Latest ‘Shroud’ book promotes heresy

History of Early Christianity


Next week, a new book related to the Shroud of Turin is to be released:

Penguin unveils secret book on Turin Shroud‎ The Bookseller

The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection by Cambridge art historian Thomas de Wesselow …tackles the question of how Christianity was born. The religion began when, after Jesus’ crucifixion, Jesus’ followers claimed to have seen him alive again. In The Sign, de Wesselow argues that it was the Turin Shroud, the cloths Jesus was wrapped in after his reurrection {sic}, which his followers saw, seeing the imprint of Jesus in the cloth and taking it as a sign of resurrection. Though the shroud has been assumed to be a fake created in medieval times, de Wesselow provides what the publisher describes as “conclusive evidence” that the shroud is authentic, based on the fact that the imprint of Jesus’ body is a negative image.

Turin Shroud Led Apostles To Believe In Resurrection of Christ, Claims New Book

‎Huffington Post- Updated: 03/27/2012…

With a US release date of April 3rd (in other words just in time for Easter), the book claims that it was encounters with the shroud itself, rather than seeing a risen Christ, that convinced the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead…

In the book, he writes:…

“The Shroud’s envelopment of Jesus’s body would have fostered the idea of the transference of his soul from flesh to cloth… Christ’s clothing (like Peter’s shadow) contained or conveyed something of his spiritual presence. The Shroud, which clothed Jesus in the tomb, would surely have been infused with similar power – a power focused and increased by its “miraculous” image.”

…It concludes:

“Finding a peculiar image on the inner surface of his burial cloth, the followers of Jesus became convinced he had been raised from the dead and exalted to heaven. This belief led to the emergence of a new sect within Judaism – Christianity-to-be. The real founder of Christianity was not Peter or Paul or even Jesus – it was the Shroud.”

The shroud, whose existence is first confirmed in the 14th century, is currently held in its own chapel at Turin Cathedral, where it has been since 1694. In 1983, it became the property of the Vatican, which has not proclaimed on its authenticity.

The press reports I have seen about that book suggest that it teaches that it was because of the ‘Shroud’ that the Christian faith grew and spread.  This is major heresy as it is in severe contrast to what the Bible shows.

Here are a few comments on the Shroud of Turin from the article titled Is the Shroud of Turin true or fraud?:

There is no record of the shroud during the first centuries of the Christian era, it is first mentioned in the 14th century, having been found in the Diocese of Troyes…

The Gospel writers say that the body of Jesus, after being taken from the stake by Joseph of Arimathea, was wrapped in clean fine linen. (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56) The apostle John adds: Nicodemus also came bringing a roll of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds of it. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices, just the way the Jews have the custom of preparing for burial. John 19:39-42…writers of the third and fourth centuries, many of whom wrote about a host of miracles in connection with numerous relics, did not mention the existence of a shroud containing the image of Jesus. What happened to it at this time, if it did exist, is unknown.

Let’s quote John 19:39-42 in its entirety:

39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby.  (John 19:39-42)

Basically, strips of linen were placed on Jesus’ body somewhat like a mummy (this is also basically what happened to Lazarus, see John 11:43-44).  If the Shroud of Turin was saturated with myrrh and aloes, it would by now be fairly stiff and would tend to look quite differently than it now does.

Notice furthermore that Jesus’ burial cloths, though mentioned in scripture, are basically only mentioned as being folded after the resurrection (and the description of multiple cloths also does not necessarily seem to quite match the Shroud of Turin):

6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there,  7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went away again to their own homes.  (John 20:6-10).

By the time the Apostle John wrote this, if there had been any real special powers, it would have seemed that he would have mentioned them, but he did not.

The apparent view of the book The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection being a major conversion tool is inconsistent with the records of the Bible and early church history.  Additionally, the view that the ‘Shroud’ had miraculous power, etc.  is also heretical.

Even if the actual burial cloth of Jesus were the “Shroud of Turin” or some other similar relic, it should not be venerated by Christians.  History records that the early Christians opposed venerating relics. Many do not seem to realize how negatively early Christians viewed such items.

Most know very little about early church history–and what many think they know is clouded by misinformation and misconceptions.

And at least parts of this new ‘Shroud’ book are adding to the misinformation.

Those interested in early Christianity may wish to read the following documented articles to learn more:

What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons? Did Catholic and Orthodox “saints” endorse or condemn idols and icons for Christians?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Do they matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
What Happened in the Crucifixion Week? How long are three days and three nights? Was Palm Sunday on a Saturday? Did Jesus die on “Good Friday”? Was the resurrection on Sunday? Do you really know? Who determined the date of Easter?
Did Early Christians Celebrate Easter? If not, when did this happen? What do scholars and the Bible reveal?

Get news like the above sent to you on a daily basis

Your email will not be shared. You may unsubscribe at anytime.