Shroud of Turin, Book of Mormon

[Athetotheist]

It's being argued in another thread* that although the Christian Bible contains inconsistencies and is therefore not inerrant, it can still be trusted because the Turin cloth constitutes evidence of its veracity.

As I asked in the other thread:

The Christian Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead. The Book of Mormon says that Jesus rose from the dead. So if the Turin cloth says that Jesus rose from the dead, how does it corroborate the Christian Bible but not the Book of Mormon?

*The individual making this argument is not LDS.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think I'll put my theist hat on. But it'll be a non denominational one. I would say (with some credibility) that the shroud looks like the body of a crucified man. Anatomically and historically convincing. Even to the swatch of hair in a correctly Nazirite but not notably Christian length. That said, there are discussions about the about the anatomy. The shroud is not wrap - around which suggests (at best) a temporary burial, and I am doubtful about the attempts to claim the image as a miracle flash rather than a contact image.

I do have suspicions about the bloodstains, which look clumsy and I suspect were added later to get the sheet to agree with John's gospel, which is more than you can say for the synoptics who know of no spear in the side (1). In fact I give it more credit that any of the gospels, which are full of errors, omissions and contradictions.

So, while I do find the shroud interesting though I am no more likely to fall to my knees and invite Jesus into my hart because of it than because of NDEs and Watchmaker apologetics, I follow it with something of the interest with which I follow the James Welliscope - instigated overturning of the BB theory. Perhaps Because IF the shroud is the body - clout of the historic Jesus, it confirms what the gospels suggest - someone removed a body which might not even have been dead (see the claims of movement in the image - though these people see the non -Jewish eye coins with wrong inscriptions on, too) so It does not have to confirm a divine resurrection, though the believers want to force it onto us, and certainly not any particular denomination, none of which, I would risk my pension on, really understand the gospels.

The name of the game is, keep watching, but don't sign up to anything, just yet.

(1) the Lirey pilgrim badge may explain the disparity in arm lengths - but indicates that in Medieval times the bloodstain wasn't there, or they wouldn't know the position of the lower arm. Which makes the Expert pronouncement of Bloodstains suspicious, as well as claiming to get residue from scorch marks which is what the image supposedly is.

[otseng]

The Book of Mormon was written in 1830.

It was first published in March 1830 by Joseph Smith as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

There are many books that mention the resurrection of Jesus. But that doesn't mean they all should be considered reliable and authoritative just because they include the resurrection narrative.

What about the Urantia?

SOON after the burial of Jesus on Friday afternoon, the chief of the archangels of Nebadon, then present on Urantia, summoned his council of the resurrection of sleeping will creatures and entered upon the consideration of a possible technique for the restoration of Jesus.

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-st ... surrection

What about Bahá’í?

For example, from the inception of the mission of Jesus - may peace be upon Him - till the day of His ascension was the resurrection of Moses. For during that period the Revelation of God shown forth through the appearance word punished by His word everyone who did not believe; inasmuch as God's testimony for that Day was that which He solemnly affirmed in the Gospel.
the Báb, Selections From the Writings of the Báb, p.106-8

Or what about all these books that mention Jesus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_about_Jesus

For any work to be considered historically reliable, the criteria is not if one of the major claims is true, but all the major claims in the work are true. This goes with the Book of Mormon or any other religious text, including the Bible.

[Athetotheist]

The Book of Mormon was written in 1830.

It was first published in March 1830 by Joseph Smith as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

There are many books that mention the resurrection of Jesus. But that doesn't mean they all should be considered reliable and authoritative just because they include the resurrection narrative.

What about the Urantia?

SOON after the burial of Jesus on Friday afternoon, the chief of the archangels of Nebadon, then present on Urantia, summoned his council of the resurrection of sleeping will creatures and entered upon the consideration of a possible technique for the restoration of Jesus.

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-st ... surrection

What about Bahá’í?

For example, from the inception of the mission of Jesus - may peace be upon Him - till the day of His ascension was the resurrection of Moses. For during that period the Revelation of God shown forth through the appearance word punished by His word everyone who did not believe; inasmuch as God's testimony for that Day was that which He solemnly affirmed in the Gospel.
the Báb, Selections From the Writings of the Báb, p.106-8

Or what about all these books that mention Jesus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_about_Jesus

For any work to be considered historically reliable, the criteria is not if one of the major claims is true, but all the major claims in the work are true. This goes with the Book of Mormon or any other religious text, including the Bible.

How do you justify such a hyperliteral reading of those texts?

[Athetotheist]

But that doesn't mean they all should be considered reliable and authoritative just because they include the resurrection narrative.

There are four resurrection narratives, one in each gospel. If the glaring inconsistencies between them can be dismissed, why can't the inconsistencies between them and the texts of other religions be dismissed?