Anonymous
As mentioned under your comment to my post "Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #4", since the questions you raised are of general interest,
[Above (enlarge). Pope John Paul II (r. 1978-2005) prays before the Shroud of Turin at the 1998 exposition]
and would be `buried' there under that old post, I have decided to respond to your comments here in a separate post.
>Deuteronomy 4:15
>
>You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully,
The Old Testament's "You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you" no longer applies in the case of Jesus, who "is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15), "the exact representation of his [God's] being" (Heb 1:3); who Himself said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).
And it is Jesus which the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence points to as being the image on the Shroud (see also below). Even the Shroud's critics admit that:
"If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.196-197).
Deuteronomy 4:16 continues:
"so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman ..." (my emphasis).
That God is exempt from His own commandments and so can command the making of "an image of any shape" is evident in the account in Numbers 21:8-10 where God commanded Moses to make a bronze snake, that the Israelites were to look up to and live:
"The LORD said to Moses, `Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.' So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived."
This was quoted approvingly by Jesus (or the Apostle John) in John 3:14-15:
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."
So if God made the image on the Shroud (which is what I and most Shroud pro-authenticity advocates consider is what the evidence points to), then that is His prerogative, and it is not our place to argue that He should not have done it:
"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Rom 9:20. Cf. Isaiah 29:16; 45:9; Job 23:13).
And the evidence is that the image on the Shroud was not made by any man. That was established by the STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project] team of scientists who intensively examined the Shroud for a week in 1978:
" ... forgery could not be the cause of the Shroud's image ... the image could not have been made by artistic endeavor ... the Shroud could not be the result of eye/brain/hand." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.120-121).
This is not an argument that the Shroud can legitimately be worshipped, because the New Testament also warns against idolatry:
1Cor 10:14 "Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry." (Cf. Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5; 1Pet 4:3)
But it is an argument that the image on the Shroud can be that of Jesus, without it contradicting Old Testament commandments against making "an image of any shape, whether formed like a man" as in Deut 4:16.
>Hoax is hoax and do not bow unto them nor serve them.
There are two issues here: 1) Whether the Shroud is a "hoax"; and 2) Whether the Shroud should be bowed to or served, i.e. worshipped.
Taking 2) first, clearly no one would worship the Shroud if they thought it was a "hoax". So that leaves those who think the Shroud is not a "hoax," i.e. the Shroud pro-authenticity community. And I am not aware of anyone in that community who thinks the Shroud or its image should be worshipped. On the contrary members of the Shroud pro-authenticity community have stated strongly that neither the Shroud nor its image should be worshipped:
"We firmly believe that the Shroud should not be esteemed as an object of faith. ... It dishonors God to venerate or worship the Shroud or to celebrate it as a means of healing or to treat it as an object of prayer or faith." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.20-21)
And in fact there is no hard evidence that anyone has ever has worshipped the Shroud itself:
"The fact of the matter is that in my [Stevenson's] experience, those who do respond to the Shroud story respond to the man in the Shroud and not to the Shroud itself. In over a decade of lecturing on the Shroud, I have found no episodes of image worship or idolatry. " (Stevenson & Habermas,1990, p.153).
As for 1) above, whether the Shroud of Turin is a "hoax." First, that the Shroud has been misused, does not prove it is a "hoax", any more than that the Bible has been misused does not prove it is inauthentic:
"we would not read the Bible because it has been used in seances" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.185).
"There are also a few cases of out and out abuse of the Shroud. ... but it does not prove the cloth inauthentic." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.183).
And again the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence points to the Shroud being authentic. That is, it is the very burial sheet of Jesus which bears the image of His crucified and resurrected body. This can be deduced by the following process of elimination, repeating some of what has already stated above:
1) Even Shroud sceptics admit that "odds" of "1 in 83 million that the man of the shroud is not Jesus Christ" is "a very conservative estimate" so "If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus. Otherwise, it's an artist's representation ... " (my emphasis):
"Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man of the shroud is not Jesus Christ ... a very conservative estimate. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus. Otherwise, it's an artist's representation... ." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.196-197. Emphasis original).
but 2) Despite the Shroud being "the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world," it has been established that the Shroud is not "an artist's representation" (my emphasis):
"The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available." (Heller, 1983, p.219)
"`100 thousand to 150 thousand scientific man-hours have been spent' studying the Shroud, utilizing the best scientific instruments, and yet the image still remains a `mystery.'" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.128).
" ... the image could not have been made by artistic endeavor ... the Shroud could not be the result of eye/brain/hand." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.121).
so 3) unless the image was produced by a natural process, and all known "natural hypotheses have failed to explain the Shroud's image and are untenable":
"natural hypotheses have failed to explain the Shroud's image and are untenable ... neither fakery nor natural hypotheses are viable" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.128)
"if a completely natural process caused the Shroud image, why are there no others known in the entire world-especially since the Egyptians left us so many burial linens?" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.201).
4) the only remaining alternative is that the Turin Shroud is the very burial sheet of the Lord Jesus on which a representation of His body is "portrayed by ... some supernatural process":
"in the Turin Shroud we have not only the linen cloth in which the body of the Lord Jesus was wrapped, but also a representation of that body portrayed by other than human hands, by some supernatural process which confounds all explanation" (McNair, 1978, p.39)
because:
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (Doyle, 2001, pp.42-43)!
[...]
See `tagline' quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine).
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & Jesus is Jehovah!
"`How came he, then?' I reiterated. `The door is locked, the window is inaccessible. Was it through the chimney?' The grate is much too small,' he answered. `I had already considered that possibility.' `How then?' I persisted. `You will not apply my precept,' he said, shaking his head. `How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. Whence, then, did he come?' `He came through the hole in the roof,' I cried. `Of course he did. He must have done so. If you will have the kindness to hold the lamp for me, we shall now extend our researches to the room above, - the secret room in which the treasure was found.'" (Doyle, A.C. , 2001, "The Sign of Four," Penguin: London, pp.42-43).
"So where does all this huge amount of science leave us? The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available. The physical and chemical data fit hand in glove. It is certainly true that if a similar number of data had been found in the funerary linen attributed to Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, or Socrates, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that it was, indeed, the shroud of that historical person. But because of the unique position that Jesus holds, such evidence is not enough. I have discussed with most of the team, during the interviews preceding my writing of this book, how they felt about the Shroud. Three of them, John Jackson, Robert Bucklin, and Barrie Schwortz, believe that it is probably the authentic, burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. The rest of us have to say that we do not know." (Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.219).
"The alternative opinion is almost too shattering to the equanimity of most of us to entertain for more than a moment or two. It is that in the Turin Shroud we have not only the linen cloth in which the body of the Lord Jesus was wrapped, but also a representation of that body portrayed by other than human hands, by some supernatural process which confounds all explanation. Either way the thing is a marvel - of illusion if it is a fake, or of reality if it is not. But it is my conviction that in this most mysterious thing - embarrassing in its uniqueness, exciting in its challenge - we face the same reality that confronts us in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. In both those central miracles of world history was manifested the splendour of God: could it be that the radiant incandescence of that almighty act of love and power when the Son of God `was raised by the glory of the Father' has scorched his image and likeness on the Shroud, a sign for our scientific century which demands scientific proof?" (McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.39).
"There are also a few cases of out and out abuse of the Shroud. Take, for example, a full-page ad which appeared in several publications across the nation selling mini-shrouds and photos, and advising their use as a combination prayer-cloth/good-luck talisman for any problem or desire. When the ad first appeared, an evangelical group that had offered to help raise funds for the Shroud of Turin Research Project quickly backed out. All of these examples constitute strong evidence that the Shroud has been misused throughout its known history. However, the stories merely confirm the fact that man has a baser side to his nature. He tends to believe whatever he wants. Let us consider the common elements in all of the above examples. First, all believed or at least claimed to believe the Shroud is genuine. Second, all sought to use it, either to support personal beliefs, to exploit others, or to have a physical item of worship. In any case, if the Shroud is authentic, these abuses began with its authenticity and then distorted it. To a Christian, the distortion is obvious and blatant, but it does not prove the cloth inauthentic. " (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.183).
"The question is this: would Satan generate or sponsor anything that in any way could lead to salvation? Satan was defeated at the cross, a fact scripture says he is well aware of. `The devil is come down unto you having great wrath because he knoweth that he hath but a short time' (Revelation 12:12). Would Satan call attention to his own defeat? Here we must consider the fact that Satan would have portrayed not only the blood of Jesus, but also evidence for his resurrection. The New Testament asserts that both these were factors in his defeat. Philip McNair put it well: `We know that the devil can transform himself into an angel of light, but could he or would he have portrayed from painful memory that compelling face on the Turin Shroud?' [McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?" in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mowbray: Oxford, 1978, p.33] It is much more likely that Satan is behind the mysterious fires, controversy, and abuses of the Shroud. Such things are signs of his handiwork. The Shroud has been misused. While this cannot be denied, misuse does not affect authenticity. If so, we would not read the Bible because it has been used in seances." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.185).
"Third, whatever the final conclusions of any study of the Shroud, another type of caution needs to be exercised. And this may be the most important warning of all. There are too many examples of religious misuses of the Shroud, such as claims and advertisements of healing, prayers to the Shroud, and even worship of it. We firmly believe that the Shroud should not be esteemed as an object of faith. Christianity is faith in a person, not in a cloth or in any other artifact, whether it is Jesus' or not. Practices of worshiping or venerating the Shroud blatantly disobey Exodus 20:4-6: `You shall not make for yourself carved image-any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.' God has forbidden the use of images of any sort, particularly in worship. Blessings and punishments are promised to those who obey or disobey this command. Giving a similar warning, we addressed this vitally serious matter in Verdict; [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor PA, 1981, pp.6-7, 179-86] we did not wish to be guilty of breaking such a command. Yet one reviewer still levels this criticism: "The proponents of the Shroud are attempting to replace the Word of God with an image; as such they are, I would suggest, at variance with the intentions of Divine Providence." [Elson, B., "Review of `Verdict on the Shroud'," Queen's Quarterly, Vol. 90, No. 2, 1983, p.570] Therefore we wish to stress once again that we are investigating the Shroud as a possibly authentic archaeological artifact. Even if the Shroud is the actual burial garment of Jesus (and especially if it is not), it is only a cloth. It dishonors God to venerate or worship the Shroud or to celebrate it as a means of healing or to treat it as an object of prayer or faith. ',We strongly disavow all such nonbiblical practices. We have no desire to encourage any of them. Taking our work otherwise misconstrues its purpose." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, pp.20-21).
"Many STURP scientists thought that the Shroud was simply a fake to be exposed by scientific testing. But in the 1981 meeting at New London, Connecticut, the scientists reported: `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultraviolet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.' ["Text," The Shroud of Turin Research Project, Press Release, 8 October 1981]. Ever since then, several STURP scientists have continued to report that forgery could not be the cause of the Shroud's image. [Murphy, C., "Shreds of Evidence," Harper's, November, 1981, pp.42-65, pp.61-62] Heller notes: `At the end of months of work, we had pretty well eliminated all paints, pigments, dyes, and stains.... the images were not the result of any colorant that had been added.' [Heller, 1983, p.198] Heller points out that fraud can be checked by at least two scientific methods- chemistry and physics. Concerning the first means, he said, `Adler and I had reached the conclusion that the image could not have been made by artistic endeavor.' [Ibid., p.207] The second method revealed no forgery either: `The conclusion of the physical scientists was that the Shroud could not be the result of eye/brain/hand.' [Ibid., p.209]" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.120-121).
"In conclusion, natural hypotheses have failed to explain the Shroud's image and are untenable at this time. ... Thus, neither fakery nor natural hypotheses are viable. Murphy remarked in 1981 that `it is STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project]'s conclusion that none of the forgery theories is tenable. Neither are any of the "natural phenomenon" hypotheses.' ... At this point, science is unable to explain the Shroud's image completely. On scientific grounds, the cause of the image is an enigma. In the words of the STURP report delivered at New London, `The answer to the question of how the image was produced, or what produced the image, remains now, as in the past, a mystery.' As Heller asserted, `100 thousand to 150 thousand scientific man-hours have been spent' studying the Shroud, utilizing the best scientific instruments, and yet the image still remains a `mystery.' In spite of this conclusion, by the early to mid 1980s, numerous scientists had indicated their view that the image was best explained by a scorch theory of some sort. .... However, the interesting question here is, how can a dead body under a cloth produce such a scorch on linen?" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.128-129).
"Q. Couldn't the Shroud be a satanic deception? A. ... If there was an overwhelming response of image worship to the knowledge of the Shroud, this would be a very serious possibility. The fact of the matter is that in my [Stevenson's] experience, those who do respond to the Shroud story respond to the man in the Shroud and not to the Shroud itself. In over a decade of lecturing on the Shroud, I have found no episodes of image worship or idolatry. On the other hand, countless numbers have written to me to proclaim that they have come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus through the story of the Shroud. Perhaps the true issue is whether Satan would allow many to base their faith in the Shroud and then suddenly pull the rug out from under them by having it declared a fake. But from the beginning, religious leaders have usually been the ones to declare the Shroud a fake, while nonbelievers captivated by a sense of spiritual, scientific, or historical curiosity have come to study and stayed to pray. Besides, why would Satan allow for any reason the depiction of the emblem of his ultimate defeat-the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?" (Stevenson & Habermas,1990, p.153)
"Oddly enough, the Shroud opponents have actually helped to make our case. Certainly the need to resort to a denigration of the scientists on the basis of their religious preferences shows a decided bias on their part. In addition, if critics feel the need to declare Jesus a myth, are they not actually suggesting that the Shroud evidence indeed matches the Gospel narratives of Christ's passion and death? At least a few of them are willing to admit this in print. For example, Schafersman states, `Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man of the shroud is not Jesus Christ ... a very conservative estimate. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus. Otherwise, it's an artist's representation... ." [Schafersman, S., "Science, the Public, and the Shroud," Skeptical Inquirer, B, 1982:41, italics added]" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.196-197).
"On the other hand, on a purely logical basis, if a completely natural process caused the Shroud image, why are there no others known in the entire world-especially since the Egyptians left us so many burial linens? Numerous sindonologists who believe in a natural process are troubled by this fact." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.201).
Posted 12 April 2008. Updated 1 May 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment