Shroud of Turin

[Blade Runner]

Off topic but I just find it bizarre that this guy could believe in Christ's resurrection but still refuse to accept the Gospel considering that the resurrection being true collaborates and gives a stamp of divine approval to Christ's teachings and claims. What's the guy's reasoning?

He obviously doesn't, but if I am incorrect, the only way I am is also interesting: he believes like the demon's "belief". That proves the point that that kind of "faith" is irrelevant. And it again shows that what you think doesn't necessarily matter, it must be confirmed by what you do. This alone can explain also why not all those that say, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom. Plenty of demons and people know who God is, but they lack

say it with me

faithfulness. How is one faithful to God? By doing, by revealing good fruit according to your works, since that's what we're judged on. It doesn't get more clear than this. Lord, have mercy.

 

[Blade Runner]

It makes sense that if the resurrection is true, the followers would have kept the cloth. Not only to show people He had risen, but out of reverence too. Sure the medieval church faked some stuff, but it doesn't mean this particular relic is fake. I don't rest my faith on it, but it is quite compelling.

I do find it funny that believers in the resurrection will say its a bit far fetched that the burial shroud would have been preserved.

I think it's legit. That image also confirms our holy tradition, so it is likely the case. I am not persuaded by the AB thing.

I think also that one can discern quite easily through pure reason that God is, but it's also probable that to be able to discern who Jesus Christ is one must have an open heart, a sound mind, and a desire to seek truth and at least try or want to love one's neighbor.

 

[Christos_NIKA]

He obviously doesn't, but if I am incorrect, the only way I am is also interesting: he believes like the demon's "belief". That proves the point that that kind of "faith" is irrelevant. And it again shows that what you think doesn't necessarily matter, it must be confirmed by what you do. This alone can explain also why not all those that say, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom. Plenty of demons and people know who God is, but they lack

say it with me

faithfulness. How is one faithful to God? By doing, by revealing good fruit according to your works, since that's what we're judged on. It doesn't get more clear than this. Lord, have mercy.

This is exactly one of the key arguments against the whole "three solas" dogma of Martin Luther. As St. James states in James 2:19, "You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror."

Head-knowledge or adherence to a set of theological principles in not going to save you. To be real faith, this knowledge has to get from the head to the heart and this is proven by our actions. Faith lived out day to day, especially when no one is watching. Real faith is transformative and brings peace and calmness, and that is why faith without works (aka proof) is dead.

 

[Northumber]

I'm pretty convinced the protestant phenomenon happened because they were triggered by dead works. There is also not a very good concept of the nous/eye-of-the-soul in the West. People are stuck in "it's either-rational or emotional" dichotomy. There is not a good concept of a higher faculty than reason in the West. I think maybe the protestants were trying for that kind of concept when they said "Faith alone" rather than works. There was a very limited scholastic paradigm people were working with.

And so the question is it faith or faith and works is actually irrelevant because it's working within the same box. Because it's completely possible someone could have faith and works and not be saved - dead faith and dead works. They don't have the heart (and I don't mean just emotion here).

 

[Christos_NIKA]

I'm pretty convinced the protestant phenomenon happened because they were triggered by dead works. There is also not a very good concept of the nous/eye-of-the-soul in the West. People are stuck in "it's either-rational or emotional" dichotomy. There is not a good concept of a higher faculty than reason in the West. I think maybe the protestants were trying for that kind of concept when they said "Faith alone" rather than works. There was a very limited scholastic paradigm people were working with.

And so the question is it faith or faith and works is actually irrelevant because it's working within the same box. Because it's completely possible someone could have faith and works and not be saved - dead faith and dead works. They don't have the heart (and I don't mean just emotion here).

Very well stated. Western scholasticism and rationalism have painted us into a spiritual corner.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This is exactly one of the key arguments against the whole "three solas" dogma of Martin Luther. As St. James states in James 2:19, "You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror."

It's almost like Orthodox have never read Romans 4: "if Abraham was justified by works then he has something to boast about, but not before God!"

In Galatians, Paul anathematizes to hell anyone who thinks their works justify them before God in some way. That's what Sola Fide is about. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. No eye-of-the-soul, woo-woo mysticism is necessary.

 

[Northumber]

No eye-of-the-soul, woo-woo mysticism is necessary.

woo woo. hmm. I never really thought of it that way when I heard of it. I thought of it as a way to describe love as above emotion and above reason/the rational. In the same vein as 1 Cor. 13:13.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

woo woo. hmm. I never really thought of it that way when I heard of it. I thought of it as a way to describe love as above emotion and above reason/the rational. In the same vein as 1 Cor. 13:13.

A lot of the mystique behind Eastern Orthodoxy fades away when someone recognizes what the terminology means. Here are a few examples: nous simply means mind. So its not as if Western theologians were writing, not knowing what the mind is. The disagreement usually comes in what we predicate about our terms. The mind does what? Another example would be energeia, which may simply mean works or operations. Again, Western Christians have been writing on the same concepts for thousands of years. It's not like they didn't know what God's workings are. The sleight-of-hand is in what is loaded into the terms. When the Orthodox hears energeia, he is still loading into it the concept of synergism, two energies working together. When the Reformed Christian is talking about Grace, he recognizes it as God's work alone, monergism, in justifying a person. The terms are the same, but what is being predicated about the terms is where the break is.

 

[Northumber]

@GodfatherPartTwo, I appreciate the thorough write up. I disagree but I don't want to derail the Shroud thread too much. I remember back to our previous conversation about free-will and I think our differing points of view stem from that point. I should probably retract my statement about not thinking things are "woo woo or mystical" because when I think about it, in some ways, I think everything is.

Maybe I can bring it back to topic somewhat. I find the Shroud interesting because of the timing and how it entered (or re-entered) into our history. The bishop instantly declared it a fraud in the late 1300's and from that point in it seems like most energy has been spent poking and prodding it by "science". The prevailing thought process at that time really does seem to have already developed into this "critical" perspective in disbelieving.

 

[Blade Runner]

It's almost like Orthodox have never read Romans 4: "if Abraham was justified by works then he has something to boast about, but not before God!"

In Galatians, Paul anathematizes to hell anyone who thinks their works justify them before God in some way. That's what Sola Fide is about. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. No eye-of-the-soul, woo-woo mysticism is necessary.

Abraham believed God ... AND followed his instructions, trusted him, moved from Ur to Canaan, etc. He didn't just sit there and think "Yeah, sounds good God." He trusted god and acted, and therefore his faithfulness was what made him "righteous". The entirety of all of this works stuff is the basic idea that Paul writes about as a hebrew where they got it wrong, not discerning what was important, instead stressing outward acts that didn't show mercy (that is, be faithful to God's teaching). It's a curious thing to divide and compartmentalize life, as if that somehow gives you the "trick of salvation" or makes it easier for God to just impute stuff on you, which is just weird for many reasons. But that's what we're really arguing, and I find it bizarre, only because it is incorrect, but because it came as a really late innovation in history, apart from being late in Christianity itself.

Now, back to the Shroud indeed.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Abraham believed God ... AND followed his instructions, trusted him, moved from Ur to Canaan, etc. He didn't just sit there and think "Yeah, sounds good God." He trusted god and acted, and therefore his faithfulness was what made him "righteous". The entirety of all of this works stuff is the basic idea that Paul writes about as a hebrew where they got it wrong, not discerning what was important, instead stressing outward acts that didn't show mercy (that is, be faithful to God's teaching). It's a curious thing to divide and compartmentalize life, as if that somehow gives you the "trick of salvation" or makes it easier for God to just impute stuff on you, which is just weird for many reasons. But that's what we're really arguing, and I find it bizarre, only because it is incorrect, but because it came as a really late innovation in history, apart from being late in Christianity itself.

That's an interesting translation of Romans 4:3: Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. That word "account" is where you get the word impute. So God imputed righteousness to Abraham on account of what? His works? Nope. His faith.

You can point to Abraham, having been justified, as an example for doing good works, that's what James 2 is about. I believe in doing good works, the Bible says to do good works, but there's an important distinction between doing good works to earn God's justification, which is where you generally slide, and doing good works because you are already justified through faith, which is the Biblical balance. Maintaining that distinction is indeed a salvation issue, not because I think it should be, but because the Bible says it is.

Here is a footnote from the Orthodox Study Bible on Romans 4: only through faith in God can the ungodly be justified.

 

[Blade Runner]

to Abraham on account of what? His works? Nope. His faith.

You know I've said this before, which for some reason is a sticking point, but faith isn't some mental assent, it's being faithful. Once you understand that, everything becomes clear. Abraham's faith was IN HIS WORKS. There's no need to separate and compartmentalize any of this, since it's obvious to the normal person and historical christian (both). Eternal life is knowing God. The Calvinist approach in this is funny, since it takes the responsibility of us being faithful out of order. He calls all of us, we respond, or we don't - and even that is contextual since that's the point of "judgment."

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Abraham's faith was IN HIS WORKS.

That's backwards. Works can only be "good" if the person is faithful. Just as only a good tree can bear good fruit, only a faithful person can work good works. The unfaithful do many "good" works but those do nothing to avail them before God.

The Calvinist approach in this is funny, since it takes the responsibility of us being faithful out of order. He calls all of us, we respond, or we don't - and even that is contextual since that's the point of "judgment."

Here is the Calvinist order:
Romans 8:30 Those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified.

If this is out of order to you, it's because you have a different theology.

 

[Blade Runner]

That's backwards. Works can only be "good" if the person is faithful. Just as only a good tree can bear good fruit, only a faithful person can work good works. The unfaithful do many "good" works but those do nothing to avail them before God.

This is a tautology.

Here is the Calvinist order:
Romans 8:30 Those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified.

If this is out of order to you, it's because you have a different theology.

I think you might find it useful, or at least find it more honest to look at things from a different perspective, from Fr. Stephen de Young's bible teaching on Romans, and you can find Romans 8 there as well where he deals with this. He was formerly reformed (Dutch as you can tell) and knows Calvinism, the Bible, and the ancient world and culture as well as anyone I've heard.

 

[Blade Runner]

It's interesting that the RCs were able to get (or steal) so many of the holy relics or Saints bodies. That makes Turin and the Shroud actually more probable, though it's of course circumstantial. I find it interesting that Christ appears to be about 6 foot tall as well, or just under.

 

[Northumber]

delete.

edit:
I was repeating myself but it is ironic that the culture that got (or stole) them was the same that lost faith in them.

 

[Samseau]

It's interesting that the RCs were able to get (or steal) so many of the holy relics or Saints bodies. That makes Turin and the Shroud actually more probable, though it's of course circumstantial. I find it interesting that Christ appears to be about 6 foot tall as well, or just under.

Most of what the Vatican has is from the 4th Crusade.

 

[Blade Runner]

Most of what the Vatican has is from the 4th Crusade.

Yes, likely the case.

 

[Northumber]

Most of what the Vatican has is from the 4th Crusade.

The 4th crusade is the same one in 1204 when they sacked Constantinople and the cloth of Edessa disappeared.

I found an interesting PhD thesis on it. Apparently whatever that image was (possibly the same shroud of Turin that showed up late 1300) it was used as a key defense in the use of icons. Because Christ produced his own image on a cloth the reasoning went that He showed himself to be circumscribable. It was an irrefutable argument to many people. The actual cloth of Edessa survived the iconoclast crisis because it was not in Constantinople at the time, but safe in Edessa. (later moved to Constantinople).

The story of the tradition is actually kind of fascinating.

It starts with an exchange between a king in Edessa looking to be healed of a skin disease by Jesus literally days before the crucifixion (as the story goes the king also knew the jews were trying to kill Jesus). He sends a messenger to Jesus but Jesus replies he must stay to fulfill His work and that later one of His disciples will cure the king and lead him into all truth. The messenger was also tasked by the king to sketch Jesus so he could see what he looked like but the messenger wasn't able to do it. And so, in the end, the king eventually received the cloth with Christ's image, wiped his whole body with it, was healed except for a small spot on his forehead (which was healed when he was later baptized into the faith by one of the disciples).

It is a traditional story so there are variations and it is fuzzy. There is a story of a letter sent with the messenger and Jesus writing something for the messenger to send back (and this being treated as a relic). There is also a story similar to the Veronica story where Jesus wipes his face on the cloth to send back.

If it's from wiping His face then obviously it's not the same as the shroud of Turin. But it is interesting that part of this story is that it is all taking place close in time to the crucifixion. Also, this same thesis has some writings from Saint Alexis, a 4th century greek monk, who sometimes refers to the image as being bloodstained, being able to see the crown of thorns, and it being a figure.

So, maybe the cloth of Edessa is the same but also maybe not.

Here is the thesis:

https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/24278014/MARK_GUSCIN_PhD_THESIS_05.03.15.pdf

and an interesting site referencing the thesis and where people debate back and forth about the shroud:

A superbly detailed exploration of the Image of Edessa

That is how Hugh Farey, in a comment to another posting, describes Mark Guscin’s The Tradition of the Image of Edessa, a 400+ page PhD thesis recently published on a University of London website. T…

shroudstory.com

 

[GoodShepherd]

A 30min little show about the shroud of Turin