A Christian Blog About Religion, God, Jesus, & the Bible Articles and Answers about God, the Bible, Jesus, Religion, & Theology

I love the brilliance and priorities of our modern scientists. I mean, in this century we are truly blessed to have the brilliance of today’s thinking men proving such important things such as why we cry and how we have alien bacteria.

Really, who cares about cancer, H1N1, or any of these other serious problems killing people daily? Shouldn’t we focus on more important things such as religious relic re-creation?

In a new article just released, the Shroud of Turin is a fake (according to Luigi Garlaschelli). Wow, this is incredible news to say the least…Yawn.

My Official Position on the Shroud of Turin Cloth

Before I rip this silly notion to shreds, let me reaffirm my position on the shroud. I NEVER  come out definitively and say statements such as “the shroud is authentic,” or “the shroud is a fake.” I wasn’t there when it was made.

My position on the shroud has always been, “I don’t know.” I think it has some very compelling evidence, but I don’t place my faith in a cloth, I place my faith in God. I find it hard to believe it is a forgery at this point in time based on the overwhelming evidence, but I am neutral on the shroud and despite watching a documentary or two (and posting a couple of articles on this site), I really don’t think of it too often.

Whether the shroud is authentic or not really doesn’t make a difference to me or my faith.

But it does annoy me when the secular scientist “geniuses” make it a point to be complete fools. So let us rip this silly article apart that is making headlines as “definitive proof the shroud is a fake.”

Proof the Shroud is Fake: Discovered by Luigi Garlaschelli

First, let me state the obvious: Since when did Luigi become a scientist? I thought he was a plumber with his brother Mario and his wife the Princess, and their pet dinosaur Yoshi (inside Super Mario Bros. joke for those of you who didn’t get it).

Anyway, since when did something become a fake just because it can be reproduced centuries later? Who would believe a headline that says,

“The Mona Lisa painting is fake, and a scientists can prove it… because it can be re-created by scientists hundreds of centuries later using advanced technology and materials (paint) that were available back then..”

Really, this is absurd. And we know it is completely absurd, because in the articles we are shown who this man is funded by: Atheists and agnostics. So did we really expect Luigi to prove it was real, when he is getting paid to specifically to prove it is fake? Go figure. This is par for today’s research and funding.

So atheists pay this man money to re-create religious relics, simply to try and prove their religion (atheism) is more superior? What? I am glad to see the atheists are ignoring the starving children in Africa, and funding much more important things right now: religious relic replication.

Or do they really think that if the cloth was fake, it would even affect 1 serious Christian? I think NOT.

If I have said it once, I have said it 1,000 times: Some atheists are the most religious people I know, and they are far more fundamental than most religious people I know. They mock and scoff at religious people donating money to a church, but freely fund nonsense like this and never think twice about it. Hypocrites.

Perhaps the creationists should release a press release that says the following:

Evolution’s transition fossils are fake: scientists have proved it…  They were able to recreate fossils that appear to be transitionary in a lab using materials (elements) that were available at the time when the original fossils were thought to have been created. Therefore, atheists creation story (evolution/abiogenesis) is fake, and their religious relics (fossils) are fake. They can be recreated, therefore, that is proof they are fake.

Since when did secular scientists start using that logical fallacy anyway? If something is recreatable centuries later, it must have been a fake originally. That is the most absurd logical fallacy I believe I have ever heard.

Perhaps that should have been the premise for the first Jurassic Park movie. Instead of the the dinosaurs getting loose, the movie should have ended as soon as the tour began. Jeff Goldblum should have stood up and said,

“Hey, wait a second guys. If scientists just recreated these dinosaurs using materials that were also available back then (DNA), then this proves dinosaurs were really fakes back then. Wow, astounding.”

and then the credits begin to roll…Although I suppose it might not have been such a success at the box office…

Seriously, it really annoys me when news stations publish this biased, illogical nonsense. It is an insult to any one’s intelligence (whether you are an atheist or Christian).

Furthermore, the articles mentions nothing about other known scientific evidence of the cloth, or what he replicated: the blood stains, the pollen grains, and more. It just says he was able to re-create the image. So what if he re-created an image. The image isn’t really the compelling evidence.

Why would they go to such detail to place pollen grains specific to that region where Jesus was thought to have lived, when a microscope needed to view and analyze the pollen grains were not even yet invented?? Brilliant. These hoax creators really made a piece of art didn’t they? They were way ahead of their time…so much, in fact, that scientists today still can’t replicate it perfectly.

Conclusion: Who Cares?

In conclusion, who cares whether the shroud is authentic or a fake? Does that prove one way or another that Jesus is the Christ? Does it prove one way or another that there is a God? Didn’t think so!

The bottom line is this: I don’t care whether the shroud is fake or real. It makes no bearing on my faith. But this article (or scientist’s re-creation) did zilch to affect my beliefs of the shroud.

No, I take that back. It actually makes me lean more in the direction that the shroud might be authentic after all. Why? Because they are throwing so much money and time at it, in an attempt to prove it might be fake. So they must be worried. Perhaps there is something there after all.

Sponsored Links

Posted under science

Some people debate the actual method Jesus was crucified. Some suggest Jesus was nailed to the cross by his hands. Others are skeptical and suggest instead he was probably nailed to the cross by his wrists. So I thought I would discuss both of these methods, and provide a possible solution/explanation.

I personally think the wrists were probably the part actually pierced by the nails, however, it could have easily been either one. I will explain each side below.

Was Jesus Nailed to the Cross by His Hands or Wrists?

Some people suggest Jesus was in fact nailed to the cross by his hands. The main reason is because the scripture uses the word “hands” within the New Testament accounts.

For example, it says this in John 20:27:

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

So it does indeed say “hands” in the translation, and Thomas literally touches them.

Others are skeptical and suggest that if Jesus was nailed by his hands, the weight would not have supported it, and the nails would have ripped out of his hands (or the hand bones would have broken).

How Jesus Could Have Been Nailed by the Hands:

Even though some suggest the hands couldn’t support the weight, this may not be entirely true. The bones on the hand are relatively strong, and Jesus (being a carpenter), would have had very tough muscles and bones in his hand. So it is feasible that he was actually nailed through the palm region, and it could have held him for the few hours he was there.

Furthermore, many movies and pictures depict Jesus as being further supported by his wrists by being tied to the cross. So the weight wouldn’t have totally been focused on his hands alone, and the rope would have provided the majority of the support. This was depicted on the film “The Passion of the Christ.” His hands would have just been pierced to keep them stationary, but his arms and weight would have been supported by the ropes.

So those two solutions alone are more than adequate to assume that there is a reasonable and logical way that Jesus could have been nailed to the cross by his hands.

Could Jesus Have Been Nailed by His Wrists to the Cross?

Likewise, it is just as plausible that Jesus could have been nailed by the wrists. There is evidence to suggest it COULD have happened this way just as easily.

For example, the Shroud of Turin (the cloth thought to be the burial cloth of Jesus), depicts bleeding at the wrists just below the hand. If this is indeed the cloth of Jesus, this is the best evidence to show that it could have been the wrists.

Also, some suggest that nailing through the top part of the wrist bones (the ulna and radius bones), would provide much more support. In fact, it could have definitely supported his entire body. Some even suggest that most crucifixions were performed in this manner.

But what about the scripture? The bible says several times that Jesus “hands” were pierced, and that Thomas even sticks his finger in them. What about that? Does that prove it was his hands instead of his wrists that were nailed?

Not necessarily. The key to unlocking that potential mystery is the original language used (Greek). The original Greek word used in these scriptures was χείρ (or transliterated as “cheir”).

This word is used in the Greek very often to not only mean “hand,” but it can mean anything in proximity to the hand (fingers, the wrist, etc.). So this word could easily have meant wrist, hand, or finger. Especially considering the fact that he would have been pierced just below the hand where the ulna and radius bone meet.

Therefore, it would not be inaccurate scripturally to assume the Greek word used could have referred to his wrist. There are several instances, where wrist is translated from “χείρ” in books such as the septuagint.

So Was Jesus Crucified & Nailed by His Wrists or Hands?

We may never know for sure until Jesus himself returns. It could have been his hands, or it could have been his wrists.

In my personal opinion, I feel like it was probably the wrist. I base this on the fact that:

1. The Greek word used in scripture can mean hand, wrist, finger, etc. So it isn’t scripturally accurate to say “wrist.”
2. This was the most common place they pierced to ensure it would support the body.
3. The Shroud of Turin (if it is the cloth of Jesus), depicts pierced wrists.

Again, we may never know, but it could accurately be either his hand or wrist!

Sponsored Links

Posted under Jesus, apologetics, bible questions