"Sunday Morning" 2012 Shroud of Turin segment

Did anyone else see it?

Basically, they said the Shroud’s photonegative properties, as well as the possibility that it was ancient and from Jerusalem, was so.

But then they pulled out a wild argument: that apparently the “image in the Shroud” is what the women at the tomb saw. That is, this one guy thought the image “looked so real” to the women that they thought Christ had risen, and this shroud - still on the body - sparked Christianity.

:yawn:

Perhaps these yuppies don’t know anything about Scripture. Like its reliability. Or its dating.

The Gospels make it fairly clear: it was not just seeing a shroud with a “living” image on it.

Still ticks me off that they’re desperately trying to grab at straws to instill doubt like this on the Most Holy of Days. And the Most Blessed of Days.:mad:

Hey :slight_smile:

I didn’t see this but it sure sounds interesting - could you provide us with a link?

Much love and HAPPY EASTER! :thumbsup:

Oh, shoot… I forgot about that. Never mind; it’s fresh off the presses. I just saw it half an hour ago on the television. I don’t think the video’s even on CBS just yet.

But this article seems to be the subject they covered.

Erm… does this now belong in the “news” section?

People stand in front of the Holy Shroud during the Solemn Exposition of the Holy Shroud on April 10, 2010 in Turin, Italy. (Vittorio Zunino Celotto/Getty Images)

The Shroud of Turin has intrigued believers and non-believers alike for centuries. On this Easter Sunday morning our Cover Story is reported by Martha Teichner:

It’s possibly the greatest “What if …” in the world. What if the Shroud of Turin really is the burial cloth Jesus was wrapped in . . . and the faint imprint on it, the image of a man who has been tortured and crucified, really is Christ himself?

The last time the Shroud was on view, for six weeks in 2010, more than two million people saw it, even though in 1988, after a carbon dating test, it was declared a medieval fake - dating from between 1260 and 1390.

The story was supposed to be over. But tell that to the throngs who waited hours for the chance to spend seconds before it in reverent silence.

And tell that to scholars who think the carbon dating results were just plain wrong, among them art historian Thomas de Wesselow.

De Wesselow - an agnostic, originally a skeptic about the Shroud - has just published a provocative new book about in which he concludes it’s genuine.

He compared it to artwork depicting the Crucifixion created since the Middle Ages, referring to the Station of the Cross at the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola in New York City: “If you look at the hands on the cross, the nails go through the center of the palms,” he showed Teichner. “That part of the hand is not strong enough to bear the weight of the body.”

Meanwhile, the image on the Shroud shows the nail wounds going through the wrists. “That’s how they would have done it in Roman times,” said De Wesselow, supporting the idea that the Shroud is much older than the middle ages.

He said the Shroud illustrates signs of the events of Good Friday through Easter Sunday. “You start off with the flagellation, and that’s very clearly presented on the Shroud, with these very, very distinct marks of the flagrum,” he said. “You can then see the crown of thorns. He then is beaten and you can see on his face underneath his eyes there’s a swelling. His nose looks as if it’s been broken.” There is also the mark of a puncture of a spear, with “dribbles of blood coming down.”

Just coincidence?

I saw it and reassured myself that, since they used Easter to make an attack on Christianity, I’m sure they’ll be making a similar attack against Islam on Ramadan. :rolleyes:

I think it’s interesting to see how criticism of the shroud has changed over the years. As more evidence points to it being authentic (not necessarily definitive proof of it being Christ’s burial cloth, but authentic for the time, etc.) they now start using it as an attack on our basic beliefs. In other words, before they wouldn’t give an inch on it being a fake. Now you’re getting some who concede that it could be authentic but that it’s authenticity disproves the Gospels.

Yes; his is a very silly argument, though, wouldn’t you say? :slight_smile:

The story this De Wesselow fellow coined sounds nothing like what the four Gospels propose.

But, if he continues studying, I think we may very well have a new convert on our hands.

:banghead: They think the viewers are stupid !!!

They were just presenting the view of one author; nothing wrong with that. Those of us who don’t agree with him don’t have to buy his book.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.