April 21, 2025 • 62 mins
In this episode, Brody and Rob dive into the fascinating mystery of the Shroud of Turin—a centuries-old cloth that many believe may have wrapped the body of Jesus after His crucifixion. They explore what the shroud is, some of its history, and the scientific curiosity surrounding the image imprinted on it—an image no one has been able to fully explain.
While the science and history behind it are fascinating, they remind us that our faith isn’t in artifacts, but in the truth of Scripture and the eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.
Still, the shroud could be a “wink from God”—an encouragement for believers or a spark for those seeking truth.
- John 20:6-7
Please leave a review on Apple or Spotify to help improve No Sanity Required and help others grow in their faith.
Click here to get our Colossians Bible study.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, in this week's episode of no Sanity Required
this is take three, by the way,because somebody forgot to hit
record I got Rob Conte back onthe podcast and it's because
we're going to be talking aboutthe Shroud of Turin.
If you're not familiar withwhat that is, you're going to
love this content, this episode.
It's going to be awesome.
Yesterday we celebrated theresurrection of Jesus.
(00:22):
Most people call it Easter.
People call it Easter at ourchurch, at Red Oak.
We love to call it ResurrectionSunday.
I'm pretty sure the word Easteris pagan, that's neither here
nor there, but yesterday wecelebrated the resurrection of
Jesus, and so today we want totalk about something that's
getting a lot of press right nowand that's the Shroud of Turin.
(00:44):
Again, if you'reroud of Turin,again, if you're not familiar
with this, I think you're goingto really enjoy this episode.
It's probably going to push youdown a rabbit hole of your own
research and I.
What I would say is just jumpon and go for the ride, because
it's awesome, it's fascinatingstuff and I think you'll be.
I think you'll be encouraged,excited, and the the
possibilities of what this meansare pretty exciting.
(01:07):
So thanks for tuning in to thisweek's episode of no Sanity
Required.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Welcome to no Sanity Required from the Ministry of
Snowbird Wilderness Outfitters.
A podcast about the Bible,culture and stories from around
the globe.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
All right, so I the first time.
I want to start off by sort ofexplaining.
I basically just want to turnthis all over to you, but I do
want to intro this by sayingyou're the person that
introduced me to the Shroud ofTurin.
Do you say Turin?
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
And that was probably 15 years ago.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Yeah, at least somewhere in there.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Maybe 20 years ago.
I mean, this is it's.
I think for a lot of peoplethis is a brand new thing, but
it's something we've had athousand conversations about on
road trips or sitting around thefire, right.
But it's sort of resurfacingright now and there's some
exciting new I don't know whatyou call it new details that are
(02:15):
emerging, new discovery, and soI'm excited to get into this.
So why don't you just like hit,play and let's, let's go?
Speaker 3 (02:26):
so, yeah, uh, I think , for for me, um, I had not been
a believer long, you know, godsave me.
I was 18, um, and I think thefirst time I came across
anything about the shroud was,uh, I was I think it was around
easter time, around, you knowcelebrating the resurrection,
passion Week and I was flippingaround on TV and on the History
(02:50):
Channel they were doing adocumentary on it and I just
stopped to watch it and I wasblown away to where it was back
in the day when, at the end ofthe program, they put on a 1-800
number if you wanted to orderthe cassette or the videotape.
So I ordered, I got on thereand bought it and because I
wanted, you know, other peopleto see it, I wanted to watch it
(03:11):
with my mom at the time and, uh,so I had that VHS tape for a
while.
I don't know where it ended up,but uh, so that was the first
time I was ever introduced to itand I've been fascinated by it
since.
And there's so much informationon it which the Shroud of Turin
is the most studied artifact inhuman history, like nothing else
(03:37):
ever has been studied as muchas it.
And which is crazy, becausethere are there are a lot of
people who have never heardabout it much as it.
And, which is crazy, becausethere are, there are a lot of
people who've never heard aboutit, I think, especially in the
Protestant tradition, I thinkmost Catholics will have heard
of it.
Uh, and maybe that'll kind ofcome out during the talk as to
why.
But, um, but yeah, for mostProtestants they've not heard
(03:59):
about it, or if they have, it'smaybe been more of a negative
spin on it.
Um, but I've been fascinated bybeen fascinated by it.
Now, granted, the documentary Ifirst watched was definitely
more slanted towards a positiveview of it.
And so what the Shroud is, whatthe Shroud of Tern is.
It's a 14-foot long by about 4foot wide piece of linen cloth
(04:27):
that is currently held and keptprotected in a church in Turin,
italy.
So that's where it gets itsname the Shroud of Turin.
And the reason why it'ssignificant and that people are
interested in it is becausethere appears to be the image of
(04:49):
a crucified man on it, as wellas bloodstains, and so what some
people believe it to be is theactual burial cloth of Christ be
is the actual burial cloth ofchrist.
(05:09):
Um, so when he's taken down fromthe cross, taken to the tomb,
that he was laid in this burialcloth and that, the instant that
the resurrection happens, thisimage is somehow embedded onto
the cloth, and and so again,it's the most studied artifact
in human history, over I thinkthey estimate it's over 500,000
(05:32):
hours of not just study, butlike being studied by multiple
scientists.
Cross-disciplinary experts fromall different fields have
poured a significant part oftheir career into studying
different aspects of the shroud,which, in the end, the big
(05:58):
takeaway is no one reallybelieves it's a forgery anymore,
but they don't know how theimage is on there.
Uh, they don't know.
There's no known way ofproducing the image that's on
the shroud, um, so that'sfascinating.
In and of itself you know, umand so, uh, yeah, there's just a
(06:22):
lot of facets of what they'vediscovered in the last, really
since 1978, the first time itwas really studied by scientists
.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So prior to 1978, it was in the possession of this
church in Italy.
How long had it been in theirpossession and what was the
nature of that possession?
Did they have it on display?
Was it like a secret thing?
My brain automatically goes tothose Nicolas Cage movies about
(06:55):
the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
He's one of the guys that studied it.
Yeah, Okay, perfect.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
So I just want to make sure he's involved.
Is this Con Air Nicolas Cagewith the fake southern accent?
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Oh, yeah, or is this the guy from the face, nicholas
Cage?
Okay?
Speaker 1 (07:10):
all right, leaving Graceland, I mean Las Vegas,
right, okay so, but in allseriousness, my mind kind of
goes to you know the Illuminatimovies, the?
You know the um, what, what arethe guys called in that?
Um, the reason I brought thatmovie up, um, the knights
templar right and and all that,like that's where my imagination
(07:34):
goes, and there's so much loreand and so much of that is
apocryphal.
But then some of it is real andhistorical and you tie in the
Masons.
Yeah, so prior to 1978, thischurch had it and what was the
nature of their possession andhow long had they had it?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
So for most of the documented history of the Shroud
, which dates back to 1349.
1349.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
1349.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
And I say documented, because there are.
There's appearings of theShroud before that, paintings,
letters going by a differentname.
Obviously it wasn't.
It hasn't always been theShroud Turin or it hasn't always
been at the Church in Turin,but for most of its history it
wasn't actually part of the,officially part of the Catholic
(08:24):
church.
It was in the possession of aFrench family I forget the
family's name, but it was like afamily heirloom and so it was
sometime in the 80s I believethe 1980s that the Catholic
church actually they possess it.
Now they own it and I thinkit's directly under the
(08:47):
authority of the Pope himself.
Throughout its history it'sreally only gone on display at
certain times, like holy days,certain events, but for a lot of
its history, yeah, it reallywas just kept secret or
forgotten or it was just beingprotected.
(09:08):
It seemed like the shroud inthe, you know, in the the middle
ages, was being moved around, alot like it was just escaping
danger, survived a few differentfires.
It was actually on fire at onepoint and had to be doused with
water, which you can still seewhen you look at the images of
the shroud.
You see the damage done by thefire, um, but yeah, it was like
(09:35):
always kind of escaping dangeruntil it landed in turin.
Um, I don't know what year itgot there off the top of my head
.
I could look up the time.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
What was 1978?
What was significant about that?
What?
Speaker 3 (09:46):
was significant about 1978 is that the church allowed
a group of scientists to studyit.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
It ended up being like a five-day window it was a
certain number of hours theywere going to allow them access
to study it.
And so this group I think therewas 33 to 35 scientists,
cross-disciplinary that came inand were able to x-ray it, take
(10:17):
photographs under differentlighting, use sticky tape like a
forensic investigator would doat a crime scene, you know, like
using tape to capture, uh,whatever microscopic um
properties might be on theshroud.
And so they did all they.
(10:37):
They did all their collectingof data at that time, um, which
launched into what still isbeing studied today.
What's fascinating, there isthat group of scientists, most
of whom, from the best Iunderstand at the time, most of
them were not believers, andthey went into it saying we're
(11:04):
going to be able to prove it's ahoax.
There's one guy that's hisquote comes up a lot that he
said give me 15 minutes in thescientific method and I'll prove
it's a hoax, it's a forgery.
And yeah that they spent fivedays trying to figure out how,
what am I looking at?
What is this?
How did it get here?
(11:25):
Um, and so a lot of those guys.
It seemed like I don't want tosay a lot, but a number of those
guys became believers.
Most all of them came to apoint where they would say that
a lot of these guys have passedaway.
I learned that and it's kind ofsector, I don't know what go I
am on getting interested in itand studying stuff again.
(11:45):
But as I was doing that this goaround, you know, found out a
lot of them had passed away, butthat, yeah, a lot of them came
to the place of at least beingable to say the probability that
it's not the burial cloth ofJesus is astronomically low.
Like one mathematician in thegroup said, it's like one in 200
(12:10):
million that it's not Jesus.
So, which is interesting,because you still I mean even in
this study like, if you startlooking at it, you know it's
going to start popping on youralgorithm or whatever, and
you're going to find plenty ofYouTube videos and people saying
, ah, it's a forgery, it's ahoax, and I watched a lot of
those.
There's not a lot of substanceto them, but there's still
(12:33):
people who just claim some sortof expertise and say things
authoritatively that just seemlike they're I mean, they're
just not true.
But I think there's one inChristian circles.
Maybe a fear of, oh, that'sjust too outside the box, like
would would cause.
That's a.
I recently taught a group ofeighth graders on it in, you
(12:57):
know, definitely differentteaching than you know.
If I'm opening up the Bible,this is very much, at the end of
the day, you go.
I don't know, maybe, like, do Ithink it of the day you go?
I don't know, maybe, like, do Ithink it's authentic?
I don't know, maybe it'sfascinating and the implications
of it are ginormous, becauseit's how I opened with those
kids was I said okay, is theShroud of Turin?
(13:25):
Is it a hoax?
Is it a forgery from 700 yearsago?
Or is it a picture of JesusChrist the instant before he
opened his eyes in resurrection?
It's fascinating and every timeI walk through the evidence,
the data, I come away going Ithink I'm looking at the face of
(13:46):
Jesus.
I don't know that for sure.
I told those kids.
I joke and say I just make up apercentage.
I say I'm like 90%.
Sure I'm looking at Jesus, butas far as what the shroud means
for my faith, my relationshipwith the Lord, well, I'd say 0%.
Our faith is based on thewitness of Scripture.
(14:12):
Faith comes by hearing, andhearing by the Word of God.
Jesus' conversation with Thomas,I think, is so helpful, where
he says, yeah, blessed are youbecause you've seen and believed
, but blessed are those whodon't see and believe, right.
(14:35):
Or he says you believe becauseyou've seen.
Blessed are those who believeand haven't seen, and so I don't
.
To me, if the shroud is legit,shroud is legit.
It's not like oh, now we gotthe proof and we can take it
around the world 100 like youcan't argue against it and
people are going to flock tochrist.
Like jesus already said, peoplewon't believe even if I come
(14:58):
back from the dead.
He already came back from thedead 2,000 years ago and people
still don't believe because it'sa sin issue, it's not an
evidence issue.
But I do think that maybe it'slike a really cool wink from God
and something that we do haveand it's just to me.
(15:21):
I do get encouraged by it andthe thought of what it might
really be.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
I want other people to be encouraged by it because
it is fun and it's exciting, andwe believe in the resurrection
of Jesus, not because of theShroud of Turin.
We believe in the resurrectionof Jesus because of the proofs
that God has provided to us, andfaith does come by hearing, and
(15:50):
hearing does come through theWord of God, through the Word of
Christ, and we have all ofthose that abandoned Jesus when
he was arrested and when he wasgoing through his trials, that
then are willing to die for him.
Clearly something changed thatmade them go from abandoning
(16:14):
their closest friend and theirrabbi, their mentor.
You know, I don't have a mentorin my life now.
I've had a couple that havegone to be with the Lord, but
they're not people that I wouldhave abandoned in their hour of
need.
Right, you know, we say well,but we're not, we're not
mentoring each other.
We're brothers in ministry inchrist.
(16:35):
But I have no doubt that Icould call you in my worst hour
of need.
Or you have no doubt, likethere's and that's true of the,
the Oak community, the Snowbirdcommunity.
I'm going to be there.
If I've got to die with you,I'm going to die with you.
I really believe that.
Yeah, I think I can honestlysay that those guys were so
(16:56):
shook that they wouldn't stickby their friend, and I think we
got to give them a little bit ofgrace, because, to me, if you
zoom out, you go.
What does it take for a personto abandon their closest friend,
and for all of them to do it?
This was not just they werescared of the Romans.
(17:20):
I think it's more than that.
I think they were scared ofbeing punished or dying for
something that was a hoax.
I think their faith wavered.
It's not.
I don't want to be true to myfriend.
It's whoa wait.
What if he?
What if he is crazy?
What if he is a madman?
What if he is diabolical?
What if it is a hoax?
Or, you know, maybe for some ofthem, maybe that's what they're
(17:41):
wrestling with.
Am I out of line to say that?
Speaker 3 (17:45):
no, to a degree that I don't think you're out of line
, you know.
I think we can speculate, youknow.
Yeah, it was for some of themjust straight up fear just
freaked out, I'm gonna getcrucified too yeah like man have
I been suckered have I beenyeah, was I.
Was I deceived by a?
Speaker 1 (18:02):
false messiah.
You know'm sure all that wasgoing on, so much that could
have been going on in theirminds.
I mean, it's coming at you sofast, yeah.
And the emotion of the upperroom and the Last Supper and all
that had happened during theHoly Week, the Passion Week, and
so all it took for the switchto flip.
(18:23):
Something switched the flip forthem, boys and girls, to where
they're getting crucified upsidedown or getting run through
with spears.
One of them I mean multiple ofthem go to the far ends of the
Roman Empire and beyond andultimately die for their faith.
Yeah, what switched was thatthey were eyewitnesses to the
(18:47):
resurrected lord and somethinghappens in acts one, when
they're all gathered beforejesus's ascension.
That stands out to me.
It says that his brothers andsisters are there, and five
brothers are named and pluralsisters is used.
So there were at least twosisters.
So the Catholics believe thatMary practiced perpetual
(19:11):
virginity and so that Jesus'siblings were the offspring of
Joseph and another wife Is thatcorrect.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Yeah, or that they're cousins, or that they're
cousins.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
But they're not Mary's children.
We believe that mary gave birthto other sons and daughters and
that mary and joseph were in abiblical monogamous marriage and
that they produced morechildren and that that there's
two monumental moments injesus's life with his siblings
and in relation in regard hissiblings One where they want to
(19:47):
put him in a straight jacket andlock him in a padded room,
basically because he's outpreaching and they're like we
got to get him, he's lost hismind.
These are his siblings.
And then another point wherethere's a point of contention in
a public setting, where he sortof has to rebuke his family,
but then in the end they're allthere willing to die for him.
(20:08):
What flipped that switch?
It's the resurrection.
We believe in the resurrectionof Jesus because of the proofs
laid out for us in Scripture,the eyewitness accounts, the
word of God that's living andactive.
But the Shroud of Turin is oneof the coolest.
Yeah, you use the word wink ifgod's.
(20:30):
If god has done this, it's.
So.
I think there's two things thatthat it can, and so now we're
going to get into.
We're going to get into what,how we might know if it's
authentic or not.
We're going to deep dive intothat.
But I just want to say, forpeople that are not believers,
this could be something thatmoves the needle.
It you know, I think god, godcould use anything as long as
(20:51):
it's not contrary to the gospel,so it could be an what we would
call a tool of apologetics, butthen for the believer, it could
be a burst of fresh air in yourspiritual lungs of just which
is what it's been for me so manytimes Like, this is so cool if
this is real.
So what makes you think thatthere's a strong likelihood that
(21:14):
this is real?
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Yeah.
So to me the evidence for it tobe a forgery at this stage is
minuscule.
The evidence that this is anancient burial cloth that's from
Israel and that all the betweenthe bloodstains and the imaging
(21:44):
, the more evidence that comesfrom it, the more that it's
studied and that there's newmethods of studying it only tend
to lend towards it's legit.
Now, to this day, there's stillno way of knowing how the image
was produced.
There can be speculation, butany any man-made uh, there's.
(22:08):
No, no, there's no knownman-made way to produce the
image.
Uh.
So for me, the you know theknock that comes against it
where some people still justdismissed, it is so that team in
78 that examined the shroud,they uh were able to actually
(22:30):
take samples of it.
They they clipped samples offof the shroud and then that
those samples were sent to threedifferent labs to be, uh,
carbon dated, radiocarbon dating, and so they had them for
whatever period of time, andthen all three labs released the
(22:50):
date, the range that theythought the carbon dating showed
, and it put it in the MiddleAges, it put it as 700 years old
, give or take, and so that justseemed to be deflating to
everybody involved.
Uh, but with that, other peoplestill said okay, well, show us
(23:12):
the data.
Well, they never.
All they released was the date,and so they hadn't released the
data how they they haven'treleased how they came to that
conclusion uh, just yeah, showyour work.
You know I think if they were ina court of law or whatever and
using okay, yeah, we came upwith this date.
Okay, well, you're just notgoing to say here's the number,
(23:34):
see you later.
Like, yeah, share thescientific proof.
And so they.
Actually, it was a long I thinka 20-year battle to get them to
release their information andthey finally did.
I think a 20-year battle to getthem to release their
information and they finally did.
And when they did, it seems likemost of the community that
actually studies the shroud itwas almost like our eye roll
moment because the they didn'tfollow strict procedures and
(23:59):
guidelines that would be likeconsidered scientific um and
they also uh used and from whatI understand, they didn't use
multiple uh samplings.
They all took the same sampleand it seems like that was from
the edge of the shroud and itseems like they took a part of
(24:20):
the shroud that had beenrepaired.
So you know mentioned earlierthat the shroud had been in a
few fires and that it's you knowif it is 2,000 years old, that
at some point I don't know, 700years ago, they decided to
actually put a.
They sewed a backing onto it,but they also, it seems like
(24:43):
maybe they repaired the edgesonto it, but they also, it seems
like maybe they repaired theedges.
Um, and so it's what seems verypossible.
Is they carbon dated?
A part of the shroud that is700 years old, wow, now there's
other arguments that are madetoo that that you know, because
their work was so shoddy, whatit seems like, and that they
(25:05):
didn't, they weren't willing toeven release that for 20 years.
It calls into question, likesome integrity issues, you know
also.
Okay, did they actually cleanit properly?
Did they handle you know?
Did they do what they weresupposed to do to get the best
sampling possible?
It seems like no.
It seems like no.
But also taking intoconsideration that it had damage
(25:27):
from the fire, the smoke thatit absorbed, all these things
that apparently can throw offcarbon dating, not an expert.
I'm just reading and listeningto other people talk about these
things, so it's dubious at best, if you don't mind me using
that term.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
No, I don't mind.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
But and so if again?
But that was like the, that waslike the one thing that seemed
like ah, yeah, maybe, maybe someartists painted it for whatever
reason, but but that's wherethe all the other data points to
.
Well, there's no paint on it.
And that's what those guysthought.
They thought they'd be able towalk up.
The one guy said I thought I'dbe able to walk up, look at the
(26:07):
shroud with a magnifying glassor a microscope, see the strokes
of a paintbrush and call it aday.
They thought they'd find paint,dye, chalk, powder.
None of that exists on there.
Exist on there.
And so what you have is, ifyou're looking at imaging of
(26:28):
this online, you know there'swhat you see with the naked eye
when you look at the shroudthere's clearly bloodstains and
then there's the faint image ofan anatomically correct man.
They estimate it's somewherebetween five feet ten and six
(26:48):
foot, which even that'sinteresting, because initially I
was like why is there a range?
And what it seems like isbecause his body.
What they can now tell bystudying it that the man whose
image is on the shroud when thatimage was made he was in a
(27:08):
state of rigor mortis, um, sothat he slightly bent forward
just a little bit with his head.
In that position, one knee iselevated above the other.
Um, the way his hands arepositioned that that when that
moment happened, whatever madethe image, he's in a state of
rigor mortis.
So even that, like so, there'sa range for like 5'10 to 6',
(27:35):
which is also awesome, likeabove average.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Yeah, I mean average then was 5'5 or something.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Right, which is when I should have been alive.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
But so if you look at the naked eye, you see it's
there and obviously that's allthey could do for a long time
with it.
But they knew it was enough ofan image to know like is this
Jesus?
Because of where the wounds are, how the wounds appear, Could
(28:06):
you describe the wounds?
On the shroud.
To me, that's the biggest partof it, where I often get focused
my time.
I want to talk about one thingbefore then.
If you're familiar at all withthe shroud, you know this.
What blew the scientist away,beyond just walking away, going
(28:29):
we don't know is when a picturewas taken of the Shroud.
And then, as they're developingthat image, you know back when
it wasn't just with somebody'sphone but it was like film and a
camera, and they're developingthat film and they saw the
negative of the picture thatthey took.
They they literally like,gassed like, because what ends
(28:54):
up happening is in the negativeof the picture that they took,
the details of the shroud becomeso much more clear.
Now I get out of my depth quick.
I I'm not a scientist, butwe're a photo expert.
But apparently what happens isthat the shroud itself, the
image that's on a linen cloth,like it, behaves as if it's the
(29:18):
negative, so that when aphotograph of the shroud is
taken and you look at thenegative of that photograph,
that negative now behaves like apositive so it's what's more
clear it takes away some of thedistortion.
So they all of a sudden werelooking at a much more clear
image of the man on the shroudwow and so the wounds become
(29:41):
more vivid and and everythingelse you know, and so is there
anything else in history that'slike that?
that's unique that's very unique, and so there's.
There's been people who have,for whatever motivations, tried
to besides, just like scientificexploration.
(30:01):
There's been people who havereproduced images that look like
the shroud of turin, but butthey're not like it.
They can make it look like itto the naked eye and behave in a
similar fashion, but scientistscould look at what they did and
say, oh no, you did this, youused a piece of glass and paint
and and bleach the rest of theLike.
(30:24):
they can explain how it was made.
So it's not what the shroud is.
So there's things that peoplecan have done to manipulate to
get a similar effect, but theycan't reproduce what the shroud
is, if that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
It does so with the 1978, the five-day exploration
of the Shroud.
Has there been another onesince then?
At one point you said that wasthe only time it was ever
studied, but then in more recentyears.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
Yeah, so definitely, people have been able to
continue to work off of the dataand the things that they
collected, things that theycollected um.
But I, I believe uh, I'm not100 on this, but I believe that
this new dating um tool has beenused directly on the shroud.
(31:18):
I'm not positive.
If it was, that's, all I canthink is that they must have had
access to the shroud itself.
But there's a new method ofdating things of the ancient
world, um, and so it seems likethey use.
It's called a let me look at itand get it right it's called a
wide angle x-ray imaging uhdevice.
(31:41):
Uh, but so apparently, what it?
It measures the rate of decayin an item, and so so I think
and this, this was new.
I've never, I've not heard this.
I I'd heard some rumblingsabout the shroud again, but I
didn't what, for whatever reason, didn't go down the rabbit hole
.
But so when I picked it up heremore recently, uh, this has
(32:06):
happened in the last coupleyears that they use this x-ray
dating machine, uh on the shroudand it puts it at 2000 years
old.
Now I think it's got its own,probably ball of wax.
As far as the limitations, whatcould manipulate it or pervert
(32:27):
the dating, I think the same ascarbon dating.
But it just is fascinatingbecause also there's been
archaeologists have found a sitein Israel where there's plenty
of tombs and they found morelinen cloths, just like the
(32:51):
shroud, the same material, thesame weave, the same method of
burial, and so they've been ableto have other linen cloths that
they know are from the region,that they know are from that
time, based on thearchaeological find, and come up
(33:12):
with the same date in measuringit as the Shroud of Turin.
So you know, again, it's notlike if that stood alone maybe
it would be like well, who knows, it's a new technique, but with
everything else, go all rightso when you compare it to
something that archaeologistshave found and know is from 2
(33:34):
000 years ago, right itmatches as far as dating it
through a 14-foot long linencloth and it appears the way
that at least the man in theshroud and these other findings
(33:56):
that what would happen is theywould put the body in.
I heard one guy say it feelscrude in the moment, but you
know, basically like how a pitaacts, like you know.
But the body, if part of theshroud is laid out this way and
the body's laid on it, and thenthe rest of the shroud would
just be folded over, like like apita, um, and so that the
(34:18):
imaging on the shroud is on all14 feet of it, give or take, uh,
because some of it is theimaging of his back, from the
top of his head to the heels ofhis feet.
It's the entire backside andthen the other side of the
shroud is the front, so thatwhen he was in the shroud, like
this, whatever caused that imageto be embedded on the shroud,
(34:43):
it happened in all directions,and so I mentioned earlier
there's blood stains on theshroud, those pints of blood
that are on the shroud, a lot ofblood, and so there's
concentrated area.
(35:04):
The heaviest area of blood onthe shroud is a wound on his
side, on his right side.
That is consistent if the manon the shroud had been pierced
between the fifth and sixth ribwith the head of a spear or a
lance and matches the diameterof spears that have been
(35:29):
discovered by archaeology thatare.
You know, roman, that there's alarge quantity of blood on the
side, the blood that seems to beshed post-mortem.
There's blood on the wrist.
There's wounds clearly visibleon the wrist and we'll come back
to that.
There's blood, a lot of bloodaround the head.
(35:51):
But there are over 700 woundson the man on the shroud.
So you have those that are moreclearly defined like nails to
the wrist nails to the feetwould be the speculation a spear
in the side.
But he, from the neck down onboth sides, is covered in wounds
(36:16):
and they're little I shouldn'tsay little, but they're
barbell-shaped wounds, if youpicture a tiny barbell, and
what's fascinating is because ifyou look at it you go, oh,
that's from the scourging.
But so if a forger was makingthe shroud 700 years ago and
(36:41):
somehow, you know, made thisimage, and he was like, oh,
jesus was scourged.
He's looking at the biblicalaccount and trying to copy it on
the shroud and he's like, oh,he was scourged.
I know I'll use a littlebarbell piece of metal to make
it look like he was whipped with.
Well, the Roman phlegm withthat specific of uh piece of
(37:06):
metal tied to the end wasn'tdiscovered till you know.
I mean, archaeology itself is afairly new discipline.
So, like unearthing, theunearthing of a roman phlegrim
that's designed with a with theend of it that matches the
wounds of the man on the shroud,like it, wasn't found till well
later than that.
(37:27):
So I mean, there would be.
No, they wouldn't have aconcept.
They'd know that there was athing called the cat of nine
tails or that, what they didscourging, but they didn't have
any Roman flagrums to study totry to match it on the shroud
with that image, you know, isthat make sense?
yeah and so you know one, it's athat and that, just from that
(37:50):
point on, there's so many thingsthat you go what would the,
what would the forger have hadto have known, uh, to put into
this?
Because it just keeps goingdeeper and deeper the more that
the shroud has been studied,things like that, like where
they can match, like, okay, hiswounds are consistent with what
we know Roman soldiers orprofessional torturers use at
(38:14):
the time, you know, when theywere scourging somebody.
But it is like to pause here andjust say I mean, it's
overwhelming to look at it.
And you know, I've seen thePassion of the Christ and it's
brutal, it's brutal, it's brutaland I personally, uh like
periodically watch that moviejust because it, you know, I
feel like it's a personal thing,you know, I think think through
(38:37):
what the lord did for us.
Uh, you know, but to look atthe shroud and to think, okay,
this person was whipped, youknow, head to toe, essentially,
repeatedly, and to the pointwhere he's got this many wounds
all over his body, like theamount of pain and the shock
that your body would have beenin and the trauma he's
(38:59):
experiencing like it's, it'sunreal over 700 wounds, you said
, and uh are a lot of, a lot ofthe barbell shaped wounds, are,
are, are there, and then I guess, lacerations like long stripes.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
You know, I think about uh isaiah saying he was
bruised for our transgression,and those metal barbells would
have caused great bruising.
I always heard it described andI've even taught this, that the
, the metal barbells or themetal pieces would create
bruising and contusions on onthe victim and then the repeated
(39:38):
whipping would eventuallylacerate and then it would be
massive hematomas that wouldburst.
This is just catastrophic bloodloss.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (39:47):
And that's what this is described, that's what we see
on it.
Speaker 3 (39:50):
That's what you see.
Yep, for sure.
Yeah, it's unreal to look at it.
And again, some of the imagingnow it's so much more clear than
even when I first saw it,whatever 20 years ago.
There's a lot of.
There's multiple, multiplewounds all over the head.
You know.
(40:10):
It's clear that he's gotswelling under one eye, not that
his nose isn't broken, right,like we use that terminology.
Jesus didn't have any brokenbones.
But it's also technically itwouldn't be a broken bone, right
it's a separated uh septumseptum, thank you, um, but yeah,
(40:33):
and this is where, when I lookat it, I go okay, you know
what's going on.
The guy just have a, you know,rather large nose, well, you
know, but somebody, all thesepeople who are dedicated to
studying it and they're expertsat looking at wounds, they go oh
, no, he's, yeah, clearly, hiseye swollen, his nose is broken,
his lips are split.
(40:54):
Um, he's got the middle part ofhis beard has been ripped out
all that shows up in the imprintof the face yeah, when they,
when they, when they found thatwhatever negative, that's
apparently really a positive.
And now the technology we haveto make that even more clear.
Now they can see thatEssentially, they're reading it
(41:19):
like an x-ray.
They can tell that his rightshoulder was heavily bruised.
They can tell that his kneeswere very much wounded, with
wounds consistent from falling.
Not only that there's bloodthere, but there's like
limestone in his knees.
(41:39):
Consistent with Wow, because,again, if this is Jesus and he's
carrying the cross that crossbeing that was maybe 80 pounds,
I think, would be the low end toassume and his shoulders being
damaged from that, and he'sfalling repeatedly because of
(42:00):
the scourging that he just tookand the blood loss and he's
falling.
What they've recovered fromthat area would be consistent
with rock that he would havebeen falling on.
Things like that, where you'relike, okay, so did a forger 700
years ago know that in thefuture we'd have the capability,
(42:20):
with sticky tape, to get thingsthat you can't see with the
naked eye off of the shroud totry to place it in in time?
Speaker 1 (42:28):
and where that gravel come from, right.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
And cause.
There's more, there's a.
Well, I'll stay.
I'll stay on the wounds for aminute because the blood itself
is fascinating.
So it is blood.
They've been able to test it.
It's human blood.
They know that it's human, maleblood.
It's human male blood.
That's type ab, okay.
So one of the things and Iactually remember thinking this
(42:54):
looking at it was when you lookat the shroud, just naked eye,
the, the blood stains are stillred, still as in like.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
Right now they're red and like not brown not brown
because I you look at jfk'sshirt that's still preserved
from his assassination and itlooks like brown mud or gravy or
sir.
It turns brown, blood turnsbrown yeah, pretty, pretty
quickly.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
Yeah, yeah, really.
I mean, just as it's drying and, um, and I guess, decomposing
or but so apparently the onlything that will keep that it is
possible for blood to stay red.
But in order for it to stay red, it needs to have very high
levels of bilirubin in it, whichis secreted from your liver.
(43:46):
But somebody's liver onlysecretes high levels of
bilirubin if the body isexperiencing extreme trauma, and
so you go.
Okay, well, that's consistent.
Again, like, again, like.
(44:11):
So now I ask the question ifit's a forgery, did somebody
torture a male human being withblood type ab in order to get
his liver to secrete enoughbilirubin to keep the blood red
that he was going to put on theshroud?
Like, so that?
Speaker 1 (44:22):
is that a likely scenario, so that 700 years
later people would know how tostudy that blood?
Speaker 3 (44:27):
Right.
So in order to do that, I thinkwell then, he's a time traveler
, you know like Because eventhat basic, to us most basic
technology didn't exist then.
Yeah, that's right and so, butit's not done there because they
can also, in testing the bloodor examining the blood, they can
(44:49):
see that it's very, very, verylow in oxygen, that the victim,
the man on the shroud, wassuffocating.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
He was having a hard time breathing well.
Speaker 3 (45:00):
Which we know is consistent with how Roman
crucifixion was designed to killsomebody.
Speaker 1 (45:10):
Also, romans did not crucify Roman citizens.
So right out of the gate we'vegot clear evidence that this was
probably someone who'scrucified by the Romans, because
this is Roman crucifixion.
All the markings of Romancrucifixion, with the phlegm or
(45:30):
the flagellum or whatever, andhow, the how the beating
occurred, and then the fact thatthere's a low oxygen level in
the blood indicating this personwill suffocate all this is
roman crucifixion.
Speaker 3 (45:43):
But the romans did not crucify roman citizens, but
they would crucify israelis orjewish people yeah, and
apparently there's no shortageof shrouds of other people that
you know during that time thatwere crucified, or you know.
I guess there is mixed thoughtsthere, because typically if it
(46:07):
really was a criminal, his body,the bodies of crucified people
would be Were tossed, weretossed, but there are times when
they weren't you know.
And whether it was a favor to arich person, which is christ's
story, um, also criminals werecrucified and christians you.
Speaker 1 (46:27):
You see, you saw gladiator 2 I haven't yet okay,
there's a.
There's a scene and I'm notendorsing or whatever um,
there's a scene in that moviewhere Denzel Washington's
character is speaking to theemperor, trying to tell him
don't crucify this person,because this person was a Roman
(46:50):
citizen.
And he said hey man,crucifixion is for, I think he
says for thieves and christians.
And it says it and they go onin the scene.
Um, and I thought, okay, sothieves are most likely going to
be tossed into the landfill,christians, I would imagine
there's a higher likelihood thatmaybe the church is going to
(47:10):
take their body and um, that'sinteresting, that, uh, that
there are other shrouds whenmost thieves, that's more just
like an interesting thought tome.
Most of those shrouds wouldbelong to Christians, to Christ
followers, possibly, potentially.
Speaker 3 (47:32):
Yeah, but then the other set of wounds where this
is another part that in thismost recent go-around for me
personally is studying theshroud that there are a ton of
wounds around the head, that blbleed a lot, um, but there's a
(47:54):
bunch of small puncture woundsall over his head.
What's interesting, you knowand I think anybody's listening,
who's a christian, who knowsthe gospel story you're like, of
course, the crown of thorns,but you know, the way the crown
is always portrayed is likebasically just a headband, like
just a you know circle that wasput over the head.
But the wounds would suggestthat the crown of thorns that
(48:18):
the soldiers twisted togetherwould have been more like a cap,
like that it would have coveredthe entire scalp, that his head
was bleeding from everywhere.
And then there's people, againlike their area of specialty,
that talk about how painful thatwould have been all over the
(48:41):
head and how, especially if itgot into the optical nerve.
But yeah, there's so much bloodon the shroud from front and
back that you see there, you seethere, um, but I'll use that as
the segue to the next piece ofevidence that is just
mind-blowing is there are pollenspores on the shroud that they
(49:05):
discovered when they're takingsamples.
And there's and I I won't beable to recall from the top of
my head or even you know I don'twant to look through my notes,
but but the history of theShroud, all the different places
(49:29):
it stopped along the way, someof which only grow in Israel,
some of which grow in Israel andonly bloom or blossom in the
spring Passover time, and thehighest density of pollen spores
(49:51):
taken from around the head comefrom a plant that grows in
Jerusalem.
Speaker 1 (49:58):
That has thorns.
Speaker 3 (49:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (50:03):
Wow, I did not see that coming, and that's the
first I've heard that.
Speaker 3 (50:07):
Yeah, it's crazy Because, you know, go back to
our little, you know mocking ofthe forger story.
Like, did he know that?
Did he know that we were goingto be able to detect?
Like, and so he made sure tosprinkle pollen spores or to rub
a thorny bush on the?
Speaker 1 (50:24):
yeah, like to make head wounds and then put that
you know, you get into like okay, what's more likely?
Speaker 3 (50:29):
now, like clearly there's a place where I think we
don't know, we no one was therewhen the shroud was made, but
like what's more likely thatit's a forgery or that it's
legit you know is where my braingoes and I think how, how would
anybody have known that?
Like, how would anybody havethought that you know um?
Speaker 1 (50:52):
because the crown the crown being a cap that put
puncture holes all in the crownof the head, the sides and back
and front and the foreheadaround the eyes, almost like a
beanie or a cap that would havemade it that would have been
distinct from any other Romancrucifixion victim.
(51:13):
So you could say well, there'snails, the side, all the
lacerations, and a lot of peoplegot crucified.
I remember we were doing streetinterviews that time and the
one girl says a lot of peoplegot crucified in that time.
I think Jesus was like a lot ofpeople, but a lot of people did
not have a crown of thornspressed onto their head that
came from that particular arearight, yeah, because even like,
(51:39):
if you go well, it doesn't meanit was christ.
Speaker 3 (51:42):
A lot of people are crucified.
We don't know how the image goton there, but it's like yes,
okay, so some random guy namedyou know, you know, benny,
something, was crucified, andbut they also put a crown of
thorns on him.
Was he claiming to be theMessiah?
And something radiant happenedwhile he was laying dead
(52:03):
Something yeah, so yeah, thepollen is fascinating to study,
the blood is incredible to thinkabout and the wounds are
overwhelming.
Speaker 1 (52:17):
And the radiation.
Yeah, something, something thatcreated, you said would have
been just before he opened hiseyes if this is jesus, that
there was a burst of something.
Speaker 3 (52:30):
So that's some of the guys.
You know that their theory isbecause they can't themselves
reproduce.
It is.
It's as if some sort of radiantlight passed through the body
and went out in every direction,so from like within the body
(52:52):
and then out of the body, tocreate that image.
And it would have had to, youknow, and they've got numbers
for it, like you know, but youknow, light more intense than
the sun, that lasted for just afraction of a second.
Yeah, and was powerful enough toleave the imprint without
(53:13):
scorching the shroud.
And and so okay for thebeliever, you go, I know a power
strong enough to do that, youknow, especially if it's
intentional, you know.
That's where my brain and Istart to really get overwhelmed
(53:34):
is like I'm looking at all this,thinking like oh, wow, is this
real?
And then you go well, if it'sreal, it's not an accident, like
God wasn't.
Like oh, I didn't know that theresurrection was going to leave
that imprint, Like if it's real,it's intentional and that's
just another layer of like, ohman, something to think about,
to meditate on that.
God wanted us to have it.
If it's real and the there's.
Speaker 1 (54:01):
No.
There's also no reason for forthere to be possession of this
shroud like like and I knowthere are other shrouds you said
that are in people's possession.
I would assume those came frombodies that decayed right where
this one was not a body thatdecayed that.
That makes it different fromall the other shrouds right and
so why would they havepossession of this?
Well, because it was left empty.
(54:22):
The stone is rolled back, theygo in and they.
Why would they not have savedthat?
They would have they would have.
Speaker 3 (54:29):
Yeah, and and the?
You know, the bible makesmention of it, right, that?
Uh, I'll read it.
And the Bible makes mention ofit, right, I'll read it.
I mean, we just celebrated theresurrection John 20, 6 and 7.
Then Simon Peter came, followinghim and went into the tomb.
He saw the linen cloths plurallying there and the face cloth
(54:52):
which had been on Jesus' head,not lying with the linen cloths,
but folded up in a place byitself.
So it's fascinating that thescriptures mention them and I
think, you know, probably for afew reasons, it seems like what
happens is that they see thelinen cloth, specifically the
shroud, lying there, as it was,is that they see the linen cloth
(55:13):
, specifically the shroud, lyingthere as it was, and then the
head covering lying in aseparate place, which we also
still have, like that's in achurch in Spain.
And so what seems like wastheir practice that when Jesus
was taken off the cross, ormaybe while he was still up,
(55:34):
that that headpiece was put onhim, and that headpiece that we
still have has human, male blood, with all the same distinctions
that we talked about the bloodof the shroud.
It doesn't have the image,because what it seems like is
that that was then taken off, somaybe that they put it on his
head in transit to the tomb andthen the shroud is laid on the
(55:59):
the bench inside the tomb.
The body's laid in rigor mortis, has started to set in already,
so his legs in a position andmaybe he's a little bent up from
being carried, and then he's uh, but then they would have also
taken other cloths.
You know, know, until you knowrigor mortis lasts somewhere up
to four days that his handswould have been bound together,
(56:24):
his jaw would have been tied, sohis you know mouth wouldn't
have been stuck open in rigormortis, and then, yeah, then
folded into the cloth and thenthat.
And then, yeah, then foldedinto the cloth and then that.
But they always they would havekept the head covering, because
that was Jewish tradition isthat they would get as much of
the blood as they could to beburied with the body, and so the
(56:45):
head cloth is put in there, theshroud is there, the straps are
there.
That's another thing I didn'tmention.
I was thinking about it while Iwas crossing my hands is the
wounds on the hand.
When you look at the hands onthe shroud, you don't see the
thumbs.
That is, his hands are coveringhis, like his crotch, and you
(57:05):
don't see any thumbs.
And it's which is fascinating,because the wound on the man on
the shroud is through his wrist,not through the palm, which
wouldn't support the weight, butthrough the wrist.
But when the nail is putthrough the bones in the wrist
to be able to support the weightof the body on the cross, it
damages the median nerve in yourwrist and when that nerve is
(57:27):
damaged, the human hand, thethumb, gets pinched down across
the palm and these two fingerskind of come in, which is the
exact positioning of his hand onthe shroud like
that, yeah, wow, um, again justmore.
That's like how would anybody700 years ago even known that,
(57:48):
you know, unless they werepiercing people to the wrist?
But but it just is.
Another fascinating thing.
Another fascinating level ofthe shroud is with the idea that
the imaging is potentially fromsome sort of crazy radiation
coming out from the body.
If you look at that black andwhite image, you're like okay,
(58:11):
what am I seeing on the mouth?
Is that like a split lip?
What am I looking at?
You can actually see some teeth.
If you look at the hands,you're like am I seeing like
bones?
And so it seemed to have somesort of x-ray type nature to it
(58:31):
and one of the things that a guy, one of the experts, said in
studying at the scientist.
He said the look of the teethis as if they're being x-rayed
from inside.
Like not like x-ray when you goand get it and they put the
thing in your mouth and whatever, and you're like that's what
I'm going to look like wheneverI'm dead, but it looks like it's
(58:55):
being taken from the inside,like it's you're seeing the back
of the T.
It's just wild stuff whereyou're like and it's so layered
and like, okay, well, how didthat get there?
You know, for the believer, ifthis is the shroud, I mean we
keep saying it because I thinkthere's something could come out
and that answers all thesequestions, you know, and like
(59:16):
that's possible, it's within therealm of possibility.
I don't think so.
I think, man, there's.
I feel again, I come back to, Ithink through these things,
listen, try to put my bias asideas much as I'm capable of, and
I go the one piece of evidenceagainst.
It seems to be garbage, allthese crazy details that just
(59:38):
seem like they line up.
I just think I'm looking at theface of Christ, you know.
Speaker 1 (59:45):
So the x-ray, it's like that burst of whatever.
Then boom from the inside out.
Put that picture on that cloth.
Speaker 3 (59:53):
Yeah, and that's crazy, because the image on the
shroud is only, it's verysuperficial, so the blood is
soaked through and the imagingis very superficial, like it's
not very deep, it's not throughthe fibers, it doesn't like you
know, and so which also?
I wouldn't have thought of thisat all, but but one guy said
(01:00:16):
well, that means that the imagehad to be made after the blood
had already soaked through, sothe blood you know, she had a
couple nights to do that.
Right, like the blood is soakedthrough and then boom, that
image is made and it's justfaint.
Yeah, there's a lot, there's somuch more.
I mean, like you said, you candefinitely spend a lot of time
(01:00:38):
studying and listeningresurrection.
And he, he was talking aboutthe shroud.
I actually took a class for himand wrote a paper on the shroud
(01:01:00):
when I was in uh, that'sactually when I was in seminary
and um, there's guys, this guy,uh, gosh, let me look at his
name.
Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
That dude, lee Strobel, the case for Christ guy
.
You know he he's talking aboutthe shroud a little bit, I just
recently saw that, but uh, thatguy's considered, you know, very
reputable apologist.
Yeah, and when he hisconversion story habermas, when
he interviewed habermas, thatwas a big piece that's a big
(01:01:29):
part of it.
Speaker 3 (01:01:29):
Yeah, at his conversion.
Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
He, he went, I think it's before habermas was at
liberty.
I think maybe he was at wheatonor moody, something like that,
because struggle was in chicago,and I think it's before
habermas was at liberty.
I think maybe he was at wheatonor moody, something like that,
because struggle was in chicagoand I think habermas might have
been local, maybe not.
Maybe he came to lynchburgbecause that's this was in the
70s, so liberty was very smallthen.
But um, anyway, he in case forchrist, he's like this.
When I, when I went and metwith this guy like it, it spun
(01:01:52):
me around, you know that'sawesome yeah I came across this
other guy and his name'sjeremiah johnston.
Speaker 3 (01:01:59):
I'd never heard of him before but he he's written a
book called body of proof.
And again he's another onewho's his scholarship is in the
resurrection, and he wasinteresting to listen to because
he started out as a skeptic ofthe shroud.
He was like he said to himself,like I deal with evidence, and
(01:02:20):
he was interested to listen toone because he's not only to
become convinced, he's like Imean, he's out there, he tours,
does tours, talking about theshroud, like he's, and he, yeah,
he's a historian.
Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
Thanks for listening to.
No sanity required.
Please take a moment tosubscribe and leave a rating.
It really helps.
Visit us at SW outfitterscom tosee all of our programming and
resources, and we'll see younext week on.
No sanity required.
Hey, in this week's episode of no Sanity Required
this is take three, by the way,because somebody forgot to hit
record I got Rob Conte back onthe podcast and it's because
we're going to be talking aboutthe Shroud of Turin.
If you're not familiar withwhat that is, you're going to
love this content, this episode.
It's going to be awesome.
Yesterday we celebrated theresurrection of Jesus.
(00:22):
Most people call it Easter.
People call it Easter at ourchurch, at Red Oak.
We love to call it ResurrectionSunday.
I'm pretty sure the word Easteris pagan, that's neither here
nor there, but yesterday wecelebrated the resurrection of
Jesus, and so today we want totalk about something that's
getting a lot of press right nowand that's the Shroud of Turin.
(00:44):
Again, if you'reroud of Turin,again, if you're not familiar
with this, I think you're goingto really enjoy this episode.
It's probably going to push youdown a rabbit hole of your own
research and I.
What I would say is just jumpon and go for the ride, because
it's awesome, it's fascinatingstuff and I think you'll be.
I think you'll be encouraged,excited, and the the
possibilities of what this meansare pretty exciting.
(01:07):
So thanks for tuning in to thisweek's episode of no Sanity
Required.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Welcome to no Sanity Required from the Ministry of
Snowbird Wilderness Outfitters.
A podcast about the Bible,culture and stories from around
the globe.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
All right, so I the first time.
I want to start off by sort ofexplaining.
I basically just want to turnthis all over to you, but I do
want to intro this by sayingyou're the person that
introduced me to the Shroud ofTurin.
Do you say Turin?
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
And that was probably 15 years ago.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Yeah, at least somewhere in there.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Maybe 20 years ago.
I mean, this is it's.
I think for a lot of peoplethis is a brand new thing, but
it's something we've had athousand conversations about on
road trips or sitting around thefire, right.
But it's sort of resurfacingright now and there's some
exciting new I don't know whatyou call it new details that are
(02:15):
emerging, new discovery, and soI'm excited to get into this.
So why don't you just like hit,play and let's, let's go?
Speaker 3 (02:26):
so, yeah, uh, I think , for for me, um, I had not been
a believer long, you know, godsave me.
I was 18, um, and I think thefirst time I came across
anything about the shroud was,uh, I was I think it was around
easter time, around, you knowcelebrating the resurrection,
passion Week and I was flippingaround on TV and on the History
(02:50):
Channel they were doing adocumentary on it and I just
stopped to watch it and I wasblown away to where it was back
in the day when, at the end ofthe program, they put on a 1-800
number if you wanted to orderthe cassette or the videotape.
So I ordered, I got on thereand bought it and because I
wanted, you know, other peopleto see it, I wanted to watch it
(03:11):
with my mom at the time and, uh,so I had that VHS tape for a
while.
I don't know where it ended up,but uh, so that was the first
time I was ever introduced to itand I've been fascinated by it
since.
And there's so much informationon it which the Shroud of Turin
is the most studied artifact inhuman history, like nothing else
(03:37):
ever has been studied as muchas it.
And which is crazy, becausethere are there are a lot of
people who have never heardabout it much as it.
And, which is crazy, becausethere are, there are a lot of
people who've never heard aboutit, I think, especially in the
Protestant tradition, I thinkmost Catholics will have heard
of it.
Uh, and maybe that'll kind ofcome out during the talk as to
why.
But, um, but yeah, for mostProtestants they've not heard
(03:59):
about it, or if they have, it'smaybe been more of a negative
spin on it.
Um, but I've been fascinated bybeen fascinated by it.
Now, granted, the documentary Ifirst watched was definitely
more slanted towards a positiveview of it.
And so what the Shroud is, whatthe Shroud of Tern is.
It's a 14-foot long by about 4foot wide piece of linen cloth
(04:27):
that is currently held and keptprotected in a church in Turin,
italy.
So that's where it gets itsname the Shroud of Turin.
And the reason why it'ssignificant and that people are
interested in it is becausethere appears to be the image of
(04:49):
a crucified man on it, as wellas bloodstains, and so what some
people believe it to be is theactual burial cloth of Christ be
is the actual burial cloth ofchrist.
(05:09):
Um, so when he's taken down fromthe cross, taken to the tomb,
that he was laid in this burialcloth and that, the instant that
the resurrection happens, thisimage is somehow embedded onto
the cloth, and and so again,it's the most studied artifact
in human history, over I thinkthey estimate it's over 500,000
(05:32):
hours of not just study, butlike being studied by multiple
scientists.
Cross-disciplinary experts fromall different fields have
poured a significant part oftheir career into studying
different aspects of the shroud,which, in the end, the big
(05:58):
takeaway is no one reallybelieves it's a forgery anymore,
but they don't know how theimage is on there.
Uh, they don't know.
There's no known way ofproducing the image that's on
the shroud, um, so that'sfascinating.
In and of itself you know, umand so, uh, yeah, there's just a
(06:22):
lot of facets of what they'vediscovered in the last, really
since 1978, the first time itwas really studied by scientists
.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So prior to 1978, it was in the possession of this
church in Italy.
How long had it been in theirpossession and what was the
nature of that possession?
Did they have it on display?
Was it like a secret thing?
My brain automatically goes tothose Nicolas Cage movies about
(06:55):
the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
He's one of the guys that studied it.
Yeah, Okay, perfect.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
So I just want to make sure he's involved.
Is this Con Air Nicolas Cagewith the fake southern accent?
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Oh, yeah, or is this the guy from the face, nicholas
Cage?
Okay?
Speaker 1 (07:10):
all right, leaving Graceland, I mean Las Vegas,
right, okay so, but in allseriousness, my mind kind of
goes to you know the Illuminatimovies, the?
You know the um, what, what arethe guys called in that?
Um, the reason I brought thatmovie up, um, the knights
templar right and and all that,like that's where my imagination
(07:34):
goes, and there's so much loreand and so much of that is
apocryphal.
But then some of it is real andhistorical and you tie in the
Masons.
Yeah, so prior to 1978, thischurch had it and what was the
nature of their possession andhow long had they had it?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
So for most of the documented history of the Shroud
, which dates back to 1349.
1349.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
1349.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
And I say documented, because there are.
There's appearings of theShroud before that, paintings,
letters going by a differentname.
Obviously it wasn't.
It hasn't always been theShroud Turin or it hasn't always
been at the Church in Turin,but for most of its history it
wasn't actually part of the,officially part of the Catholic
(08:24):
church.
It was in the possession of aFrench family I forget the
family's name, but it was like afamily heirloom and so it was
sometime in the 80s I believethe 1980s that the Catholic
church actually they possess it.
Now they own it and I thinkit's directly under the
(08:47):
authority of the Pope himself.
Throughout its history it'sreally only gone on display at
certain times, like holy days,certain events, but for a lot of
its history, yeah, it reallywas just kept secret or
forgotten or it was just beingprotected.
(09:08):
It seemed like the shroud inthe, you know, in the the middle
ages, was being moved around, alot like it was just escaping
danger, survived a few differentfires.
It was actually on fire at onepoint and had to be doused with
water, which you can still seewhen you look at the images of
the shroud.
You see the damage done by thefire, um, but yeah, it was like
(09:35):
always kind of escaping dangeruntil it landed in turin.
Um, I don't know what year itgot there off the top of my head
.
I could look up the time.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
What was 1978?
What was significant about that?
What?
Speaker 3 (09:46):
was significant about 1978 is that the church allowed
a group of scientists to studyit.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
It ended up being like a five-day window it was a
certain number of hours theywere going to allow them access
to study it.
And so this group I think therewas 33 to 35 scientists,
cross-disciplinary that came inand were able to x-ray it, take
(10:17):
photographs under differentlighting, use sticky tape like a
forensic investigator would doat a crime scene, you know, like
using tape to capture, uh,whatever microscopic um
properties might be on theshroud.
And so they did all they.
(10:37):
They did all their collectingof data at that time, um, which
launched into what still isbeing studied today.
What's fascinating, there isthat group of scientists, most
of whom, from the best Iunderstand at the time, most of
them were not believers, andthey went into it saying we're
(11:04):
going to be able to prove it's ahoax.
There's one guy that's hisquote comes up a lot that he
said give me 15 minutes in thescientific method and I'll prove
it's a hoax, it's a forgery.
And yeah that they spent fivedays trying to figure out how,
what am I looking at?
What is this?
How did it get here?
(11:25):
Um, and so a lot of those guys.
It seemed like I don't want tosay a lot, but a number of those
guys became believers.
Most all of them came to apoint where they would say that
a lot of these guys have passedaway.
I learned that and it's kind ofsector, I don't know what go I
am on getting interested in itand studying stuff again.
(11:45):
But as I was doing that this goaround, you know, found out a
lot of them had passed away, butthat, yeah, a lot of them came
to the place of at least beingable to say the probability that
it's not the burial cloth ofJesus is astronomically low.
Like one mathematician in thegroup said, it's like one in 200
(12:10):
million that it's not Jesus.
So, which is interesting,because you still I mean even in
this study like, if you startlooking at it, you know it's
going to start popping on youralgorithm or whatever, and
you're going to find plenty ofYouTube videos and people saying
, ah, it's a forgery, it's ahoax, and I watched a lot of
those.
There's not a lot of substanceto them, but there's still
(12:33):
people who just claim some sortof expertise and say things
authoritatively that just seemlike they're I mean, they're
just not true.
But I think there's one inChristian circles.
Maybe a fear of, oh, that'sjust too outside the box, like
would would cause.
That's a.
I recently taught a group ofeighth graders on it in, you
(12:57):
know, definitely differentteaching than you know.
If I'm opening up the Bible,this is very much, at the end of
the day, you go.
I don't know, maybe, like, do Ithink it of the day you go?
I don't know, maybe, like, do Ithink it's authentic?
I don't know, maybe it'sfascinating and the implications
of it are ginormous, becauseit's how I opened with those
kids was I said okay, is theShroud of Turin?
(13:25):
Is it a hoax?
Is it a forgery from 700 yearsago?
Or is it a picture of JesusChrist the instant before he
opened his eyes in resurrection?
It's fascinating and every timeI walk through the evidence,
the data, I come away going Ithink I'm looking at the face of
(13:46):
Jesus.
I don't know that for sure.
I told those kids.
I joke and say I just make up apercentage.
I say I'm like 90%.
Sure I'm looking at Jesus, butas far as what the shroud means
for my faith, my relationshipwith the Lord, well, I'd say 0%.
Our faith is based on thewitness of Scripture.
(14:12):
Faith comes by hearing, andhearing by the Word of God.
Jesus' conversation with Thomas,I think, is so helpful, where
he says, yeah, blessed are youbecause you've seen and believed
, but blessed are those whodon't see and believe, right.
(14:35):
Or he says you believe becauseyou've seen.
Blessed are those who believeand haven't seen, and so I don't
.
To me, if the shroud is legit,shroud is legit.
It's not like oh, now we gotthe proof and we can take it
around the world 100 like youcan't argue against it and
people are going to flock tochrist.
Like jesus already said, peoplewon't believe even if I come
(14:58):
back from the dead.
He already came back from thedead 2,000 years ago and people
still don't believe because it'sa sin issue, it's not an
evidence issue.
But I do think that maybe it'slike a really cool wink from God
and something that we do haveand it's just to me.
(15:21):
I do get encouraged by it andthe thought of what it might
really be.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
I want other people to be encouraged by it because
it is fun and it's exciting, andwe believe in the resurrection
of Jesus, not because of theShroud of Turin.
We believe in the resurrectionof Jesus because of the proofs
that God has provided to us, andfaith does come by hearing, and
(15:50):
hearing does come through theWord of God, through the Word of
Christ, and we have all ofthose that abandoned Jesus when
he was arrested and when he wasgoing through his trials, that
then are willing to die for him.
Clearly something changed thatmade them go from abandoning
(16:14):
their closest friend and theirrabbi, their mentor.
You know, I don't have a mentorin my life now.
I've had a couple that havegone to be with the Lord, but
they're not people that I wouldhave abandoned in their hour of
need.
Right, you know, we say well,but we're not, we're not
mentoring each other.
We're brothers in ministry inchrist.
(16:35):
But I have no doubt that Icould call you in my worst hour
of need.
Or you have no doubt, likethere's and that's true of the,
the Oak community, the Snowbirdcommunity.
I'm going to be there.
If I've got to die with you,I'm going to die with you.
I really believe that.
Yeah, I think I can honestlysay that those guys were so
(16:56):
shook that they wouldn't stickby their friend, and I think we
got to give them a little bit ofgrace, because, to me, if you
zoom out, you go.
What does it take for a personto abandon their closest friend,
and for all of them to do it?
This was not just they werescared of the Romans.
(17:20):
I think it's more than that.
I think they were scared ofbeing punished or dying for
something that was a hoax.
I think their faith wavered.
It's not.
I don't want to be true to myfriend.
It's whoa wait.
What if he?
What if he is crazy?
What if he is a madman?
What if he is diabolical?
What if it is a hoax?
Or, you know, maybe for some ofthem, maybe that's what they're
(17:41):
wrestling with.
Am I out of line to say that?
Speaker 3 (17:45):
no, to a degree that I don't think you're out of line
, you know.
I think we can speculate, youknow.
Yeah, it was for some of themjust straight up fear just
freaked out, I'm gonna getcrucified too yeah like man have
I been suckered have I beenyeah, was I.
Was I deceived by a?
Speaker 1 (18:02):
false messiah.
You know'm sure all that wasgoing on, so much that could
have been going on in theirminds.
I mean, it's coming at you sofast, yeah.
And the emotion of the upperroom and the Last Supper and all
that had happened during theHoly Week, the Passion Week, and
so all it took for the switchto flip.
(18:23):
Something switched the flip forthem, boys and girls, to where
they're getting crucified upsidedown or getting run through
with spears.
One of them I mean multiple ofthem go to the far ends of the
Roman Empire and beyond andultimately die for their faith.
Yeah, what switched was thatthey were eyewitnesses to the
(18:47):
resurrected lord and somethinghappens in acts one, when
they're all gathered beforejesus's ascension.
That stands out to me.
It says that his brothers andsisters are there, and five
brothers are named and pluralsisters is used.
So there were at least twosisters.
So the Catholics believe thatMary practiced perpetual
(19:11):
virginity and so that Jesus'siblings were the offspring of
Joseph and another wife Is thatcorrect.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Yeah, or that they're cousins, or that they're
cousins.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
But they're not Mary's children.
We believe that mary gave birthto other sons and daughters and
that mary and joseph were in abiblical monogamous marriage and
that they produced morechildren and that that there's
two monumental moments injesus's life with his siblings
and in relation in regard hissiblings One where they want to
(19:47):
put him in a straight jacket andlock him in a padded room,
basically because he's outpreaching and they're like we
got to get him, he's lost hismind.
These are his siblings.
And then another point wherethere's a point of contention in
a public setting, where he sortof has to rebuke his family,
but then in the end they're allthere willing to die for him.
(20:08):
What flipped that switch?
It's the resurrection.
We believe in the resurrectionof Jesus because of the proofs
laid out for us in Scripture,the eyewitness accounts, the
word of God that's living andactive.
But the Shroud of Turin is oneof the coolest.
Yeah, you use the word wink ifgod's.
(20:30):
If god has done this, it's.
So.
I think there's two things thatthat it can, and so now we're
going to get into.
We're going to get into what,how we might know if it's
authentic or not.
We're going to deep dive intothat.
But I just want to say, forpeople that are not believers,
this could be something thatmoves the needle.
It you know, I think god, godcould use anything as long as
(20:51):
it's not contrary to the gospel,so it could be an what we would
call a tool of apologetics, butthen for the believer, it could
be a burst of fresh air in yourspiritual lungs of just which
is what it's been for me so manytimes Like, this is so cool if
this is real.
So what makes you think thatthere's a strong likelihood that
(21:14):
this is real?
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Yeah.
So to me the evidence for it tobe a forgery at this stage is
minuscule.
The evidence that this is anancient burial cloth that's from
Israel and that all the betweenthe bloodstains and the imaging
(21:44):
, the more evidence that comesfrom it, the more that it's
studied and that there's newmethods of studying it only tend
to lend towards it's legit.
Now, to this day, there's stillno way of knowing how the image
was produced.
There can be speculation, butany any man-made uh, there's.
(22:08):
No, no, there's no knownman-made way to produce the
image.
Uh.
So for me, the you know theknock that comes against it
where some people still justdismissed, it is so that team in
78 that examined the shroud,they uh were able to actually
(22:30):
take samples of it.
They they clipped samples offof the shroud and then that
those samples were sent to threedifferent labs to be, uh,
carbon dated, radiocarbon dating, and so they had them for
whatever period of time, andthen all three labs released the
(22:50):
date, the range that theythought the carbon dating showed
, and it put it in the MiddleAges, it put it as 700 years old
, give or take, and so that justseemed to be deflating to
everybody involved.
Uh, but with that, other peoplestill said okay, well, show us
(23:12):
the data.
Well, they never.
All they released was the date,and so they hadn't released the
data how they they haven'treleased how they came to that
conclusion uh, just yeah, showyour work.
You know I think if they were ina court of law or whatever and
using okay, yeah, we came upwith this date.
Okay, well, you're just notgoing to say here's the number,
(23:34):
see you later.
Like, yeah, share thescientific proof.
And so they.
Actually, it was a long I thinka 20-year battle to get them to
release their information andthey finally did.
I think a 20-year battle to getthem to release their
information and they finally did.
And when they did, it seems likemost of the community that
actually studies the shroud itwas almost like our eye roll
moment because the they didn'tfollow strict procedures and
(23:59):
guidelines that would be likeconsidered scientific um and
they also uh used and from whatI understand, they didn't use
multiple uh samplings.
They all took the same sampleand it seems like that was from
the edge of the shroud and itseems like they took a part of
(24:20):
the shroud that had beenrepaired.
So you know mentioned earlierthat the shroud had been in a
few fires and that it's you knowif it is 2,000 years old, that
at some point I don't know, 700years ago, they decided to
actually put a.
They sewed a backing onto it,but they also, it seems like
(24:43):
maybe they repaired the edgesonto it, but they also, it seems
like maybe they repaired theedges.
Um, and so it's what seems verypossible.
Is they carbon dated?
A part of the shroud that is700 years old, wow, now there's
other arguments that are madetoo that that you know, because
their work was so shoddy, whatit seems like, and that they
(25:05):
didn't, they weren't willing toeven release that for 20 years.
It calls into question, likesome integrity issues, you know
also.
Okay, did they actually cleanit properly?
Did they handle you know?
Did they do what they weresupposed to do to get the best
sampling possible?
It seems like no.
It seems like no.
But also taking intoconsideration that it had damage
(25:27):
from the fire, the smoke thatit absorbed, all these things
that apparently can throw offcarbon dating, not an expert.
I'm just reading and listeningto other people talk about these
things, so it's dubious at best, if you don't mind me using
that term.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
No, I don't mind.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
But and so if again?
But that was like the, that waslike the one thing that seemed
like ah, yeah, maybe, maybe someartists painted it for whatever
reason, but but that's wherethe all the other data points to
.
Well, there's no paint on it.
And that's what those guysthought.
They thought they'd be able towalk up.
The one guy said I thought I'dbe able to walk up, look at the
(26:07):
shroud with a magnifying glassor a microscope, see the strokes
of a paintbrush and call it aday.
They thought they'd find paint,dye, chalk, powder.
None of that exists on there.
Exist on there.
And so what you have is, ifyou're looking at imaging of
(26:28):
this online, you know there'swhat you see with the naked eye
when you look at the shroudthere's clearly bloodstains and
then there's the faint image ofan anatomically correct man.
They estimate it's somewherebetween five feet ten and six
(26:48):
foot, which even that'sinteresting, because initially I
was like why is there a range?
And what it seems like isbecause his body.
What they can now tell bystudying it that the man whose
image is on the shroud when thatimage was made he was in a
(27:08):
state of rigor mortis, um, sothat he slightly bent forward
just a little bit with his head.
In that position, one knee iselevated above the other.
Um, the way his hands arepositioned that that when that
moment happened, whatever madethe image, he's in a state of
rigor mortis.
So even that, like so, there'sa range for like 5'10 to 6',
(27:35):
which is also awesome, likeabove average.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Yeah, I mean average then was 5'5 or something.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Right, which is when I should have been alive.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
But so if you look at the naked eye, you see it's
there and obviously that's allthey could do for a long time
with it.
But they knew it was enough ofan image to know like is this
Jesus?
Because of where the wounds are, how the wounds appear, Could
(28:06):
you describe the wounds?
On the shroud.
To me, that's the biggest partof it, where I often get focused
my time.
I want to talk about one thingbefore then.
If you're familiar at all withthe shroud, you know this.
What blew the scientist away,beyond just walking away, going
(28:29):
we don't know is when a picturewas taken of the Shroud.
And then, as they're developingthat image, you know back when
it wasn't just with somebody'sphone but it was like film and a
camera, and they're developingthat film and they saw the
negative of the picture thatthey took.
They they literally like,gassed like, because what ends
(28:54):
up happening is in the negativeof the picture that they took,
the details of the shroud becomeso much more clear.
Now I get out of my depth quick.
I I'm not a scientist, butwe're a photo expert.
But apparently what happens isthat the shroud itself, the
image that's on a linen cloth,like it, behaves as if it's the
(29:18):
negative, so that when aphotograph of the shroud is
taken and you look at thenegative of that photograph,
that negative now behaves like apositive so it's what's more
clear it takes away some of thedistortion.
So they all of a sudden werelooking at a much more clear
image of the man on the shroudwow and so the wounds become
(29:41):
more vivid and and everythingelse you know, and so is there
anything else in history that'slike that?
that's unique that's very unique, and so there's.
There's been people who have,for whatever motivations, tried
to besides, just like scientificexploration.
(30:01):
There's been people who havereproduced images that look like
the shroud of turin, but butthey're not like it.
They can make it look like itto the naked eye and behave in a
similar fashion, but scientistscould look at what they did and
say, oh no, you did this, youused a piece of glass and paint
and and bleach the rest of theLike.
(30:24):
they can explain how it was made.
So it's not what the shroud is.
So there's things that peoplecan have done to manipulate to
get a similar effect, but theycan't reproduce what the shroud
is, if that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
It does so with the 1978, the five-day exploration
of the Shroud.
Has there been another onesince then?
At one point you said that wasthe only time it was ever
studied, but then in more recentyears.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
Yeah, so definitely, people have been able to
continue to work off of the dataand the things that they
collected, things that theycollected um.
But I, I believe uh, I'm not100 on this, but I believe that
this new dating um tool has beenused directly on the shroud.
(31:18):
I'm not positive.
If it was, that's, all I canthink is that they must have had
access to the shroud itself.
But there's a new method ofdating things of the ancient
world, um, and so it seems likethey use.
It's called a let me look at itand get it right it's called a
wide angle x-ray imaging uhdevice.
(31:41):
Uh, but so apparently, what it?
It measures the rate of decayin an item, and so so I think
and this, this was new.
I've never, I've not heard this.
I I'd heard some rumblingsabout the shroud again, but I
didn't what, for whatever reason, didn't go down the rabbit hole
.
But so when I picked it up heremore recently, uh, this has
(32:06):
happened in the last coupleyears that they use this x-ray
dating machine, uh on the shroudand it puts it at 2000 years
old.
Now I think it's got its own,probably ball of wax.
As far as the limitations, whatcould manipulate it or pervert
(32:27):
the dating, I think the same ascarbon dating.
But it just is fascinatingbecause also there's been
archaeologists have found a sitein Israel where there's plenty
of tombs and they found morelinen cloths, just like the
(32:51):
shroud, the same material, thesame weave, the same method of
burial, and so they've been ableto have other linen cloths that
they know are from the region,that they know are from that
time, based on thearchaeological find, and come up
(33:12):
with the same date in measuringit as the Shroud of Turin.
So you know, again, it's notlike if that stood alone maybe
it would be like well, who knows, it's a new technique, but with
everything else, go all rightso when you compare it to
something that archaeologistshave found and know is from 2
(33:34):
000 years ago, right itmatches as far as dating it
through a 14-foot long linencloth and it appears the way
that at least the man in theshroud and these other findings
(33:56):
that what would happen is theywould put the body in.
I heard one guy say it feelscrude in the moment, but you
know, basically like how a pitaacts, like you know.
But the body, if part of theshroud is laid out this way and
the body's laid on it, and thenthe rest of the shroud would
just be folded over, like like apita, um, and so that the
(34:18):
imaging on the shroud is on all14 feet of it, give or take, uh,
because some of it is theimaging of his back, from the
top of his head to the heels ofhis feet.
It's the entire backside andthen the other side of the
shroud is the front, so thatwhen he was in the shroud, like
this, whatever caused that imageto be embedded on the shroud,
(34:43):
it happened in all directions,and so I mentioned earlier
there's blood stains on theshroud, those pints of blood
that are on the shroud, a lot ofblood, and so there's
concentrated area.
(35:04):
The heaviest area of blood onthe shroud is a wound on his
side, on his right side.
That is consistent if the manon the shroud had been pierced
between the fifth and sixth ribwith the head of a spear or a
lance and matches the diameterof spears that have been
(35:29):
discovered by archaeology thatare.
You know, roman, that there's alarge quantity of blood on the
side, the blood that seems to beshed post-mortem.
There's blood on the wrist.
There's wounds clearly visibleon the wrist and we'll come back
to that.
There's blood, a lot of bloodaround the head.
(35:51):
But there are over 700 woundson the man on the shroud.
So you have those that are moreclearly defined like nails to
the wrist nails to the feetwould be the speculation a spear
in the side.
But he, from the neck down onboth sides, is covered in wounds
(36:16):
and they're little I shouldn'tsay little, but they're
barbell-shaped wounds, if youpicture a tiny barbell, and
what's fascinating is because ifyou look at it you go, oh,
that's from the scourging.
But so if a forger was makingthe shroud 700 years ago and
(36:41):
somehow, you know, made thisimage, and he was like, oh,
jesus was scourged.
He's looking at the biblicalaccount and trying to copy it on
the shroud and he's like, oh,he was scourged.
I know I'll use a littlebarbell piece of metal to make
it look like he was whipped with.
Well, the Roman phlegm withthat specific of uh piece of
(37:06):
metal tied to the end wasn'tdiscovered till you know.
I mean, archaeology itself is afairly new discipline.
So, like unearthing, theunearthing of a roman phlegrim
that's designed with a with theend of it that matches the
wounds of the man on the shroud,like it, wasn't found till well
later than that.
(37:27):
So I mean, there would be.
No, they wouldn't have aconcept.
They'd know that there was athing called the cat of nine
tails or that, what they didscourging, but they didn't have
any Roman flagrums to study totry to match it on the shroud
with that image, you know, isthat make sense?
yeah and so you know one, it's athat and that, just from that
(37:50):
point on, there's so many thingsthat you go what would the,
what would the forger have hadto have known, uh, to put into
this?
Because it just keeps goingdeeper and deeper the more that
the shroud has been studied,things like that, like where
they can match, like, okay, hiswounds are consistent with what
we know Roman soldiers orprofessional torturers use at
(38:14):
the time, you know, when theywere scourging somebody.
But it is like to pause here andjust say I mean, it's
overwhelming to look at it.
And you know, I've seen thePassion of the Christ and it's
brutal, it's brutal, it's brutaland I personally, uh like
periodically watch that moviejust because it, you know, I
feel like it's a personal thing,you know, I think think through
(38:37):
what the lord did for us.
Uh, you know, but to look atthe shroud and to think, okay,
this person was whipped, youknow, head to toe, essentially,
repeatedly, and to the pointwhere he's got this many wounds
all over his body, like theamount of pain and the shock
that your body would have beenin and the trauma he's
(38:59):
experiencing like it's, it'sunreal over 700 wounds, you said
, and uh are a lot of, a lot ofthe barbell shaped wounds, are,
are, are there, and then I guess, lacerations like long stripes.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
You know, I think about uh isaiah saying he was
bruised for our transgression,and those metal barbells would
have caused great bruising.
I always heard it described andI've even taught this, that the
, the metal barbells or themetal pieces would create
bruising and contusions on onthe victim and then the repeated
(39:38):
whipping would eventuallylacerate and then it would be
massive hematomas that wouldburst.
This is just catastrophic bloodloss.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (39:47):
And that's what this is described, that's what we see
on it.
Speaker 3 (39:50):
That's what you see.
Yep, for sure.
Yeah, it's unreal to look at it.
And again, some of the imagingnow it's so much more clear than
even when I first saw it,whatever 20 years ago.
There's a lot of.
There's multiple, multiplewounds all over the head.
You know.
(40:10):
It's clear that he's gotswelling under one eye, not that
his nose isn't broken, right,like we use that terminology.
Jesus didn't have any brokenbones.
But it's also technically itwouldn't be a broken bone, right
it's a separated uh septumseptum, thank you, um, but yeah,
(40:33):
and this is where, when I lookat it, I go okay, you know
what's going on.
The guy just have a, you know,rather large nose, well, you
know, but somebody, all thesepeople who are dedicated to
studying it and they're expertsat looking at wounds, they go oh
, no, he's, yeah, clearly, hiseye swollen, his nose is broken,
his lips are split.
(40:54):
Um, he's got the middle part ofhis beard has been ripped out
all that shows up in the imprintof the face yeah, when they,
when they, when they found thatwhatever negative, that's
apparently really a positive.
And now the technology we haveto make that even more clear.
Now they can see thatEssentially, they're reading it
(41:19):
like an x-ray.
They can tell that his rightshoulder was heavily bruised.
They can tell that his kneeswere very much wounded, with
wounds consistent from falling.
Not only that there's bloodthere, but there's like
limestone in his knees.
(41:39):
Consistent with Wow, because,again, if this is Jesus and he's
carrying the cross that crossbeing that was maybe 80 pounds,
I think, would be the low end toassume and his shoulders being
damaged from that, and he'sfalling repeatedly because of
(42:00):
the scourging that he just tookand the blood loss and he's
falling.
What they've recovered fromthat area would be consistent
with rock that he would havebeen falling on.
Things like that, where you'relike, okay, so did a forger 700
years ago know that in thefuture we'd have the capability,
(42:20):
with sticky tape, to get thingsthat you can't see with the
naked eye off of the shroud totry to place it in in time?
Speaker 1 (42:28):
and where that gravel come from, right.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
And cause.
There's more, there's a.
Well, I'll stay.
I'll stay on the wounds for aminute because the blood itself
is fascinating.
So it is blood.
They've been able to test it.
It's human blood.
They know that it's human, maleblood.
It's human male blood.
That's type ab, okay.
So one of the things and Iactually remember thinking this
(42:54):
looking at it was when you lookat the shroud, just naked eye,
the, the blood stains are stillred, still as in like.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
Right now they're red and like not brown not brown
because I you look at jfk'sshirt that's still preserved
from his assassination and itlooks like brown mud or gravy or
sir.
It turns brown, blood turnsbrown yeah, pretty, pretty
quickly.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
Yeah, yeah, really.
I mean, just as it's drying and, um, and I guess, decomposing
or but so apparently the onlything that will keep that it is
possible for blood to stay red.
But in order for it to stay red, it needs to have very high
levels of bilirubin in it, whichis secreted from your liver.
(43:46):
But somebody's liver onlysecretes high levels of
bilirubin if the body isexperiencing extreme trauma, and
so you go.
Okay, well, that's consistent.
Again, like, again, like.
(44:11):
So now I ask the question ifit's a forgery, did somebody
torture a male human being withblood type ab in order to get
his liver to secrete enoughbilirubin to keep the blood red
that he was going to put on theshroud?
Like, so that?
Speaker 1 (44:22):
is that a likely scenario, so that 700 years
later people would know how tostudy that blood?
Speaker 3 (44:27):
Right.
So in order to do that, I thinkwell then, he's a time traveler
, you know like Because eventhat basic, to us most basic
technology didn't exist then.
Yeah, that's right and so, butit's not done there because they
can also, in testing the bloodor examining the blood, they can
(44:49):
see that it's very, very, verylow in oxygen, that the victim,
the man on the shroud, wassuffocating.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
He was having a hard time breathing well.
Speaker 3 (45:00):
Which we know is consistent with how Roman
crucifixion was designed to killsomebody.
Speaker 1 (45:10):
Also, romans did not crucify Roman citizens.
So right out of the gate we'vegot clear evidence that this was
probably someone who'scrucified by the Romans, because
this is Roman crucifixion.
All the markings of Romancrucifixion, with the phlegm or
(45:30):
the flagellum or whatever, andhow, the how the beating
occurred, and then the fact thatthere's a low oxygen level in
the blood indicating this personwill suffocate all this is
roman crucifixion.
Speaker 3 (45:43):
But the romans did not crucify roman citizens, but
they would crucify israelis orjewish people yeah, and
apparently there's no shortageof shrouds of other people that
you know during that time thatwere crucified, or you know.
I guess there is mixed thoughtsthere, because typically if it
(46:07):
really was a criminal, his body,the bodies of crucified people
would be Were tossed, weretossed, but there are times when
they weren't you know.
And whether it was a favor to arich person, which is christ's
story, um, also criminals werecrucified and christians you.
Speaker 1 (46:27):
You see, you saw gladiator 2 I haven't yet okay,
there's a.
There's a scene and I'm notendorsing or whatever um,
there's a scene in that moviewhere Denzel Washington's
character is speaking to theemperor, trying to tell him
don't crucify this person,because this person was a Roman
(46:50):
citizen.
And he said hey man,crucifixion is for, I think he
says for thieves and christians.
And it says it and they go onin the scene.
Um, and I thought, okay, sothieves are most likely going to
be tossed into the landfill,christians, I would imagine
there's a higher likelihood thatmaybe the church is going to
(47:10):
take their body and um, that'sinteresting, that, uh, that
there are other shrouds whenmost thieves, that's more just
like an interesting thought tome.
Most of those shrouds wouldbelong to Christians, to Christ
followers, possibly, potentially.
Speaker 3 (47:32):
Yeah, but then the other set of wounds where this
is another part that in thismost recent go-around for me
personally is studying theshroud that there are a ton of
wounds around the head, that blbleed a lot, um, but there's a
(47:54):
bunch of small puncture woundsall over his head.
What's interesting, you knowand I think anybody's listening,
who's a christian, who knowsthe gospel story you're like, of
course, the crown of thorns,but you know, the way the crown
is always portrayed is likebasically just a headband, like
just a you know circle that wasput over the head.
But the wounds would suggestthat the crown of thorns that
(48:18):
the soldiers twisted togetherwould have been more like a cap,
like that it would have coveredthe entire scalp, that his head
was bleeding from everywhere.
And then there's people, againlike their area of specialty,
that talk about how painful thatwould have been all over the
(48:41):
head and how, especially if itgot into the optical nerve.
But yeah, there's so much bloodon the shroud from front and
back that you see there, you seethere, um, but I'll use that as
the segue to the next piece ofevidence that is just
mind-blowing is there are pollenspores on the shroud that they
(49:05):
discovered when they're takingsamples.
And there's and I I won't beable to recall from the top of
my head or even you know I don'twant to look through my notes,
but but the history of theShroud, all the different places
(49:29):
it stopped along the way, someof which only grow in Israel,
some of which grow in Israel andonly bloom or blossom in the
spring Passover time, and thehighest density of pollen spores
(49:51):
taken from around the head comefrom a plant that grows in
Jerusalem.
Speaker 1 (49:58):
That has thorns.
Speaker 3 (49:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (50:03):
Wow, I did not see that coming, and that's the
first I've heard that.
Speaker 3 (50:07):
Yeah, it's crazy Because, you know, go back to
our little, you know mocking ofthe forger story.
Like, did he know that?
Did he know that we were goingto be able to detect?
Like, and so he made sure tosprinkle pollen spores or to rub
a thorny bush on the?
Speaker 1 (50:24):
yeah, like to make head wounds and then put that
you know, you get into like okay, what's more likely?
Speaker 3 (50:29):
now, like clearly there's a place where I think we
don't know, we no one was therewhen the shroud was made, but
like what's more likely thatit's a forgery or that it's
legit you know is where my braingoes and I think how, how would
anybody have known that?
Like, how would anybody havethought that you know um?
Speaker 1 (50:52):
because the crown the crown being a cap that put
puncture holes all in the crownof the head, the sides and back
and front and the foreheadaround the eyes, almost like a
beanie or a cap that would havemade it that would have been
distinct from any other Romancrucifixion victim.
(51:13):
So you could say well, there'snails, the side, all the
lacerations, and a lot of peoplegot crucified.
I remember we were doing streetinterviews that time and the
one girl says a lot of peoplegot crucified in that time.
I think Jesus was like a lot ofpeople, but a lot of people did
not have a crown of thornspressed onto their head that
came from that particular arearight, yeah, because even like,
(51:39):
if you go well, it doesn't meanit was christ.
Speaker 3 (51:42):
A lot of people are crucified.
We don't know how the image goton there, but it's like yes,
okay, so some random guy namedyou know, you know, benny,
something, was crucified, andbut they also put a crown of
thorns on him.
Was he claiming to be theMessiah?
And something radiant happenedwhile he was laying dead
(52:03):
Something yeah, so yeah, thepollen is fascinating to study,
the blood is incredible to thinkabout and the wounds are
overwhelming.
Speaker 1 (52:17):
And the radiation.
Yeah, something, something thatcreated, you said would have
been just before he opened hiseyes if this is jesus, that
there was a burst of something.
Speaker 3 (52:30):
So that's some of the guys.
You know that their theory isbecause they can't themselves
reproduce.
It is.
It's as if some sort of radiantlight passed through the body
and went out in every direction,so from like within the body
(52:52):
and then out of the body, tocreate that image.
And it would have had to, youknow, and they've got numbers
for it, like you know, but youknow, light more intense than
the sun, that lasted for just afraction of a second.
Yeah, and was powerful enough toleave the imprint without
(53:13):
scorching the shroud.
And and so okay for thebeliever, you go, I know a power
strong enough to do that, youknow, especially if it's
intentional, you know.
That's where my brain and Istart to really get overwhelmed
(53:34):
is like I'm looking at all this,thinking like oh, wow, is this
real?
And then you go well, if it'sreal, it's not an accident, like
God wasn't.
Like oh, I didn't know that theresurrection was going to leave
that imprint, Like if it's real,it's intentional and that's
just another layer of like, ohman, something to think about,
to meditate on that.
God wanted us to have it.
If it's real and the there's.
Speaker 1 (54:01):
No.
There's also no reason for forthere to be possession of this
shroud like like and I knowthere are other shrouds you said
that are in people's possession.
I would assume those came frombodies that decayed right where
this one was not a body thatdecayed that.
That makes it different fromall the other shrouds right and
so why would they havepossession of this?
Well, because it was left empty.
(54:22):
The stone is rolled back, theygo in and they.
Why would they not have savedthat?
They would have they would have.
Speaker 3 (54:29):
Yeah, and and the?
You know, the bible makesmention of it, right, that?
Uh, I'll read it.
And the Bible makes mention ofit, right, I'll read it.
I mean, we just celebrated theresurrection John 20, 6 and 7.
Then Simon Peter came, followinghim and went into the tomb.
He saw the linen cloths plurallying there and the face cloth
(54:52):
which had been on Jesus' head,not lying with the linen cloths,
but folded up in a place byitself.
So it's fascinating that thescriptures mention them and I
think, you know, probably for afew reasons, it seems like what
happens is that they see thelinen cloth, specifically the
shroud, lying there, as it was,is that they see the linen cloth
(55:13):
, specifically the shroud, lyingthere as it was, and then the
head covering lying in aseparate place, which we also
still have, like that's in achurch in Spain.
And so what seems like wastheir practice that when Jesus
was taken off the cross, ormaybe while he was still up,
(55:34):
that that headpiece was put onhim, and that headpiece that we
still have has human, male blood, with all the same distinctions
that we talked about the bloodof the shroud.
It doesn't have the image,because what it seems like is
that that was then taken off, somaybe that they put it on his
head in transit to the tomb andthen the shroud is laid on the
(55:59):
the bench inside the tomb.
The body's laid in rigor mortis, has started to set in already,
so his legs in a position andmaybe he's a little bent up from
being carried, and then he's uh, but then they would have also
taken other cloths.
You know, know, until you knowrigor mortis lasts somewhere up
to four days that his handswould have been bound together,
(56:24):
his jaw would have been tied, sohis you know mouth wouldn't
have been stuck open in rigormortis, and then, yeah, then
folded into the cloth and thenthat.
And then, yeah, then foldedinto the cloth and then that.
But they always they would havekept the head covering, because
that was Jewish tradition isthat they would get as much of
the blood as they could to beburied with the body, and so the
(56:45):
head cloth is put in there, theshroud is there, the straps are
there.
That's another thing I didn'tmention.
I was thinking about it while Iwas crossing my hands is the
wounds on the hand.
When you look at the hands onthe shroud, you don't see the
thumbs.
That is, his hands are coveringhis, like his crotch, and you
(57:05):
don't see any thumbs.
And it's which is fascinating,because the wound on the man on
the shroud is through his wrist,not through the palm, which
wouldn't support the weight, butthrough the wrist.
But when the nail is putthrough the bones in the wrist
to be able to support the weightof the body on the cross, it
damages the median nerve in yourwrist and when that nerve is
(57:27):
damaged, the human hand, thethumb, gets pinched down across
the palm and these two fingerskind of come in, which is the
exact positioning of his hand onthe shroud like
that, yeah, wow, um, again justmore.
That's like how would anybody700 years ago even known that,
(57:48):
you know, unless they werepiercing people to the wrist?
But but it just is.
Another fascinating thing.
Another fascinating level ofthe shroud is with the idea that
the imaging is potentially fromsome sort of crazy radiation
coming out from the body.
If you look at that black andwhite image, you're like okay,
(58:11):
what am I seeing on the mouth?
Is that like a split lip?
What am I looking at?
You can actually see some teeth.
If you look at the hands,you're like am I seeing like
bones?
And so it seemed to have somesort of x-ray type nature to it
(58:31):
and one of the things that a guy, one of the experts, said in
studying at the scientist.
He said the look of the teethis as if they're being x-rayed
from inside.
Like not like x-ray when you goand get it and they put the
thing in your mouth and whatever, and you're like that's what
I'm going to look like wheneverI'm dead, but it looks like it's
(58:55):
being taken from the inside,like it's you're seeing the back
of the T.
It's just wild stuff whereyou're like and it's so layered
and like, okay, well, how didthat get there?
You know, for the believer, ifthis is the shroud, I mean we
keep saying it because I thinkthere's something could come out
and that answers all thesequestions, you know, and like
(59:16):
that's possible, it's within therealm of possibility.
I don't think so.
I think, man, there's.
I feel again, I come back to, Ithink through these things,
listen, try to put my bias asideas much as I'm capable of, and
I go the one piece of evidenceagainst.
It seems to be garbage, allthese crazy details that just
(59:38):
seem like they line up.
I just think I'm looking at theface of Christ, you know.
Speaker 1 (59:45):
So the x-ray, it's like that burst of whatever.
Then boom from the inside out.
Put that picture on that cloth.
Speaker 3 (59:53):
Yeah, and that's crazy, because the image on the
shroud is only, it's verysuperficial, so the blood is
soaked through and the imagingis very superficial, like it's
not very deep, it's not throughthe fibers, it doesn't like you
know, and so which also?
I wouldn't have thought of thisat all, but but one guy said
(01:00:16):
well, that means that the imagehad to be made after the blood
had already soaked through, sothe blood you know, she had a
couple nights to do that.
Right, like the blood is soakedthrough and then boom, that
image is made and it's justfaint.
Yeah, there's a lot, there's somuch more.
I mean, like you said, you candefinitely spend a lot of time
(01:00:38):
studying and listeningresurrection.
And he, he was talking aboutthe shroud.
I actually took a class for himand wrote a paper on the shroud
(01:01:00):
when I was in uh, that'sactually when I was in seminary
and um, there's guys, this guy,uh, gosh, let me look at his
name.
Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
That dude, lee Strobel, the case for Christ guy
.
You know he he's talking aboutthe shroud a little bit, I just
recently saw that, but uh, thatguy's considered, you know, very
reputable apologist.
Yeah, and when he hisconversion story habermas, when
he interviewed habermas, thatwas a big piece that's a big
(01:01:29):
part of it.
Speaker 3 (01:01:29):
Yeah, at his conversion.
Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
He, he went, I think it's before habermas was at
liberty.
I think maybe he was at wheatonor moody, something like that,
because struggle was in chicago,and I think it's before
habermas was at liberty.
I think maybe he was at wheatonor moody, something like that,
because struggle was in chicagoand I think habermas might have
been local, maybe not.
Maybe he came to lynchburgbecause that's this was in the
70s, so liberty was very smallthen.
But um, anyway, he in case forchrist, he's like this.
When I, when I went and metwith this guy like it, it spun
(01:01:52):
me around, you know that'sawesome yeah I came across this
other guy and his name'sjeremiah johnston.
Speaker 3 (01:01:59):
I'd never heard of him before but he he's written a
book called body of proof.
And again he's another onewho's his scholarship is in the
resurrection, and he wasinteresting to listen to because
he started out as a skeptic ofthe shroud.
He was like he said to himself,like I deal with evidence, and
(01:02:20):
he was interested to listen toone because he's not only to
become convinced, he's like Imean, he's out there, he tours,
does tours, talking about theshroud, like he's, and he, yeah,
he's a historian.
Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
Thanks for listening to.
No sanity required.
Please take a moment tosubscribe and leave a rating.
It really helps.
Visit us at SW outfitterscom tosee all of our programming and
resources, and we'll see younext week on.
No sanity required.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com