Christian Icons thread - Part I. The Shroud of Turin.

[Rik Meleet]

If the creator of the shroud (taking the position that it isn't Jesus' shroud) wants us to see the shroud as an honor to Jesus' death and resurrection (sp) - can it be considered a hoax then ??
I've seen many paintings of Jesus' death that are created only for that reason.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Today, in the Catholic Church, the Vatican would oftenly be skeptical and investigate clames of relics with a rational scientific view point.

They do the samething whenever they hear a Statue of the Virgin Mary crying (eather water or blood). They go out and first investigate it scientificly and rationaly. It could be that the statue has cracks in the areas where the water may have seaped in or condensation.

I know, and they deserve credit for attempting to inject some rationality into the whole thing. But it misses the point that revering images is forbidden in the Christian faith. Whether the statue is crying or not is besides the point. If one is approaching it as a Christian then the only conclusion, if the thing actually is crying, is that its a trick of the devil, to lead fools away from god, and have them focus on inanimate objects.

@Rik, maybe, concievably, it began as an honor and not a hoax, but apparently very early on, it did in fact become a hoax.

 

[ironduck]

Oh you mean that maybe it wasnt intended to be a hoax by whoever made it? Thats possible I suppose, but it doesnt seem likely. The immense power of holy relics back then to manipulate the masses couldnt have gone unnoticed by whoever made it.

I'm not sure if it was a holy relic back then, from what I've gathered it was considered a hoax at the time the first known records refer to it. I'm not sure at what point it gained its present iconic status.

 

[cgannon64]

Should I applaud you or take you to task? I've never really understood that "strawman" thing.

Applaud. A strawman is when someone argues against a position not actually being held by the opponent. In this case, you're the one being argued against, and the "god of the gaps" thing is the strawman.

 

[Birdjaguar]

 

[Birdjaguar]

I found this discussion with points for and against you might be interested in: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_shro2.htm (I have no idea why the put in the bit about homosexual finger length, but there are other good points made).

Thank you. The link was interesting especially the parts where he uses the bible to undermine the shroud being real. That strategy only works if he also finds the passages that support the shroud theory and states them too. He didn't do that.

He seems to think the image is paint and that the only alternative is weird radiation at the point of resurrection. I get the impression he is arguing that either the image is a fake (painted) or that it is Jesus and miraculous. He has ignored the possibility that the image is naturally caused and of someone who may or may not have been jesus.

His ideas on the blood stains and smearing were ones I have not heard elsewhere.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This is one link that addresses that very issue. The "traces of paint" were chemicals for which paint might be one source. IIRC, they were very limited in where they were found.

Like I said, it could be paint, or not, but the one thing that it isn't is a trace of Jesus.