Evidence for the Resurrection:A Critique for the Exclusive Divinity of Jesus ChristThere are three arguments for the exclusive divinity of Jesus Christ: A historical argument, a logical argument and a scientific argument. Both the historical and the logical arguments are subjective and are hundreds of years old. The historical argument can be easily summed up by saying that no one in history has ever accomplished what Jesus Christ has accomplished. Since no one can match the deeds and accomplishments of Jesus Christ, then he has to be God. The logical argument can be easily summed up by saying that the teachings of Jesus Christ are unique among all the religious founders, teachers and philosophers. They all say look to their teachings for salvation but Jesus says look to him for salvation. Since no one has a teaching anything near to the teachings of Jesus Christ, then he has to be God. But, as noted and as anyone should be able to perceive, these arguments are quite subjective; they rely on the individual’s interpretation of the facts. However, the scientific argument is objective and is only just now coming to light. The scientific argument began with the first photographs of the Shroud of Turin by Secondo Pia in 1898,1 and was “finalized” by the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). The word finalized is here put in quotations marks because no scientific argument is ever completely finalized, and because there has already been enough studies done on the Shroud of Turin to prove that it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The Shroud of Turin is a historical artifact approximately 4.36 meters long by 1.1 meters wide.2 This is an undeniable fact. Another undeniable fact is that the 1978 STURP investigations proved beyond all doubts that the image on the Shroud is not made with paints, dyes, pigments, powders or other organic or inorganic matter.3 The image is imprinted in extraordinary detail on the front side of the cloth4 with a faint image of the man on the back of the Shroud.5 However, all scientific investigations thus far have not adequately answered how the image was put onto the cloth. The mechanism of transferring the image onto the Shroud of Turin is still not known.6 As reported by STURP scientists, the image is an enigma of science that resembles a scorch produced by a low temperature process of high intensity light for an extremely short duration.7 The image is similar to the scorch marks on the cloth from a fire that damaged it in 1532. John Jackson and Eric Jumper, coordinators of STURP, say the “best guess is that the image was caused by a scorch.”8 But they also point out that there are problems with the scorch hypothesis. A review of just the general knowledge gained by the STURP scientists, archaeological scientists and other investigations of the Shroud of Turin thus far reveals numerous undeniable facts. 1) The image of the man in the Shroud of Turin depicts
a Jewish man who was beaten with a flagrum, had a crown of thorns on
his head and was crucified in the exact same manner in which Jesus
Christ was beaten and crucified.9 2) The image is anatomically correct; the stigmata do not follow art or legend.11 The bloodstains on the cloth are composed of human hemoglobin and other blood components12 and are also anatomically correct.13 3) The body was inexplicably removed from within the
cloth after rigor mortis set in but before putrefaction took
place.14 4) The bloodstains were put on the cloth before the image,17 which involves a very thin colored layer (approximately 200-600 nanometer thick)18 and was produced without heating by some yet unknown process for an extremely short duration. Thermal chemist Ray Rogers of STURP proposed a hypothesis using the words “flash photolysis” and speaks of a mere millisecond of time.19 5) The image on the cloth is similar to a photographic negative; the image is reversed in light and shade. However, unlike normal photographic negatives and positive prints, it is the negative, not the positive print, that has the overall harmonious appearance.20 6) On the front of the Shroud there is a very detailed image of the crucified man on the individual threads of the cloth with a similar but fainter image of him on the reverse side.21 However, the man’s bloodstains are soaked through to both sides of the cloth and in between the individual threads.22 7) The only visual indication that the image is different from the cloth when seen at high magnification is the straw-yellow color of the uppermost fibrils of the individual threads of the cloth.23 8) The intensity of the image is determined by the number of fibrils that are discolored – more where the cloth came in contact with the body and fewer with greater distance from the body, giving the image a three-dimensional likeness of the crucified man in a non-directional manner.24 9) Modern science has proved that the image itself is not a painting and not of mid-fourteenth century origin but science is unable to discover how the image was put on the cloth. The STURP scientists are unable to explain how a dead corpse could put the image on the cloth.25 The conclusion of STURP was that the image is a mystery of science.26 10) Finally, nothing in STURP’s investigations
precluded the Shroud’s authenticity.27 Indeed, science has
found at least eight points of congruence between the Shroud of Turin
and the death and burial of Jesus Christ,28 making the
probability of it being the burial cloth of someone other than Jesus
Christ at least one in one hundred million.29 To quote Dr. John H. Heller, a STURP scientist: “The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available . . . if a similar number of data had been found in the funerary linen attributed to Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, or Socrates, there would be no doubt in anyone’s mind that it was, indeed, the shroud of that historical person. But because of the unique position that Jesus holds, such evidence is not enough.”31 This is where the STURP investigations and all other scientific investigations have ended. That is, according to the beliefs of most scientists, science cannot say whether the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The scientists of these investigations say that it is not up to science to get involved in religious controversies and that science cannot dictate to religion what to teach as truth. This latter is true. Science cannot tell religion what to teach, nor can religion tell science what to teach. The problem is, is that religion has been needlessly interjected into what is actually a scientific question. But Jesus was a historical person and the Shroud of Turin is a historical artifact. Therefore, the question as to whether the Shroud of Turin is his authentic burial cloth is not a religious question; it is a scientific one. To demand a higher, more stringent proof of authenticity just because Jesus is the founder of a religion is to allow the religious charlatans of this world to dictate to science what to teach as truth. It is those who cannot separate their politics from their religion who are turning it into a religious issue. An objective interpretation of all the historical, archaeological, logical and other scientific facts (many of which are not discussed here, e.g. the works of Max Frei32) proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Shroud of Turin, or the Mandylion of Edessa as it was one time called, is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. As noted, this is a belief also held by several STURP scientists. Since all current scientific investigations provide evidence of the Shroud’s authenticity beyond the ability or competency of medieval forgers,33 it is therefore time for the Shroud’s detractors to bear the burden of proof for their beliefs and their lack of faith. The STURP investigators started out hoping to discover two things: What were the bloodstains and body images made of and how were they formed?34 The first question has been satisfactorily answered and the second question, according to the official statement issued by STURP, is that the Shroud is an enigma of science that is unsolved to date.35 Although these two questions are very important and need to be answered, another very important question that was not (and could not be) addressed by STURP is the why of the Shroud of Turin. Two thousand years ago only God had the kind of knowledge needed to produce the three-dimensional, non-directional image that is acheiropoietos, not made by human hands.36 This exactly corresponds to STURP’s conclusion that: “The bottom line for . . . all who follow with various painting-based hypotheses, is that the now heavily documented, independently confirmed, peer-reviewed work of STURP clearly has virtually eliminated the possibility that the Shroud image could be the result of an applied pigment. All of the electromagnetic spectrum, all of the chemical data, even all of the physics of the image mitigate against a man-made image.”37 A logical question necessarily follows: Why did God create the image on the cloth known as the Shroud of Turin? Why did God create something that the apostles had no idea of what it was and that could not be even partially understood until modern science looked at it under a microscope? The apostles knew that something extraordinary happened to the dead corpse of Jesus Christ on the Sunday morning after they buried him. They reported seeing an angel whose countenance was as lightning and an earthquake (Mt.28:2-3). Then suddenly there was no corpse. Next some of them testified to seeing him alive later that day and during the days that followed (Jn.20:11-20). What happened to Jesus Christ was so mind-boggling to them that they considered it a resurrection from the dead; they had no other way of explaining it. Later St. Paul explained that our resurrection will be in the twinkling of an eye or moment of time (1Cor.15:50-53). The STURP investigations are an independent source for what the apostles saw and reported. These scientists have shown that the image was produced by some unknown energy process of an extremely short duration, producing an image that is similar to a scorch.38 However, the STURP scientists are unable to explain how a dead corpse could create the detailed image of the man on the cloth.39 The conclusion of STURP was that the image is an enigma of science.40 The STURP investigations have also shown that the body was inexplicably removed from within the cloth after rigor mortis set in but before putrefaction took place. The STURP investigations in effect say that something extraordinary happened to the dead corpse of Jesus Christ between 24 and 48 hours after his death.41 Two independent observations say that the image on the Shroud of Turin was not man-made. Two independent observations say that something extraordinary happened to the dead corpse of Jesus Christ. Two independent observations say that the dead corpse of Jesus Christ just disappeared. One observation, 2,000 years ago, said that it disappeared overnight. While a second observation, in 1978, said that it happened while the corpse was still wrapped within its shroud. One independent observation, 2,000 years ago, said that there was an angel whose countenance was as lightning associated with what they considered the resurrection of a dead man. A second observation, in 1978, said that there was some unknown energy process associated with the dead man in the shroud, which somehow put his image onto the cloth. There must be a logical solution to all this. There has to be one, simple explanation that can answer all the questions raised by the simple life and unique teachings of Jesus Christ and all the unknowns surrounding the Shroud of Turin. There must be one, simple explanation that can help solve this mystery. There is! Science has a precept of conservation that is beloved of scientists known as the Principle of Occam’s Razor. It states that if there is a simple, elementary way of arriving at a solution, opposed to a complicated one, the simpler solution is probably the correct one.42 There is only one simple explanation: Jesus Christ is exactly who He proclaimed to be and He accomplished exactly what He said He would do. He rose from the dead, thereby proving his exclusive divinity and the Shroud of Turin is the record of that resurrection. This is why God created the Mandylion of Edessa or Shroud of Turin. To quote sindonologist Ian Wilson: “In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, . . . suddenly there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerializes . . . while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal ‘snapshot’ of the resurrection.”43 Any other explanation is like trying to defend a geocentric solar system in the light of the evidence for the heliocentric system. Many will claim that this is interjecting religion into science. But it is not! It is science! Jesus Christ is a historical person; there have been several historians contemporary with the earliest Christians that have written of his existence. The Shroud of Turin is a historical artifact that bears the image of his crucifixion. One can see it today in Turin, Italy. Jesus Christ professed to be the Son of God and professed that He would rise from the dead to prove his divinity (Mt.17:21-22; Lk.9:20-22; Jn.2:18-22). The Shroud of Turin is the evidence of his resurrection. While it is true that many have come and gone claiming to be God and claiming that they would rise from the dead, only Jesus Christ has the reputation of succeeding in his promise. Only Jesus Christ has a shroud testifying to his divinity. Reason demands a logical explanation. Logic demands a simple explanation. Occam’s Razor demands that Jesus Christ be accepted as the Son of God, the Word Incarnate. Any other explanation is like trying to defend Plitdown Man in the light of evidence for an australopithecine origin for mankind. The above (© 2006 by Peter Jude Fagan) is a summary of an argument I present in the on-line manuscript Alpha Omega, © 2003, 1993, 1983. Please e-mail your comments to stellavir@yahoo.com and I will answer you as soon as possible. 1 Culliton, p.236.
|
