I’ve been reading an article lately about a latest theory on the Shroud of Turin. The article claims the “Christ-like image” may have been caused by “a massive earthquake.”
It goes on to say that the severe earthquake mentioned in Matthew 27: 50-52 was “powerful enough to release radiation that could have imprinted the image of Christ on the shroud.”
The article expresses the opinion that God used “natural means” to form the image, which is not beyond the realm of His character. He rules the winds and the waves, He governs the earth, there is none like Him.
It is possible there may have been multi layers to the purpose of God bringing about an earth quake in the first place.
The article also states “The man of the shroud was not buried in the material for more than a few days”.
I think the image on the Shroud would certainly help prove the resurrection of Christ, if it is genuine, because there is no evidence of a rotting corpse on the cloth. The Shroud shows the image of a man who had recently died when the image was formed, yet if the body had continued to be wrapped within that cloth, it would have decayed and left evidence of the rotting corpse. Which is doesn’t.
This is consistent with Messianic prophesy from Psalm 16: 10, “You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will you allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” (NKJ)
In St Peter’s sermon in Acts 2: 30-32 the apostle says that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy by His resurrection.
I have also seen claims that the Name of Jesus has left an imprint on the cloth which came from an identity label that would have been attached to it after the body was wrapped.
But let’s not say that because it is possible that the Shroud of Turin may well be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ that means the Roman Catholic Church (who possess the artefact) is the true Church of Jesus Christ because it is not. There are plenty of establishments that own and display Biblical artefacts, from museums to libraries, many who are not even remotely Christian.
There is not a shred of evidence for papal authority in the New Testament. Outside of Matthew 16: 13-20, which they twist, Peter himself never mentions himself as a bishop of Rome or a pope. In 1 Peter 1: 1 Peter simply refers to himself as “an apostle”. In 2 Peter 1: 1 he refers to himself as “a bondservant”. If Peter was a pope, he would have mentioned papal authority which he does not. Neither does James, the half brother of Jesus who was a leader of the church in Jerusalem. When the Jerusalem council met it was run by James, Peter and John, not Peter alone (Acts 15: 6-29). Papal authority is not in the Bible. Mark doesn’t mention it, Luke doesn’t mention it, John doesn’t mention it, Paul doesn’t mention it, the author of Hebrews doesn’t mention it.
Scripture is clear that Christ is the rock of His church, not Peter. And if any church is not built on that rock it is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but a house built on sand.
Let us not forget that now is the time to get what we believe right and proper. It’s too late when we die.
Let us not forget that death not something that we should avoid thinking about, is just a sad reality of life. “We are all mortal.” But the man on the Shroud, if he is indeed the Christ, is immortal, because Christ came back to life. Let us follow Jesus Christ not man made religions.
Simon Peter Sutherland 