had a polemical significance to the early Protestants, which can help us understand why many Protestants might be predisposed to deny alleged miracles. In other cases, some Protestants may believe in miracles as a common thing, but be wary when they here of miracles among Catholics (think of a crying statue or something) because of their conception of Catholicism.

I am happy when people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, can appreciate relics together without resorting to polemics.

Thanks for the additional info.

You are very welcome.

The comparison of the True Cross fragments is usually Calvin’s assertion that all the claimed relics would fill (or would build) a ship. Charles Rohault de Fleury’s work suggested otherwise.

GKC

 

[Tommy999]

I wouldn’t have put it how he did, but there is some truth to what he said. For a lot of Protestants, Catholicism is something foreign and even frightening, so they might be predisposed to reject things Catholics say without duly examining them. That’s just human nature.In the age of the Reformation, Protestants tended to be very skeptical of Catholic accounts of miracles or of relics (saying that the saints’ bones are just dog bones, all the pieces of the True Cross would make a forest, etc.), which was undoubtedly motivated by a reaction against things generally Catholic.

I am happy when people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, can appreciate relics together without resorting to polemics.

Catholicism was totally foreign and a little mysterious to me when I first joined CAF in May of last year, but I would not call it frightening or else I never would have come here. After all, I was the little kid growing up who always made excuses why not to go into the haunted house at the county fair .

As far as relics are concerned, I find them interesting and cool but they don’t really affect my faith a whole lot, or at least they haven’t to this point.

For example, I know this isn’t a religious relic, but my grandmother kept a small lock of hair from her mother when her mother died, and I remember she showed it to me when I was little when I asked a few questions about my great-grandmother. It was cool but I still would’ve believed I had a great-grandmother had I not seen it. However, it did make it seem more real and personal.

I also saw as a youngster the bullet-ridden car of Bonnie and Clyde that made a stop in my small town. It also brought home to me the reality of what happened on that fateful day, but I still would’ve believed in Bonnie and Clyde and what happened to them had I not seen that.

I just hope that Catholics don’t put too much faith in relics to the point where their faith takes a big hit if things like the Shroud of Turin turn out to be from a later era (not saying that it is, mind you).

 

[GEddie]

Unless these statements were a belated April Fools’ joke, I wish statements like these weren’t made, because they are not very charitable and misrepresent the views of many of us Protestant Christians.

For me, I hope the Shroud of Turin is the real burial cloth of Christ but I think the jury is still out on that. I want it to be true but some analysis puts it in the 1100’s or 1200’s AD like someone else mentioned. However, it still could be the real deal.

As for the “Heaven is for Real” movie, I don’t necessarily believe of disbelieve that one, either.

It could be a fabrication, but I find it interesting that the little boy spoke of meeting his sister in heaven that his mother miscarried whom she hadn’t ever mentioned before, at least not around him.

Also, the boy had never seen pictures of his grandfather in his prime, but the boy later saw a random photo among others and said, “That’s Grandpa” or something to that effect, which I find interesting because he said that’s how his grandfather looked in heaven when he met him. .

Regardless of their authenticity, I am going to remain a steadfast follower of Christ so these things won’t change my faith one iota in that regard.

We Catholics should bend over backward to be nice to Protestants, as we will in all likelihood, be neighbors in Purgatory!

ICXC NIKA

 

[dronald]

**Which book?
**
I heard Barry Schwartz, an Orthodox Jew, talk about the Shroud. He was a member of the original scientific team that examined it in the 70’s. It’s a great talk. Here are some websites if you are interested: google.com/search?q=shroud+turin+schwartz&gws_rd=ssl.

“Heaven is for real”

 

[GKC]

I like John Shelby Spong and heard him speak about 15 years ago. Afterwards, I talked to him briefly and he autographed one of his books for me. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I still get a lot out of his books.

You touch there on one of the subsets of my book collecting mania. I own several thousand signed books. Including a few by Luke Timothy Johnson.

I would not bother to get Spong’s signature.

GKC

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Catholicism was totally foreign and a little mysterious to me when I first joined CAF in May of last year, but I would not call it frightening or else I never would have come here. After all, I was the little kid growing up who always made excuses why not to go into the haunted house at the county fair .

As far as relics are concerned, I find them interesting and cool but they don’t really affect my faith a whole lot, or at least they haven’t to this point.

For example, I know this isn’t a religious relic, but my grandmother kept a small lock of hair from her mother when her mother died, and I remember she showed it to me when I was little when I asked a few questions about my great-grandmother. It was cool but I still would’ve believed I had a great-grandmother had I not seen it. However, it did make it seem more real and personal.

I also saw as a youngster the bullet-ridden car of Bonnie and Clyde that made a stop in my small town. It also brought home to me the reality of what happened on that fateful day, but I still would’ve believed in Bonnie and Clyde and what happened to them had I not seen that.

I just hope that Catholics don’t put too much faith in relics to the point where their faith takes a big hit if things like the Shroud of Turin turn out to be from a later era (not saying that it is, mind you).

Imagine if you grew up reading Chick tracts or similar literature, and this was the primary basis for your understanding of the Catholic Church. I’m sure you didn’t, but other people have (including the woman who is now my wife). For other people, even if they aren’t afraid that Jesuits are going to jump out and drag them into a dark alley and take them to be killed by Judas chair in the Inquisition dungeon (maybe a slight exaggeration, but you get the picture), for some people, what is strange and exotic can be a little scary. For some people, Catholicism is a bunch of men in funny hats doing strange rituals and mumbling in Latin. People come from all kinds of different perspectives.

 

[Della]

“Heaven is for real”

Like all personal experiences it’s not something we need to believe. Even if a Catholic has a spiritual experience that his bishop feels should be investigated, and it’s ruled “worthy of belief,” the faithful are free to disbelieve since it’s not part of the deposit of faith established by Christ and his Apostles.

Having said that, it doesn’t mean that what the boy experienced was not spiritually beneficial for him. I think it should have been kept within the family so the child wouldn’t come under scrutiny by the world at large. If an adult wishes to tell his experiences to everyone, that’s up to him, but I think it his parents were unwise to promote their child’s experience. The poor boy probably wishes he’d kept it to himself.

 

[BobCatholic]

Unless these statements were a belated April Fools’ joke, I wish statements like these weren’t made, because they are not very charitable and misrepresent the views of many of us Protestant Christians.

They were made tongue in cheek.

There are anti-catholic protestants out there and the statement fits them nicely. They reject things solely because Catholics accept them, then later come up with reasons why.

The other protestants, clearly, the statements don’t apply to them.

 

[Tommy999]

They were made tongue in cheek.

There are anti-catholic protestants out there and the statement fits them nicely. They reject things solely because Catholics accept them, then later come up with reasons why.

The other protestants, clearly, the statements don’t apply to them.

Thanks for clarifying, Bob. I agree there are some Protestants out there who reject things solely because Catholics accept them, just as there are some Catholics out there who reject out of hand the supernatural ‘Heaven is for Real’ account of the boy getting a glimpse into heaven solely because the boy and his family are Protestant.

Hopefully, people like that are in the minority in both cases.

 

[LutheranScholar]

We Catholics should bend over backward to be nice to Protestants, as we will in all likelihood, be neighbors in Purgatory!

ICXC NIKA

It’ll be pretty interesting to see people in Heaven… some of the last people we might expect to be there will probably be there and those we expect to be there may be conspicuously absent.

 

[Tommy999]

Imagine if you grew up reading Chick tracts or similar literature, and this was the primary basis for your understanding of the Catholic Church. I’m sure you didn’t, but other people have (including the woman who is now my wife). For other people, even if they aren’t afraid that Jesuits are going to jump out and drag them into a dark alley and take them to be killed by Judas chair in the Inquisition dungeon (maybe a slight exaggeration, but you get the picture), for some people, what is strange and exotic can be a little scary. For some people, Catholicism is a bunch of men in funny hats doing strange rituals and mumbling in Latin. People come from all kinds of different perspectives.

Understood, QNDNNDQDCE. It sounds like your wife had a long road to travel and had a lot of obstacles to overcome along the way because of her background. It sounds like a good reflection on both of you that she was able to do so.

In my case, I was born into a Presbyterian liturgical background, although I became evangelical in my college years. I had some Catholic friends growing up and even attended a Mass with my best friend at the time, who was Catholic, when I was in 10th grade as part of a “I’ll attend yours if you attend mine” sort of arrangement, although my Catholic friend never reciprocated, which annoyed me for awhile but I got over it. So, in short, I was never frightened of Catholicism but I always considered it mysterious and complicated compared to mine, although I could definitely sense God’s presence there.

 

[Tommy999]

Like all personal experiences it’s not something we need to believe. Even if a Catholic has a spiritual experience that his bishop feels should be investigated, and it’s ruled “worthy of belief,” the faithful are free to disbelieve since it’s not part of the deposit of faith established by Christ and his Apostles.

Having said that, it doesn’t mean that what the boy experienced was not spiritually beneficial for him. I think it should have been kept within the family so the child wouldn’t come under scrutiny by the world at large. If an adult wishes to tell his experiences to everyone, that’s up to him, but I think it his parents were unwise to promote their child’s experience. The poor boy probably wishes he’d kept it to himself.

Hi Della,
The boy in the movie (Colton Burpo) gave an interview on the Sean Hannity program last year around Easter. He seemed like a well adjusted boy in the interview (teenager now) who still remembers his experience and answered Sean’s questions. Here is the link if you or anyone else wants to see it. He didn’t come across to me as someone who wished he had kept it to himself, but then again I don’t know their family dynamics enough to know if his dad pressured him into doing the interview or not.

youtube.com/watch?v=lawiKeRUiK8

 

[Della]

Hi Della,
The boy in the movie (Colton Burpo) gave an interview on the Sean Hannity program last year around Easter. He seemed like a well adjusted boy in the interview (teenager now) who still remembers his experience and answered Sean’s questions. Here is the link if you or anyone else wants to see it. He didn’t come across to me as someone who wished he had kept it to himself, but then again I don’t know their family dynamics enough to know if his dad pressured him into doing the interview or not.

youtube.com/watch?v=lawiKeRUiK8

I’m glad to hear he’s well-adjusted even with all the fame his story brought him. If he’d been an adult his story would probably not have gotten so much attention because many adults claim to have similar ones. Only time will tell what lasting effect all this will have on him.

 

[Tommy999]

We Catholics should bend over backward to be nice to Protestants, as we will in all likelihood, be neighbors in Purgatory!

ICXC NIKA

If it comes to that, GEddie, I would be honored to be your neighbor in Purgatory, although let’s aspire to an even higher goal than that.

If that is the case, I hope we’re both in Purgatory only for about as much time as a quarter buys on the downtown parking meter :clapping: instead of the time it takes to pay off a house mortgage.

 

[Tommy999]

Agreed.
Thanks Tommy.
While it’s true that some really belittle Catholics, I’ve found that those who are on this forum with a couple of notable exceptions are pretty open and not judgmental.
I strive to be that as well.
God bless you and have a beautiful Easter Tommy!

What is important about relics is that they recall to us the reality of our salvation.
We can debate fro the next 1000 years as to their authenticity, and indeed, there are countless doubting Thomas’s out there. But we should all agree on is what they represent.
When we give God the glory, there is nothing to fear.

I hope you have a great Easter too, Clare.

People like you have shown me the warm and human side of Catholicism by answering my questions and clarifying points with charity, patience, and a sense of humor and I greatly appreciate it.