My reading leads me to a different conclusion. But, as I understand it, you are free to doubt it.
I have doubts about the shroud, too. According to Wikipedia, radiocarbon dating done in 1988 “at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD.” It’s also interesting that the first uncontested mention of the Shroud of Turin was in 1390, “when Bishop Pierre d’Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.”
Those slivers are real and many. The Monks of centuries ago preserved pieces of the cross found by St. Helena and over centuries small (and I mean small) bits were parceled out to various monasteries.
What the article doesn’t mention is the fact that the sample taken for analysis was a reweave along the edge not one taken from a part of the cloth untainted by those who tried to restore torn/damaged edges. If you go to one of these websites you’ll find more accurate information: google.com/search?q=shroud+turin+schwartz&gws_rd=ssl.
I think many are skeptical especially since there have been hoaxes in the past. For most protestant denominations believing in the shroud of turin and the Colton Burpo’s account of heaven is not necessary for their faith…so it’s not something they will talk about that much.Forgive me if I am wrong in my observation. Is it because Colton Burpo (the little boy who had the near-death experience and met Jesus) is the son of a Protestant minister, and they just don’t trust the Catholic Church? Don’t get me wrong. I am not necessarily saying that Colton did not actually meet Jesus. I think it’s compelling that Colton saw Jesus the same way as the little the girl in former Yugoslavia who originally saw Jesus and later painted Him. I even own the picture because I think it’s an interesting depiction. It just seems like if you believe a near-death experience, shouldn’t it be easier to believe something that has compelling scientific evidence such as the Shroud of Turin? Would Hobby Lobby ever even consider selling pictures of the Shroud, like they do the Prince of Peace picture? Finally, are Protestants who own the latter piece of art worshiping an idol?
That is some messed up theology! :takeoff:
There were probably quite a few early Christians who did not believe in a resurrection of the physical body, so what Spong says is hardly anything new. For some Christians of a Greco-Roman background, the physical body was considered something bad which entrapped the soul or spirit. So they probably couldn’t figure out why Jesus would be raised in a physical body rather than in a spiritual body which they would have considered far superior.
Yes, they were called variously Gnostics & Docetics. You’re right that they denied the resurrection. However, they were not Christians; they were heretics.
Even Paul talks about “spiritual bodies”:
"There were probably… quite a few…? What does that mean and upon what do you base this statement? As Per Crucem has already pointed out these were heretical notions, and there have been heretical notions from the start. There was a time when the majority of Catholic bishops had fallen into heresy. But the Church prevailed in preserving the Deposit of Faith from error and condemning the heresy.
More accurately, there is no formal repudiation by TEC of it, institutionally. Which, given Episcopal motleyness, is not surprising."There were probably… quite a few…? What does that mean and upon what do you base this statement? As Per Crucem has already pointed out these were heretical notions, and there have been heretical notions from the start. There was a time when the majority of Catholic bishops had fallen into heresy. But the Church prevailed in preserving the Deposit of Faith from error and condemning the heresy.
If Spong is promoting a non-bodily resurrection then he is promoting heresy and he should be called on it. What I find even more sad then Spong’s position is the apparent acceptance of it by the Episcopal Church.
No this is Prince of peace. https://www.akiane.com/store/media/...27136e95/p/r/prince_of_peace_age8_36x48_6.jpg
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.The answer is simple.
The Shroud of Turin is held by those “eeeeevil Catholics”
The other one is held by those “totally awesome” protestants
Paul’s contrast between natural bodies vs. spiritual bodies is not one of PHYSICAL bodies vs. GHOSTLY bodies. What Paul is contrasting is natural, fallen corrupted bodies with the glorified, sinless body of the resurrection.
He looks like Kenny Loggins.
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.
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.
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.”