Christ is risen. Doesn't that mean everything to all Christians?

[Scotth1960]

Dear friends, Christ is risen. Doesn't that mean everything to all Christians? We read in St. John's Gospel:
"The Resurrection
"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him". So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. Both of them were running together but the other disciple outran Peter, and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed, for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back their homes". John 20:1-10 ESV

Apparently, this reference in John 20 speaks about the linen cloth that covered Christ's body, which has been confirmed by the Shroud of Turin. Some may question the Shroud, but it certainly fulfills as evidence for this passage of John 20. There is also in existence a face cloth of Jesus, I believe it is called the Oviedo or something like that, if I am not mistaken. It is another relic that some say is a face print of Christ, or at least blood fragments dried on linen that was placed at one time on Christ's faith. Accept or reject the Shroud of Turin or the Face Cloth if you will, but as a Christian, how could you not always accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These relics only serve to confirm the historical Jesus is the same Person as the Christ of Faith. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Theofilus]

The shroud of Turin doesn't support what the Bible says. The Bible says that the cloth around his head was a seperate cloth from the one around his body.

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. (John 20:7 KJV)​

Jesus was wrapped in "strips of linen".

Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. (John 19:40 KJV)​

The shroud of Turin is a single piece, which is supposed to have covered the entire body, including the head.

The body of Jesus was washed before he was wrapped in the grave clothes.

Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. (John 19:40 KJV)​

The shroud of Turin has "blood" on it (some of which has been shown not to be real). There would have been no blood on Jesus' body when he was burried.

Just because people reject fake relics, like the shroud of Turin, doesn't mean they reject the resurrection. I haven't seen anyone here on this forum, who calls himself a Christian, reject the resurrection of Christ. Have you?

 

[Mike]

The shroud would have no impact on my faith for better or for worse, so I've never been too concerned by the testing done on it. I've read the reports on the carbon dating and the reports which refute those tests. I just can't image why it would be important if it was or wasn't the cloth that wrapped our Lord. It's even less significant than the skin that wrapped His Divinity. I worry for people that get consumed by the shroud. (no indictment on the OP) It seems a pointless effort that Christ would never want us to focus on.

 

[Scotth1960]

The shroud of Turin doesn't support what the Bible says. The Bible says that the cloth around his head was a seperate cloth from the one around his body.

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. (John 20:7 KJV)​

Jesus was wrapped in "strips of linen".

Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. (John 19:40 KJV)​

The shroud of Turin is a single piece, which is supposed to have covered the entire body, including the head.

The body of Jesus was washed before he was wrapped in the grave clothes.

Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. (John 19:40 KJV)​

The shroud of Turin has "blood" on it (some of which has been shown not to be real). There would have been no blood on Jesus' body when he was burried.

Just because people reject fake relics, like the shroud of Turin, doesn't mean they reject the resurrection. I haven't seen anyone here on this forum, who calls himself a Christian, reject the resurrection of Christ. Have you?

Dear Theofilus,

You have not proved from Scripture that the Shroud of Turin is fake. Tradition

tells us what Christ looks like, and the image of Christ in the Church of the first

500 years after Christ is exactly like the man

pictured in the Shroud of Turin. The man has Jewish curls in His hair, like an

Orthodox Jew, and He has long hair and a beard. In keeping with Levitical priestly

custom. I find those who say we cannot know what Christ looked like to be

begging the question. The Scripture certainly does not deny that Christ looks

like the man in the Shroud of Turin. In Erie Scott Harrington

PS Yes I believe in the resurrection, and I also believe the Shroud of Turin is

authentic. It is not either/or but "both/and" both the resurrection of Christ and

the veracity of the Shroud are believable.

 

[Theofilus]

Dear Theofilus,

You have not proved from Scripture that the Shroud of Turin is fake.

Actually, I have. The shroud doesn't fit with what Scripture tells us about Christ's burial. If you accept tradition over Scripture, then that's your problem. When the two conflict, I go with what the Bible says.

 

[Scotth1960]

Actually, I have. The shroud doesn't fit with what

Scripture tells us about Christ's burial. If you accept tradition over Scripture, then

that's your problem. When the two conflict, I go with what the Bible

says.

Dear Theofilus,

Your tradition is the Shroud can't agree with Scripture. Where does the Bible say

that? You also hold your anti-shroud view beyond Scripture. Since Scripture

doesn't tell us everything about Christ (John 21:25), we should expect there

should be extra-biblical, tangible evidence of Jesus Christ, beyond what is

stated in Scripture. I don't accept tradition "over" Scripture; I accept Scripture

in the context of tradition. So do you, it's just that your tradition differs from

mine. It all depends on which tradition is the biblical, apostolic tradition, and

which traditions are "traditions of men". In Erie Scott

PS I have no problem. You just don't acknowledge you, too, are acting

as if you have some tradition by which you interpret Scripture. Everybody does;

everybody must, that is the point.

It's a question of which tradition is the Christian tradition by which we rightly


understand and interpret the Scriptures of OT and NT.

 

[Scotth1960]

The shroud of Turin doesn't support what the Bible says. The Bible says that the cloth around his head was a seperate cloth from the one around his body.

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. (John 20:7 KJV)​

Jesus was wrapped in "strips of linen".

Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. (John 19:40 KJV)​

The shroud of Turin is a single piece, which is supposed to have covered the entire body, including the head.

The body of Jesus was washed before he was wrapped in the grave clothes.

Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. (John 19:40 KJV)​

The shroud of Turin has "blood" on it (some of which has been shown not to be real). There would have been no blood on Jesus' body when he was burried.

Just because people reject fake relics, like the shroud of Turin, doesn't mean they reject the resurrection. I haven't seen anyone here on this forum, who calls himself a Christian, reject the resurrection of Christ. Have you?

Dear Theofilus, Let's say for the sake of argument there could have been no

blood of Christ that got on the burial shroud Christ was buried in, as you indicate.

The Scripture doesn't say that, for or against. But if the Shroud of Turin is

a fake, who faked it, and how did they fake it, and why did they fake it? Until

you establish that by facts and evidence, it is too early to completely rule out

the Shroud as being authentic. What happened in history? Does anybody know

for sure? Were you and I there to observe what happened? Do we know for

certain that the Shroud could not be real? How do we know unless we witnessed

the events of the NT ourselves? ISTM, doesn't the image on the Shroud

resemble a man we would expect that Jesus would look like? Doesn't the man

look Jewish? Doesn't He appear to have been beaten, and mortally wounded?

If that doesn't agree with the NT, what does? Where, then, is the authentic

burial shroud of Christ? Has it been lost? And if it has, how do we know it

has been lost? Who is saying the truth? How do we know what the truth is,

when there is so much that remains "shrouded in mystery", if you will forgive the

pun.

The Shroud of Turin is not real.

Says who?

What did the Church Fathers say? They know better than any of us today

what the NT means.


Do any of you on CF respect the teachings of the Church Fathers?

In Erie PA Scott

 

[Theofilus]

Dear Theofilus,

Your tradition is the Shroud can't agree with Scripture. Where does the Bible say

that?

I don't know what you mean by "my tradition", but I guarantee you that tradition of any kind, mine or anyone else's, has nothing to do with my opinion of the shroud of Turin.

I don't accept tradition "over" Scripture; I accept Scripture

in the context of tradition.

Call it what you want, it's still the same thing. Whenever we come across scripture that contradicts our doctrines and traditions (and we all do occasionally, regardless of what those traditions are), we have two, and only two, choices:

1. Reinterpret Scripture so that it fits with our doctrines and tradtions
2. Re-evaluate our traditions and doctrines, and modify them so they fit with Scripture.

We may call it something else, but it always boils down to those two choices. We all have to decide some time what we'll do. Will we reinterpret Scripture or will we modify our beliefs and traditions? "Accepting Scripture in the context of tradition" is just another way of saying you choose the first option.

Like I said before, Scripture clearly states that Christ was wrapped in "strips of linen". The shroud of Turin is a single sheet of linen. That's not what Scripture says was used. If Christ was wrapped in strips (plural) of linen, the the shroud of Turin is a fake. If, on the other hand, the shroud is genuine and Christ was wrapped in a single sheet of linen, then Scriputure is wrong.

Which will you accept - what your tradition tells you, or what the Bible actually says?

PS I have no problem. You just don't acknowledge you, too, are acting

as if you have some tradition by which you interpret Scripture. Everybody does;

everybody must, that is the point.

It's a question of which tradition is the Christian tradition by which we rightly


understand and interpret the Scriptures of OT and NT.

No, it's not a question of which tradition is correct, but rather, which is correct - tradition or Scripture. I understand why you say that we all interpret the Bible through our traditions. For the most part, that's true, but it is possible to reject all traditions and accept what the Bible says over everything else. About 10 or 12 years ago I decided that I would do just that. I decided that I would be willing to question all doctrines, traditions and customs and, if I found that they contradicted the Bible, then I would reject those things and accept only what the Bible says. As a result, I have rejected many things I used to believe and hold dear. I have changed both my beliefs and my customs to such an extent, that there is today no tradition which my views could be said to be based on.

Dear Theofilus, Let's say for the sake of argument there could have been no

blood of Christ that got on the burial shroud Christ was buried in, as you indicate.

The Scripture doesn't say that, for or against.

Yes, it does say, but you won't see it, because you're blinded by your taditions. The Bible says that Christ was buried according to the custom of the Jews. That custom included washing the body. Washing the body meant no blood.

But if the Shroud of Turin is

a fake, who faked it, and how did they fake it, and why did they fake it? Until

you establish that by facts and evidence, it is too early to completely rule out

the Shroud as being authentic.

No, it's not too early. The shroud has been examined quite extensively, and has been found to be a forgery.

What happened in history? Does anybody know

for sure?

The first known date for the shrouds existance is in the middle of the 14th century. There is a reference in an earlier manuscript of a burial shroud, which may or may not have been the shroud of Turin. That manuscript is from the 12th century. Before that, the shroud has no history at all. Don't you find that at all odd? Like John Calvin said:

"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?"​

Who is saying the truth? How do we know what the truth is,

when there is so much that remains "shrouded in mystery", if you will forgive the

pun.

Who is telling the truth? God is, through Scripture. Read what the Bible says, instead of what your tradition tells you, and you'll know the truth.

The Shroud of Turin is not real.

Says who?

What did the Church Fathers say? They know better than any of us today

what the NT means.


Do any of you on CF respect the teachings of the Church Fathers?

In Erie PA Scott

The church fathers seem to have not known anything of the shroud, since none of them mention it. I have great respect for many of the early church fathers, but they are not above God's word. If they say anything that contradicts Scripture, then I reject what they say in favor of what the Bible says.

 

[Scotth1960]

I don't know what you mean by "my tradition", but I guarantee you that tradition of any kind, mine or anyone else's, has nothing to do with my opinion of the shroud of Turin.



Call it what you want, it's still the same thing. Whenever we come across scripture that contradicts our doctrines and traditions (and we all do occasionally, regardless of what those traditions are), we have two, and only two, choices:

1. Reinterpret Scripture so that it fits with our doctrines and tradtions
2. Re-evaluate our traditions and doctrines, and modify them so they fit with Scripture.

We may call it something else, but it always boils down to those two choices. We all have to decide some time what we'll do. Will we reinterpret Scripture or will we modify our beliefs and traditions? "Accepting Scripture in the context of tradition" is just another way of saying you choose the first option.

Like I said before, Scripture clearly states that Christ was wrapped in "strips of linen". The shroud of Turin is a single sheet of linen. That's not what Scripture says was used. If Christ was wrapped in strips (plural) of linen, the the shroud of Turin is a fake. If, on the other hand, the shroud is genuine and Christ was wrapped in a single sheet of linen, then Scriputure is wrong.

Which will you accept - what your tradition tells you, or what the Bible actually says?



No, it's not a question of which tradition is correct, but rather, which is correct - tradition or Scripture. I understand why you say that we all interpret the Bible through our traditions. For the most part, that's true, but it is possible to reject all traditions and accept what the Bible says over everything else. About 10 or 12 years ago I decided that I would do just that. I decided that I would be willing to question all doctrines, traditions and customs and, if I found that they contradicted the Bible, then I would reject those things and accept only what the Bible says. As a result, I have rejected many things I used to believe and hold dear. I have changed both my beliefs and my customs to such an extent, that there is today no tradition which my views could be said to be based on.




Yes, it does say, but you won't see it, because you're blinded by your taditions. The Bible says that Christ was buried according to the custom of the Jews. That custom included washing the body. Washing the body meant no blood.



No, it's not too early. The shroud has been examined quite extensively, and has been found to be a forgery.



The first known date for the shrouds existance is in the middle of the 14th century. There is a reference in an earlier manuscript of a burial shroud, which may or may not have been the shroud of Turin. That manuscript is from the 12th century. Before that, the shroud has no history at all. Don't you find that at all odd? Like John Calvin said:

"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?"​

Who is telling the truth? God is, through Scripture. Read what the Bible says, instead of what your tradition tells you, and you'll know the truth.



The church fathers seem to have not known anything of the shroud, since none of them mention it. I have great respect for many of the early church fathers, but they are not above God's word. If they say anything that contradicts Scripture, then I reject what they say in favor of what the Bible says.

Dear friend, I do read what the Bible says. How do we know how to act when

the Bible is silent. The Bible doesn't say how to baptize, it only says "baptize".

It doesn't say who can and can't be baptized, it only says "baptize them" and

"in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". It doesn't solve the whole

infant baptism versus adult believer only. The Bible leaves details out. Where

do we fill in the details (in traditions from the apostles, according to 2 Thess.

2:15). These unwritten, spoken traditions of Paul and the other Apostles come

down to us only through tradition. It is better to read what the NT and the Bible

says about tradition than to reject tradition outright as if every tradition must

necessarily disagree with the NT. Not at all! Some traditions come from God

and agree with the whole NT. Some traditions come from men and do not

agree with the NT. The NT distinguishes between the two different kinds of

tradition(s). It is wrong-thinking to think no tradition can agree with the Bible.

The question remains: which tradition is correct, and comes from the apostles

of Christ: 2 sacraments only, or 7 sacraments? For example.


In Erie Scott R. Harrington

 

[Theofilus]

Dear friend, I do read what the Bible says. How do we know how to act when

the Bible is silent. The Bible doesn't say how to baptize, it only says "baptize".

It doesn't say who can and can't be baptized, it only says "baptize them" and

"in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". It doesn't solve the whole

infant baptism versus adult believer only. The Bible leaves details out. Where

do we fill in the details (in traditions from the apostles, according to 2 Thess.

2:15). These unwritten, spoken traditions of Paul and the other Apostles come

down to us only through tradition. It is better to read what the NT and the Bible

says about tradition than to reject tradition outright as if every tradition must

necessarily disagree with the NT. Not at all! Some traditions come from God

and agree with the whole NT. Some traditions come from men and do not

agree with the NT. The NT distinguishes between the two different kinds of

tradition(s). It is wrong-thinking to think no tradition can agree with the Bible.

The question remains: which tradition is correct, and comes from the apostles

of Christ: 2 sacraments only, or 7 sacraments? For example.


In Erie Scott R. Harrington

Can we stick to one subject at a time, please?

Call it what you want, it's still the same thing. Whenever we come across scripture that contradicts our doctrines and traditions (and we all do occasionally, regardless of what those traditions are), we have two, and only two, choices:

1. Reinterpret Scripture so that it fits with our doctrines and tradtions
2. Re-evaluate our traditions and doctrines, and modify them so they fit with Scripture.

We may call it something else, but it always boils down to those two choices. We all have to decide some time what we'll do. Will we reinterpret Scripture or will we modify our beliefs and traditions? "Accepting Scripture in the context of tradition" is just another way of saying you choose the first option.

Like I said before, Scripture clearly states that Christ was wrapped in "strips of linen". The shroud of Turin is a single sheet of linen. That's not what Scripture says was used. If Christ was wrapped in strips (plural) of linen, the the shroud of Turin is a fake. If, on the other hand, the shroud is genuine and Christ was wrapped in a single sheet of linen, then Scriputure is wrong.

You seem to have a hard time answering that question. Was Jesus wrapped in strips of linen, like the Bible says, or in a single sheet of linen, like your tradition tells you? Which will you accept, the biblical account or tradition? Which will you modify, the meaning of Scripture or the traditions to which you hold?

 

[Scotth1960]

I don't know what you mean by "my tradition", but I guarantee you that tradition of any kind, mine or anyone else's, has nothing to do with my opinion of the shroud of Turin.



Dear Theofilus, Have you ever considered the possibility that the Scripture is right and the Shroud is real, too. Christ could have been wrapped in strips of cloth and also in a full-body linen. The Scripture doesn't say Christ was not buried in a full body linen. That would be reading a negative into the Scripture that isn't there. Also, you assume without proof that everything we need to know about how Christ was buried is revealed ONLY in Scripture. You haven't proven you "by the Bible alone" approach? Where does the Bible say that we are to go by the Bible alone? Where does the Bible teach spoken tradition? See 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Not everything is written down in the Bible. How would we know what happened to St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. John, except for oral traditions?
In Erie PA Scott H.

 

[Theofilus]

I don't know what you mean by "my tradition", but I guarantee you that tradition of any kind, mine or anyone else's, has nothing to do with my opinion of the shroud of Turin.



Dear Theofilus, Have you ever considered the possibility that the Scripture is right and the Shroud is real, too. Christ could have been wrapped in strips of cloth and also in a full-body linen. The Scripture doesn't say Christ was not buried in a full body linen. That would be reading a negative into the Scripture that isn't there. Also, you assume without proof that everything we need to know about how Christ was buried is revealed ONLY in Scripture. You haven't proven you "by the Bible alone" approach? Where does the Bible say that we are to go by the Bible alone? Where does the Bible teach spoken tradition? See 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Not everything is written down in the Bible. How would we know what happened to St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. John, except for oral traditions?
In Erie PA Scott H.

It is obvious that you will hold to your traditions no matter what, so I won't bother discussing the matter further. Instead, I'll just leave you with a few verses about tradition:

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:8-9 KJV)

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:13 KJV)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col. 2:8 KJV)

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers (I Pet. 1:18)​

 

[Scotth1960]

It is obvious that you will hold to your traditions no matter what, so I won't bother discussing the matter further. Instead, I'll just leave you with a few verses about tradition:

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:8-9 KJV)

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:13 KJV)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col. 2:8 KJV)

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers (I Pet. 1:18)​

Dear Theofilus, It is not "my tradition" that the Shroud may be real. It may be

fake, too. You just haven't proved who forged it, and why? You haven't shown

conclusively that it can't be real. That's just your ongoing assumption, your

"tradition", if you will. It could be real, it could be fake. It hasn't been

conclusively settled, either way, which was my point. The larger question is:

how do we know what Christ looks like, when the Bible is silent on this? For

this, we have Church tradition. And the man on the shroud looks like the old

Byzantine portraits of Christ. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

Which will you accept - what your tradition tells you, or what the Bible actually says?



No, it's not a question of which tradition is correct, but rather, which is correct - tradition or Scripture. I understand why you say that we all interpret the Bible through our traditions. For the most part, that's true, but it is possible to reject all traditions and accept what the Bible says over everything else. About 10 or 12 years ago I decided that I would do just that. I decided that I would be willing to question all doctrines, traditions and customs and, if I found that they contradicted the Bible, then I would reject those things and accept only what the Bible says. As a result, I have rejected many things I used to believe and hold dear. I have changed both my beliefs and my customs to such an extent, that there is today no tradition which my views could be said to be based on.




Yes, it does say, but you won't see it, because you're blinded by your taditions. The Bible says that Christ was buried according to the custom of the Jews. That custom included washing the body. Washing the body meant no blood.



No, it's not too early. The shroud has been examined quite extensively, and has been found to be a forgery.



The first known date for the shrouds existance is in the middle of the 14th century. There is a reference in an earlier manuscript of a burial shroud, which may or may not have been the shroud of Turin. That manuscript is from the 12th century. Before that, the shroud has no history at all. Don't you find that at all odd? Like John Calvin said:

"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?"​

Who is telling the truth? God is, through Scripture. Read what the Bible says, instead of what your tradition tells you, and you'll know the truth.



The church fathers seem to have not known anything of the shroud, since none of them mention it. I have great respect for many of the early church fathers, but they are not above God's word. If they say anything that contradicts Scripture, then I reject what they say in favor of what the Bible says.[/QUOTE]

Dear friend, So you follow what John Calvin said? Isn't that following a particular

tradition? I thought you said you were independent of all traditions.

Anyway, it's not that the church fathers don't know anything of the shroud.

It's just that it may not be written down. What about oral tradition? What

was the spoken word in the early church regarding the burial cloth of Christ?

If you believe it is fake, you should give names and dates of the forger, to

prove who forged it. Otherwise, it's assumed to be a forgery, and NOT PROVEN.

It may be fake; it may be real. The jury has not given enough evidence for us


to say conclusively, FOR or AGAINST. In Erie Scott R. Harrington

PS The important thing WE AGREE ON ALREADY, CHRIST IS RISEN.

The secondary matter, the Shroud. Still not known what the truth is.

 

[Scotth1960]

The shroud of Turin doesn't support what the Bible says. The Bible says that the cloth around his head was a seperate cloth from the one around his body.


Dear Theofilus, The Shroud, also known as the holy Mandylion, was known in the

early Church. It is false to say that it was not known until the middle ages.

See: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa


The Shroud of Turin is also known as the Image of Edessa. There is some


indication that the Shroud could be the same image as the image of Edessa.

It is not known for sure; what is certain, no man has produced the name

and medieval address of the forger, if it was a forgery, this should have been

proved long ago, in the middle ages, the Church should have exposed this

and proven it to have been a fake. No Church on earth has disproved the

Shroud as of yet. In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

It is obvious that you will hold to your traditions no matter what, so I won't bother discussing the matter further. Instead, I'll just leave you with a few verses about tradition:

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:8-9 KJV)

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:13 KJV)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col. 2:8 KJV)

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers (I Pet. 1:18)​

Dear Theofilus, That is talking about Jewish tradition, the traditions of the Scribes

and the Pharisees, which Christ exposed as hypocritical. It is not talking about

ALL traditions, just "traditions of men". Holy tradition is described in holy

Scripture in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. There, we are commanded by St. Paul

to hold to these unwritten, spoken Christian traditions. As well as the writings

that are written down in the NT. In Erie Scott Harrington