วีดีโอ

Not much doubt as to your Shroud ignorance. 1. 'And Joseph bought a linen *shroud,* and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen *shroud* [Mark 15:46] 2. 'And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen *shroud'* [Matthew 27:59] 3. 'Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen *shroud'* [Luke 23:53] Each of the synoptic Gospels mention Joseph of Arimathea making use of a single linen cloth to wrap the body of Jesus for burial. The Word 'Sindon' (singular noun ) means 'A clean sheet' and the Word 'Othonion' (plural noun) means 'bandages'. Luke uses the same plural noun (Othonion), “funeral linens,” in his account of the Resurrection (Luke 24: 12) after earlier speaking of the singular burial cloth (Sindon) or *shroud* (Luke 23 :53) . This plural noun mentioned in (Luke 24: 12) is intended to include all the funeral elements such as : 1) A long *shroud( - It's used to wrap whole body 2)A face cloth or 'Soudarion' - It's not used to wrap whole head but to wipe the perspiration from one’s face. The Greek word 'Soudarion' was derived from a Latin word for “sweat.” 3)A few stripes of linen - They help to tie a shroud around a body The Fourth Gospel never mentions such a 'Sindon'. Instead, John writes of Joseph and Nicodemus “binding the body of Jesus in strips of linen” The verb 'Binding' ( δέω) is frequently found in the context of binding a prisoner with chains. (Mark 5.3; 6.17; Acts 12.6; 21.33) John uses the same verb in Revelation for the 'binding' of the dragon (Rev 20: 2)

​@@beverlyhurd8556 Where is the explanation of ... John 19 39Nicodemus, who had previously come to Jesus at night, also brought a mixture of myrrh(a) and aloes(b), about seventy-five pounds [32 KG]. 40So they took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths [OTHONION] with [META] the spices, according to the Jewish burial custom. '... wrapped/bound ... with the spices ...' Impossible using something like the Shroud. Apart from this there are no traces of spices although the Shroud must be full of it. (a) myrrh: Is an oily rubbery resin which is obtained from the solidified sap of myrrh shrub/tree (genus Commiphora). The resin is dissolvable in water and e.g. olive oil, can be powdered and has among others a spicy pleasant scent. (b) aloes: Is either the resin which is obtained from the solidified sap of the eagle tree (Aquilaria agallocha) or in this case it is likely the evaporated extract from the fleshly leaves of Aloe vera or Aloe succotrina. (c) Barrie Schwortz "Excerpt of STURPs 1981 final report: ... Microchemical evaluation has indicated NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SPICES, OILS, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a DIRECT CONTACT OF THE SHROUD WITH A BODY, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood." There are more details in a video presentation/description and comments when clicking icon W to the left-top of this comment.

TL;DR 😂

@@troygreen8959 false!

Here in 2025, there is virtually _no one_ that is both intelligent and has plenty of common sense that will call the Holy Shroud a fake. That is simply impossible. That's every bit as idiotic as claiming that Jesus never existed. _Way_ stupid.

Hahahaha DAN; keep believing your twisted thoughts.

@DANsRPathetic come debate

😂😂😂

You have NO concept of YHWH at all. If this shroud is the burial cloth of the Lord, then it's obviously not an idol. However, you are free to believe whatever you like. THAT'S what it means to "made in the image of YHWH". He loves you enough to never force Himself upon you.

@dragonslayer7587 I quoted passage after passage from YHWH. Where is your biblical proof of your belief in the shroud? u must use God's own words, as I have not used mine! Deutoronomy 4:16 "so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a MAN or a woman" Isaiah 53:2 "He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." John 20:6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen CLOTHS lying there, and the FACE CLOTH, which had been on Jesus' head, NOT LYING WITH THE LINEN CLOTHS BUT FOLDED UP IN A PLACE BY ITSELF.” Moses hand turned white, then back to its ORIGINAL COLOUR, Leviticus 13:13 talks of white all over, which was not normal, but YHWH called it clean leprous and affliction (likely bc the skin burned).

N D Wilson was able to reproduce it using linens, pigments, and sunlight -- exactly how a medieval would have created it.

@ show us. Where is it?

@@albertsolorio777 Human beings are so funny-like little infants playing “peek-a-boo”!! Because you don’t see it, or know of it, you think, therefore, it does not exist… This is a very bad theory, and one not based on Biblical principles or standing.

He is God, of one essence with the Father...

@@zoejay No such thing as essence in the Bible. You have been brainwashed by Gnosticism, mystics, and pagan philosophies. Jesus is the Son of God with his own spirit that was united in will and purpose with his Father's spirit when he was given the spirit without limit. Drop the essence crap. I've studied the Bible and you ain't pulling anything over on me sonny.

The word was God and the word is God and God spoke his word into the Earth until it manifests became flesh and dwelt among men

Jesus is God, and God is Jesus. God says He himself will come to save His people, and so He has.

@@johnspartan98 You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.

A true Christian wouldnt call others demons, you have hate and judgement in your heart.

@@brijac04 ok satan

Yes, and that cloth that covered the head is in Spain. Don't be so ignorant and try doing more study on the subject.

You are absolutely correct, he was wrapped in strips of burial cloths with herbs and fragrant ointments as all were at that time. Isiah 52 last paragraph states the truth about his disfigurement.

So you don't have eyes to see and ears to hear. The shroud is real

@@Boxerdonttestme I guess the Bible doctrine I quoted is worthless to you. Even though it comes directly from God the Holy Spirit. Think for one minute… do you honestly believe that after being bludgeoned by Roman soldiers, pulling out His beard by the roots, Jesus could possibly look as pristine as that relic? You obviously have never experienced a face that has endured major trauma.

@@Boxerdonttestme 2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

Only through Christ can one get to heaven. Bahi faith is not fine.

@@chriskitchen4772 The Baha’i Faith is the most recent independent world religion. It is also the most recent divine revelation from God. Baha’u’llah was predicated to come, in all the religions of the world! Christ himself had promised it

Spitzer said that pollen grains in the linen prove the cloth had been in Judea. I don't know why your Bahai religion prevents you from following the science. There are many other reasons we know Jesus' body disappeared per historical accounts.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that Da Vinci might have been the creator of the image. However, we know that the shroud was in existence long before his birth.

@jeffjeffreym,The only piece of cloth that was cut out for dating procedure had suggested that it was from the 1354 circa. No other piece of cloth has been cut out for any recent carbon dating to suggest that it was from 2000 years ago. The church has not allowed it. Moreover, whether it was Da Vinci or some other smart forger, he would not have used a new cloth but would have used a very old cloth for that purpose. A similar replica of the shroud has already been produced. It’s known that it was created through Camera Obscura which has been around since 400 BC. As mentioned, the biblical accounts also do not sanction such a cloth as the shroud of Turin. It contradicts every authorized official Bible commentary such as: Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers, Benson Commentary, Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Matthew Poole’s Commentary, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Geneva Study Bible, Meyer’s NT Commentary, Expositor’s Greek Testament, and Cambridge for Schools and Colleges--all speak of strips or sheets of linen cloths along with slices wrapped around the body. They are not talking about strips of linen to just fastening the shroud, but that the strips were the real shroud: “John 19:40. ἔλαβον … ἐνταφιάζειν. They wrapped the body in strips of linen along with the aromatic preparations (2 Chronicles 16:14, ἀρωμάτων), as is the custom (ὡς ἔθος ἐστί, 1 Ma 10:89) with the Jews.”… -Expositor’s Greek Testament “John 19:40-42. ʼΕν ὀθονίοις] In bandages, so that He was enveloped therein, Plato, Legg. ix. p. 882 B; Pol. viii. p. 567 C; Jdt 16:8” -Meyer’s NT Commentary “Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen “clothes” with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.” -Geneva Study Bible “They took the body of Jesus - Without regarding the reproach to which it might expose them; and wound it in linen clothes - Wrapped it in “a great many folds of linen”; with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.” -Benson Commentary Bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury: Joseph and Nicodemus did what they could to wrap the body of Jesus with the myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds Nicodemus brought. Before the body was wrapped it had to be prepared. One of the customs of the Jews in preparing a body for burial is the requirement to remove all foreign matter from the body and to carefully wash it…….. Myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds: “The enormous quantity has been accounted for as a rich man’s expression of devotion, or as required if the entire body and all the wrappings were to be smeared with it.” (Dods) vii. “The quantity of one hundred Roman pounds (75 lbs. avdp.) revealed both Nicodemus’s wealth and appreciation of Jesus.” (Tenney)” -David Guzil Commentary “The Jews were buried in a mummy-wrapping way. I told you this last time that they wrapped the fingers. They wrapped the hands. Then they wrapped the arms around the body and then they wrapped the legs together. Then they wrapped the body all the way up, but they stopped at the shoulders and left the neck. It’s a little gruesome, but I’ll tell you why in a minute. Then they wrapped the head.”… -Dr. John Barnett (Discover the Book Ministries, Dr. John Barnett has been teaching the Word of God for 30+ years. Born and raised in Michigan, John has studied at Michigan State University, Bob Jones University (B.S., B.A., M.A., M. Div.), The Master’s Seminary (faculty and Th. M. work), Dallas Theological Seminary (Dr. of Biblical Ministry) and with Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri Fellowship.)

@@JeanSmith-sz4uu Very interesting, thankyou. I'm not aware of any replica shroud having been produced. Where is it and when was it done? This is news to me. BTW, I wasn't suggesting that the shroud dates back 2,000 years, just that it pre-dates Da Vinci.

@ watch this whole video but similar photographic image has been reproduced by camera obscura. @31:10 into the video you will see how it can be done. But it’s good to watch the whole video. th-cam.com/video/GwE7XvOi4pc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=nXrUGM1kkA5KRzeQ Of course as mentioned before, we don’t this video or camera obscura to disprove the shroud--we only need the Bible to refute it. And it’s not that we like to just disprove it at any cost, but the simple is when we look at the Bible and study it like a detective, we see perfectly clear that the shroud cannot possibly be anything even remotely close to what Jesus was wrapped in.

@@JeanSmith-sz4uu Many thanks.

⚡️⚡️⚡️One of the so-called scientists that have worked on the shroud of Turin is Ian Wilson. But, Mr. Wilson’s authority and expertise on the Shroud as well as his other works such as the Flood Story of the book of Genesis, and even Nostradamus have been shown to be very questionable and have received very poor ratings and reviews by critics who have been experts in the relevant historical and scientific backgrounds. Mr. Ian Wilson himself has been said to have graduated in “modern history” from Magdalen College which is nominally the Church of England. This does not make him any expert or any academically qualified authority to have an unbiased opinion that would carry any weight in the fields of ancient history, archaeological history, and relevant sciences. And even if he did, most of, if not, all of what he has claimed would be rejected by both the broad and the specific unbiased scientific communities around the world. Historian Charles Freeman has heavily criticized Ian Wilson's writings on the subject of the Shroud of Turin. He has stated this about Mr. Ian Wilson: “He is not taken seriously by any respected historian... Wilson has failed to provide any significant evidence from this mass of material to back his narrative. It seems to fail at every point. He provides no evidence that the Shroud existed in Jerusalem, no evidence that a burial shroud arrived in Edessa." (Source: Freeman, Charles. (2012). "The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey"Archived 9 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Free Inquiry.) I have found many of the documents on the shroud to be inconsistent and contradictory in quite few places. Too many to bring up here and talk about them. Another scientist working on the should has been Mark Guscin who again is not a valid source. The reason is self-evident--Mr. Guacin has obtained a degree in Bachelor of Arts and one in Master of Philosophy--both of which are irrelevant to the required specialized fields dealing with history, science, and archeology-- and not to mention the New Testament scholarship. Reading his article similar to the one by Mr. Ian Wilson is filled with contradictions, suppositions, assumptions as well as elements that would forcefully distort the sacred texts of the Bible which are the ultimate authority in ascertaining and differentiating between the facts and the manmade assumptions, wishes, and desirously-derived contents added to the sacred texts. Another authority that many reference on the subject of the shroud of Turin is a man who calls himself an “Australian evangelical Christian in my 70s”. Howbeit, I read his statements carefully to see what his claims are. He is correct in saying that Greek translation of the word othonia meaning linen wrappings or cloths is in plural, however, he erroneously and under his own assumptions claims that the main big shroud was taken by Jesus which which is an empty assertion and not biblical at all! It amazes me how far man is willing to distort the word of God just to try to prove his own imaginary ideas! In any case, he is free to express his opinions, but he is not any authoritative source whatsoever especially in the light of genuine scholarship. Let’s go now to another source who is referenced a lot, namely the forensic scientist, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D., Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology, Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons. I have absolutely no reason to doubt Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe educational background as a forensic scientist or any part of his academic accomplishments. Out of all the main sources which people reference as being authoritative, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe would be legit in his own field. We need to be cautious even here because we are all human and can still make mistakes. For example, Albert Einstein was wrong about some key scientific discoveries such as believing in a static universe even though his own formula had shown that the universe is not static but expanding. His inner conviction (bias) about a static universe had gotten the best of him: When first developing his theory of general relativity, Albert Einstein initially believed the universe was static and added a term to his equations called the "cosmological constant" to force this idea, even though his theory of general relativity mathematically implied an expanding universe, which he later accepted after observations confirmed it was expanding; he considered adding this constant his "biggest blunder”. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html) Apparently, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe also had his own blunder. In science, merely one person’s assertions without the consensus of the main body of the scientific institutions is not sufficient to be counted as true or factual even if the person is as prestigious in the academic fields as Albert Einstein. Moreover, Dr. Andrea Nicolotti , a Professor of the History of Christianity and of the Church in the Università degli Studi di Torino says this about the shroud and general medical examiners and forensic pathologists: “As for the alleged “medical and anatomical convincingness” of the anthropomorphic imprint and wounds on the Shroud, several non-sindonologist forensic pathologists have declared it impossible to conduct a physical examination of a body that is not present, based only on a monochromatic image generated not by natural contact but by a process akin to an orthogonal projection on a flat surface2 (as I explain in my book, pp. 282-87). Moreover, those seeking to conduct such an examination have produced a series of statements that are mutually contradictory and thus negate each other.” Same Christian historian states the following about the shroud: “… as early as 1978 the FBI was asked to comment on the cause of death of the man whose image appears on the Shroud; they refused to do so, because-as director Clarence M. Kelley replied-examining photographs of the cloth would have been “not productive.” Robert Wilcox, Shroud (London, 1978), 135-36. In 1980, the same request was made of the famous New York-based pathologist Michael M. Baden; he concluded that “the Shroud probably never contained a corpse, and that-even if it did-a qualified pathologist could not read the kind of conclusions being held out as ‘expert medical opinion’ on what it purportedly shows. . . . If I had to go into a court room, I could not say there was rigor, whether the man was alive or dead, or that this picture was a true reflection of injuries on the body. I do know dead bodies: human beings don’t produce this kind of pattern”: Reginald W. Rhein, “The Shroud of Turin: Medical Examiners Disagree,” Medical World News 21, no. 26 (1980), 40-50.” There is a ton more evidence that if we go through them one by one, they would all dissolves the whole notion of the Shroud of Turin. But let these few sources suffice for now. None of these discussions would be necessary if one were to take a simple look at the Bible and have that as the sole authority in which it explains itself clearly. Nothing can explain the Bible better than the Bible itself. It should be used to weigh in the opinions and statements of historians and the scientists and not the other way around. That being said, none of the sources people claim as scientists, working on the shroud, with the exception of Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe would even come close to being qualified to speak authoritatively on the shroud of Turin. And in the final analysis even Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, as a strong and a very devout Catholic states things that no other forensic pathologists would deem as honest science. It happens so often that a good scientist makes the most unscientific assertions! Even Caiaphas who was the high priest in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus's ministry was supposed to be extremely knowledgeable in the Old Testament and the law and yet, his highest so called knowledge of the law was not sufficient to help him see the truth and he had rejected the Lord. Based on the Bible and based on the sincere investigation of the sciences, it is absolutely clear that the shroud cannot possibly be the genuine artifact!

Jesus is fully human and fully God. Therefore he is the face of God.

Jesus is God

Thank you for dealing with this Truth which is beyond human understanding. Christians have been dealing with what seems to be a contradiction in terms since the beginning of Christianity. So we have formulae that we contemplate, which expand our understanding. One of these is "God is Love". Another is "God is One; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. One God, three persons." The Jewish authorities did not want Jesus dead because He claimed to be the Messiah, but because He showed by word and deed that He was, in fact, God and Son of God at the same time -- thus, "God the Son".

@ Why don’t we believe Jesus’ own confirmation of his identity as in Matthew 16:16 and John 10:31-38? Jesus claimed to be the son of God not God at all. Why don’t we believe his words? Ready also John 17:3, who does Jesus say is the only true God? Not himself.

@ Show me a verse that says that Jesus is fully man and fully God? There is none. Jesus was conceived and born of Mary, he is a human being not God. Read your Bible, check Luke 1:26-35, and Matthew 16:16, the idea that Jesus is God is not scriptural it comes from tradition, not from the Bible.

Look at the evidence.

@mc07, Yes, follow the evidence! And the ultimate evidence is the Bible. It is the Bible that ultimately determines the truth, it is the Bible that tells us what resurrection means, it is the Bible that determines its own interpretation and clarification on the claims made. You do not need any of these scientific explanations to refute the physical resurrection. The Bible itself when studied meticulously refutes that idea all by myself. As a member of the Baha’i Faith, and based on the biblical narrative and rational reasoning, we have to accept that the resurrection of Jesus or any of the prophets or individuals within the biblical narrative are all spiritual and not physical resurrections even when literal words are used. Here are the biblical reasoning behind what is being said: Jesus called himself “the resurrection” even long before he was crucified: Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die”. (John 11:25 NIV) This is Jesus himself speaking, so it was the belief in him and his teachings that accounted as true resurrection and not the crucifixion and belief in the reanimation of the physical body. Belief in him and his words revived those who were spiritually dead and brought them forth from their tomb of ignorance. This is all spiritual and not a physical phenomenon. What does the Bible teach about the physical body and resurrection? It says: “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications”… (Hebrew 5:7 KJV) Jesus was a Spirit before he was born and had gone back to being a Spirit after his death: “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV) Therefore, the Bible teaches that Jesus had flesh or a physical body during his life on earth but that there came a time when he was no longer in possession of a physical body. Read the whole chapter so you can see the whole content. What else does the Bible teach about physical body or flesh? Apostle Paul himself stated: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption“. (1 Corinthians 15:50 KJV) Therefore, no physical body which is a corruptible biological entity can have any association or entrance into the Kingdom of God. After all, the Bible teaches that: “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV) and not a physical body, and that the Word which is Christ himself had existed as a Spirit (a nonphysical entity) long before even the creation of what we call earth. Flesh and blood (the physical body) were not important to Jesus at all. The Bible teaches that all that Jesus taught 2000 years ago were all revealed by the Father. Jesus made sure to tell Simon that flesh and blood are not important in this equation--not even his: “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17 NIV) Everything Jesus Christ taught and spoke, about his flesh and body had a spiritual meaning and cannot be taken literally even though Jesus Christ was using “literal words” (check the Greek lexicon) related to “flesh and blood”: “Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58 NIV) Those who took him “literally”, later on they were accused of being cannibals. Read the history and this will become clear to you. Therefore, much of the language that Jesus used must be viewed and interpreted allegorical or symbolic. Jesus taught that it is the spirit that matters and not the flesh: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life.” (John 6:63 NIV) Again Jesus is emphatic about the non-importance of the physical body And instead focused on the importance of the Spirit. People had a very hard time understanding the symbolic and allegorical language that Jesus used--this frustrated Jesus often and said: “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.” (John 8:43 NIV) The phrase, “unable to hear” that Jesus Christ uses is obviously not a literal physical hearing but the inability to hear his words with spiritual hearing. Consider this that if people 2000 years ago had a hard time understanding Jesus Christ, there is no wonder why there are over 43,000 conflicting sects within Christianity. This should humble all Christians. What else can we learn from the topic of resurrection and spiritual truths? Well, Mary Magdalene couldn’t recognize Jesus after the resurrection: “At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” (John 20:14-15 NIV) If this was a “literal”, glorified, bodily resurrection of Jesus, why did he appear like the gardener and was not recognized by Mary? Apparently Jesus did not look glorified, he just looked like someone else--not a shining angel, but like the gardener. We also read that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared quite differently to apostle Paul: About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ “ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.” (Acts 9:4 KJV) Others who were with Paul did not see anything. A physical body cannot be invisible. Moreover, physical bodies cannot go through doors and walls either, but yet, Jesus appears into a room with the disciples when all doors were locked: “A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” (John 20:26 NIV) So, what is my point? The point is Jesus Christ can do whatever he wishes. He can dematerialize from one place and materialize in another place. He can appear as a flash of light from heaven to one person, or as a gardener to another, and he can even eat a piece of fish right in front of you to prove he can do anything. Therefore, we are not questioning what Christ can or cannot do, however, when it comes to the physical resurrection, all the stories we read about his appearances, do not indicate the essential characteristics of the physical body of Jesus Christ as the flesh that he had before his crucifixion, and the Bible in numerous verses makes this very clear. More importantly, if we believe that Jesus Christ has been great eternally in the past without a physical body and long before he was even born, then, he was not in need of a physical body after his crucifixion either, just as Moses and Elijah didn’t need physical bodies either, when they both had appeared to Jesus Christ on the Mount Tabor and then vanished from the sight. Why should anyone assume that after Jesus Christ’s physical birth from the womb of Mary, he had, forever, trapped his true eternal reality in some physical body whether it is assumed to be a regular body or some so called glorified body? To insist on this, is tantamount to limiting Jesus Christ to our earthly limitations. The Bible makes it clear that the resurrection of Jesus has much deeper spiritual meanings and should never be interpreted as a literal physical event. Please note that stating that Christ’s resurrection was a spiritual event and not a physical one, doesn’t mean Jesus Christ was incapable of the supernatural powers--it is that Jesus didn’t need any form of a physical body, and that his greatness transcends beyond any connection with the physical reality. Moreover, in numerous passages, the body of Christ has been interpreted to be the body of the believers or the church itself, and therefore, the resurrection is a spiritual reality which demonstrates the spiritual triumph of the cause of Christ, symbolized as a “body” which is none other than the body of the believers rising to promulgate his cause (the body) fearlessly: “And the church is his body”… (Ephesians 1:23 NLT) …”and build up the church, the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12 NLT) “Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body.“ (Colossians 1:18 MLT) “And we are members of his body.” (Ephesians 5:30 NLT) “All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it.“ (1 Corinthians 12:27 NLT) Resurrection of all the manifestations of God are spiritual in nature and not physical or material. I have studied the Bible and continue to study it. By the way, I am a member of the Baha’i Faith and as a Baha’i I do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.….” (John 6:63 NIV)

@mc07, Still following the evidence! The shroud of Jesus did not consist of just two pieces, but many sheets of linen cloths. Read the following verses very carefully: “Following Jewish burial custom, they wrapped Jesus’ body with the spices in long “sheets” of linen cloth.” (John 19:40) Jesus body as indicated was shrouded by numerous SHEETS (strips) of linen. It wasn’t like there were only two pieces of cloths--most certainly no 14 feet by 3 feet cloth. That’s not how Jewish customs were. To this day it is still not like that. Then there is also the following verse. Again read very very carefully: “Peter and the other disciple started out for the tomb. They were both running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He stooped and looked in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he didn’t go in. Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there, while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.” (John 20:3-7) In the verse above the word cloth as one piece is only used for Jesus’ head but notice for the rest of his body the phrase “linen wrappings” are used which are many many strips or long narrow sheets of linen cloths, and NOT some 14’ ft by 3’ ft linen cloth. Also, Luke 24:12 and John 19:40 both state “linen wrappings (plural) is what they saw and not a long piece of shroud for the body and one for his head. I repeat again it was the Jewish customs to bury the dead in strips or sheets of cloth and nothing like the shroud of Turin. Remember, the gospel says so: “Following Jewish burial custom, they wrapped Jesus’ body with the spices in long “sheets” of linen cloth.” (John 19:40) Also, most Bible commentaries would agree with what I am saying here. Moreover, the Bible teaches that “God is a Spirit” and not any other substance. (John 4:24 KJV) Jesus lived physically like any other human being. After his death he again went back to his original substance which is nothing but Spirit: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.” (Luke 23:46 KJV) The last thing Jesus Christ was interested in was to impress people with miracles. He had spoken against signs and miracles vehemently. He was interested in the spiritual salvation. To be faithful to the entire Bible and not create contradictions we should accept the fact that Jesus’ resurrection must be interpreted spiritually and not physically. The whole thing about the shroud of Turin is incompatible with the entire Bible and should be set aside as forgery. It’s already been reproduced by others and there is no miracle necessary explaining the shroud.

@mc07, One of the so-called scientists that have worked on the shroud of Turin is Ian Wilson. But, Mr. Wilson’s authority and expertise on the Shroud as well as his other works such as the Flood Story of the book of Genesis, and even Nostradamus have been shown to be very questionable and have received very poor ratings and reviews by critics who have been experts in the relevant historical and scientific backgrounds. Mr. Ian Wilson himself has been said to have graduated in “modern history” from Magdalen College which is nominally the Church of England. This does not make him any expert or any academically qualified authority to have an unbiased opinion that would carry any weight in the fields of ancient history, archaeological history, and relevant sciences. And even if he did, most of, if not, all of what he has claimed would be rejected by both the broad and the specific unbiased scientific communities around the world. Historian Charles Freeman has heavily criticized Ian Wilson's writings on the subject of the Shroud of Turin. He has stated this about Mr. Ian Wilson: “He is not taken seriously by any respected historian... Wilson has failed to provide any significant evidence from this mass of material to back his narrative. It seems to fail at every point. He provides no evidence that the Shroud existed in Jerusalem, no evidence that a burial shroud arrived in Edessa." (Source: Freeman, Charles. (2012). "The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey"Archived 9 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Free Inquiry.) I have found many of the documents on the shroud to be inconsistent and contradictory in quite few places. Too many to bring up here and talk about them. Another scientist working on the should has been Mark Guscin who again is not a valid source. The reason is self-evident--Mr. Guacin has obtained a degree in Bachelor of Arts and one in Master of Philosophy--both of which are irrelevant to the required specialized fields dealing with history, science, and archeology-- and not to mention the New Testament scholarship. Reading his article similar to the one by Mr. Ian Wilson is filled with contradictions, suppositions, assumptions as well as elements that would forcefully distort the sacred texts of the Bible which are the ultimate authority in ascertaining and differentiating between the facts and the manmade assumptions, wishes, and desirously-derived contents added to the sacred texts. Another authority that many reference on the subject of the shroud of Turin is a man who calls himself an “Australian evangelical Christian in my 70s”. Howbeit, I read his statements carefully to see what his claims are. He is correct in saying that Greek translation of the word othonia meaning linen wrappings or cloths is in plural, however, he erroneously and under his own assumptions claims that the main big shroud was taken by Jesus which which is an empty assertion and not biblical at all! It amazes me how far man is willing to distort the word of God just to try to prove his own imaginary ideas! In any case, he is free to express his opinions, but he is not any authoritative source whatsoever especially in the light of genuine scholarship. Let’s go now to another source who is referenced a lot, namely the forensic scientist, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D., Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology, Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons. I have absolutely no reason to doubt Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe educational background as a forensic scientist or any part of his academic accomplishments. Out of all the main sources which people reference as being authoritative, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe would be legit in his own field. We need to be cautious even here because we are all human and can still make mistakes. For example, Albert Einstein was wrong about some key scientific discoveries such as believing in a static universe even though his own formula had shown that the universe is not static but expanding. His inner conviction (bias) about a static universe had gotten the best of him: When first developing his theory of general relativity, Albert Einstein initially believed the universe was static and added a term to his equations called the "cosmological constant" to force this idea, even though his theory of general relativity mathematically implied an expanding universe, which he later accepted after observations confirmed it was expanding; he considered adding this constant his "biggest blunder”. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html) Apparently, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe also had his own blunder. In science, merely one person’s assertions without the consensus of the main body of the scientific institutions is not sufficient to be counted as true or factual even if the person is as prestigious in the academic fields as Albert Einstein. Moreover, Dr. Andrea Nicolotti , a Professor of the History of Christianity and of the Church in the Università degli Studi di Torino says this about the shroud and general medical examiners and forensic pathologists: “As for the alleged “medical and anatomical convincingness” of the anthropomorphic imprint and wounds on the Shroud, several non-sindonologist forensic pathologists have declared it impossible to conduct a physical examination of a body that is not present, based only on a monochromatic image generated not by natural contact but by a process akin to an orthogonal projection on a flat surface2 (as I explain in my book, pp. 282-87). Moreover, those seeking to conduct such an examination have produced a series of statements that are mutually contradictory and thus negate each other.” Same Christian historian states the following about the shroud: “… as early as 1978 the FBI was asked to comment on the cause of death of the man whose image appears on the Shroud; they refused to do so, because-as director Clarence M. Kelley replied-examining photographs of the cloth would have been “not productive.” Robert Wilcox, Shroud (London, 1978), 135-36. In 1980, the same request was made of the famous New York-based pathologist Michael M. Baden; he concluded that “the Shroud probably never contained a corpse, and that-even if it did-a qualified pathologist could not read the kind of conclusions being held out as ‘expert medical opinion’ on what it purportedly shows. . . . If I had to go into a court room, I could not say there was rigor, whether the man was alive or dead, or that this picture was a true reflection of injuries on the body. I do know dead bodies: human beings don’t produce this kind of pattern”: Reginald W. Rhein, “The Shroud of Turin: Medical Examiners Disagree,” Medical World News 21, no. 26 (1980), 40-50.” There is a ton more evidence that if we go through them one by one, they would all dissolves the whole notion of the Shroud of Turin. But let these few sources suffice for now. None of these discussions would be necessary if one were to take a simple look at the Bible and have that as the sole authority in which it explains itself clearly. Nothing can explain the Bible better than the Bible itself. It should be used to weigh in the opinions and statements of historians and the scientists and not the other way around. That being said, none of the sources people claim as scientists, working on the shroud, with the exception of Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe would even come close to being qualified to speak authoritatively on the shroud of Turin. And in the final analysis even Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, as a strong and a very devout Catholic states things that no other forensic pathologists would deem as honest science. It happens so often that a good scientist makes the most unscientific assertions! Even Caiaphas who was the high priest in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus's ministry was supposed to be extremely knowledgeable in the Old Testament and the law and yet, his highest so called knowledge of the law was not sufficient to help him see the truth and he had rejected the Lord. Based on the Bible and based on the sincere investigation of the sciences, it is absolutely clear that the shroud cannot possibly be the genuine artifact!

Bahai is just another ahistorical denial of the resurrection, like Islam. Investigate the Shroud. Watch the video seriously.

The Son is human, yes.. but we are made inthe image of God that we are a reflection of Gods nature. We have moral capacity, we're relational, creative, and we have a spirit that connects us to God. We have authority and stewardship over the earth and God gives us dignity.

Being made in the image of God doesn't refer to physical similarities but spiritual ones

No. It means God has a consciousness and a mind.

You can find everything about this in cathecism of the Catholic Church

@ Ok, thank you!

yes I heard that

agree

What did you expect?