Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Muslimah_IBe

Shroud of Turin

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Sister Hajar posted an interesting find. I didn't see a response from you in the thread "Evidence". I am curious to hear your response to this. I hope you don't mind me asking. Sister Hajar posted the following research:

"I don't see why the hoax continues, when there is ample evidence that it is not the shroud of Jesus(as). How can both the carbon dating and the microscopy dating, both prove the painting to have been done in the 14th century and people still refuse to believe the truth?

THE SHROUD OF TURIN

RESEARCH AT McCRONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Shroud of Turin

According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ's crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356. The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. Dr. McCrone determined this by polarized light microscopy in 1979. This included careful inspection of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas (Shroud and sample points), characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. The paint pigments were dispersed in a collagen tempera (produced in medieval times, perhaps, from parchment). It is chemically distinctly different in composition from blood but readily detected and identified microscopically by microchemical staining reactions. Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes.

There is no blood in any image area, only red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers.

The Electron Optics Group at McCrone Associates (John Gavrilovic, Anna Teetsov, Mark Andersen, Ralph Hinsch, Howard Humecki, Betty Majewski, and Deborah Piper) in 1980 used electron and x-ray diffraction and found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); their electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone's results and further proved the image was painted twice-once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas.

The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.

Experimental details on the tests carried out at McCrone Associates or the McCrone Research Institute are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.

Conclusion:

The "Shroud" is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TruthSeeker

My friend, you call the Shroud a hoax, but why? Is it because you want the Qur'an to be true, meaning that you want Jesus to have never been crucified since that's what the Qur'an says? I get the feeling that you're not approaching the Shroud with an open mind, but instead you're looking for anything that will support your desire to believe that it's a fake. I can't make anyone believe it's genuine, but what I can do is ask you a few questions:

1. If it's a fake, why are we STILL, with all of our amazing modern technology, unable to produce another piece of "art work" just like it, with all of the same unique chemical and scientific and photographic qualities? Many people have tried to duplicate it, and all have failed.

2. The Shroud image is very faint, and in fact it cannot even be seen with the naked eye if you're standing close to it. It's only when you stand back about 8 feet from it that you can begin to see the faint image of a man. However, when you photograph the Shroud and look at the negative image, THAT'S when the startling detail of the tortured, crucified man appears. Why can't you show me another "painting" with that photographic negative quality, where the "paint" is invisible until you stand back from it or look at the photo negative? Can you show me a painting from the 1400's with those properties? Why not? If the Shroud is nothing more than a painting, then you should surely be able to show me another piece of art work with similar qualities.

Believe me, I totally understand that Muslims desperately want to cling to their belief in the Qur'an, and that desire forces them to reject anything that says Jesus was crucified. However, I hope and pray that you'll let the scientific evidence (as well as all of the historical records of the Christians and Jews) carry more weight than the Qur'an (since the Qur'an disagrees with the historical records and the eyewitness accounts).

Please read the following:

Shroud of Turin Update

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 12 April 1997 a fire raged through Turin Cathedral destroying the 300-year-old Guarini Chapel which was built especially for the Sindone, the Shroud in which, tradition has it, the body of Jesus was buried. The Turin Shroud itself was saved from the blaze by a fireman who, as if in trance, cut through four layers of bullet-proof glass to rescue the silver box containing the Shroud.

Fireman Mario Trematore, whose hands were bleeding where the skin had been torn away by the strength of his grip, said afterwards: "God gave me the strength to break the glass." The Archbishop of Turin examining the rescued Shroud said: "It is intact. It is a miracle." Miraculously surviving this third fire in its mysterious existence without damage has only added to the prestige of the Shroud - especially since scientists from various fields of expertise have been finding increasing evidence to date the Shroud to around AD 30.

In 1988 four minuscule pieces of cloth were cut from the border of the Sindone for laboratory tests to determine its age once and for all. The carbon-dating method appeared to prove that the linen was made between AD 1260 and 1390. Soon after the publication of these findings, other scientists denounced the results of the tests. Because of two earlier fires the chemical structure of the cloth had been substantially altered. In the 6th or 7th century a monk dropped a piece of burning incense on the Shroud and in December 1532 a fire in the chapel of the Dukes of Savoy in Chambery, France, damaged the border of the Shroud. It was this part of the cloth that was used for the dating. But experts of the Sedov laboratory in Moscow simulated the fire of 1532 and studied the effects on cloth that was known to have been made in the 1st or 2nd century AD. They concluded that carbon-dating was useless for establishing the age of the Shroud.

The same conclusion was arrived at by two microbiologists from the University of Texas, although for different reasons. Leoncio Garza Valdes and Steve Mattingly discovered a very thin layer of bacteria and fungi around the pieces of cloth taken from the Shroud. Inevitably, this 'bio layer' had influenced the results of the carbon-dating method. Garza Valdes and Mattingly also discovered four types of bacteria in the fabric which are known to grow in a salty environment. The experts pointed out that in Palestine salt was used to bleach fabric and for the production of perfume and balm for the deceased. Towards the end of 1996 they finished their research, concluding: "We see no reason whatsoever why the Sindone could not be dated to the 1st century AD."

Better arguments came from traces of pollen of various types of flowers which can still be found growing around Jerusalem, and from other types which only grow in what is now Turkey. This would substantiate the tradition which holds that the Shroud was taken from Jerusalem to Turkey, where it surfaced around AD 1000 in Constantinople. But in February 1997, Shroud expert Professor Pier Luigi Baima Bollone found even more compelling evidence in the impression of an old coin, the lepton, on the eyes of the crucified man. Both coins were minted in Palestine in the year AD 29 under the authority of Pontius Pilate. This is consistent with the tradition then of placing a coin on the eyes of the deceased.

Although scientists are still at a loss as to the method by which a photographic image could have been transferred on to a piece of cloth in either the 1st or 14th century AD, all the recent findings proved to be sufficient evidence for the Archbishop of Turin, the official guardian of the Shroud by appointment of the Pope, to state explicitly for the first time: "I am convinced that the Sindone is the cloth in which the body of Jesus was wrapped after He died on the cross."

(Source: de Volkskrant, The Netherlands)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My friend, you call the Shroud a hoax, but why? Is it because you want the Qur'an to be true, meaning that you want Jesus to have never been crucified since that's what the Qur'an says? I get the feeling that you're not approaching the Shroud with an open mind, but instead you're looking for anything that will support your desire to believe that it's a fake. I can't make anyone believe it's genuine, but what I can do is ask you a few questions:

1. If it's a fake, why are we STILL, with all of our amazing modern technology, unable to produce another piece of "art work" just like it, with all of the same unique chemical and scientific and photographic qualities? Many people have tried to duplicate it, and all have failed.

2. The Shroud image is very faint, and in fact it cannot even be seen with the naked eye if you're standing close to it. It's only when you stand back about 8 feet from it that you can begin to see the faint image of a man. However, when you photograph the Shroud and look at the negative image, THAT'S when the startling detail of the tortured, crucified man appears. Why can't you show me another "painting" with that photographic negative quality, where the "paint" is invisible until you stand back from it or look at the photo negative? Can you show me a painting from the 1400's with those properties? Why not? If the Shroud is nothing more than a painting, then you should surely be able to show me another piece of art work with similar qualities.

Believe me, I totally understand that Muslims desperately want to cling to their belief in the Qur'an, and that desire forces them to reject anything that says Jesus was crucified. However, I hope and pray that you'll let the scientific evidence (as well as all of the historical records of the Christians and Jews) carry more weight than the Qur'an (since the Qur'an disagrees with the historical records and the eyewitness accounts).

Truthseeker,

I am not interested in trying to prove the Shroud of Turin a fake. I did not carry out this research nor did I post it. I was simply wondering what your SCIENTIFIC response to the evidence presented, since you didn't respond when the sister originally posted it.

For the time being, let us approach this not as a muslim or a christian. I am willing to consider the Shroud being a miraculous divine creation with scientific proof of it's supposed imprint of Jesus' crucified body, if you are willing for one minute to consider that scientifically this cannot and has not been proved. Believe it or not I am seeking true scientific proof of this. What you are providing is what you seem to think is reasonable. You mention let's go off of scientific evidence, but when presented with SCIENTIFIC evidence contrary to your own logic and understanding (I am not sure if you are a scientist or not), you present questions of "well if this is so, then why isn't this?" This is not scientific. Also, instead of answering the questions of people on this forum who may be reading and not posting, you instead come back with "well where is your scientific evidence for the Qur'an?" This is not open-minded at ALL.

So please respond, if you wouldn't mind, simply and strictly concerning the evidence the sister posted contrary to your beilfs about the Shroud. Then after we have looked at your evidences and truly considered them - since you brought them to this forum - then we can make a better decision, wouldn't you think? At this point, you are as narrow-minded as you claim the people on this forum to be.

1) Please respond to the scientific evidence provided by the sister who posted the evidence.

2) Because we cannot reproduce it, how does this make it a miracle. Please explain that logic. Stadavarius' amazing quality of violins cannot be reduplicated, and have never since been recreated perfectly. What does this prove?

3) If the Shroud of Turin is - despite all the sceintific info confirming it's more modern dating - the actual image of a tortured man, how can this prove without a doubt that the entire bible, and all that is within it, and all the ideologies that arise from it are absolute truth? If a man was torutred and his bloody body was placed in a shroud of cloth, how can we deduce this was in fact Jesus, or the two Yeshua mentioned in Jewish writings? Since crucifiction was a common form of punishment throughout the Roman Empire, how can we deduce that this Shroud is the one?

I do not understand how this proves the ideology of Christianity. I honestly don't. And since youn mentioned them, I welcome to learn why you feel they do. However, I have asked these same questions before, and you have yet to answer them, instead trying to attack the credibility of the Qur'an - the same thing you accuse everyone on this list of doing. Can you understand my confusion?

You say: "However, I hope and pray that you'll let the scientific evidence (as well as all of the historical records of the Christians and Jews) carry more weight than the Qur'an (since the Qur'an disagrees with the historical records and the eyewitness accounts)."

My question is, why when someone presents equally SCIENTIFIC evidence to the contrary, you dismiss it? A true truthseeker would not do this. Sister Hajar presented very interesting scientific evidence to the contrary. IAM_Dhul_Qurnayn has presented very interesting information regarding the two different Yeshua referred to in conection with crucifixtion. He has also presented info regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, and yet you still disregard this evidence, and expect us to accept only those that agree with your opinions. Why? Please do not think I am attacking you. I am just getting a little annoyed and frustrated with this little dance.

Let me also ask, did you believe in Christianity before you learned of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Shroud of Turin? Or did these "evidences" just support the ideology you always believed? Please answer my questions. Take your time if you like, there is no rush. I am just very interested to understand this. I, and others not really responding to your posts, are actually really wondering. And since you believe in an ultimate creator of the universe and sustainer of us all, as we muslims do, then let us agree to pray to the Creator and Sustainter to truly lead us to the path of seeking the truth, and steer us away of the path of deception and untruth. If you believe the Creator can do this, and so do we, then inshaAllah the Creator will know the sincerity in the hearts of those who seek truth, and grant it, if it is the Creator's will. Agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TruthSeeker

Thank you very much for your excellent post ~ and I mean that very sincerely! You're obviously an intelligent person, and you do seem to be genuinely interested in seeking the truth ~ which I don't find very often in the Muslim community.

Let me start by saying that I took the day off today because I'm sick, so I don't know how eloquent or complete my responses will be. I don't feel good today at all, but I'll do my best.

First, yes, as a matter of fact I was raised to Be a Christian, but I was also raised to believe a lot of other things that I still believe because I've seen and evaluated the evidences for them. I was actually raised to be Catholic, though, and as a teenager I left the Catholic Church in favor of non-Catholic Christianity after evaluating some of the Catholic beliefs and practices that I could find no Biblical basis for (no offense to any Catholic readers on this site).

I am not a scientist. However, I do consider myself to be quite intelligent and highly capable of using common sense and reason to arrive at the most logical answer to a question.

I'm well aware of Dr. McCrone's findings of a substance that he determined to be a form of paint on the Shroud. However, I hope you're not going to immediately believe the findings of one scientist without evaluating the evidence from the others... because any one scientist might have personal reasons for wanting to reach a particular conclusion ~ and in all fairness to Muslims, Christian scientists might want to arrive at certain concusions just like Muslim scientists might... and THAT'S why we have to look at the entire body of evidence.

You imply that you're open minded and are honestly searching for the truth, and I believe you ~ so here's what I'd like you to do: Go to your local book store and pick up a copy of Mark Antonacci's book, "The Resurrection of the Shroud". It costs about $20.00, and I'll be more than happy to pay for it for you. If you're not able to buy it, I've got a few extra copies and will happily send one to you. On pages 49-59 in this book, the author addresses the findings of Dr. McCrone and breaks them down one by one, showing that McCrone's research was incomplete and that he reached his conclusions too early, without conducting further tests that might have proven him wrong. The scientific refutation of McCrone's work is too long for me to type into this post, but again, I'll be more than happy to send a copy of this book to you if you'll provide an address to send it to. (If you don't want to look at it, then please don't tell me you're seeking the truth because if you are, you'll be willing (and actually excited) to study the opposing evidence.)

I don't know what your definition of "miracle" is, but don't you believe it was a miracle every time Jesus raised a dead person back to life? Likewise, it was a miracle when God raised Jesus back from the dead after the crucifixion, and God went a step further by leaving behind a miraculous cloth to prove the crucifixion and resurrection.

One more comment about the "paint" that Dr. McCrone determined was on the Shroud ~ if McCrone had conducted further testing, he would have discovered that when you look at the threads under high powered microscopes, it becomes obvious that the image is only encoded on the very top fiber of each thread. Each tiny thread is made up of many much tinier fibers, and yet only the topmost fiber in each thread contains the image. We all know that paint bleeds and runs, and it is therefore impossible to paint a cloth and only let the paint touch the very top fiber in each thread on the cloth. This and many other scientific facts are presented in Antonacci's book ~ I know you'll enjoy reading it.

Regarding your question about how the truth of the Shroud would prove anything ~ it should be obvious to you that if the Shroud is genuinely the burial cloth of Jesus, it represents the greatest event in human history. No other person in history has ever been crucified and has died, and has then been raised back to life by God ~ especially after telling His followers exactly what was going to happen (see Matthew 16:21 - 17:9). The other very obvious significance is the fact that the crucifixion and death of Jesus proves the Qur'an false ~ and that's exactly why the Muslim leadership will do anything to suppress the Christian evidence. Christianity doesn't stand or fall with the Shroud of Turin ~ it's just extra evidence to bolster the Christian case. However, Islam does fall if the Shroud is genuinely the burial cloth of Jesus, and THAT'S why it's so important to study and research this amazing historical artifact.

It is not my intention to try to prove that every single thing about Christianity is true ~ there are different schools of thought within Christianity and different denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.), but the common belief among us is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Similarly, there are different schools of thought within Islam (Shia, Sunni, Wahibi), but they share a common belief in the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad. I don't care to debate the truth or falsehood of the various Christian denominations or the various Muslim denominations ~ my goal is simply to provide evidence and food for though for any Muslim who honestly is seeking the truth about Jesus. The plain fact is that the Qur'an contradicts the records of the Christians and Jews who were there at the time of Jesus, and it also contradicts the ancient scriptures, so I would certainly hope that every open minded Muslim would want to dig as deep as necessary to ensure that what they're believing is the truth. One of us is wrong about Jesus ~ VERY wrong, and I firmly believe that our eternal salvation depends on knowing the truth. That's why I'm so passionate about it, and that's why I'm on this site. I'm not here to insult anyone, I come only to share what I firmly believe is the truth. I hope and pray that those efforts are met with love, understanding and appreciation.

Please pick up a copy of the book I mentioned, or let me know where to send it and I'll rush a copy to you. The only way to be truly open minded is to look at the evidence for the opposing side and give it the consideration it deserves.

Peace and love to all in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One things that I think you are unaware of, is that although Muslims don't believe Jesus(as) was crucified, we do believe someone was. So there is no reason for us to deny that the shroud belonged to the person who was crucified in Jesus' place. In other words, the shroud being authentic, wouldn't conflict with the Quran. Someone was crucified, just not Jesus. The shroud being authentic wouldn't mean it was Jesus who was shrouded in it. There would be no conflict with our beliefs here. We just don't see enough evidence that it is authentic.

You are looking at it from the angle that this would somehow disprove the Quran. Another way to look at it is, that if it were authentic Muslims might take it as evidence of how Allah protected his Prophet(as), and punished one of the ones who betrayed him. If it were proven authentic, for us it would be a sign of Allah's Greatness. We would welcome such a sign. So our belief that it is not authentic, doesn't have anything to do with any insecurity concerning our beliefs. This is not a Muslim/Christian issue, it is an issue of authenticity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TruthSeeker

My friend, thanks for your post. My question to you is this ~

**WHY** do you believe it was someone other than Jesus who was crucified in His place? Because the Qur'an says so? My challenge to you is that the Qur'an is false... so what other evidence or historical records do Muslims have that would support the claims of the Qur'an? Please remember that the people who recored the crucifixion and death of Jesus WERE THERE AT THE TIME. The Qur'an, 600 years later, comes along and says it never happened, so the burden of proof is squarely on the Muslims to prove their case. If a Christian today were to say that Muhammad was deformed and had three heads, you would tell the Christian to prove it because there is no historical evidence to support that claim. Likewise with the crucifixion and death of Jesus. The Christians and the Jews (and the Romans who actually carried out the crucifixion), all of whom believed very different things about Jesus, all recorded the exact same fate for Him. How do you explain that? Were all three groups involved in some sort of "Jesus conspiracy"? If you think they were, please provide supporting evidence to back up that belief. You place more trust in a book written 600 years later which has no historical records to back up it's claims, than you do on the historical records of three distinct groups of people who were there at the time? That, my friend, makes absolutely no sense to me.

And a Muslim on this site previously informed me that the Jewish historical records mention two different men named Jesus ~ but I don't see the point of that statement. First, I'm not even sure if it's really two distinct Jesuses or one who's story is recorded twice in the Jewish record. Still, it doesn't matter ~ both of the Jewish men named Jesus that he pointed out to me were put to death, which still provides an older historical record that clearly contradicts the Qur'an.

The man in the Shroud has a ring of scalp wounds around His head, which matches the wounds that would have been present on someone wearing a crown of thorns which the Bible tells us Jesus was... and this was done in mockery of His claim to the "The King of the Jews". Someone crucified in His place would not have been fitted with this crown of thorns because they wouldn't have been the One claiming to the a King. Unless of course everyone THOUGHT they were crucifying Jesus but God had rescued Jesus and made someone LOOK like Jesus ~ but as I've said before, that's a poor attempt by Muslims to justify the Qur'an, and there is NO historical evidence to support that idea. If I'm wrong about that, please provide some credible evidence to prove that... and don't just show me one historical record that might have been written by an unbeliever ~ because there are an awful lot of historical documents that confirm His crucifixion and death. Don't ask me to name them, because I can't off the top of my head, but we all know that Christians and Jews both know Jesus was crucified and died on the cross, and we wouldn't believe this unless we had ample historical evidence of it. It would be ridiculous to suggest that neither of the two (?) Jesuses mentioned in the Jewish record were talking about Jesus of Nazareth ~ if they were going to discuss ANYONE named Jesus, they would CERTAINLY have mentioned the one who was as famous, significant and controversial as Jesus of Nazareth was. And again, both (?) men named Jesus in the Jewish record are documented as having been put to death ~ which the Qur'an denies with no historical evidence to back it up.

Again, my bottom line question to Muslims is this: You're the ones who are claiming that well documented historical events never happened, and you do so because the Qur'an tells you that. Where is the historical evidence that mathes the Qur'an? Even the Qur'an says something like (when discussing the crucifixion of Jesus) "they are in doubt about it, and they know not for sure". That's EXACTLY the way the Muslims treat the crucifixion of Jesus. They are in doubt about it, whether they admit it or not, because their Holy Book is in direct conflict with the historical records and the archaeological evidence in the Shroud of Turin.

Any group of people who come forth and claim that a MAJOR historical event which is very well documented never happened, the burden of proof lies with them. I expect the Muslims on this site to say something like "We don't need proof because we know that the Qur'an is the Holy Word of Allah", but I'd think again ~ Allah (God) would not contradict known historical events, and He would not deceive the world into believing that something major had happened if it had not. Satan is the deceiver, not God, and that's why I'm convinced that the Qur'an was inspired by Satan and not by God. That would also explain any supernatural qualities that the Qur'an might possess ~ Satan is smarter and more powerful than men, and He is quite capable of deceiving millions of people. I mean to offend no one with that suggestion, but let's face it ~ only Satan would want to corrupt and twist the true Word of God, so I think it's a safe bet that either the Qur'an or the Bible has been corrupted or twisted (or "revealed") by Satan and not by God. I hope any genuine "Truth Seeker" would study and research both sides of the argument as well as all of the historical records and archaeological evidence with an open mind, rather than blindly believing their present religion. One of us is wrong ~ are we both willing to acknowledge that and accept that it might be us that's wrong?

Peace and love to all in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear TruthSeeker,

From the Quran we know that Jesus was not crucified, but that the people believed they did crucify him. The crown of thorns on his head would then have been placed on the other person who was crucified.

The Quran tells us that Jesus wasn't crucified, and other historical accounts also cast doubt on his crucifixion. Below are the verses that deny his crucifixion and some supporting evidence.

4.157 And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

3:55 And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 3:55]

As stated in verses 45 to 47 of this surah (please refer to their commentary) the birth of Isa was a miracle. His departure from this world to the heaven, alive, was also a miracle. It is stated in Minhaj al Sadiqin that Isa was kept in custody in a room during the night following which he was to be crucified in the morning. At daybreak, Judas the hypocrite companion of Isa, who had betrayed him to the Roman soldiers, went into the room to escort Isa to the place of crucifixion. As soon as he entered the room, he was miraculously transformed into a person who resembled Isa. When he came out of the room the Roman soldiers took him to the cross and crucified him, in spite of his loud and desperate protestations.

In Badshah Husain's English translation of the Holy Quran, Sale is quoted on page 14 of Vol. 11. as under:

"It is supposed by several that this story was an original of Mohammad's but they are certainly mistaken, for several sectarians held the same opinion, long before his time. The Basilidians (Irrenus I.I.C 23 and C. Epiphan Haeres 24 num III) in the very beginning of Christianity, denied that Christ himself suffered, but that Simon the Cyraracean was crucified in his place. The Corinthians before them and the Carpocratians next (to name no more of those who affirmed Jesus to have been a mere man) did believe the same thing; it was not himself, but one of his followers very like him that was crucified. Photius tells us that he read a book entitled "The Journeys of the Apostles", relating the acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul, and among other things contained therein, this was one, that Christ was not crucified, but another in his stead, and that therefore he laughed at his crucifiers (Photius Bible Cod 114, col. 291) or those who thought they had crucified him (Tolands' Nazrenus p. 17 and c.)"

The Jewish plot to kill Isa was prevented by the best of planners, the almighty Allah.

Tawaffa is to fulfil a promise. Inni mutawaffika means "I will complete your term". The word may mean death or to take away. It has been used in both its meanings in the Quran. The Ahmadi commentator, to deny the miraculous escape of Isa from being crucified, misinterprets the word tawaffa as Isa's physical death. The Holy Prophet and the holy Imams have said that Isa will come down again from the heaven before the day of resurrection and offer prayers behind Imam Muhammad al Mahdi, the last Imam in the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

"And set those who follow you (victorious) above those who disbelieve", refers to those Christians who accepted Isa as a true prophet of Allah, followed his teachings, and believed in his prophecy about the advent of the Holy Prophet. See Genesis 17: 7, 8, 20; Acts 3: 22 to 25; John 1: 19 to 21; 14: 16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7 to 13. The true believers in Isa, were Muslims. Those who believe in Isa as a son of God or God are infidels.

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

The incoherent recording of the events of Isa's crucifixion, burial and resurrection in the New Testament, proves that the whole story had been fabricated to suit the doctrines of the Christian church. Paul had distorted the true faith of Isa to accommodate Roman paganism. Their story should be judged in the light of the following analysis:

(1) Those who came to arrest Isa, in the darkness of night, had never seen his face.

(2) It was Judas who, standing beside Isa, identified him.

(3) Judas' features were very much like Isa's.

(4) As the light was very dim, their faces could not be seen clearly.

(5) The soldiers were afraid of the people, who certainly would have started a struggle at any moment and made their task difficult, so they were in a great hurry.

(6) It was Judas who was crucified.

(7) The crucified body was brought down from the cross in the early hours of dawn.

(8) The disciples ran away from the scene and did not witness the burial.

(9) The grave, in which the crucified body was buried, was found empty.

(10) The only witness of the resurrection was Mary Magdalene whose versions, given in the four gospels, differ from each other. In some, she was there when Isa rose from the grave; and in some, when she approached the grave, she was told by another unknown witness that her Lord was raised to heaven.

(11) Isa was seen by the disciples after the resurrection

It is a fact that it was not Isa who was crucified. He was saved. His disciples gave currency to the idea of his crucifixion so that the Jews remained assured of his death, else they would have gone in his pursuit. The Roman soldiers also kept quiet in order to avoid the blame of killing a wrong person and also the certain punishment for not executing Isa. As Sale has observed in his above noted explanation, the early Christians did not believe in Isa's crucifixion.

All the Muslims, in the light of this and other verses of the Quran, do not give any credence to the false story of Isa's crucifixion and resurrection, fabricated by the Christian church.

Tawaffa (to take away), tahar (to purify), raf-a (to raise) and nuzul (to descend) are the four effects of the divine will in connection with Isa, out of which the first three have already taken place and the fourth is expected to happen, before the final resurrection. The religion of Allah shall triumph over all other religions and creeds. The light of truth shall enlighten the world, and a perfect human society shall be established before the world comes to an end. This is His promise. If tawaffa means death, then also there should be no doubt in the mind of a believer about Isa's nuzul because, as said in verses 258 to 260 of al Baqarah, Allah can give life to the dead or raise up any dead living being to life. In the opinion of Shaykh Saduq, this explanation is more credible.

If tawaffa means departure from this world without dying, then his nuzul will be re-appearance after his temporary disappearance, similar to Imam Muhammad al Mahdi, who is living on the earth as a necessary link between man and God, while Isa has been raised up unto Allah. So Isa has no jurisdiction in the matters of this world, whereas Imam Mahdi is the sole deputy of Allah to look after and take care of the terrestrial affairs. When both of them shall re-appear Isa shall follow the leadership of Imam al Mahdi.

You say that this would involve deception from Allah and that Allah is not the deceiver. Allah leads astray whomever He wills. It is because of their disobedience that they are led astray. So in essence, they deceived themselves.

The best evidence that the man on the cross was not Jesus, is his own words. No Prophet of Allah would ever ask Allah why he had forsaken him. A forsaken man is not a Prophet.

Hajar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TruthSeeker

Hajar, your post was interesting, but I think you need to make up your mind before writing. First, you started off by saying:

"From the Quran we know that Jesus was not crucified, but that the people believed they did crucify him."

Then you go on to say the following:

"It is a fact that it was not Isa who was crucified. He was saved. His disciples gave currency to the idea of his crucifixion so that the Jews remained assured of his death, else they would have gone in his pursuit. The Roman soldiers also kept quiet in order to avoid the blame of killing a wrong person and also the certain punishment for not executing Isa."

So you're saying that they thought they were crucifying Jesus, and then you're saying they knew it wasn't Jesus they crucified but they kept quiet on purpose. Which is it? Did they know or didn't they?

Also, to comment on your opening line, "From the Quran we know that Jesus was not crucified", I'd like to correct you ~ From the Bible (written 600 years before the Qur'an, by the people who were there at the time), we know that Jesus WAS crucified.

You're clinging to one or two possible accounts from people who might have had doubts about His crucifixion, and throwing away several accounts from people who had NO doubts about it. You're doing that for the sole purpose of trying to defend the Qur'an, rather than looking at the evidence and historical records to determine the truth or falsehood of the Qur'an. I think you're coming in the back door with your logic...

Peace and love to all in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. <><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously not everyone thought he was crucified, but some did, there is no contradiction in that. This is why there is doubt between them about it.

The problem is that the accounts of his crucifixion, in the Bible, contradict each other. Even the accounts of the last supper are not consistant. I can't see how the Bible can be relied on, as a historical account of the crucifixion of Jesus, when there is no consistency on the subject. Why is there such inconsistency on points that are so vital to a religion? If it were true, it seems like the story would be clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After rereading my post, and reading the response, once again my questions have either been avoided or just plain not answered. I tried to approach this neither as a muslim or a christian - not from the point of view of either the bible or qur'an, but somehow the response always seems to be "what about your qur'an", cleverly dismissing loads of questions not yet answered (such as scientific claims contrary to your beliefs, and logic contrary to your own). I see why others have aboandoned discussion with you, "truthseeker". Thank you "truthseeker" for your input thus far.

Goodnight all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way to be truly open minded is to look at the evidence for the opposing side and give it the consideration it deserves.

After scrolling through this thread again, I just noticed this thread of your in response to mine. Excuse me, I am a little tired and didn't see this post at first glance.

I truly believe this statement of yours. This is why I hope you would also evaluate the evidence presented by not only Mr. McCrone, but many scientists who discount this Shroud being definitely the burial shroud of Jesus (peace be upon him). As you mentioned - some have reasons why they will try to discount the evidence at all costs - as there are others who would have many reasons for trying to prove this theory regardless of any strong evidence to the contrary. It can go both ways, as is the usual case.

I will honestly say I will try to make an effort to check this book out from the library. It may take quite a while to get through it, since I am finishing up my graduate degree soon, insha Allah, and have many papers and presentations to complete soon. I am also expecting a new addition to our family this week, inshaAllah, and reading another bok about the shia muslims :) So, it may take a while to get through it all. I don't want it to seem as though I am avoiding the issue.

Goodnight everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TruthSeeker

You ask why the "hoax" continues? The only hoax, my friend, is the enemies of Christ's death and resurrection trying to suppress the evidence of the truth. Please read the following:

The Shroud image is not manmade.

Artists, chemist, pathologists, and image analysts who study the Shroud quickly come to an inescapable conclusion. It is not a painting, drawing, or any known form of artistic rendition.

Artists readily notice that there are none of the signs of painting or drawing. There is a complete lack of any outline, brush strokes, or directionality from a tool used to create the image. Internationally renowned artist and an expert in practiced art Isabel Piczek stated "art always exhibits the mandatory use of outline, the event horizon in art."

Directionality, another characteristic in art, cannot be avoided unless an artist were to use a dot painting technique so precise as to be able to apply a colorant individually to top-layer fibers thinner than human hair. For deeper color the artist would need to touch more fibers in an area than in lighter areas. Furthermore, the image on the Shroud is so light and diffuse that the image cannot be seen from less than about six feet away. As Isabel Piczek and many scholars argue, an artist would have needed to work from a long distance, something that is really not possible.

Scientists using infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray fluorescence, and microchemistry analysis have clearly demonstrated that pigments, paints, dyes or any form of liquid or solid colorant are not used to create the image. There is no evidence of capillary action between fibers and no soaking in of any kind in the image area. In fact, it has been shown that the image is a direct result of a chemical change to the fiber -- dehydration and oxidation of the cellulose. Though chemical agents, such as acids, could alter the chemistry of the fiber, the lack of any capillary action and the abrupt delineation between image and non-image areas in individual fibers preclude this as a reasonable possibility.

The image is a 3-dimensional map in negative. This is totally uncharacteristic of any art form. To create the image, an artist would have needed to "apply" microscopic dots or pixels to the linen in a single color. Areas closer to the observer such as the tip of the nose would have required more pixels (or longer pixels along a fiber's length). Areas that are recessed such as the back of the knees would have required few or no pixels.

The image is anatomically consistent, to a modern day pathologist with 20th and 21st century technology, with someone who had been traumatized by scouring, wounded in the scalp as if by a cap or crown of thorns, and crucified. Death seems to have been by asphyxiation which is probable. The blood stains showing both artery and vein flow are pathologically correct. No medieval or pre-medieval artist would have had the knowledge to create such an image.

The image does not exist below blood stains. An artist would have needed to apply real blood first anticipating the exact placement of the image or to have created the image with reserved areas for the blood stains. The very idea of an artist doing so is preposterous.

Dr. Walter McCrone, for a time a member of STURP, examined some of the sticky tape samples and found particles of iron oxide, cinnabar and a thin film on some of the fibers which he determined to be a binder for paint. He concluded that this was adequate evidence to declare that the Shroud was a painting. More specific research by others, including Dr. Alan Adler, demonstrated that there were insufficient amounts of any iron oxide, cinnabar or any other artist pigment in the image areas to cause any visible image. That there were some particles of paint can probably be

explained as contaminants. As Dr. Adler stated: "He simply has never accepted the work of other investigators showing this was a hasty judgment on his part and that his observations have alternate interpretations." Ian Wilson has suggested that the thin film McCrone discovered, in fact, may be the same as the bioplastic coating discovered by

Dr. Garza-Valdez and not a binder.

Dr. McCrone first gained fame for declaring the Vinland Map a forgery. He had discovered that the ink on the map contained substantial amounts of titanium dioxide, a chemical discovered in the early part of the twentieth century. However, in 1987, physicists at the University of California discovered that McCrone's claims for titanium dioxide were highly exaggerated and imprecise. Dr. McCrone's work on the Shroud is universally rejected by scientists and researchers who have studied the chemistry of the Shroud. However, his claims live on as result of a book he self-published entitled

Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud.

Dr. Emily A. Craig and Dr. Randall R. Bresee have presented a theory that the Shroud image is created using a dry powder transfer technique. It does provide nearly acceptable 3-dimensionality characteristics. They achieve this either by copying the Shroud image or by specially arranging lights around a model. This method, does not deal with the level of detail found on the Shroud, the blood stains, or the

fact that the microscopic and chemical evidence is completely contrary to anything their technique would produce.

In their book, The Jesus Conspiracy, Holger Kersten and Elmar Gruber describe a mechanism of coating a body with an herbal mixture and inducing sweating to produce an image. Since this is a contact method, it fails to produce a 3 dimensionally encoded image. There is no microscopic, chemical, or spectroscopic evidence for any of these herbal stains. As, with other artistic theories, Kersten and Gruber ignore the blood stains.

Nicholas Allen has proposed the latest in a series of medieval photograph theories. Like with the other "forgery" theories, he fails to deal with the blood stains and the problem that there is no microscopic, chemical, or spectroscopic evidence for photo-sensitive chemicals or the expected products of their chemical reaction on the cloth. There is, too, the fact that a photograph, no matter how ingenious the method, is not a 3-dimensionally encoded chart of proximity.

The late Dr. Alan Adler, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University explained:

"The sticky tape samples were subjected to exhaustive wet chemical analysis after the problem of dealing with the debris and classifying the different fiber types and particles present that were pertinent to the Shroud. The tests were for the presence of proteins (by stains and enzymes), blood components, metallic species, organic structures and functional groups, and, also, solubility by a large series of solvents. The results of these tests were that proteins could only be detected in materials from the blood images, that the blood image materials were those anticipated as derivable from clotted blood, the only metallic species present were covalently linked calcium and iron that could be accounted for as products of the retting process converting flax to linen, iron oxide could only be demonstrated in materials from the blood scorch and water stain areas where its natural occurrence could be anticipated, the only functional groups present were those associated with the cellulose of the linen itself or its dehydrative oxidation products, and solvents did not extract the image chromophore which also could only be bleached by very strong redox agents. Therefore it was concluded that no applied dyes, stains, or pigments, were present and the image chromophore was a conjugated carbonyl produced in the cellulose structure itself by a dehydrative oxidation process. These results and conclusions have been confirmed by a variety of spectroscopic investigations.

"Microscopic examinations of the image areas have revealed a number of interesting physical properties of the image that must be met in any proposed formation mechanism as well as meeting the observed chemical and forensic properties cited above. The image only goes one fiber deep lying on top of the crowns of the treads of the weave of the cloth (unlike the blood images which do penetrate the cloth as they are an "applied" material). The fibers are not cemented together (no binders present), but the image process shows no evidence of capillarity, i.e., the image does not appear under any crossing fibers, and the image fibers are very brittle and show "corroded" surfaces (as would be expected for dehydratively oxidized material). All the colored fibers are uniformly colored, i.e., an exposed fiber is either colored or not colored. This demonstrates that the image seen at the macroscopic level is an areal density image and not a pigment concentration image. Shading. is not accomplished by varying the ‘color’, but by varying the number of colored fibers per unit area at the microlevel. Rubbing these fibers with a teasing needle does not reveal any adherent applied powders to be present, nor can any be seen at high magnification.

"However, the most interesting characteristic of the images is revealed by computer imaging analysis, particularly that done by a VP-8 image analyzer. The body image contains realistic 3-dimensional information relating image density at any particular pixel point to the distance between the cloth and the body at that point. Further, this projective information transfer can be shown to be collimated and anisotropic, neither necessarily orthogonal to the receiving or sending surface. Note, no image appears between the two body image heads as would be consistent with this point. Although we do not have any confirmed explanation for this property, it has been used to test a number of artistic rendition methods and they have all failed to meet this criterion. These methods include albedo (simple reflection as in an ordinary photograph) images from a bust, phosphorescent emission images from this same bust, artistic sketches and paintings of various types, chemical contact images, thermal images, diffusion images, bas reliefs, dry powder contact images, scorching contact with an engraving, and various hybrid mechanisms. These conclusions are in agreement with those earlier reached by a comparison of possible formation mechanisms with the observed scientific data and interestingly enough with many of those ruled out by Vignon in his pioneering studies. It is also of interest to note that starting with artistic criteria, rather than scientific, it can be demonstrated that the Shroud is not a painting."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truthseeker,

In all your posts you're always coming back to one thing. "Historical evidence of crucifixtion". You say you have proof that Jesus was crucified. That is not sufficient to prove anyone that Holy Quran/Islam is a lie. Here are my proofs:

- Your whole belief seems to hinge with historical proof. Assuming you're able to prove Jesus was really crucified & establish Quran is a fake. What happens if someone comes out with a bestseller book and proves using 'Historical Evidence' that it was not Jesus who was crucified. What if the new historical evidence is soo goood, that you cannot argue with. What if new physical evidence is found that proves that Jesus was not crucified. (you cannot deny the popping up of new possibile evidence). The whole of your religion is going to fall apart! Are you going to dangle around between religions based on historical proof? When does it end?

- There are many historical evidence supporting/against the Quran/Bible. Are you/me expected to go through all these historical evidences to support our beliefs? Do you have the time and resources to do so. What about a muslim/Christian farmer who is cut of from the world. To find the truth is he expected to go through the history of the whole world, to find out what is the truth. Your solution to find the truth is not universal or even practical.

- The reason I don't believe in your history is because your history is tied up with Christianity. Christianity is based on Trinity which is a lie. Trinity was introduced much after the death of Jesus and was established formally approx 300 AD in the Council of Niceaea. Trinity is clearly an addition to Christianity. Further more, Trinity is soo illogical that even the church refuses to explain it. I don't see why anyone should base their whole faith/belief/life on an illogical concept. Your fundamental belief is a lie, whatever comes after that (eg. your Historical proof) is of no value.

There is no reason for anyone to accept your historical claims. Feel free to prove me wrong.

regards,

Bahlool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...