Re: Inconsistency on Shroud vs. Genesis.

Moorad Alexanian (
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:37:41 -0400

I am not sure that the physical evidence on the shroud would be quite
"natural." For instance, would a physical examination of Lazarus after his
resurrection show any evidence of his death and resurrection? I do not know.
I cannot exclude the possibility that such an examination would have shown
something different from Lazarus before his death. Science likes
Markovian processes but it may be that memory of the past is needed to
explain some physical evidence. As a body of knowledge science deals only
with the physical data. As a way of knowing science excludes man as a
detector of the spiritual. Man needs the spiritual to understand the
totality of his experiences. At times I think God wants to baffle us into


-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <>
To: Moorad Alexanian <>
Cc: <>; <>
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Inconsistency on Shroud vs. Genesis.

>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>> I think the scientific study of the Shroud is good science and should be
>> encouraged. If there is no scientific explanation on how the image got
>> the cloth, then there may be an explanation which lies outside science.
>> After all there has never been an event of a cloth surrounding a dead
>> and leaving a mark on it on resurrection. Then we can speak of whether
>> body was Christ's or not.
> OK. But it also is not _de fide_ that something beyond the capabilities
>of natural processes happened _to the shroud_ when Jesus was raised. So
the shroud
>& its image itself might be quite "natural" while providing strong evidence
for Jesus'
>crucifixion & rather weaker evidence that something unusual happened to his
> Shalom,
> George
>George L. Murphy