Do you believe in the resurrection of the Jesus Christ? Shroud of Turin

[neognosis]

UM had an episode on resurrection of the Jesus Christ

http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/w...hroud_Of_Turin

History: The Shroud of Turin is one of the most famous Christian artifacts of the Twentieth Century. Believed to contain the face of Christ, it first turned up in France during the Renaissance period, but by 1578, the shroud was moved to Turin, Italy, where it has been rarely shown in public. Father “Kim” Dreisbach, Jr. has spent the majority of his career studying the shroud with intentions of declaring it a hoax, but now, several years late, the shroud still manages to mystify him.
The shroud was photographed for the first time in 1898 where negatives gave the best image of the hidden face on the cloth. The photographer’s negatives showed more detail than could be seen by the naked eye. Dr. Robert Bucklin, a forensic pathologist, has examined life-sized photographic negatives of the shroud and discovered a series of bloodstains around the forehead, high in the scalp and along the posterior portion of the scalp. These are consistent with the application of a crown or a cap of thorns. On the chest area, there’s a rather unique wound consistent with a puncture type wound made by an implement which entered the chest cavity and produced an outflow of blood and water. In the region of the left wrist, there’s a puncture wound, which was clearly made by some implement, which passed into the tissues of the wrist and produced bleeding. All of these details are consistent with the Crucifixion. Although most crucifixions have been traditionally depicted with nails driven through the palms, modern research has confirmed that at the time of Jesus’ death, nails were driven through the victims’ wrists:
“The Romans did enough of these, sometimes 500 a day, to be excellent anatomists. And like a butcher, they knew where the bones were. They put it in the wrist and it held the body and held it well.” Father Dreisbach adds.
The shroud was made available to a number of scientists for the first time in 1978 who lifted particles from the shroud with adhesive tape. Biophysicist John Heller and chemist Alan Adler also determined that there was blood on the cloth along with chemical evidence of severe torture, consistent with crucifixion. Their findings however, are not universally accepted. Some scientists, like Dr. Walter McCrone, have claimed that the shroud is a forgery-the work of a highly skilled artist who painted with tiny brush strokes.
In recent times, other scientists have used computer technology to study the shroud. Optical specialist Kevin Moran claimed his computer analysis revealed that the image has unique optical qualities impossible to duplicate that confirm the shroud’s authenticity. In addition to his findings, believers claimed that the absence of brush strokes on the shroud proves it is not a painting. However, skeptics have pointed out that Leonardo da Vinci’s brush strokes were often invisible. In an effort to resolve the controversies surrounding the shroud, the Vatican allowed samples to be cut from its outer edges in 1988. Three universities were given a tiny piece of linen for carbon dating. Dr. Paul Damon, at the University of Arizona, headed the carbon dating team in the United States with his findings placing the shroud’s origin between 1290 and 1360 A.D. when it alledgedly first appeared. The Vatican accepted the results of Paul Damon’s carbon dating as carbon dating tests in Switzerland and England confirmed Damon’s findings. The Vatican has refused to allow further testing, but it did approve a major restoration. However, recent findings suggest the carbon dating could be flawed - that only a reweave was tested, but not the true shroud. In addition to that, a fire in that occurred in the shroud's past might have altered it's carbon signiture, making any further carbon dating test invalid.
Background: The complete history of the Shroud of Turin is a bit convoluted, but it is believed to have reached France from Constantinople, where it was known as the Edessa Cloth, and spirited to Europe during the Crusades.
Investigations: None
Extra Notes: This case originally ran on the October 2, 1991 episode.

on UM the guests state that they believe that when God raised his son the lord Jesus Christ from the dead, the burst of energy x-ray gamma rays imprinted the image on the Shroud of Turin.

Do you believe God rose his son Jesus Christ from the dead, and that during the resurrection, gamma-xray energy imprinted Jesus image on the Shroud of Turin?

[88keys]

Yes, I believe in the Resurrection. No, I do not believe that "gamma x-ray energy" imprinted Jesus' image on the shroud.

[James T]

No & No.

[neognosis]

Originally Posted by James T

No & No.

what happened to the body then?

[wiseguy182]

I believe in the Resurrection of Mary.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Originally Posted by neognosis

what happened to the body then?

Poltergeists.

[James T]

Originally Posted by neognosis

what happened to the body then?

He became Governor of Minnesota.

[Necco]

Originally Posted by James T

He became Governor of Minnesota.

Congratulations, James, you've won the internet for today. arty:

[88keys]

Originally Posted by James T

He became Governor of Minnesota.

[neognosis]

Originally Posted by James T

He became Governor of Minnesota.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Originally Posted by neognosis

Do you believe God rose his son Jesus Christ from the dead, and that during the resurrection, gamma-xray energy imprinted Jesus image on the Shroud of Turin?

Yes, I believe the image on the shroud was created during and by the resurrection of Christ. I don't claim to pretend to have a guess as to *how* it was done, just that that event caused it.

[Awsi Dooger]

No, I believe in one and done, that anything else is a cute story. However, I do think it is overwhelmingly positive for humans to believe in the cute stories and all the offshoots.

My family members and I are at odds on this. Only my father held the same point of view. Everyone else is radically the other way.

I never bring up my version. They insist on peppering me with theirs. Then somehow they don't understand when I won't meekly succumb and agree with them. Unfortunately there was an example as recently as Christmas Eve. When we drove home from midnight mass, which I attend every year to keep tradition within the family and to see old friends who are regulars of that church, a female member of my family somehow thought it was perfect timing to announce she saw a movie that verified the existence of God. I kept silent. She said there was a prominent recent movie in which someone defined as a non-believer became very emotional late in the flick and emphasized that he was, "angry with God." Apparently the movie tried to seize on that line: If he was angry with God, that means God has to exist. The audience loved it.

I chuckled to myself, knowing how simple it was to counter: "Carolyn, I'm in love with the dinosaur on Bird Road."

"What are you talking about?"

"You heard me. I am in love with that dinosaur on Bird Road. All of them."

"Stop speaking nonsense."

"Well, if I'm in love with them, they have to exist, right?"

Naturally that led to heightened emotions throughout the remainder of the drive home. The people in the back seat who loved Carolyn's anecdote rejected my counter. I wasn't surprised. Like I said, I never initiate the topic but always find it so remarkably simple to counter.

I'm not going to be wrong about this, BTW. It always amazes me along Las Vegas lines that a reliable trend with let's say a 57 or 60% generic probability among a huge sample will hit a significantly higher number than that when applied to an extremely meaningful event, like the Super Bowl. As soon as I'm gone there will be nothing to behold or dread, because it's one and done.

I have visited the home of the shroud. Nice place.

[88keys]

Awsi, there is a God who loves you and desires a relationship with you more than anything. And He is bigger and more meaningful than silly human anecdotes.

For me, the shroud isn't really that important. Is it really the face of Jesus? I have no idea, but it really doesn't matter much. My belief isn't based on a piece of cloth, and I don't need a piece of cloth to prove or disprove anything to me. I suspect your relatives might be a bit insecure in their beliefs, Awsi, if they need a movie to reinforce them.

[Necco]

I believe in god. I believe in the shroud. I mean, the shroud exists, right? It's there. What it is? I don't know.

[TheCars1986]

No idea whether or not the shroud was the actual burial cloth of Jesus. I'd have to say no. Jesus's resurrection, son of God? Yes.