Mar 27, 2012
Turin Shroud Led Apostles To Believe In Resurrection of Christ, Claims New Book
A new book was published today in the UK, following what Penguin Books told The Bookseller was “Harry Potter-style security measures” to keep its contents secret.
The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection by Thomas de Wesselow (Viking) is the latest book to take a controversial angle on the world-famous religious relic.
With a US release date of April 3rd (in other words just in time for Easter), the book claims that it was encounters with the shroud itself, rather than seeing a risen Christ, that convinced the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead.
The author, an art historian based at King’s College, Cambridge, told the Daily Telegraph that “back then images had a psychological presence, they were seen as part of a separate plain of existence, as having a life of their own.”
de Wesselow was brought up in the Church of England but describes himself as agnostic. He worked on this book for eight years.
In the book, he writes:
Throughout most of history images have been viewed as mysterious, metaphysical beings... Before the Enlightenment, images of gods, sains, spirits and ancestors were routinely credited with power, not only affecting the emotions of those who looked at them, but also influencing the course of events. In the premodern world images were perceived to be, in some sense, alive.
The Shroud's envelopment of Jesus's body would have fostered the idea of the transference of his soul from flesh to cloth... Christ's clothing (like Peter's shadow) contained or conveyed something of his spiritual presence. The Shroud, which clothed Jesus in the tomb, would surely have been infused with similar power - a power focused and increased by its "miraculous" image.
The book also contains explanations for the carbon-dating of the shroud that took place in 1988, and placed the date of the shroud as 1260-1390, as well as for the Biblical depictions of the resurrected Christ.
It concludes:
Finding a peculiar image on the inner surface of his burial cloth, the followers of Jesus became convinced he had been raised from the dead and exalted to heaven. This belief led to the emergence of a new sect within Judaism - Christianity-to-be. The real founder of Christianity was not Peter or Paul or even Jesus - it was the Shroud.
The shroud, whose existence is first confirmed in the 14th century, is currently held in its own chapel at Turin Cathedral, where it has been since 1694. In 1983, it became the property of the Vatican, which has not proclaimed on its authenticity.
It is only occasionally exhibited to the public; the last time was in 2010, with the next date for its public display currently set as 2025, to coincide with the next Holy Year of the Catholic Church.
Italian researchers last year declared that they were “95% certain” that the shroud dated back to the time of Christ.
alquiler
May 28, 2012 @ 10:06:19
Excellent post. I was checking continuously this weblog and I'm inspired! Extremely useful info specifically the final part
I take care of such info a lot. I was seeking this particular info for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Siska
Jun 29, 2012 @ 14:50:13
above this guy has gravitated towrads the fundamentalist dark-side Because my thought process was outside the realm of the science, I'm considered a crack-pot automatically. Yet he offers no flaw in my logic. I'm not saying this isn't one, but that isn't where the argument is made. One thing I've learned from my research in religion, science, politics, and elsewhere is that there is constantly a complete lack of critical thinking. I personally don't trust anybody. Churches, pastors, scientists, teachers, doctors, ect. I trust what I find to make logical sense. I usually find the most important part of an argument is what isn't said. People like to leave out the parts of an argument that do not absolutely support their positions.So I recommend you do not close off your mind to any side. Look at the facts yourself. Use strong critical thinking and logical analysis to sort through all the nonsense. Let me give an example of poor critical thinking from two different beliefs.1) Any easy one from the real fundamentalists who believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Where they get this logic from I have no clue.2) I was given a link awhile back to a video where Ken Miller sought out to show a crowd how Intelligent Design was easy to debunk. He showed the commonly referenced flagellum and told them that because you could remove the tail of the flagellum and the head would still serve it's purpose even without the tail for it's movement. Too an applauding crowed he declares ID debunked. Not only does this barely scratch the surface of ID, it explains nothing. The point of the flagellum from Behe was in fact much more complex. But the crowd cheers him on even though he had said almost nothing of substance. Most people will believe and accept anything that supports their view. I am not here to argue evolution. Why? Because in the discussion of Christianity and God I feel it does not matter. I've known many Christians who believe in evolution. That's fine, I see nothing wrong with that. I believe an intelligent Christian has a better possibility of finding the truth of such subjects. Why? Because they don't discount information simply because it points to the possibility that God exists. An atheist scientists must only focus on ways to explain God out of the equation. The Christian can believe in God and evolution at the same time. So I guess you just have to decide if your going to follow a group that is dedicated to explaining God out of the equation. Or decide to use your brain and not factor things out simply because they don't fit the narrative of the scientific community.And to all . if the logic of my example has flaws, please point them out. I am always willing to accept and eager to find the flaws of my own logic. Even if we want to or don't want to believe in God, we should be willing to admit when we don't have the answers. Neither side seems to want to do that.
Pia
Apr 12, 2012 @ 12:36:47
Scott,Would you say you came from a fundamentalist ukragcobnd? It seems that most of the people I have met that have lost their faith have come from more fundamentalist congregations. I don’t know if that is because of numbers or that fundamentalism clashes more with modern reality. Anyway, just wondering.Interesting that you started with Joseph. You must have read some fascinating books. When I started going through doubt, I personally made sure to stay far away from the OT for several reasons: 1) I knew Gen 1-10 couldn’t be taken literally 2) OT is farther removed from modern history than the NT 3) I knew that many scholars didn’t hold the OT to be always literally true. 4) I knew the OT was going to make even more questions for me.I understand that finding no evidence for Joseph and other characters was very frustrating, but did you find no evidence for the historical Jesus? I’ve found some hope because there is strong evidence for a real historical Jesus. I was actually surprised that both believing and unbelieving scholars agree that there actually was a man named Jesus who was crucified. Whether he rose from the dead is a completely different question though. Regarding your comment about sin, I would disagree. I know I sin all the time. Granted one may have different definitions of sin, but I’m often convicted of the bad things I do. However, I don’t think I’ve sinned against some cosmic creator, but I’ve sinned against other people. I think this view that sin is against God leads people to ask for forgiveness from God in the privacy of their prayers instead of asking for forgiveness from the person they actually sinned against. Regarding the inspiration of scriptures, I have typically taken this loosely. Inspired in that this is what God wanted for us to know about Him, but not that it is literally true. I think this is because at an early age I knew that parts of the Bible couldn’t be taken as literally true. However, sometimes the “stories” can have truth and meaning in them. I sometimes find this insulting, and think that God shouldn’t treat us like babies by telling us “stories” that have some sort of “message”. But maybe this is the best way?For instance, was Jesus’ crucifixion all about the physical pain and suffering or was it more for our understanding? Can we really grasp what the separation of the Trinity meant? Or what taking on our sins meant? Wouldn’t an infinite God have to talk to us like babies?Where I think the “stories” and factual evidence need to split is in the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus’ resurrection is just a “story”, than that makes Christianity pretty worthless. So that has been where I have tried to focus. Where real and meaningful evidence may lay.Regarding “come out”, I have decided to partially come out. For a long time I didn’t tell people (except for my wife) because I was sure that I would come out of it. But as months turned into years, I have slowly told more and more people. I have no real advice on what’s best, because I think it depends a lot on the situation. However, I think doubt/unbelief can get very lonely and isolating if you don’t tell anyone. In addition, by “coming out” I have run into great people who have been great resources in my search for truth.
Preet
Jun 29, 2012 @ 21:32:21
that one of his priests (when he was a kid) use to pick up a flwoer and make a statement like but on one can ever explain the mystery behind a creation such as this . In his mind (as a boy), I think he was in awe at remarks like this, but as he grew up and became a biologist, he discovered that there were naturalistic explanations to these mysteries of life.But, in my own layman's mind , this still baffles the living poop out of me. I just can't even picture or truly appreciate a several hundred million year time period. But (once again) from my own layman's mind , I see really simple life forms in the deep geologic layers and as we come up closer and closer to our time, the life forms seem to get increasingly more complex. So, this suggests to us (and to me) that life evolved from smaller/simpler forms to the more complex forms that we see today. But even then, I would expect to see literally millions of weird transitional forms. In fact, I would almost expect just about every fossil found to be some weird transitional form that ultimately would lead to the forms that we see today. Now, with that said, I really haven't the slightest clue if that's what scientists honestly see in the fossil record or not. The Christian propaganda engine would lead us to believe not . But I know that Gould is the one that suggested punctuated equilibrium (at least I think he was the one) because they mostly see stasis in the fossil record, punctuated by blips of speciation. This (once again) is a 100% naturalistic explanation for the evolution of life and I'm good with that. So, why am I blabbing? Well, I don't really know . I just find this whole historical evolution thing as a simple response to how all of this crazy life came to be, still lacking in some way, but I just can't articulate it Perhaps you can help fill in some of the blanks for me . For example, are there any really good books for understanding the true realities of the fossil record, so that I don't get these crazy/weird creationist/christianeese slants? Perhaps a good layman's explanations for the true realities of the fossil record so that I can perhaps look at the evidence myself so that things will become clear (once and for all)?Jason
Sachiko Dinkens
Apr 06, 2012 @ 18:42:00
Hey there, You've done an excellent job. I will definitely digg it and for my part recommend to my friends. I'm sure they will be benefited from this web site.