Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JOHN 20:6 DISPROVING THE SHROUD OF TURIN

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JOHN 20:6 DISPROVING THE SHROUD OF TURIN

    John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

    20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

    These verses disprove the notion that the shroud of Turin is authentic.

    The shroud is one piece of cloth depicting the body of Jesus from the head down. Verse 7 states the cloth napkin about his head was wrapped together separately so making it impossible for the face of Jesus to have been imprinted on the same piece of cloth as his body.

  • #2
    Originally posted by DougE View Post
    John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

    20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

    These verses disprove the notion that the shroud of Turin is authentic.

    The shroud is one piece of cloth depicting the body of Jesus from the head down. Verse 7 states the cloth napkin about his head was wrapped together separately so making it impossible for the face of Jesus to have been imprinted on the same piece of cloth as his body.
    Excellent point. Of course, you realize that truth, facts, and reality mean nothing to those who want to believe what they want to believe.
    Just like the church of the Nativity is supposedly built over where Jesus was born, and the location of where Jesus was crucified and the Vila De La Rosa, etc, are all man-made myths. The shroud is a fraud.
    What people don't realize is just as God has kept the Ark of the Covenant hidden from man along with Noah's Ark, He has also made sure that anything that had to do with the life of Christ was lost in order that people would not get caught up in the worship of relics or locations, as is the case. Scripture is very clear that God and God alone is to be worshipped.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727AZ using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DougE View Post
      John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

      20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

      These verses disprove the notion that the shroud of Turin is authentic.

      The shroud is one piece of cloth depicting the body of Jesus from the head down. Verse 7 states the cloth napkin about his head was wrapped together separately so making it impossible for the face of Jesus to have been imprinted on the same piece of cloth as his body.

      The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin

      One of the relics held by the cathedral in the town of Oviedo, in the north of Spain, is a piece of cloth measuring approximately 84 x 53 cm. There is no image on this cloth. Only stains are visible to the naked eye, although more is visible under the microscope. The remarkable thing about this cloth is that both tradition and scientific studies claim that the cloth was used to cover and clean the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. We are going to present and look into these claims.

      Such a cloth is known to have existed from the gospel of John, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7. These verses read as follows, "Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the linen cloth lying on the ground, and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself." John clearly differentiates between this smaller face cloth, the sudarium, and the larger linen that had wrapped the body.

      The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

      The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

      The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

      If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.

      A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.

      The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

      Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.

      The sudarium has no image, and none of the facial stains of dried or drying blood visible on the Shroud, especially the stain on the forehead in the shape of an inverted three. The stains on the sudarium were made by a less viscous mixture.

      This, together with the fact that the fingers which held the sudarium to Jesus' nose have left their mark, point to a short temporal use of the cloth and eliminate the possibility of its contact with the body after burial.

      Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.

      It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.


      This fits in with what we learn from John's gospel, which tells us that the sudarium was rolled up in a place by itself.

      Learn to read what is written.

      _____
      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by preacherman57 View Post
        Just like the church of the Nativity is supposedly built over where Jesus was born, and the location of where Jesus was crucified and the Vila De La Rosa, etc, are all man-made myths.
        I'd say, though, that to say that such and such a site absolutely must not have been where Jesus was born, crucified, etc., seems to be going too far. I mean, if it can be debarred as such, by good and necessary consequence from statements given in Scripture, then we can know that (for instance) the site of the church of the Nativity must not be where Christ was born. But, if there's nothing in Scripture that militates against believing some extra-Biblical, traditional account of this or that Bible-times location, is there really a need to say that said traditional account must needs be false, just because it is traditional?
        All my ancestors are human.
        PS: All your ancestors are human.
        PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
          I'd say, though, that to say that such and such a site absolutely must not have been where Jesus was born, crucified, etc., seems to be going too far. I mean, if it can be debarred as such, by good and necessary consequence from statements given in Scripture, then we can know that (for instance) the site of the church of the Nativity must not be where Christ was born. But, if there's nothing in Scripture that militates against believing some extra-Biblical, traditional account of this or that Bible-times location, is there really a need to say that said traditional account must needs be false, just because it is traditional?
          What would you accept as arbitration?

          Stuart

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            What would you accept as arbitration?

            Stuart
            What do you mean?
            All my ancestors are human.
            PS: All your ancestors are human.
            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

            Comment

            Working...
            X