Sacra Sindone

The Shroud of  Turin

Astonishing Facts

Here below is an web extract about the facts of  the Shroud, which throws more authenticity to the relic in St. John the Baptist Cathedral in Turin. I will be updating my own personal experiences of the relic, which i am visiting in a fortnight, as God permits.

Shroud Description

The cloth

The Shroud of Turin is a single piece of linen cloth measuring about 14 feet by 3½ feet. The weave is a 3 over 1 herringbone weave. The Shroud is bloodstained and shows faint ventral and dorsal images of a man who, by the wounds that are visible, appears to have been crucified. He seems to be in burial repose.

The bloodstains

The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin. Numerous tests confirm this.

The images

The Shroud of Turin’s images are superficial and fully contained within a thin layer of starch fractions and saccharides that coats the outermost fibers of the Shroud. The color is a caramel-like substance, probably the product of an amino/carbonyl reaction. Where there is no image, the carbohydrate coating is clear. There is also a very faint image of the face on the reverse side of the Shroud of Turin which lines up with the image on the front of the cloth. There is no image content between the two superficial image layers indicating that nothing soaked through to form the image on the other side.

Until recently, it was widely believed that the images on the Shroud of Turin were produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the linen fibers. This is incorrect. The coating, whether imaged or clear, can be reduced with diimide or removed with adhesive leaving clear cellulose fiber.

The images as they appear on the Shroud of Turin are said to be negative because when photographed the resulting negative is a positive image.

The Turin Shroud was examined with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, thermography, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser­microprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments (paint, dye or stains) or artist’s media was found anywhere on the Shroud of Turin.

 

Explanation form a skeptic journalist!!!- Ray Rogers

No One Can Explain Shroud of Turin Pictures of Jesus

I must admit, with some embarrassment, that until a few years ago I knew nothing about the Shroud of Turin. And when I first did read about it, while on a flight to Miami, I laughed out loud, something I rarely do alone in the company of strangers.

How ridiculous, I remember thinking. How can anyone think the Shroud of Turin is real: the actual burial shroud of Jesus? The fact that the Shroud of Turin has an image on it, believed to be a picture of Christ, made it seem beyond preposterous.

Essay at: God, Christ: Questions & Faith

I was reading Desire of the Everlasting Hills, Thomas Cahill’s book about the apostolic era. Having enjoyed Cahill’s previous best seller, The Gifts of the Jews, I thought I would enjoy his newest book. And I was enjoying it. Suddenly, with no logical reason that I could see, Cahill introduced the Shroud of Turin. It might have been a treasure of the early church, he thought. That is when I laughed — out loud.

I remember being surprised that I knew so little about the Shroud of Turin. Then in my mid-fifties, I had always been an avid reader of history, particularly early church history. I could not recall ever reading anything about the Shroud of Turin. It was so far from being something I cared about that I never paid it any attention. Thus, when in 1979, Walter McCrone, a world renowned forensic microscopist, claimed that he found paint on a few Shroud fibers, I didn’t notice the story. McCrone, having noted that the shroud had suddenly appeared in 1356 in the hands of a French knight who would not say where it came from and that a local bishop soon thereafter claimed that an artist “cunningly painted” it, declared it a painted fake.  Had I noticed the story in 1979, I would have certainly accepted his conclusion. It would have made sense to me.

A decade later, when three radiocarbon dating laboratories, using carbon 14 dating, supposedly proved the Shroud of Turin was medieval, I didn’t notice. Had I, I would have certainly accepted the conclusion. I trust science. I did then, and more than ever, I do now.

Moreover, I am naturally skeptical about any relic with a historical footprint in medieval Europe. The year 1356 was a time of unbridled superstition in demons, witches, magic, and miracle-working relics. It was a time of frequent famine and the Black Death plague. It was a time of extreme economic and political turbulence and of war. The same year that the Shroud was first displayed publicly in the small French village of Lirey, nearby, at the battle of Poitiers, England’s Black Prince defeated the French and captured King John II. Adding to the political turmoil, the Pope was in Avignon, not Rome. Indicative of the thinking in this age, some believed that the plague was God’s retribution on the whole world because the Pope was not in the eternal city. In this climate of superstition, naiveté and disorder a lucrative market in false relics flourished. And though the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, acknowledged the problem, church authorities did little to curb the market in them. Our knowledge of this time in history rightly conditions us to be suspicious of any relic that might appear in Europe at this time. But I had not noticed its history, either. In metaphoric parlance, the Shroud of Turin was never a blip on my radar screen. And it would have likely remained that way were it not for a single enigmatic fact that Cahill mentioned: the picture on the Shroud of Turin was a negative.

I knew something about the subject of negatives. But rather than marveling at this fact, I doubted it. I was so convinced that the Shroud of Turin was a fake that I doubted the images were negatives. I had to see for myself.

I was certain that no artist, no craftsman, no faker of relics, could possibly paint a negative of a human face. To do so is like trying to write your signature upside down and backwards.  Our minds are programmed for the way we see things in the world; a world where black is black and white is white. It is relatively easy, with talent and training, to paint a picture of what we see in the world. And an artist, if he is imaginative, like Picasso, can alter that perception in stylistic ways. But the one thing he cannot easily do is to perfectly reverse black and white and all the darker and lighter shades of grey while painting a face.

But imagine, for just a moment, that he could. How would he know he had done it correctly without technology to test his results? A more profound questions is why? In an age so undemanding as the medieval, when any sliver of wood could pass as a piece of the “true cross” and any bramble as a piece of the “crown of thorns,” why bother?

Photographic film, invented less than 200 years ago, creates good negative images. And because that is so, it was finally discovered that the shroud image was a negative when it was first photographed in 1898. Along with new scientific-quality photographs, taken in 1978 and again in 2002, extraordinary details were noticed: contusions and anatomical detail only a modern pathologist could understand. Our minds don’t easily see details in negatives. It is beyond preposterous to think that the Shroud of Turin was painted.

Because the picture was a negative, some have speculated that the Shroud of Turin might be a medieval proto-photograph; an invention, if you believe it, that was used only once for a single fourteen-foot long fraud, and never mentioned or used again until it was reinvented in an age of science.  Such speculation is moot.  Scientific data conclusively proves that it is not a photograph.

So entrenched was my skepticism, it would take me a year to change my mind about the Shroud of Turin. I learned that McCrone’s identification of paint was a subjective judgment. More sensitive tests, some undertaken at the National Science Foundation Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska, proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, McCrone was wrong.

Starting in 2003, new evidence began to appear in  secular, peer-reviewed, scientific journals that supported the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity. From these journals we learn that the outermost fibers of the cloth are coated with a layer of starch fractions and various saccharides. In places, the coating has turned into a caramel-like substance, thus forming the images. This suggests a chemical reaction took place. We learn, also, of a faint second image of the face on the backside of the cloth. The second face supports the idea of a chemical reaction and adds more proof that the image is not a work of art or a photograph. And in 2005, we learned that the carbon 14 dating was flawed. In fact we learned that the cloth could very well be 2000 years old.

History and the Shroud of Turin

As science moved forward, new historical information was coming to light. Indeed, there is evidence that the cloth, now called the Shroud of Turin, really was a treasure of the early church; not the Pauline communities with which we are so familiar, but the Church in the East. Edessa, in the Fertile Crescent of the upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates, was a major city on the Silk Road and undoubtedly one of the earliest Christian communities. If you traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch, you were two thirds of the way to Edessa. Turn left to go to Tarsus, turn right for Edessa. There is some evidence and a strong tradition that Thomas and Thaddeus Jude (Thaddeus of the 70, Thaddeus of Edessa) went to Edessa as early as 33 CE. There is a legend that they carried with them a cloth bearing an image of Jesus. In 544 CE, a cloth, with an image believed to be Jesus, was found above one of Edessa’s gates in the walls of the city, a cloth that Gregory Referendarius of Constantinople would later describe with a full length image and bloodstains. There is strong evidence that the Edessa cloth is in fact the Shroud of Turin. Numerous writings, drawings, icons, pollen spores and limestone dust attest to this.

How curious these poetic words from the apocryphal Thomasine literature of Edessa seem. They are from the “Hymn of the Pearl,” a poem arguably as old as the first half of the first century. As a figure of speech, Jesus, in the poem, is musing in the first person:

But all in the moment I faced it / This robe seemed to me like a mirror,
And in it I saw my whole self / Moreover I faced myself facing into it.
For we were two together divided / Yet in one we stood in one likeness. 

These words resonate with the two head-to-head images we see seemingly reflected on the Shroud of Turin:  like a mirror . . .  my whole self . . . faced myself facing into it . . . we were two together divided . . . stood in one likeness.

Carbon 14 and the Shroud of Turin

The big issue was always the carbon 14 dating that seemed to show that the Shroud of Turin was medieval. Researchers, who were not experts in radiocarbon dating, but nonetheless convinced the Shroud of Turin was authentic, tried to explain why the scientific dating was incorrect. These explanations – one was that a fire in 1532 changed the age of the Shroud, another was that a bioplastic-polymer growing on the Shroud contaminated the sample – lacked scientific credibility. Scientists, who were experts in radiocarbon dating, rejected these explanations.

Read: Biggest Radiocarbon Dating Mistake Ever

In January, 2005, things changed.  An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was flawed because the sample used was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the Shroud of Turin was much older. The Shroud of Turin was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old. 

Peer-reviewed scientific journals are important. It is the way scientists normally report scientific findings and theories. Articles submitted to such journals are carefully reviewed for adherence to scientific methods and the absence of speculation and polemics. Reviews are often anonymous. Facts are checked and formulas are examined. The review procedure sometimes takes months to complete, as it did for Rogers. 

It was Nature, another prestigious peer-reviewed journal, that in 1989, reported that carbon 14 dating ‘proved’ the shroud was a hoax. Rogers found no fault with the article in Nature. Nor did he find fault with the quality of the carbon 14 dating. He defended it. What Rogers found was that the carbon 14 sample was taken from a mended area of the Shroud that contained significant amounts of newer material. This was not the fault of the radiocarbon laboratories. But it did show that the carbon dating was invalid.  

Immediately after the publication of Rogers’ paper, Nature published a commentary by scientist-journalist Philip Ball. “Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game,” he wrote, “but don’t imagine that they will convince anyone . . . The scientific study of the Turin Shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it.”  Later in his commentary Ball added, “And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.” 

Ball, who understood the chemistry of the Shroud of Turin images, rejected a notion popularized by conspiracy theorists that Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud’s image using primitive photography. He called the idea flaky. He also debunked the sometimes reported speculation that the image was “burned into the cloth by some kind of release of nuclear energy” from Jesus’ body. This he said was wild.  

Almost all serious Shroud of Turin researchers agree with Ball on these points. When flaky and wild ideas appear in newspaper articles or on television, as they often do, scientists cringe. Rogers referred to those who held such views as being part of the “lunatic fringe” of Shroud research. But Rogers was just as critical of those who, without the benefit of solid science, declared the Shroud of Turin a fake. They, too, were part of the lunatic fringe.  

The idea that the Shroud of Turin had been mended in the area from which the carbon 14 samples had been taken had been floating around for some time. But no one paid much attention. In 1998, Turin’s scientific adviser, Piero Savarino, suggested, “extraneous substances found on the samples and the presence of extraneous thread (left over from ‘invisible mending’ routinely carried on in the past on parts of the cloth in poor repair)” might have accounted for an error in the carbon 14 dating. Longtime shroud researchers Sue Benford and Joe Marino independently developed the same idea and explored it with several textile experts and Ronald Hatfield of the radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic. The art of invisible reweaving, Benford and Marino discovered, was commonly used in the Middle Ages to repair tapestries. Why not the shroud, they thought? They believed they saw evidence of it. 

But the skeptically minded Rogers did not agree. He had already debunked every other argument so far offered to explain why the carbon 14 dating might be wrong. According to Ball, “Rogers thought that he would be able to ‘disprove [the mending] theory in five minutes’.” Instead he found clear evidence of discreet mending. He also showed, with chemistry, that the shroud was at least thirteen hundred years old. And he proved, beyond any doubt, that the sample used in 1988 was chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. The samples were invalid. The 1988 tests were thus meaningless. 

In words that seem strange in a scientific journal that once had bragging rights to claim that the shroud was not authentic, Ball wrote: “And of course ‘authenticity’ is not really a scientific issue at all here: even if there were compelling evidence that the shroud was made in first-century Palestine, that would not even come close to establishing that the cloth bears the imprint of Christ.”   

Ball, who was familiar with the evidence, had confirmed what all shroud researchers had been saying for years: the images were not painted. Moreover, a 2003 article in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Melanoidins by Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, a chemistry professor at the University of Milan, demonstrated that the images were in fact a chemical caramel-like darkening of an otherwise clear starch and polysaccharide coating on some of the shroud’s fibers. They suggested a natural phenomenon might be the cause. If this could be proven, the images could be explained in non-miraculous, scientific terms.  

Shroud of Turin Second Face

The Shroud of Turin images may not the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London. Using mathematical image enhancement technology, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This has since been confirmed with other software. The implications are explosive and exciting.

This supports a hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin’s image is the result of a very natural, complex chemical reaction between amines (ammonia derivatives) emerging from a body and saccharides within a carbohydrate residue that covers the fibers of the Shroud of Turin.  The color producing chemical process is called a Maillard reaction. This is fully discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Melanoidins, a journal of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (EU, Volume 4, 2003).

The proposal, by chemist Raymond E. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan, is hypothetical. But the chemical and physical nature of the Shroud of Turin’s images is pure scientific fact.

Imagine slicing a human hair lengthwise, from end to end, into 100 long thin slices; each slice one-tenth the width of a single red blood cell. The images on the Shroud of Turin, at their thickest, are this thin. In selective places, an otherwise clear layer of starch fractions and saccharides, a mere 200 to 600 nanometers thick, as thin as the wall of a soap bubble, has undergone a chemical change into a caramel colored substance. Spectral and chemical analysis reveal that the chromophores of the Shroud of Turin’s images are complex, conjugated carbon bonds.

Whatever the Turin Shroud is, it is not a medieval fake relic.

Just as modern Christianity is a tapestry of diverse traditions stretched taut between the polarities of unwavering biblical literalism and unbridled modern revisionism, modern beliefs and arguments about the Shroud of Turin are drawn tight between those who seek from it some proof of the Resurrection and those who are rigidly skeptical. Could it be that the answer is a via media, a middle way, a reasoned embrace of the facts that implies a resurrection but does not prove or define it. For a burial shroud to survive, the tomb had to be open. There is just enough confusion to preserve the freedom to believe short of certainty: meaning faith. 

If the Shroud of Turin is genuine, it presents us with more mystery and paradox than clarity. That, however, is not so perplexing as it is exciting in an age of diverse beliefs and traditions.

 Ray Rogers Shroud of Turin FAQ – 2004

 

The Shroud of Turin images may not be the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London. Using mathematical image enhancement technology, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This has since been confirmed with other software. The implications are explosive and exciting.

Frank Tribbe writes: “The scientific, historical, and other technical data that I refer to as supporting authenticity do unequivocally support the probability of a first-century or very early date for this Shroud and its enigmatic images, and as having originated in the Near East (likely Palestine). Science has not proven (and in my opinion will never categorically prove) this to be specifically the Shroud of Jesus of Galilee. Believers will always need a small leap of faith from the pedestal of knowledge Shroud research has provided. But that research has established that the Shroud image cannot have been man-made by any technique of art or science recorded throughout history, nor by any natural process ever observed or deduced. And all alternative theoretical or suspected methods of image-creation suggested by critics have been carefully and totally demolished by Shroud scientists as not possible. As to ‘authenticity,’ we know this Shroud with its images is not a phony, a fake, a fraud, an imitation, a copy, to any degree or in any respect; it was not made in the past thousand years; a fourteenth-century origin is virtually impossible. Science still does not know how the images were ‘imprinted’ on the Shroud.”

New Information New Material: Why an Atheist Thinks the Shroud of Turin is Real

Inscriptions: Barbara Frale, a Vatican researcher claims to have found inscriptions on the Shroud that prove it is authentic. Most Shroud scholars are highly skeptical, with good reason. More/a>

The Garlaschelli Fake: Luigi Garlaschelli should be congratulated on the best fake shroud to date. But it is not very much like the real shroud regardless of what was reported in the media. More

Turin 2010: The Italian Archdiocese of Turin has announced that the Shroud of Turin, which many believe is the burial cloth of Christ, will be on public display April 10-May 23, 2010.

Carbon Dating: A team of nine scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has confirmed that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is wrong. See the Fact Check and Carbon Dating Tabs at Shroud of Turin Blog. Also see Biggest Mistake in Carbon Dating Truth Meter

• A scientist in Italy has reproduced the shroud.

     MORE ==>
  Simply False. Luigi Garlaschelli should be congratulated on the best fake shroud to date. But it is not chemically, physically or optically like the real shroud. More

• Carbon 14 dating: the shroud is medieval.

     MORE
  Misleading. New, rigorously peer-reviewed scientific findings, demonstrate that the single sample shared by three laboratories was not part of the shroud’s cloth. Conclusion: the carbon dating is not valid.

Key Pages

• Open Letter to Journalists

  The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma Read about the conference at Ohio State University

  The Biggest Mistake in Radiocarbon Dating   A story reported by the New York Times, BBC, AP, Nature, Discovery Channel and National Geographic.

  Shroud of Turin for Journalists Topics include:

  1. The Shroud of Turin described

  2. Unexplained images on the Shroud

  3. Early Shroud of Turin history

  4. The radio-carbon 14 dating was flawed

  5. The 3D mystery of the Shroud images

  6. The optical illusion caused by banding

  7. Christ Pantocrator icon and the Shroud

  8. Voices from the past, what they mean

  9. Forensic pathology and the Shroud

  Acheiropoietos Jesus Images in Constantinople: the Documentary Evidence by Daniel C. Scavone.

  The Shroud of Caiaphas: A forensic science mystery.

  Shroud of Turin for Journalists: How new peer-reviewed science redefines the controversy. 

  New Tests Prove 1988 Carbon 14 Dating Invalid: Shroud of Turin Shown to be Much Older.2005: Thermochimica Acta   (Volume 425 pp. 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)  –  Available on Elsevier BV’s ScienceDirect® and the American Chemical Society’s ChemPort

  New Analysis Confirms Second Face: Raises Questions About Other Images on the Shroud

  Why No One Can Fully Explain the Pictures on the Shroud of Turin: Why nothing makes sense.

  The Ray Rogers FAQ  Statements of fact that can be proved from the scientific observations.

  Mozarabic Rite What does a 6th century rite from the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain have to do with the Shroud of Turin? A summary of Shroud history.

  Great Links:  New information on many sites and streaming video interviews and the 3rd International Dallas Conference with  11 new papers.

  New Book: The Rape of the Shroud: by archeologist William Meacham. 

  What’s Wrong with the Shadow Shroud?  You can make a glass of nerve toxin look like lemonade. That doesn’t make it lemonade. The Shadow Shroud is that much unlike the real Shroud of Turin.

  Shroud of Turin and the Skeptical Inquirer: “Imagine slicing a human hair lengthwise into 100 long thin slices, each slice one-tenth the width of a single red blood cell. The images on the Shroud of Turin, at their thickest, are this thin.”

  The Second Face  What does an announcement by the Institute of Physics in London mean? 

  Shroud of Turin Facts Gallery Selected facts in pictures. 

  Chemistry  What do we know about the chemical nature of the Shroud of Turin images?

  Carbon 14 Tests More on the carbon 14 testing.

  Image Formation  Were they created by 1) a faker of false relics, 2) a miraculous event, or 3) some perfectly natural phenomenon?

  FAQ  Facts and dubious claims

  Shroud of Turin FAQ  New FAQ resource . . . evolving

  Shroud Science Group WIKI  New resource from about 100 researchers . . . evolving

Read Full Post »

SERVANT of LOVE continued…

My beloved, let us come out of our foolish thoughts like, “The Lord has anointed me today and this would be enough for me to be saved”. We should realize to live as     St. Paul says, “The Lord comforts us in our sorrows …., so the way we bear our sufferings should give you the same firm heart to strive through your tribulations” (2 Corinthians 13:11).

There is no Christian life without trials. The Lord did not cheat us. He did not say it will all be easy and cosy if you follow me. Instead He said, “you will have a tough hard life, you would be hated in my name…, however if you would stay in me you will be blessed, more so abundantly if you come through your testifying periods”. He had clearly advised us to carry His cross and ours too if we were to follow Him.

If we do not display this qualities, but moan and groan against Him in our difficult times, then please do realise the world is watching us. We are no more witnesses in Him if we grumble. St. Paul says, like him if one would leave behind all worldly stuff then it would be better to serve. It is quite true with marriage too. It is better to serve as a monk. However if one would find this hard and may lead to sin, it is better in his interest to serve the lord as a laity.

g) Miracles/ Signs

Let us not ridicule this! Let us not think this involves healing the sick and working out miracles. Good qualities, blissful thoughts and services, loving caring attitudes are the true signs of God in us. Though the Holy Spirit heals the sick, works out miracles… as the Spirit resides in man, his actions and deeds have a direct bearing on these matters.

There are ministers who do not trust God, His works, Biblical facts, signs and miracles. Some do have the pride they discern all this as they have been masters in theology. As many ministers do not have Divine spiritual experiences all these happens. However they should realise they are here to nurture the faith not to destroy it.

Ministers, who have not seen, felt, experienced, learnt or could not understand the mysteries of spiritual leadings should better remain silent. They should not retreat to criticize acts which they can not explain, but rather admit they do not know these matters. They should not proclaim this is fiction. Instead if one would pray to know these matters, God will truly reveal them.

St. Thomas’ act gives us this wisdom. He wanted to probe Jesus’ wounds, which Jesus obliged and thereafter he never faltered. In fact his faith got very strong, now he can not rebuke the resurrection of Jesus. Like wise those who would like to know the fact and if they would ask Him, He will provide that.

There are ministers who preach about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is quite sad some of them had not cherished these gifts in themselves. Hence it is quite unfortunate few of them start to create divisions, confuse the community and work against the Kingdom of God. Some go on to criticize personally and derogate the whole mission.

It is quite a mystery to know these derogatory ministers who believe in heaven by faith rather than having seen it, do not apply the same rules, when they want to judge the working of the Holy Spirit. They fail to recognize that, they are subjecting themselves to eternal condemnation for hell, when they speak against the Holy Spirit.

Instead if these ministers would try to work with people, who have the gifts, then if they believe they would attain these. If one would gain this, they could act even more powerfully.

h) Being Righteous

This is quite important and is based on living as a witness. Wicked attitudes, with inability to pursue a good ministry, place an axe right at the root of the mission. Preaching’s without practising is unfruitful, so ministers should be careful in what they preach and should practise them. If they can’t do this they should preach only what they practise.

I would like to remind Luke 12:48, which says expectations are based on what you have been blessed. The more blessed or responsible persons are held more accountable with their deeds. All missions’ and ministers works revolve around this, so they are very different from the normal community as they will be held more accountable. The title and aforesaid verses are quotes to St. Peter which we have reflected to meditate deeply.

2) The Laity

The laity has as much responsibility as the ministers. Let us see the qualities in the Early day Churches.

a)      Looking out for God

b)      Praise and Worship

c)       Divine fear

d)      Spiritual experiences

e)      Listening to ministers

f)       Community and Sharing

g)      Helping attitudes…..

a)  Looking out for God

“Come close to God, so He will come closer to you” is a famous verse in the book of James. “I am knocking at your door, whoever chooses to open it, I will come with the Father and so we may dine together,” says Jesus. As we meditate this we know our Father is in search of us. What we need to do now is just to listen to His call. Whoever searches Him at dawn finds Him generously with abundant blessings. Serving children, orphans and the vulnerable will give the same pleasure as serving the God.

b) Praise and Worship

We know how Jericho fort crumbled on praising the Lord. The forces of the demons are crushed too, as we raise our praises, while their empty promises and temptations are revealed. Hence we will be able to avoid these temptations. Praise also gets rid of our tiredness, while it sets ablaze the Holy Spirit in us and others. Praise also makes us to realize the Holy Spirit, as He comes as gentle breeze or as snowstorm.

c) Divine fear

Fear in God starts with wisdom. As God is purer than snow, whoever goes in front of His presence, should purify himself and more so with added responsibilities. This is quite evident from what the God spoke to Moses amidst the burning bush. He said, “You are standing in a Holy place, so remove your footwear as your Lord God is Holy”.

Likewise as our forefathers Adam and Eve committed the first sin, they hid themselves from the presence of God, as they feared to go in front of the Holy Lord.  However before this, they had no hesitation whatsoever, to go in front of Him day after day. So what is clear is the word sin, increases the fear in God. Hence if we would remain sinless, then we could go before Him without fear and guilt, building a stable relationship.

Read Full Post »

SERVANT OF LOVE

I want to reflect on Luke 12:41-48 verses which has got question and answer in it.

Q: Who’s the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their allowance at the proper time?

A: It will be the servant who the master finds doing so when he returns. He will put him in charge of all his possessions (Luke 12:41-48).

Let the love, protection and peace of our Father, who called me as Christ’s servant, be with you all now and forever. The message of this issue to develop our individual Christian lives as given by God. HE urged me to write this especially for the ones, who are working in the name of Jesus to bring out HIS blessings.

All Christians are called into Christ in some way. How happy it is to know that God knew and has called me, even before he formed me in my mother’s womb. Moreover we should be proud to call ourselves Christians, for Christ himself had said, ‘No one can come to me unless the Father draws him’.

This relationship is the main root for us to know about him and for him to know about us. Our Christian life is being built from this. We are given utmost responsibility to work in this relationship. This applies to whoever’s working for God as ministers, irrespective of being chosen either for priesthood or as laity.

When you analyze deeply as St. Paul has written to Romans, the main duty given for us is to share our faith to one another. Even today we should do the same during masses and prayer meetings. This is what all Christians did in the beginning. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (The fellowship of the Believers- Acts 2:42-47). When I was reading this, the Spirit of God revealed some truths.

1. To the servants of God.

As servants of God, calling is very important and so our life gets responsible, debatable and accountable and comes into closer scrutiny by everyone. This is because the root of witness and testimony lies with us. This is paramount important which is quite clearly explained in the Bible as the duties of ministers.

a. Being with God.

Relationship with Christ is the cornerstone for the work of a servant. Trying to know more about Christ, spending time on prayers to have conversations with him and reading Bible to meditate his words are very important. You can’t work for God unless you have a special relationship with Christ. If not it leads into negative consequences. You must deeply meditate the words of Christ. Ask yourselves each night, whether you have spent time with him at least once. We could do and plan to do many works, but unless you have a relationship with Christ, nothing will be done according to God’s wish. Without finding out what Christ wants to do with you, don’t imagine that his work is done by building churches, schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages and elder’s homes. These works aren’t wrong but you must be absolutely sure if this is what HE wants us to do, if not we spoil our own calling.

b. Breaking Bread (Eucharist).

God has left us the Sacrament of Holy Communion to remind the events from Passover and Christ’s sacrifice in Calvary. This is specially done during masses and Eucharistic blessings. All other holy events and activities centers and revolves around this. Jesus gifted the Holy Communion to us in his last supper as the ultimate symbol of fellowship and sharing, which He expects of His people.

Eucharistic service is Holy and so whoever participates and partakes in it should be Holy too. Whoever handles the Eucharist out of holiness will have no chance to escape from God’s fury. They’ll have to face the same fate as it happened to Judas. Bible says that Satan entered into Judas as soon as he took the bread during the last supper. Jesus says to Judas, ‘Woe to you, who chose puts his hand in this vessel with a filthy mind. It would be better for you if you had not been born”.

c. Praying.

Daniel prayed three times a day towards Jerusalem, with his windows opened. Shadrach, Meshach and Abenedoch were saved from the fire because they worshipped God. You should always have a prayer before your eyes. Pray not only for our spiritual growth but also do prayerful intercessions for all the people of God.

d. Religious Teaching.

Let it be the Sunday message or a conversation about God, you should teach all believers more deeply, clearly and easily in the way they could understand and make use of it. At the same time, don’t just blabber thinking that one is a genius. It’s important to accept if you really don’t know the secrets of Bible. Be humble and learn from others as well. Don’t be too proud to be a servant of God and irritate others. Instead recognize and correct your, their mistakes with love and work to attain spiritual growth.

e. Fellowship.

Try not to run out in a hurry after the celebration and if that is what we do now it should be changed. Think other believers are your family members. You should have a good conversation and try to build the Kingdom of God together with them. In this situation, the relationship between the servants of God and believers should be pure and selfless.

It’s important that others don’t find faults in your friendship and other behaviors. Abusing the state of small children and vulnerable people and having bad relationships with them should be totally avoided. Relationship between the blessed ones mustn’t cross the limit.

Control yourselves knowing that drinking habits and having relationship with women are the baits and traits, which Satan tricks to destroy the servants of God. Those who can’t be like this should back off from working for God. It’s better for the believers to avoid these kinds of people, which they should or else sulphur and fire will fall over on them. This is what happened to Loth’s wife and having relationship with them will bring their sins over you .

Read Full Post »