Shocking relics, solid history: Evidence for Christ’s resurrection keeps mounting



The cornerstone of the Christian faith — the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ — isn’t just a theological claim found in Scripture. An abundance of evidence tied to this miraculous event exists in historical records and relics.

On this episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” Deace speaks with scholar Jeremiah Johnston, author of the recent book “The Jesus Discoveries,” to discuss some of the most fascinating discoveries connected to the life and crucifixion of Christ.

Johnston opens the conversation by displaying an exact replica of the “Codex Vaticanus” — “the oldest, most priceless Bible that we have,” he says, noting that “it was produced in 330 A.D.,” just five years after the Council of Nicea in 325.

“It's in Greek, has the Old and most of the New Testament inside of it, has the mountaintop passages of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Gospels, Paul's epistles … and this is amazing because, again, it shows the great history of our faith,” he adds.

The second artifact Johnston displays is not a replica but an actual "crucifixion nail” from ancient Rome. The 6" square shaft is bent, he says, because the Romans, wanting to “minimize movement but … maximize torment,” would “adjust the nail” during a crucifixion.

“This [nail] shows us that the archaeological testimony of what we read of how Jesus was crucified smacks of complete authenticity,” Johnston exclaims.

The third piece of evidence he displays is an image of an inscribed chalice — often referred to as the "Magician’s Cup" — that was discovered by renowned underwater archaeologist Franck Goddio during excavations in the submerged ancient city of Alexandra in the Egyptian Nile Delta in 2008.

“This is the first archaeological find that we have with the name of Jesus on it,” says Johnston.

The cup reads, “Through Christ the Enchanter.” Johnston explains the meaning behind the phrase: “Remember your Gospels. Jesus is made famous, first and foremost, before his resurrection because he could heal diseases; he could exorcise demons; and no one was more effective than Jesus. So even all around the Mediterranean world, people realize, ‘Hey, if I insert this name Jesus, powerful things happen.’”

Johnston’s book chronicles the top 10 historical discoveries that “prove and corroborate the truth claims of Christianity,” but even those examples just scratch the surface.

“It turns out that we can actually build 65 facts about the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus before I ever crack open the Bible,” he says.

“If we can't believe that Jesus died and rose again based on the evidence, then please don't believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, because we have more evidence for the resurrection than we do for Caesar crossing the Rubicon.”

To hear more of Deace and Johnston’s conversation, watch the video above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Shroud of Turin: One hidden detail that will baffle skeptics — and inspire Christians



What if the greatest mystery of Christianity carried a hidden detail — one so small that it escaped notice for centuries?

The Shroud of Turin — a 14-foot linen cloth many believe to bear the image of Jesus — has been scrutinized by scientists, historians, and skeptics alike. Yet within its faint imprint lies something almost invisible: the outline of human teeth, just behind the lower lip.

Most analyses and descriptions of the Shroud of Turin's facial image, including scientific studies and expert forensic examinations, describe the lips as closed.

To most, it might seem trivial. To a surgeon trained in facial anatomy, it changes everything. This detail not only deepens the enigma of the Shroud but also raises profound questions about life, death, and resurrection.

Providential encounter

When I first encountered the Shroud 25 years ago, I was at one of the lowest points in my life. Though I had built a long career as a surgeon, teacher, and researcher, something was missing. Then, by what I can only call providence, I found myself in Turin, Italy, during a rare public exhibition of the Shroud.

Seated just 30 feet away, I was startled by what I saw. The cloth bore the image of a crucified man, marked with bloodstains on the scalp, hands, feet, and side. My curiosity was piqued, and my journey into Shroud research began.

Years later, I returned to the Shroud through high-definition black-and-white negatives taken during the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project. With the eyes of a surgeon trained in facial anatomy, I saw details that stunned me: a swollen cheek, a fractured nose, and blood trickling from thorn wounds.

Then I noticed something even more remarkable — the faint outline of lower front teeth, visible where closed lips should have concealed them. Most analyses and descriptions of the Shroud of Turin's facial image, including scientific studies and expert forensic examinations, describe the lips as closed.

The teeth of the matter

This observation became the foundation of a paper I recently published, arguing that the Shroud contains an incisal plane — the biting edge of the lower teeth. While earlier researchers claimed to see both upper and lower teeth, I found only the lower visible, likely because the upper were obscured by the mustache and lip. To a trained surgeon’s eye, the evidence is clear.

Joe Marino, one of the world’s most respected Shroud scholars and editor of Shroud.com, commented on my work: “The fact that this dental surgeon believes at least some of the teeth are present is a significant development that could help determine the image-formation process.”

Why does this matter?

An inexplicable image

Because the Shroud continues to defy explanation. In 1978, STURP — a team of physicists, chemists, and imaging specialists — studied the cloth for five days. Their conclusion: The image depicts a real scourged, crucified man, not painted or forged. There is no evidence of pigment, dye, or photograph. Yet no one has been able to explain how the image was made — or to reproduce it.

Some scientists have speculated that a burst of radiant energy, perhaps ultraviolet light or X-radiation, emanated from the body at the moment of the resurrection, leaving behind an imprint not only of external features but even of internal ones, like teeth. If that is true, then what we are seeing on the Shroud is more than an archaeological artifact — it is a witness to the most transformative event in human history.

The implications are staggering. For believers, the Shroud may be the closest thing we have to photographic evidence of the resurrection — the foundational event of Christianity. For skeptics, it remains an enigma, a puzzle that modern science cannot fully explain. Either way, it demands attention.

The presence of teeth in the Shroud image adds weight to the theory that the image was not formed by human hands, but by a supernatural process. It suggests that what happened on that linen two thousand years ago was beyond the reach of ordinary physics or chemistry.

RELATED: Does this new evidence finally debunk the Shroud of Turin once and for all?

Image source: Public domain via Wikipedia Commons

Deeper questions

And that raises deeper questions: What does this cloth mean for us today? What does it tell us about life, death, and eternity?

In an age when science is often treated as the final word, the Shroud remains a paradox: a scientific mystery that points beyond science itself. Even popular culture has taken notice — actor Mel Gibson recently told Joe Rogan he believes the Shroud is authentic. Respected Christian thinkers like Jeremiah J. Johnston are reintroducing its significance to new audiences.

The Shroud is not simply an artifact locked in a cathedral in Turin. It is a challenge to each of us. It forces us to consider the possibility that God entered history, suffered, died, and rose again. It invites us to hope — that light is stronger than darkness, that life conquers death, and that our own lives can find meaning in the One who left His imprint on that cloth.

The faint image of teeth may seem like a small detail. But sometimes it is the smallest details that carry the greatest weight. If even teeth are visible on the Shroud, then perhaps so too is the evidence of resurrection — and with it, the promise of eternal life.

Does this new evidence finally debunk the Shroud of Turin once and for all?



A recently discovered medieval document is being hailed as the earliest written mention of the Shroud of Turin. Its author, Nicole Oresme, the learned Bishop of Lisieux, writing around 1370, claims the Shroud is a forgery. Some have rushed to seize on this fragment as if it were a fatal blow to the Shroud’s authenticity.

But is it?

To treat this new discovery as proof that the Shroud is a forgery means ignoring the massive wealth of evidence that indicates its authenticity.

Historian Nicolas Sarzeaud’s recent article uses Oresme’s passage as basis for rejecting the Shroud. However, the facts reveal more fallacy than forgery.

In the ongoing debate about the Shroud’s authenticity, the question is what this discovery actually means. Imagine a set of scales. On one side rests the enormous weight of historical, scientific, and forensic evidence pointing to the Shroud’s authenticity. On the other side, we now place this solitary note from a skeptical medieval bishop.

So does this new discovery tip the balance? The answer is a resounding no — and here's why.

Reason 1: The inexplicable image

Picture yourself in 1370. You live in a pre-scientific, pre-photographic world, and your thoughtful approach to faith makes you skeptical of the mania for relics at that time. You hear reports of a mysterious cloth bearing the image of a crucified man, said to be Jesus.

What would you think? Most likely, your first reaction would be, “Someone must have painted it.” And as a product of his time, that is exactly what Oresme assumed.

But Oresme had no access to modern science — or to the groundbreaking work of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project.

After an exhaustive investigation, STURP concluded that the image was not created by pigment, stain, dye, paint, or any known artistic method. In fact, the image itself isn’t made of any substance that rests on top or is embedded in the weave of the cloth — it is a discoloration of the linen fibers themselves. When the Shroud is backlit, the image disappears, something no painting could replicate. Even more remarkably, the image is not the result of brush strokes; it is a photographic-negative-like image encoded with three-dimensional information.

This means that whatever makes the image was not deposited on the cloth and that the image was not made by contact with a body, statue, or brush.

Oresme had no framework for scientific thought and how to interpret such a phenomenon. In his world, images came only from the hand of an artist. The Shroud has revealed itself as an exception to the rule. In our world, the Shroud has defied every artistic or technological explanation. What seemed “obvious” in the 14th century has proven scientifically untenable today.

And for historian Sarzeaud, the use of Oresme’s comments strikes me as strained, particularly when they are presented as if they were direct references to the Shroud itself. The move from a general critique of relics to the assumption that he meant the Shroud is more conjecture than evidence.

Just as telling is Sarzeaud’s reliance on a modern interpretive framework while failing to engage seriously with the textile, historical, and iconographic data that challenge his conclusions.

Reason 2: Corrupt corroboration

In Sarzeaud’s assertion that the Shroud is a forgery, he relies heavily on the previously oldest known mention of the Shroud, which is known as the d’Arcis Memorandum, written around 1390, in which Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, claimed the Shroud was painted. He includes the entire memo as evidence that the Shroud was considered a forgery as soon as it was first exhibited 35 years earlier. Although this is corroboration, Sarzeaud presents the memo without mentioning the controversy surrounding it.

Sarzeaud fails as a historian and treats this as if it were a straightforward confirmation of Oresme’s skepticism. But the reality is far murkier.

RELATED: Shroud of Turin debunked? Not even close — here's the truth

claudiodivizia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, there isn’t just one memo. Calling it “the memo” is misleading, since there are two surviving drafts that differ in tone and detail. The French scholar Ulysse Chevalier, who published the d’Arcis memo in the early 20th century, conflated the two versions into a single document — and then asserted, without proof, that it had been sent to Pope Clement VII. No such record exists in the Vatican archives, and there is no evidence that it was ever sent to the pope.

Second, even within the memorandum, d’Arcis admits that his charge was based on hearsay: His predecessor supposedly knew the name of the forger but never revealed it. Modern scholarship has highlighted these inconsistencies, but Sarzeaud neglects to mention them. In other words, what he presents as solid corroboration rests on fragile ground.

As historians, we must do better and not overreach in presenting the evidence as Sarzeaud has done.

Reason 3: Earlier does not equal better

We share Oresme’s skepticism of relics. I’ve visited the Saxony hometown of Johann Tetzel (1465-1519), the Dominican friar infamous for selling indulgences in the early 16th century. He was commissioned to raise money for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Tetzel became notorious for a jingle he reportedly used in his preaching to stir people to buy indulgences: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

Orsme was thinking, writing, and standing firm for Christian truth in a time rife with spiritual manipulation, and this influenced his overreaction to the Shroud. By the 14th century, Europe was rife with dubious relics. Skeptical observers like Oresme often dismissed any new devotional object as fraudulent.

But what Oresme lacked — and what we now possess — is the benefit of centuries of scientific progress.

It is true that Oresme’s fragment pushes the written record of the Shroud back to around 1370. And yes, having a mention of the Shroud so close to when it first appeared in Europe is noteworthy. But it doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other evidence.

In fact, given the advent of the age of science and the technological advances since Oresme’s day, there is far more and far better evidence now than there was then.

Think of it this way: Knowledge accumulates like compound interest. Every decade of careful research into the Shroud — microscopy, spectroscopy, blood chemistry, pollen analysis, and digital imaging — adds layers of data. To elevate a lone medieval opinion over the wealth of evidence gathered since 1978 is to confuse proximity with authority. Oresme’s comment is historically interesting, but evidentially it is a footnote, not a verdict.

Sarzeaud does appeal to the 1988 radiocarbon test that dated the Shroud to 1260-1380 to support the claim that the Shroud is medieval. Once again, however, he does not mention the fierce debate surrounding the results or the work done since then that casts serious doubt on its validity.

The very latest state of the evidence is the richest; we only gain more knowledge. To treat this new discovery as proof that the Shroud is a forgery means ignoring the massive wealth of evidence that indicates its authenticity. The new find only has force when isolated from the overwhelming contextual evidence.

Reason 4: The 'forgery' claim falls apart

The fatal flaw in relying on this new document and the d’Arcis Memorandum as proof that the Shroud is a forgery is that the dots don’t connect.

If the Shroud were obviously painted, as Oresme assumed, then why have the best scientists in the world — equipped with electron microscopes, chemical analysis, and cutting-edge imaging technology — failed to detect any paint, pigment, or dye responsible for the image?

RELATED: New evidence indicates Shroud of Turin shows EXACT moment of resurrection

Stefano Guidi/Getty Images

Dr. John Jackson, physicist and leader of the STURP team, cataloged 17 unique characteristics of the image on the Shroud — features that any genuine explanation must account for. Countless attempts to reproduce the image have fallen short. Photographs, paintings, and scorchings may imitate some features, but none replicate them all.

The Shroud’s image remains, scientifically speaking, an unsolved phenomenon.

This is the Achilles’ heel of the forgery theory: What was “obvious” to a 14th-century skeptic has been thoroughly disproven by modern analysis. The image is not a painting. The claim collapses under scrutiny.

Weighing the evidence

Nicole Oresme was right about one thing: Popular religious claims should be subjected to rigorous testing. As Sarzeaud himself quotes, Oresme insisted that such claims be examined through Scripture, credible testimony, and reason.

Sarzeaud concludes, “For Oresme, popular beliefs must be critically examined through methodical analysis, using Scriptural authorities, credible testimonies, and arguments grounded in reason, with significant weight being given to the latter.”

Yet in holding Sarzeaud to his own standard, his argument and conclusion fail. He has failed to critically examine the new Oresme passage with methodical analysis by ignoring the problems with the d’Arcis Memorandum. He has ignored the credible testimony of the scientific evidence and the compelling historical evidence of the Shroud's existence in history prior to appearing in Europe. He has overlooked the historical evidence placing the Shroud well before the 14th century.

When all the evidence is placed on the scales, this newly found fragment does not tip the balance. Instead, it reminds us of an enduring truth: Skepticism is not new.

From the beginning, voices have attempted to dismiss the Shroud as forgery or fabrication. But 2,000 years of history and a century of scientific inquiry testify otherwise. And by appealing only to selective evidence that agrees with his premise, Sarzeaud fails to ground his arguments in reason, but rather commits the fallacy of special pleading.

The one thing Sarzeaud succeeds in is generating headlines by making something from nothing. Sarzeaud’s article may generate headlines, but it does not overturn the evidence.

In the end, the Shroud continues to confront us with the same, unyielding mystery: the image of a crucified man, unlike any other in human history — a discovery that refuses to be explained away.

Shroud of Turin debunked? Not even close — here's the truth



Once again, the Shroud of Turin is making headlines, this time with bold claims such as “The Shroud of Turin was not laid on Jesus’ body, scientists reveal” and “Shroud of Turin didn’t wrap Jesus’ crucified body — it was just art, new research claims.”

These sensationalized assertions are based on a recent article published in Archaeometry, in which Cicero Moraes, an accomplished digital modeler, used visually intriguing 3D simulations to argue that the Shroud image could not have been formed on a full human body, but rather by contact with a low-relief sculpture.

Why wouldn’t Jesus leave behind a sign of His resurrection?

While the media delights in a provocative “debunking” narrative, Moraes’ study is not a scientific breakthrough. In fact, it recycles long-discredited assumptions.

His central thesis — that the Shroud is a contact imprint — is not demonstrated but simply presumed. Using 3D software, he simulates what a cloth might look like when draped over both a full 3D form and a shallow bas-relief. He then concludes — predictably — that the bas-relief result more closely resembles the Shroud. But this is not new insight. It’s a tautology.

When you begin with a flawed assumption, your conclusion naturally mirrors it. This isn’t discovery — it’s circular logic.

More importantly, Moraes fails to engage with decades of rigorous image analysis and physical testing that demonstrate the Shroud image is not consistent with contact imprinting, artistic rendering, or any known medieval method. The Shroud’s image is anatomically precise, encoded with three-dimensional information, and limited to the topmost surface fibrils of the linen — not soaked or pressed through as one would expect from a contact transfer.

Moreover, Moraes’ approach ignores decades of serious scientific work, especially findings that deeply challenge any contact-based theory. The Shroud image is not the product of direct contact. It is far too subtle, too topographically accurate, and too spatially encoded for that.

Last week, I had the privilege of serving as a keynote speaker at the International Shroud of Turin Conference in St. Louis, where I met with Dr. John Jackson, one of the original physicists who led the 1978 STURP investigation and co-author of the landmark 1984 Applied Optics study on image formation.

The evidence he and his team uncovered stands in sharp contrast to the assumptions Moraes recycles.

Consider the groundbreaking VP-8 Image Analyzer work done in 1976 by Captains (and physicists) John Jackson and Eric Jumper, U.S. Air Force scientists. This analog image analysis device, developed for nuclear weapons laboratories in New Mexico, was designed to detect spatial relationships in radiographic imagery. Additionally, the VP-8 Image Analyzer was developed and used by U.S. military weapons laboratories, specifically for analyzing high-energy radiographic and photographic data, including images of atomic bomb tests.

When Jackson and Jumper input a photograph of the Shroud into the VP-8, the machine generated a three-dimensional relief of a human body.

RELATED: Is the Shroud of Turin legit? Here's one pastor's interesting take

Blaze Media Illustration

This was extraordinary. No other photograph — whether of a painting, statue, or live subject — produced anything close. Why? Because the Shroud image is spatially encoded. Its image intensity varies inversely with the distance between the cloth and the body it once covered. The closer a body part was to the cloth, the darker the image; the farther away, the fainter the impression.

This inverse relationship was confirmed in Jackson, Jumper, and Ercoline’s 1984 peer-reviewed paper in Applied Optics, where they wrote:

The frontal image on the Shroud of Turin is shown to be consistent with a body shape covered with a naturally draping cloth in the sense that image shading can be derived from a single global mapping function of distance between these two surfaces.

They concluded that none of the known artistic or physical processes — direct contact, heat transfer, dabbing with powders, electrostatic imaging, or radiation from a heated bas-relief — could simultaneously explain the Shroud’s 3D encoding, high resolution, surface-only image penetration, and absence of pigment or thermal damage.

Let me be clear: The Shroud is not simply a medieval art piece or a contact imprint.

Its image resides only on the topmost fibrils of the linen’s surface. It does not penetrate the threads. Its subtle optical qualities are consistent across ultraviolet and visible spectra. It displays anatomical fidelity that would be nearly impossible to reproduce by hand. And unlike thermal burns from the 1532 fire, which fluoresce under ultraviolet light, the image does not, indicating it was not formed by heat.

Moraes’ theory also fails to explain the lack of distortion.

As Russ Breault noted in his interview with Michael Patrick Shiels, a cloth wrapped around a face would, when flattened, appear “like a pumpkin.” Yet the Shroud image displays no such warping. The image appears vertically collimated — not distorted or stretched as it would be from wrapping or contact.

And critically, attempts to reproduce the image by pressing cloth against bas-reliefs or models — whether by rubbing pigment, applying heat, or using other methods — have consistently failed to replicate the Shroud’s anatomical accuracy or 3D encoding.

As Jackson and his co-authors emphasize:

A satisfactory hypothesis of image formation must be able to produce an image structure capable of a 3-D interpretation … for in doing so the shading distribution of the Shroud image should presumably be duplicatable.

So what are we left with?

While Moraes’ graphics are state of the art, the conclusions drawn are far less innovative than they first appear. The study rests on a foundational assumption: that the Shroud image is a type of contact imprint — essentially, a “body print” resulting from direct physical interaction with a corpse or sculpted form.

Unsurprisingly, Moraes’ simulations conclude that a low-relief model aligns more closely with the Shroud image than a full-body figure. But as digital artist Ray Downing — a renowned American 3D expert who was featured in the History Channel special "The Real Face of Jesus" — rightly observes, this is a classic case of circular reasoning. If one begins with the assumption that the image was formed through contact, it is no surprise when the model supports that assumption.

This approach overlooks critical empirical details. The Shroud image is characterized by its photorealistic subtlety, with gradations and shading more akin to a negative photographic plate than a physical transfer. Traditional contact imprints, by contrast, produce stark, binary images — high in contrast, low in nuance.

But the presence of features such as the sides of the nose and cheeks — areas unlikely to have touched the cloth at all — poses a serious challenge to any purely contact-based model.

RELATED: New evidence indicates Shroud of Turin shows EXACT moment of resurrection

claudiodivizia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

There are further inconsistencies.

The lack of mirror symmetry between the frontal and dorsal images contradicts expectations from simple cloth-body interaction. We also do not observe the telltale signs of capillary wicking or pressure distortion typical of contact imprints. Moreover, the bloodstains on the Shroud are anatomically precise, appear to have transferred at a different time from the body image, and exhibit halo rings under UV fluorescence — further evidence that the blood and image formed by distinct mechanisms.

As Downing and others have noted, Moraes’ study does not provide novel insights beyond what has already been established — decades ago — by the STURP investigation. His use of modern rendering software offers a visual upgrade but does not advance the scientific conversation. Presentation alone cannot rescue a flawed hypothesis.

Ultimately, Moraes’ work illustrates a broader truth: Technological sophistication cannot compensate for weak foundational assumptions.

Until a contact-imprint model can be demonstrated under real-world conditions — and account for the full range of physical, chemical, and optical properties of the Shroud — the theory remains speculative at best. Digital simulations, no matter how elegant, are only as reliable as the premises they’re built upon. In this case, the digital artistry is commendable, but the interpretive framework remains deeply inadequate.

Moraes’ simulation, while technically polished, brings nothing new to the conversation. It recycles a theory that fails against the hard evidence — evidence amassed by physicists, chemists, and image analysts across more than four decades. Without accounting for the VP-8 findings or the full chemical, spectral, and physical properties of the Shroud image, his conclusions remain, at best, superficial.

And then there’s the deeper question. As Russ Breault beautifully summarized: Why wouldn’t Jesus leave behind a sign of His resurrection?

According to John’s Gospel, the linen cloths left in the tomb were the first piece of evidence to convince John that Jesus had risen (John 20:8). Is it so implausible that God, in a moment of divine transformation, impressed upon burial linen a subtle, encoded image — a kind of sacred relic left for the world to ponder?

Moraes’ paper may impress in terms of digital technique, but it fails to contend with the depth of the data. Any theory about the Shroud must explain not just what is seen — but how it is scientifically seen.

The Shroud is not merely mysterious — it is measurable. And the more we measure, the more it challenges every naturalistic explanation offered so far.

New evidence indicates Shroud of Turin shows EXACT moment of resurrection



For centuries, the Shroud of Turin has been a major controversy. Imprinted by the body of a crucified man, the linen cloth is believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Others, however, claim it is a forgery from medieval times.

How is such a mystery solved?

Experts have long gone back and forth on the garment’s authenticity, but today, thanks to scientific advancements and artificial intelligence, many researchers now believe that the garment’s authenticity can no longer be denied. They’ve even discovered evidence showing the exact moment Jesus was resurrected.

In his latest podcast episode, Glenn Beck met with one of the leading experts on the Shroud of Turin — New Testament scholar, pastor, and president of Christian Thinkers Society Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston.

In this groundbreaking episode, Dr. Johnston covers the scientific, historic, and theological background of the Shroud of Turin and presents the latest research that likely proves the authenticity of one of the world’s most precious yet controversial artifacts.

While the name “Shroud of Turin” wasn’t used until the mid-16th century, the Gospels, other historical records, art, and metal coins predating the nomenclature all corroborate the authenticity of the garment.

“We see the exact same image of the face of Jesus in coins that corresponds with the face of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin,” says Dr. Johnston, adding that the same can be said of the earliest Jesus icons, including the one from Sinai.

Further, the majority of pollen samples found on the shroud originated in Jerusalem, specifically the varieties that bloom in the springtime, when Passover takes place.

“There are pints and pints and pints of blood all over the shroud” from “50 abrasions on the forehead” where the crown of thorns was placed, “372 lacerations from a Roman whip,” and the “lance wound in the side.”

When researchers tested the blood and the chromosomes, they found that it was human blood from a male. The blood type was AB, which is significant because “less than 3% of the world's population has type AB blood, and it is found primarily in the land of Israel.”

The blood from the lance wound in Jesus’ side was found to be "postmortem blood,” which lines up with the scriptural account of his death.

All of this research debunks the idea that the shroud was forged in medieval days, Dr. Johnston argues.

“If you're going to fake the shroud, you've got to kill a guy, his blood needs to be postmortem blood, and then you need to slap that on the spear wound,” he tells Glenn.

As for the moment of resurrection, Dr. Johnston explains that the shroud is a negative, meaning that light and dark values are reversed.

According to the research, a flash of light created the image on the linen.

“It took 34,000 trillion watts of energy emanating from the body in a flash of 1/40th of a billionth of a second to produce that image, so in other words God took the first selfie,” says Dr. Johnston.

What we see when we look at the image imprinted on the linen is “the moment of Jesus’ physical bodily resurrection Sunday morning, April 5, AD 33.”

To hear more about the Shroud of Turin and why Dr. Johnston says it’s “the most lied about artifact from antiquity,” watch the episode above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

NEW EVIDENCE: Shroud of Turin Shows Exact Moment of Resurrection?! | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 243
play icon

NEW EVIDENCE: Shroud of Turin Shows Exact Moment of Resurrection?! | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 243

AI has shown us the face of Christ. Will it bring more to the faith?



Every generation gets to choose whether or not to abandon Christianity. In 2,000 years, no generation has fully walked away.

The irony is hard to miss: The very tool we feared might render faith obsolete has given us the most human image of Jesus yet. Science, thought to replace God, is now part of the process that brings us back to Him.

Christianity isn’t merely a story that’s been retold for millennia; it is the story. It’s the one that never grows old, never fades with the times.

Sometimes, the new chapters of this story come in the most unexpected ways. A recent example is how the Shroud of Turin — a centuries-old relic long thought to be a medieval hoax — found its way back into the public conversation.

Best of all, it wasn’t a miracle that rekindled interest in the cloth. It was science.

From skepticism to wonder

For decades, modern skepticism relegated the Shroud of Turin to the realm of medieval forgery, debunked by carbon-dating tests in the 1980s.

Science was supposed to bring clarity, to expose the myths that faith had built. But here we are again. The Shroud has returned, and this time, it is technology itself that has reignited the mystery.

Former "Saturday Night Live" star and recent Catholic convert Rob Schneider was so inspired by his encounter with the relic that's he's making a movie about it. "It breathed life into me," he explains.

It’s not just Schneider. The Shroud’s reappearance on the world stage reveals something far bigger.

Science, which was once so sure it could unmask religion’s mysteries, is now revealing new layers. Tiny particles of pollen, identified through advanced equipment, suggest that the cloth’s origins trace back to the Middle East — specifically Israel. New scientific methods like wide-angle X-ray scattering dated the Shroud far earlier than previously thought — around A.D. 55.

The lines between myth and reality are blurring. Science, once believed to be Christianity’s greatest adversary, is suddenly taking a seat at the table of faith.

AI gave us the face of the Lord

But it’s not just relics like the Shroud that are undergoing a digital transformation. Technology is now playing a central role in how we encounter faith.

The face of Jesus — something people have dreamed of, imagined, and painted for millennia — has been recreated by artificial intelligence. Using data from the Shroud and other sources, AI systems have attempted to render what may be the most accurate depiction of Christ’s face.

It’s a face that’s both familiar and new. The long hair, the beard, the haunting eyes — eyes that seem to look into not just the world but each of us, individually, deeply.

The irony is hard to miss: The very tool we feared might render faith obsolete has given us the most human image of Jesus yet. Science, thought to replace God, is now part of the process that brings us back to Him.

As we hurtle deeper into the digital age, we’ve been conditioned to seek meaning in data, in pixels and screens, in algorithms that shape our reality.

And yet these same tools are leading us back to questions that are profoundly ancient. The face of Christ, now digitized and rendered in high definition, serves as a reminder: The divine is not so easily replaced.

Back to the heart of belief

For centuries, the Christian faith has thrived on a core paradox: to believe without seeing. When the apostle Thomas doubted the resurrection, Jesus appeared and offered his wounds as proof. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed," He added (John 20:29).

He was talking about us. You and me.

Now, in the 21st century, science is offering glimpses of what once seemed impossible to prove.

While we may never confirm the Shroud’s authenticity beyond a shadow of a doubt, the mere possibility forces us to grapple with something bigger. Faith isn’t about what’s seen — it’s about what transcends sight. And sometimes, when technology allows us to glimpse the mysteries of old, it invites us to marvel rather than dismiss.

The resurrection has always tested human comprehension. It’s a story of victory over death, a promise at the heart of the Christian faith.

As AI constructs the face of Christ and science re-examines ancient relics, the digital world and the divine collide in unexpected ways. We aren’t abandoning faith; we’re rediscovering it through the very tools meant to replace it, tools that allow us to stare deeply into that unmistakable face, those never-ending eyes.

Is the Shroud of Turin legit? Here's one pastor's interesting take



Is there enough evidence to prove that the burial cloth of Jesus Christ — the Shroud of Turin — is real?

Glenn Beck thinks so.

“I think we all have unbelievable pieces of the puzzle, and one of those pieces I think is the Shroud of Turin,” he says, describing the shroud as “a reverse negative.”

“When his body came back to life, it’s like the burial cloth was a film, and it printed in a burst of light ... the negative of his body in that cloth, and nobody really knows how it was made.”

Prestonwood Baptist Church apologetics pastor Jeremiah Johnston is also a believer — although he used to be a skeptic.

“There has been a pejorative vibe towards the shroud by anyone who isn’t Catholic,” Johnston tells Glenn, though he notes that even C.S. Lewis took the Shroud of Turin seriously.

“Lewis said, ‘I needed a reminder every morning and every evening that my God has a face,’ and so we’re not talking about something weird or fringe here,” Johnston explains.

While some skeptics claim that there’s no way a garment like a burial cloth could last for 2,000 years, Johnston disagrees.

“When you are a student of history, you can see we even have a Tarkhan dress linen shirt, and guess what, Glenn? It’s 3,200 years older than the Shroud of Turin,” he says, adding, “given the right set of circumstances, linen will last forever.”

During World War II, even Adolf Hitler tried to steal the Shroud.

“They had to save it from Hitler’s hands,” Johnston says, noting it’s “the most studied cross-disciplinary artifact in the world.”

The shroud has also gone through a lot more than any average cloth.

“It’s not a hoax, there’s no pigment, there’s no ink, there’s no dye. The shroud has survived three fires, it’s been doused in water twice,” Johnston says.

To learn more, watch the clip below.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.