Podcast on the Shroud of Turin (Jeremiah Johnston on Shawn Ryan Show)

10,373 Views | 148 Replies | Last: 21 days ago by KingofHazor
JamiesChallengeCard
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:37p, 4/3/26
Shawn Ryan Show Podcast

Watched this a bit yesterday then watched the first 90 minutes this morning with my kids (15,14,11).

From what I gather, Jeremiah Johnston is a Bibilical archeologist/scholar who like many were skeptical of the Shroud but through significant research came to the belief it is the actual Shroud/linens from when Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Super interesting the details he gives about the crucifixion process and what our Savior endured whether you believe it is the actual shroud or not. He knows his stuff and his heart wants people to see the shroud and turn to Jesus.

I love his point that Christianity is the only religion that has nothing to hide. It's ok to seek truth and ask questions cause Jesus and the One True God are real and true and want us to earnestly seek Him. Yes we must walk by faith but it doesn't mean we can't seek evidence and test it to see if it is good.

What a powerful message of what our Savior endured, as Jeremiah Johnston mentions here, it wasn't the Roman nails that kept Jesus on the cross, it was His passionate love for you. May that be real to you through this podcast.
Reply Quote
8
JamiesChallengeCard
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:40p, 4/3/26
Youtube Version
Reply Quote
1
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:26p, 4/3/26
For our Protestant friends I recommend this podcast from a non-Catholic perspective:


For Catholics this one has a little more detail:

https://www.youtube.com/live/HAbuG-oVq1Q?si=ASO8rxjB8eUo-DYf


The Shroud is amazing. Jesus left us an image of himself and the shroud is an artifact of his crucifixion, his burial, and his Resurrection all captured through the shroud. It's amazing and I believe it is absolutely real.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
gordo97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:40p, 4/3/26
AG
Replica of the shroud exhibition is at my church currently. Went to it and it was fascinating and heartbreaking.

https://www.whatisgrace.org/shroud-of-turin/
Reply Quote
2
Thaddeus73
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:02a, 4/4/26
AG
34 trillion watts of power in 1/40th of a billionth of a second produced the 3d image on the shroud. Any more power and any more time would have burned the shroud up. I already believe in the resurrection, but hopefully this scientific evidence will convince the unbelievers...The resurrection of Christ is now a scientific FACT!
Reply Quote
13
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thaddeus73 • 8:15a, 4/4/26
AG
Thaddeus73 said:
34 trillion watts of power in 1/40th of a billionth of a second produced the 3d image on the shroud. Any more power and any more time would have burned the shroud up. I already believe in the resurrection, but hopefully this scientific evidence will convince the unbelievers...The resurrection of Christ is now a scientific FACT!

Amen.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
4
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:27a, 4/4/26
AG
Look up one of the other threads. It's a clear hoax. The first time it pops up in history it was identified as a hoax.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Thaddeus73
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:34a, 4/4/26
AG
So your saying all of these scientists are stupid?
Reply Quote
6
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thaddeus73 • 8:36a, 4/4/26
AG
See the other threads
Reply Quote
BucketofBalls99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to gordo97 • 9:55a, 4/4/26
gordo97 said:
Replica of the shroud exhibition is at my church currently. Went to it and it was fascinating and heartbreaking.

https://www.whatisgrace.org/shroud-of-turin/

Yes, we go to St Joseph's as well. Going to try and go on Monday or at least sometime next week
Reply Quote
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 10:11a, 4/4/26
Aggrad08 said:
Look up one of the other threads. It's a clear hoax. The first time it pops up in history it was identified as a hoax.
would you mind posting a link to said threads? I have spent a lot of time learning about the shroud and everything points to it being authentic. The so-called debunking it as a hoax has been roundly disproven.

I am genuinely interested in looking into your claims. I have a family member intrigued by the shroud from a scientific perspective and I'm praying this will lead him back into the arms of the church. I would like to be well prepared for whatever might be out there. Thanks!
Reply Quote
4
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BucketofBalls99 • 10:14a, 4/4/26
BucketofBalls99 said:
gordo97 said:
Replica of the shroud exhibition is at my church currently. Went to it and it was fascinating and heartbreaking.

https://www.whatisgrace.org/shroud-of-turin/

Yes, we go to St Joseph's as well. Going to try and go on Monday or at least sometime next week

The Houston Funeral Museum has a permanent exhibit of the shroud with a lifesize statue created from the 3D information of the shroud. They have a replica crown and much more. It's very well done.

https://nmfh.org/portfolio-item/shroud-of-turin/

Reply Quote
3
BucketofBalls99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 4:23p, 4/4/26
Faithful Ag said:
Aggrad08 said:
Look up one of the other threads. It's a clear hoax. The first time it pops up in history it was identified as a hoax.
would you mind posting a link to said threads? I have spent a lot of time learning about the shroud and everything points to it being authentic. The so-called debunking it as a hoax has been roundly disproven.

I am genuinely interested in looking into your claims. I have a family member intrigued by the shroud from a scientific perspective and I'm praying this will lead him back into the arms of the church. I would like to be well prepared for whatever might be out there. Thanks!

I would be interested in reading these as well
Reply Quote
2
Howdy, it is me!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:34a, 4/5/26
AG
I think it was pretty cool for FaithfulAg to put a link up for the Protestants and the kind use of the word "friend."

I haven't watched it but curious yalls thoughts, this is the first question I always have - how can a linen that was draped around a body produce the flat 2D image? (I know yall used the term 3D but it looks pretty flat to me) A draped cloth that obtained an imprint of the 3D object underneath, would be distorted when laid flat.
Reply Quote
Enviroag02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:26a, 4/5/26
AG
The Live Free podcast discusses the hoax determinations and their validity. The context is that it would have been impossible to fake it at the time and actually pretty impossible even now. There are no dyes or pigments on it. In order to fake it they would have had to actually crucify a Jewish man in the exact same way as Jesus is described even in ways which were not commonly known at the time of the supposed hoax creation, and that's even before you get to the question of how the image became present on the cloth.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Hey...so.. um
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:26p, 4/5/26
I found this podcast very interesting. Alot of it makes sense, but I'm a trust but verify guy so I will be doing some more research into this.

Edit: I watched the Josh Howerton one.
Reply Quote
1 edit
LimpinM
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 11:54a, 4/6/26
AG
This is very uninformed
Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 2:32p, 4/6/26
AG
Faithful Ag said:
Aggrad08 said:
Look up one of the other threads. It's a clear hoax. The first time it pops up in history it was identified as a hoax.

would you mind posting a link to said threads? I have spent a lot of time learning about the shroud and everything points to it being authentic. The so-called debunking it as a hoax has been roundly disproven.

I am genuinely interested in looking into your claims. I have a family member intrigued by the shroud from a scientific perspective and I'm praying this will lead him back into the arms of the church. I would like to be well prepared for whatever might be out there. Thanks!

You were on the thread and made no serious attempt at contradicting the evidence. The historical record and radiometric dating are utterly damning. The excuses for the radiomentric dating being contaminated don't hold up. The so called contamination just so happens to match the historical record perfectly and the church has been unwilling to retest the shroud since.
The latest on the Shroud of Turin - just in time for Good Friday and Easter | TexAgs
The latest on the Shroud of Turin - just in time for Good Friday and Easter - Page 2 | TexAgs

For those that don't want to go back I'll give a quick summary:
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/24/sorry-the-shroud-of-turin-is-definitely-a-hoax/

Even without the radiocarbon dating from three independent labs it's a very weak case.

There is no mention of the shroud whatsoever until the 14th century and in its first mention it's labeled a forgery by the local bishop and notes that the artist was identified (this just so happens to exactly match the radiocarbon dating).

Ignoring that it's an image of a roughly 6ft tall, long straight haired gothic European Jesus who would have really stood out in first century Palestine. And he just so happens to be covering his private bits in a way totally consistent with art and inconsistent with what the arms of a dead guy would do (you need to hold your elbows off the ground to put your hands like that).

Also the image is wrong, a 3-d image of a man wrapped in A shroud would look very different (see below)

I get the desire to have physical evidence, but this ain't it. I don't really see why this would effect your belief in the resurrection one way or another



Some proponents for the authenticity of the shroud have attempted to discount the radiocarbon dating result by claiming that the sample may represent a medieval "invisible" repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth] However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-c14.arch.ox.ac.uk-12][12][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Radiocarbon_Dating_pg_167-168-7][7][/url] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-R.A._Freer-Waters,_A.J.T._Jull_2010-8][8][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-freeinquiry1-9][9][/url] the bio-contamination hypothesis[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Gove_1990-11][11][/url] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-c14.arch.ox.ac.uk-12][12]

[/url]


Quote:
I haven't watched it but curious yalls thoughts, this is the first question I always have - how can a linen that was draped around a body produce the flat 2D image? (I know yall used the term 3D but it looks pretty flat to me) A draped cloth that obtained an imprint of the 3D object underneath, would be distorted when laid flat

Yes very much so, it would look like this:

Reply Quote
6
Enviroag02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:29p, 4/6/26
AG
Just gonna throw this out there…radiocarbon dating has been shown to fairly regularly yield a predetermined result based on inputs. It is also extremely impacted by environmental contamination.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Enviroag02 • 10:13p, 4/6/26
3 completely separate teams arrived at the same timeframe. Even if you threw out all the radiocarbon dating there's still a ton of material evidence that it was a medieval piece.
Reply Quote
1
Enviroag02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:56a, 4/7/26
AG
So if it's a forgery, how is the image there without the use of paint, pigments, or dyes in a way could only have been created by a very short high intense energy burst? How is the imagine only on the surface with no wicking underneath? It can't be recreated even today. Also more recent dating methods place it first century. X ray diffraction, FTIR spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Also if you are going with the "3 independent labs" story to bolster the argument it would hold up if all the 3 labs analyzed different parts of the shroud, but they didn't. They all analyzed the same piece, the same piece which showed evidence of repair and severe environmental contamination. They were three labs but they were by no means scientifically independent analyses. The blood showed high levels of ferritin and creatinine indicating renal failure caused by intense torture or severe dehydration. Those indicators would not have been known to medieval forgers, and if they were they would have had to actually torture and kill a Jewish man in the same way.

What is the non radiocarbon evidence that it's medieval?
Reply Quote
1
6 edits
Enviroag02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 5:23a, 4/7/26
AG
A supernatural process which can't be explained or recreated today. God isn't limited by our physical understanding of materials and processes.
Reply Quote
2
JamiesChallengeCard
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Enviroag02 • 6:09a, 4/7/26
Enviroag02 said:
A supernatural process which can't be explained or recreated today. God isn't limited by our physical understanding of materials and processes.

Thanks for the great discussion, hopefully this piqued some interest. The ultimate question isn't whether or not you believe in the Shroud, it's whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Just the discussion of what Jesus went through and seeing an extremely accurate visual really helped bring that home to me this Easter and I pray it did for you all as well.

The truth is there is plenty of evidence for Jesus' life and resurrection outside this shroud. This podcast also helped make some other things make sense, like why Joseph of Arimathea let Jesus use his tomb. I didn't know about bone boxes and only needing them a year. I always assumed Joseph planned to go get another tomb for his eventual death. And how the man saying Jesus, let me bury my father first makes more sense and less insensitive when its a year long process and not just a few days.

Lots of good nuggets in the podcast.

I mentioned this in my Sunday school class and the discussion turned to 'why do you think people don't believe the evidence out there of Jesus?'

The answer is simple. Its easier to pretend Jesus didn't exist than to face the fact that he did. Because the real, risen, fully man, fully God Jesus demands you surrender to Him or reject Him.
Reply Quote
4
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Enviroag02 • 6:10a, 4/7/26
Enviroag02 said:
So if it's a forgery, how is the image there without the use of paint, pigments, or dyes in a way could only have been created by a very short high intense energy burst? How is the imagine only on the surface with no wicking underneath? It can't be recreated even today. Also more recent dating methods place it first century. X ray diffraction, FTIR spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Also if you are going with the "3 independent labs" story to bolster the argument it would hold up if all the 3 labs analyzed different parts of the shroud, but they didn't. They all analyzed the same piece, the same piece which showed evidence of repair and severe environmental contamination. They were three labs but they were by no means scientifically independent analyses.

What is the non radiocarbon evidence that it's medieval?


The labs took extensive care to ensure it wasn't a repair and wasn't contaminated. They took what the Church allowed them to take. It's not like they just chose a spot so they could debunk the Shroud. Everything else you're claiming is made with a suspicious lack of actual evidence. It's just repeated ad nauseum by apologists without acknowledging how the physical picture is a biologically impossible human, unless Jesus was quite deformed.

Studies have been done demonstrating the presence of dyes and painted material, the weave of the cloth is common in the Middle Ages but wholly uncommon and never used for burials in the 1st century, and any dating to the 1st century includes absurd caveats such as needing climate control to preserve the image. Additionally, the "study" dating the Shroud to the 1st century used the same samples the labs used for radiocarbon dating. So which was it, was it a medieval repair or an authentic sample?
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JamiesChallengeCard • 6:12a, 4/7/26
Quote:
I mentioned this in my Sunday school class and the discussion turned to 'why do you think people don't believe the evidence out there of Jesus?'

The answer is simple. It's easier to pretend Jesus didn't exist than to face the fact that he did. Because the real, risen, fully man, fully God Jesus demands you surrender to Him or reject Him


Sorry, but this is just absurd begging the question. I'm not aware of any non-Christians here saying Jesus didn't exist. The evidence you claim is not as strong as you think it is. If you believe it, cool. But it's not as foolproof as you assume.
Reply Quote
2
JamiesChallengeCard
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 6:17a, 4/7/26
Sapper Redux said:
Quote:
I mentioned this in my Sunday school class and the discussion turned to 'why do you think people don't believe the evidence out there of Jesus?'

The answer is simple. It's easier to pretend Jesus didn't exist than to face the fact that he did. Because the real, risen, fully man, fully God Jesus demands you surrender to Him or reject Him


Sorry, but this is just absurd begging the question. I'm not aware of any non-Christians here saying Jesus didn't exist. The evidence you claim is not as strong as you think it is. If you believe it, cool. But it's not as foolproof as you assume.

I meant this as a more general statement, not anyone particular on this thread.
Reply Quote
JamiesChallengeCard
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 6:19a, 4/7/26
Sapper Redux said:
Enviroag02 said:
So if it's a forgery, how is the image there without the use of paint, pigments, or dyes in a way could only have been created by a very short high intense energy burst? How is the imagine only on the surface with no wicking underneath? It can't be recreated even today. Also more recent dating methods place it first century. X ray diffraction, FTIR spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Also if you are going with the "3 independent labs" story to bolster the argument it would hold up if all the 3 labs analyzed different parts of the shroud, but they didn't. They all analyzed the same piece, the same piece which showed evidence of repair and severe environmental contamination. They were three labs but they were by no means scientifically independent analyses.

What is the non radiocarbon evidence that it's medieval?


The labs took extensive care to ensure it wasn't a repair and wasn't contaminated. They took what the Church allowed them to take. It's not like they just chose a spot so they could debunk the Shroud. Everything else you're claiming is made with a suspicious lack of actual evidence. It's just repeated ad nauseum by apologists without acknowledging how the physical picture is a biologically impossible human, unless Jesus was quite deformed.

Studies have been done demonstrating the presence of dyes and painted material, the weave of the cloth is common in the Middle Ages but wholly uncommon and never used for burials in the 1st century, and any dating to the 1st century includes absurd caveats such as needing climate control to preserve the image. Additionally, the "study" dating the Shroud to the 1st century used the same samples the labs used for radiocarbon dating. So which was it, was it a medieval repair or an authentic sample?

Do you have references to the studies of dyes and painted materials present? Everything to this point I've seen has shown otherwise to that's big claim.
Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JamiesChallengeCard • 6:42a, 4/7/26
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar00171a004

Research done a decade before the carbon dating identified pigments commonly used in 14th century paintings.
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Enviroag02 • 7:58a, 4/7/26
AG
Enviroag02 said:
A supernatural process which can't be explained or recreated today. God isn't limited by our physical understanding of materials and processes.


It's really not. The image is just plain wrong. The historical record notes it as a forgery created by an "ingenious method". The historical record, the dating, and the image being wrong are utterly and completely damning.

Everything else is wild supposition
Reply Quote
1
Thaddeus73
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:06a, 4/7/26
AG
Atheists say "Show us the science and we'll believe!" So, we show them the 3D image of Christ on His burial shroud that took 34 trillion watts of electricity for 1/40th of a billionth of a second to produce, and they say, 'what else you got!"

Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and the shroud of Turin is proof positive that He did.
Reply Quote
6
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thaddeus73 • 11:13a, 4/7/26
AG
You didn't show that. That's wild speculation. But assuming that Jesus magic blasted the shroud as you say, why is the image wrong?
Reply Quote
1
LimpinM
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:15a, 4/7/26
AG
I don't think Wikipedia is going to be a very unbiased source in regard to Christian information, just my opinion. I agree that there are many reasons believe in the Resurrection of Christ without the need for the Shroud of Turin to be the true burial cloth of Jesus. But keep an open mind and watch this video. It is very compelling and will debunk some of the myths stated previously.


Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LimpinM • 12:06p, 4/7/26
Why should a professor of theology be considered more of an expert than the actual experts who have analyzed the Shroud?
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Thaddeus73 • 12:08p, 4/7/26
Thaddeus73 said:
Atheists say "Show us the science and we'll believe!" So, we show them the 3D image of Christ on His burial shroud that took 34 trillion watts of electricity for 1/40th of a billionth of a second to produce, and they say, 'what else you got!"

Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and the shroud of Turin is proof positive that He did.

Except we've been shown the science and it was a piece of impressive medieval art. You should look again at the actual image. If that is Jesus, he would have looked like a hideously deformed man with microcephaly.
Reply Quote
1
LimpinM
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 2:16p, 4/7/26
AG
Why don't you at least watch the video before you reply.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.