re: New technology and the shroud of Tourin. Happy Easter!!!

quote:

---

once again, science is confirming the stories told in the Bible.

---

Not really. Certainly not the supernatural ones.

quote:

---

How so?

---

In summary the shroud depicts someone from the exact time of Jesus’s death, with the exact wounds described, with a manner of image reflective of technology we could not recreate today and required a nuclear level expulsion of energy to generate.

It was discredited initially because a sample was taken from a patched area that incorrectly carbon dated it to the 1200s.

For those willing to explore further consider the following:
-He references work across 102 academic disciplines totaling over 600,000 research hours (including from teams like STURP, Sandia Labs, Los Alamos, and others).

-U.S. Air Force Academy physicists Eric Jumper and John Jackson analyzed a 1931 photograph of the Shroud using a VP8 image analyzer (a device designed to study post-nuclear explosion terrain and convert light intensity into topographic/3D data). The Shroud produced a detailed 3D topographic image with accurate depth and distance information—even in areas where the body did not touch the cloth—creating a holographic-like effect. No other known image (photograph, painting, or artwork) encodes 3D data this way; flat or painted images produce distorted results on the analyzer.

-The image is not paint, pigment, dye, or the result of brush strokes. It is extremely superficial (only about 0.02 microns thick on the linen fibers) and formed by a chemical change in the cloth.

-Scientists (including Paolo Di Lazzaro at ENEA Laboratories) calculated that replicating it would require a burst of roughly 34,000 billion watts (or 34 trillion watts in some descriptions) of energy (likely in the form of vacuum ultraviolet or similar radiation) delivered in an extremely short time—on the order of 1/4 to 1/40 of a billionth of a second (a fraction of a nanosecond). Any longer or more intense would have scorched or destroyed the cloth. This is described as a “nuclear-level event” or sudden radiation burst with no heat damage, tied to the moment of resurrection around AD 33

-The Shroud was dated to 1260–1390 AD by labs including the British Museum, but the episode notes this is widely challenged. The sample was allegedly taken from a repaired/patched edge (with different materials like cotton fibrils and reinforcements added after a medieval fire), not the original linen. STURP scientists reportedly advised against that section. Raw data was reportedly suppressed for 27 years and later reanalyzed (e.g., by chemist Ray Rogers in peer-reviewed work), showing the dating was unreliable due to contamination or non-representative sampling.

-Over 370 scourge marks (estimated ~700 total accounting for missing sides) consistent with a Roman flagrum; puncture wounds, crown of thorns, spear wound in the side, and other trauma match Gospel descriptions exactly.

-58 pollen types were identified, with 38 from plants blooming in Jerusalem in spring (Passover time), supporting a 1st-century Judean origin.

quote:

---

True Christian’s DONT WORSHIP these relics we take them as symbols of his resurrection.

---

Agreed. The word venerate has a completely different definition than worship.

quote:

---

He obviously isn't Catholic. Protestants believe that Catholic's worship relics not Jesus. Christian snobs/Karens give Christians a bad wrap. They are more worried about thinking they are holier than thou.

---

For Christ’s sake let’s not make this another Roman Catholic/Protestant conflict? On Easter!

quote:

---

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Ephesians 4:1-6

---

Let’s talk about the Shroud, it’s pretty compelling.

quote:

---

Interesting (but mostly wrong) assertion. I’ll continue along the path of faith I’ve chosen which is to as closely as possible mirror the path of those taught by those who were taught by Jesus. The early church fathers.


I’ll trust their written words over yours, but thanks anyway.

---

If you insist. I’m merely following God’s word on this, but if you would rather follow the words of fallible men, then that is on you. I would warn against that, though.

quote:

---

I’m merely following God’s word on this, but if you would rather follow the words of fallible men, then that is on you. I would warn against that, though.

---

You do realize what you’re referring to as God’s word (which it is) was also assembled by those same “fallible” men?

How do you trust the book but not the book assemblers?

quote:

---

You do realize what you’re referring to as God’s word (which it is) was also assembled by those same “fallible” men?

---

Yes, and the reception and assembly into one book is important, it isn't what is infallible. John the Baptist was the one who initially bore witness to Christ, but he wasn't infallible as a man. What was infallibly true was that Jesus is the Christ and Lamb of God, the message John proclaimed.

Likewise, the Word of God is that which is what God inspired, gave to and preserved for His Church, and it alone is infallible.

Jesus held the Jews, and especially their leaders, accountable to the Word of God from the Old Testament, even though they never had a Council to declare what was and what was not considered the Scriptures. They never had an infallible list decided, and yet Jesus still held them accountable for believing and rightly applying it, because He believed that the Word of God is infallible.

quote:

---

How do you trust the book but not the book assemblers?

---

What is trustworthy is God's Word, not the list of books, itself, otherwise the list would be the 67th book of Scriptures. I trust that God preserved His word through the mechanism of the Church without trusting that the Church, itself, is infallible.

quote:

---

You only trust the it is indeed God’s word because of the men. Unless of course you’re a biblical scholar who has examined the papyrus and other ancient texts.

---

I've read the Scriptures many times and the qualities and characteristics of its divine origins are clear.

I've also learned some basic Greek and have read some of the Scriptures in Greek, which have confirmed that the English translations are relaying the truth.

But you're right that unless one has read every word in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and have understood them rightly, there is an element of faith in those who have done those things. Christianity is a religion of faith, though it is a reasonable faith. I've seen and heard enough to know that what I believe about the Scriptures is reasonable and true.

quote:

---

I’ve seen and heard enough of the real Catholic Church and the early church fathers to know that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic church is the one formed by Christ during his time on earth. When he said to Peter in Mathew 16 he is building his church. The Catholic Church is the church he was building.

---

I've seen and heard enough of the Catholic church and early church fathers, and especially the Scriptures to conclude that whatever exists as the Roman church today is not what was founded by Christ.