Mr. Valiant, my difficulty with this approach is that as far as I know, the only body of literature that gives any details about the crucifixion, such as illustrated on the man in the Shroud, is the NT, specifically the four gospels. In other words, how would anyone know that the Shroud was "authentic" unless they depended on the gospels for the description of the crucifixion? And the gospels themselves are indeed the source for what has become Christianity. Mark 1:1 says "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet. . ." So the "gospel" or evangelion is indeed intended to persuade people of its story of Yeshua of Nazareth. One can't have it both ways, IMHO. If the description of the crucifixion is accurate, then the likelihood that other pericopes are accurate is strengthened, not weakened.
Also, I would presume you are aware that the NT admonishes its readers to "test the spirits." In other words, the NT takes it for granted that a person could have a spiritual experience with a being that claims to be Jesus Christ, but that is, in fact, "another Jesus," as Paul admonished in 2 Cor 11:4. So your psychic experience, while certainly an experience with some entity, would have to be verified somehow. But if you reject the body of NT literature, then what do you depend on to know that you have actually contacted Jesus of Nazareth?
Also, I have heard of the "swoon" theory. But doesn't the Shroud present the huge spear wound in the side? Josephus wrote in one of his works, Wars, I think, that he asked Titus for the life of some friends of his that had been crucified, and they were taken down still alive, but even so they died from the crucifixion trauma. And if in the case of Jesus there was some sort of supernatural healing power before death, then what really is the difference between that and actual supernatural resurrection after death?
William,
Firstly, regarding the bible, I wasn't suggesting that it be dismissed or rejected out of hand but rather I was referring to the false beliefs that have arisen about Jesus Christ, specifically that he was the "Son of God" and that he died on the cross "for our sins". I don't accept your idea that the bible must either be fully accepted as entirely truthful and accurate or not at all. As you will know, when events are reported by journalists today there will usually be a degree of truth but also often elements of untruth or exaggeration depending on political bias or other incentives. To quote from another of my books: "The stories concerning Jesus Christ were written down many years after the events had occurred and were often elaborated so as to fit in with the already existing prophecies".
It must be also be borne in mind that you are dealing with documents written thousands of years ago, written originally in Aramaic, then translated into Hebrew, then into Greek, then into Latin and English. So there are bound to be errors in translation.
In A Course In Spiritual Philosophy, Jesus states: "There are numerous mistakes in the Bible. Some are accidental, and some are errors in translation. But the great tragedy of the bible is the way it has been distorted by Christian prelates through the ages. If only they had left the books alone there might have been a greater degree of success for me, but, because they simply failed to understand most of what I said, they altered it or left it out."
There is no way for me to prove to anyone that the entity that my late wife and I communicated with was the "real" Jesus Christ, nor that the shroud is genuine. My wife and I were chosen to be communicated with as our minds were free from religious bias. All I can do is pass on the information I have been given and point out where the explanation for events is corroborated by other evidence. If you are intrigued enough to learn more, you can read A Course In Spiritual Philosophy, which I uploaded on my first message on this thread, or My Conversations With Jesus Christ, which is attached to this one. My late wife took scripts from not only Jesus, but other biblical figures such as Moses and Ezekiel, all of whom explain where the bible is inaccurate and what really happened. You can then make an informed decision about whether to accept the information or reject it.
Regarding the spear injury that shows on the shroud, he explains in A Course In Spiritual Philosophy that he was injured by a spear thrust by a Roman soldier, but survived. He also states that the Gospel of Matthew is the most accurate. In Matthew, it suggests that he was only on the cross for six hours before being taken down, which perhaps explains why he was only unconscious and not dead, and survived the trauma. He was presumed dead and would have died if he had been left in the tomb.
He was rescued and given spiritual healing which allowed him, eventually, to recover. In a sense, he was "resurrected" and the books do explain that he did actually appear before people in his materialized spiritual body, as one more attempt to convince people that they would survive physical death, which is what most presumed had occurred. There are many people who have the gift of healing, so not sure I would class it as supernatural. Jesus himself was a very gifted psychic and healer, but none of his psychic abilities, which allowed him to perform "miracles" were restricted to him only. The source of the gift is spiritual rather than physical, certainly. His later travels in Asiatic countries and India have been documented by other authors.
The shroud is a fascinating relic of a fascinating man, and I believe that anyone who conducts an open minded and objective inquiry into the full evidence will conclude, as I have, that it can't be swept under the carpet as a medieval forgery.
But the more important and salient message he tried to get across while alive, and in the books of my late wife and myself, which has been so distorted by the Christian religion, is that all will survive physical death, regardless of belief.
From My Conversations With Jesus Christ: "Enlightenment, then, was as necessary as it is today, and it was my task to wean people away from the purely material aspects of their lives. I tried to convince them of their immortality, that they would survive death and that they must behave responsibly towards their fellow men. I told the multitudes that they will reap as they have down. Many of my sayings from my Aramaic language have been mistranslated or misinterpreted.
The belief of many Christians that I suffered and died so as to take responsibility for their sins, even those they have not yet committed, is utterly false. Do they not realize that, if it were true, every one of the countless billions of humans who had lived before me would be doomed after their deaths? This belief is one of the most ridiculous of all. How can any person accept responsibility for the actions of others? You are all individually responsible for yourselves. Vicarious atonement is a principle borrowed from much earlier pagan prophecies. I did not die to absolve others from their sins because it is not possible to do so. Karma is inescapable. I did not die on the cross, so the whole idea is groundless."
