Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

Well, the great one came to Northeast Ohio. I guess he saw Northeast Ohio. And I suppose he is probably persuaded he conquered Northeast Ohio. What did Northeast Ohio get out of it? After all of the prancing, preaching and designed-for-television hysteria which he carefully created, he left his audiences poorer. They were still in the pauperism of darkness, the destitution of sin and the poverty of ignorance. Oh, lest I forget, he left with something else. He left with his treasury bulging and some wallets in Northeast Ohio depleted. With “the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:14), he professionally picked the pockets of his audiences with a skill far surpassing the old time huckster of medicine show days. Some of you will remember the fellows to whom I refer – the purveyors of magic elixirs. I recall hearing about one as a kid. He said before he started taking Hadacol, he could hardly spit over his chin. Now after taking only 186 bottles of Hadacol, he could spit all over his chin. This fellow who came to Ohio has become so professional in his act that one would scarcely realize the two came from a common background.

The modem carnival man to whom I refer is Jimmy Swaggart. Newsweek Magazine (5/30/83) called him a “show biz professional.” At age 48 he “surpassed the other electronic apostles” and has “become king of the television evangelists.” The Newsweek article was entitled “King of Honky-Tonk Heaven.” As long as the Lord has friends like Jimmy, He doesn’t need any enemies. Can you imagine the Apostle Peter’s actions producing such a headline. The Akron Beacon Journal (10/23/83) referred to him as “the No. I preacher in the land,” according to the latest ratings charts. Newsweek quoted him as saying, “It takes business sense and many of the tactics used by the Fortune 500” to achieve the success he has realized. In 1982 his revenues topped $60 million. It is indeed big business! A Baton Rouge, LA television station, WBRZ, reported on the family corporation he had formed for his ministry. They said 10 members of his family received more than $400,000 in annual salaries. Swaggart took out a rebuttal ad saying it ain’t so. He has 14 members of his family making less than $350,000! Sure glad we got that straightened out. WBRZ reported that in 1981, Jimmy made $68,000, his wife made $50,526, his son made $58,000, and a brother-in-law made $50,000. That was two years ago. Who knows what he is making now. The son is the kid on his television program who announces upcoming crusades. He has all the personality and skill of Deputy Dawg, the cartoon character.

Some of the members of his staff severed their association with him over the family’s extravagance. Newsweek reported that his wife had an $11,000 desk in her office. As more and more of this information became public, Swaggart realized he could not continue to make himself available for interviews. Stuart Warner, of the Beacon Journal staff quoted a spokesman as saying “we just got burned too many times … so we’ve made it a policy (of not talking to media people).” The spokesman, referring to the Newsweek article, said, “the whole thing was a mess.” The reason the article was a mess is because the operation is a mess. It is a shyster operation from the word go. You know, you can’t make a pig-pen look like a rose garden. So any report on a mess has to be a mess.

The three day campaign at the Coliseum was expected to draw over 50,000 people. I suspect they succeeded since over 14,000 people were present the first night. One is led to believe that the organization pays all of the expense for these campaigns. Not so. Mr. Warner reported that local churches involved in the Crusade contributed $10,000 for advertising and recruited more than 1200 volunteers. Mr. Warner told me in a telephone conversation that Swaggart told the crowd he expected to raise at least $50,000 Friday night, and Warner was persuaded he exceeded that. Swaggart’s budget is $350,000 a day and “we’re in the red every day. I need your help. If I were to tell you how much, it would scare you.” Jimmy, maybe you need to lower some family salaries.

Naturally he taped the event for broadcast on his television program where additional appeals would be made for funds. On hand at the rally were staff people who could tell the audience how to use life insurance policies, wills, and savings plans to contribute to the ministry. Books and records were sold. He has sold more than 12 million albums. One lady from Cleveland was asked about his money oriented activities. She responded, “I don’t care how much money he makes … not as long as he continues to preach the word.” And this is precisely where the rub comes in. These people are not capable of distinguishing between the word of God and the word of Jimmy Swaggart. If he’d ever start preaching the truth, his entire approach would have to be changed. This would require that he repent of his sins. But, having watched him for a number of years, I see no evidence that he is likely to do that. He is the charismatic movement’s reigning star at this time, having replaced Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard and Jim Bakker. But he is headed for a fall. The crest of public favor he now enjoys will soon dissipate as his self-enriching exploits are exposed. By the time the media catches up with him, he’ll be so rich that he won’t care what they say as he falls. Oh, you’ll hear the usual Humbard type appeals to save his ministry but others will soon take his place. He is just like all the rest. He now needs to be ushered around by security guards. But the time is coming when he will be forgotten. I always wonder from whom those guards are protecting him. Is it his faithful audience? The security he needs cannot be bought with money. It is the security that comes only when men have obeyed the Gospel and been saved from their sins. Maybe they protect his gold Rolex watch, his Lincoln Continental or Frances’ $11,000 desk.

At the Coliseum he said God “is so sick of dead preachers preaching dead sermons to dead congregations.” “I was just thinkin’,” God must at least be nauseated with these television boys who use false doctrine to effectively steal money from their audiences in the name of God. The Wall Street tactics of such men are a far cry from that of the apostles. “And 1, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:1-5).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, pp. 265-266
May 3, 1984

By Garreth L. Clair

In this life the Christian must constantly be at war with the forces of evil. We who have taken allegiance to Christ have a very potent enemy, the Devil. Because the Devil is an enemy of righteousness we must always be aware of his many devices. In this article, I want to give some attention to the devil, his agents, and their use of devices in carrying out their evil purposes.

The Devil

First, let us look to the source of all evil, the Devil. We must never loose sight of the fact that although we cannot see the Devil he is very real. The Devil is a spirit being and can only be identified by the deeds which are performed by and through his agents (1 John 3:10; 1 Cor. 10:20; John 6:70; 8:44). From these passages of Scripture and others, we can observe the way the Devil works through agency, mankind. Since the Devil is an abstraction we must look to other sources to identify him and his activity. The most complete source of information about the Devil is the Bible; in it we can know him and his characteristics. Once we have adequately identified the Devil we may better know how to handle his activity pursued by his agents. The Scriptures tell us all that we require about the Devil so we may search the Scripture to become adequately informed of his character and continuing activities in this world as they affect God’s people. The Scriptures tell us that the Devil:

1. Knows God (Jas. 2:19).

2. He knows the Scripture (Matt. 4: 1 -11).

3. He is the adversary of Righteousness (1 Pet. 5:8).

4. He is extremely powerful (Job 1:6-2:7; Jude 9).

5. He may transform himself into an angel of righteousness to deceive man (2 Cor. 11: 14).

From these references we are able to adequately determine the nature of the Devil (Satan). If we observe the facts about the Devil, we may be less likely to give place to his desires.

The Devil’s Agents

Secondly, let us look at the agents the Devil uses to accomplish his evil purpose. As we observed already, the Devil cannot be seen by mankind so we may not know him except through the work and ongoing activity of his agents. The Devil employs men and women in his activity to corrupt righteous and good people. The Bible tells us that the Devil uses people in his schemes:

(1) According to 1 John 3: 10, the devil has children who work in his service; (2) According to 2 Corinthians 12:7 Paul was hindered by a messenger of Satan (see also 1 Thess. 2:18); and (3) According to Paul in 1 Timothy 5:15, some men were turning aside to do Satan’s bidding.

As is evident from these three references the Devil will use men and women to accomplish his evil purpose. The purpose of the Devil is to corrupt the soul of any man or woman he can through any means. God is at war with the Devil and God’s people are His only soldiers in the ever continuing conflict (Eph. 6; 1 Peter 5:8; Eph. 4:27). Since Christians are to oppose the Devil’s children, we often find ourselves in bitter controversy with men and women of the world; that is to be expected because we are to be truly defenders of the faith (Jude 3). When in the course of defending righteousness we find ourselves abused, we need not fear for in the ultimate end we will win the conflict (Rev. 2: 10; 2 Tim. 4:6-8). The agents of the devil are not fools but are clever and designing; their aims are the same as those of their father, the Devil. We must not let personal preference or feelings get in the way of our better judgment based upon God’s word in dealing with the wicked; we must give no quarter or compromise in any particular. The Devil will gain the victory when feelings or compromise enter the battle for truth and righteous principles; therefore, let us always be aware of these characters that the Devil uses for his soldiers.

The Devil’s Devices

The third point in this study will deal with the devices that the Devil uses. In order to accomplish his evil purposes the Devil often uses devices; sometimes men are not aware of these devices and are caught completely off guard. In the following list, you may see one or more devices that have been used on you or someone you know. One thing that men must recognize is that many things the Devil will use may be classified as abstractions (devices that are not of material content); others may be materialistic in nature. Since the Devil uses the material and the abstract let us examine them one by one;

Materialistic devices used by the Devil may include;

Money may be the tool used by the Devil to draw one into his service, not the love of it the very essence of the green stuff. The Devil may use a new car to cause one to do ungodly deeds. One may gain the car through honest endeavor but may find it a hindrance to proper contributing of his income into the Lord’s treasure. A new or better home may be the undoing of someone else. These things are not wrong to have but if they create slack in one’s service to God they become wrong. Anything of a material nature which causes us to be less faithful in attendance, contribution, or faithfulness in any area may be wrong and sinful, although the item in and of itself is not sinful.

Indeed, in many instances, these material things can be well afforded by some and may not become a hindrance at all. Yet, many find possessions of a material nature hindrances to their faithful discharge of Christian character and responsibility. We must never let anything hinder us from faithfully performing our duties as sons of God, but must always count the cost when looking at the material things available to us in this world. Let each of us join with the understanding of Paul, we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11).

Things of an abstract nature may be more dangerous to men and women in the world and in the church than even materialistic things. To illustrate the nature of abstract things, we will use the passion, greed. Greed cannot be seen, it is an unseen motivator which ultimately may be manifest in robbery, burglary, fraud, and dishonesty of any stripe. Robbery, fraud, etc. are not the abstraction; they are the by-products of a heart filled with greed. In the Scriptures, there are several abstractions that we should be aware of. The abstractions are manifest by the fruits they bear. Some things that cannot be known about a man are:

(1) jealousy (it cannot be seen but is made manifest by ungodly deeds), (2) envy, (3) hate, (4) lust.

These are but a few of the abstractions used by the evil one in order to destroy man’s soul; there are others. A list of some of the abstractions the Devil uses can be found in Galatians 5:19-26. Remember, the Devil may use those who consider themselves somewhat in the church; we must ever be mindful of his devices so that we can be constantly in a state of resistance against them. It is too easy to fall under the Devil’s influence to discount the possibility of our own fall (2 Pet. 3:17).

Finally, let us consistently be on guard against the Devil, his agents, and the devices the Devil uses to draw us away from God. There can not be compromise with the forces of evil either in the world or in the church, we must always resist evil wherever it rears its ugly head.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, pp. 245-246
April 19, 1984

By Lee Rogel

Within recent years there have developed different types of cooperative efforts among liberal churches of Christ. They involve many matters ranging from evangelism to youth rallies and recreational/social promotions. Although these are under the sponsoring church arrangement, they have taken a different form: organizations apart from, in addition to, the church known as “committee” arrangements. Again, this is bringing the churches closer to the formation of the papal system than anything known before.

In order to understand how much it resembles the beginning of the rise of the papacy, we need to observe some historical facts about the emergence of “Church Councils” in the early centuries which finally led to the formation of the Catholic church. Thus, let us see how the recent development of committees among churches resemble these early Church Councils, and in turn, how they take on the appearance and structure of Catholicism.

Within the third century, when the organization and government of the church became more complex and powerful, a system was arranged known as church councils. Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church (Vol. 2), says that these “church councils” were at first 1POmmittees made up of representatives of bishops, presbyters, deacons and “laymen.” Each church sent a representative, or several representatives, to these councils. At first, they were loosely organized and no church had any jurisdiction or authority over these councils. They simply came to discuss certain matters and no church had the authority to bind then decisions upon the churches that sent their representatives to these councils. However, as time went on, and church government became more competitive and powerful, the presiding Bishop of a church in a District or Patriarchate assumed more and more authority. Thus, from a loosely organized committee (or council) there developed the structural form of the papacy.

At present there are not too many such arrangements among liberal brethren – but they are beginning to develop – and apostasy knows no stopping place. There are a number of these in some parts of the country, especially in the northeastern states. To give you an illustration of this arrangement which is identical to the early church councils, and the departure from the New Testament pattern of church organizations. I will cite only one example. And please note that this has already passed the first stage of the system of church council of the second and third centuries. But this one example represents another danger developing among the liberal churches.

Back in 1975, the churches of Christ in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area were planning a “Campaign for Christ” to be held the following year. Gaston D. Cogdell, then preacher for the Clifton church, prepared a lengthy defense of this plan. Notice some of the plans he proposed in the planning of this campaign promotion. The title of this written defense is two fines long, so I’ll not give it.

The formation of a committee made up of representatives of several congregations to advise and assist in a joint evangelistic endeavor, is not unscriptural because such a committee is simply an aid to the church in carrying out its most important work-seeking and saving the lost” (p. 2, all emphasis mine, LR).

Notice three things in his statement:

1. He is defending the set-up of another organization, a “Council” or “Committee” separate and apart from the local church organization. By doing this he must defend the missionary societies which Alexander Campbell started over 100 years ago.

2. He calls this an “aid” to the work of evangelism. Of course, through the years we tried to prove that organizations are not “aids” in doing the work; they use various aids, but the organization is never an aid of and within itself.

3. Each representative from his respective congregation has an equal right to make suggestions, outline plans for this Campaign. He emphatically claims so in his article! But is this really so?

Now notice how conflicting and absurd his “reasoning” is. He readily condemns the missionary society for the very thing he defends in his case for the “76 Campaign” under the committee set-up. Notice what he says about the missionary society, and then how he contradicts himself in his promotion.

Both the United Christian Missionary Society and the centralized denominational governing bodies are autonomous groups, which exercise authority over those congregations which are members of the fellowship with which they are identified (p. 5).

Now notice how he defends the authority of the Clifton Church over the committee of representatives of various local churches.

The elders of the sponsoring church (Clifton-LR) have sole final authority in all matters, and the decisions of the campaign committee are all subject to the approval of the overseeing eldership, but the committee itself is not under the overseeing eldership, but the members of the committee are under the authority of the elders of the various congregations they represent” (p. 5 – all emphasis mine – LR).

Just how does brother Cogdell propose to prove that which he contradicts? That the sponsoring church does not have authority over the committee, if at the same time it has “sole final authority in all matters and decisions of the campaign committee” and are “subject to the approval of the overseeing eldership?”

First, “overseeing” implies authority over that committee. Next, the committee can make suggestions, offer ideas and plans, but the sponsoring church makes the final decisions. The committee has no voice or authority. It can only make suggestions. It has no authority in a single decision. This automatically places it under the oversight or authority of the “Overseeing” or sponsoring elders. The committee is subject to the authority of the sponsoring church. And remember again, this committee is not a local church, but another organization, like the missionary society or the church councils of the early ages.

But there is another contradiction here. This committee is made up of representatives of cooperating churches. This means that as the sponsoring church has sole authority over the committee, it simultaneously has authority over the churches who send their representatives to that committee. These representatives speak for, or are voices for their respective churches. So, the sponsoring church does, not in theory, but in fact, have control over cooperating churches by the very fact of having authority over the committee made up of the representatives the churches send to the committee. Each man on the committee represents and speaks in behalf of the church that sends him and, therefore, to deny the committee any authority is to simultaneously deny the churches any authority. Thus the sponsoring church in reality exercises authority over the local churches by exercising authority over the Committee made up of representatives of individual local churches.

Now, let’s go back to what brother Cogdell said earlier about the Christian Missionary Society, etc., that they are autonomous groups “which exercise authority over the congregations which are members of the fellowship. . .”

The committee referred to by brother Cogdell in connection with the “Campaign for Christ ’76” is an independent, separate organization from the local church. It is an organization within itself exactly as the missionary society in every detail of its characteristic features. It is an organization set up which in no way is a local church; thus it is an organization apart from the church, but working for the church.

The New Testament pattern for church organization is autonomous, with no strings attached either to another church or an organization apart from the church. The New Testament church needs no other organization through which it carries on its work. Both, the missionary society and this committee are organizations apart from the church, yet doing the work for the local church.

What is the difference between the missionary society exercising control over local churches (which brother Cogdell pointed out) and the Clifton church exercising control over the committee? Neither is a local church! Pray tell me again, “What is the difference between the missionary society having authority over “congregations which are members of the fellowship . . .” and the Clifton church exercising authority over the committee, which is identical to the missionary society because it is another organization in either case of local autonomy of churches?”

Whereas the missionary society controls the local churches, the Clifton church controls the Society known as the “committee.” Furthermore, the Clifton church has authority over local churches in every way as the Missionary Society. And so, the Missionary Society known as the “committee” is controlled by the Clifton church because the final decision of that Committee rests within the authority of the Clifton church. And that authority reaches to the local churches that send their representatives to that committee over which the Clifton church has absolute authority.

Do not forget what we’ve observed earlier about the emergence of church councils in the second and third centuries. At the beginning no church had final authority in any decision over any other local church. The church council had no authority over any church that sent its representative to it. But this campaign committee has taken several steps further toward the papal structure in that the committee, which is the same as early church councils in nature. It is under the authority of the overseeing church. And let it be known that the terms, definitions and arrangements of such things as “sponsoring” and “overseeing” are the same in concept and structure as “hierarchy, ” which is identified with Catholicism. And I don’t think they selected and use such terms (over-seeing) by chance or accident. I believe they chose the words to define and describe exactly what they mean and what their purpose is. I believe these men are well acquainted with English grammar to know what words to choose to describe what arrangement and work they seek to arrange.

They know their grammar, by which they seek terms to describe what they seek to arrange and establish, but don’t know their Scriptures well enough, or as well as their grammar, to know these very arrangements are without divine authority, or “works of iniquity.” Don’t you wish they knew their Scriptures so they could point to the authority for their actions – to understand what is scriptural authority – as well as they can pick out proper grammatical terms to define their. unscriptural practices? This is what is so absurd about the whole matter: they deliberately set up false practices and are experts in grammatically defining them as the dictionary gives the proper terms, but seemingly care little about scriptural definitions of the identity of the New Testament church in teaching, organization and work. They ought to realize that their terms to define their arrangements are identical to Catholic terms to define their unauthorized arrangements.

So, let us know that such arrangements are more closely identified with the structure of the papacy, or Catholicism, than what is found in many denominations. When the church was established on Pentecost, there was no thought in the mind of Christ and His apostles that it should develop into the papal system. And here, in the twentieth century, the church is headed for Catholicism, as surely as did the early church after the falling away.

I merely cited this one example of this departure into Catholicism. It is another innovation by the liberals which proves their greater disregard for scriptural authority and their lack of desire to maintain the church according to the identity and pattern of the New Testament. It’s not just one church involved in a sponsoring type arrangement. This involves a sponsoring church to create, construct a church council, a missionary society – another organization – apart from the church through which churches carry out their functions. And it is slowly, but surely growing. Other examples could be cited, but these are enough to let us see (and shudder) at the insidious danger of Catholicism lurking in the liberal churches of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, pp. 237-238, 240
April 19, 1984

By Donald P. Ames

The subject of the Shroud of Turin has a habit of popping back up every so often, and usually with strong statements that the issue has been “proven”and “settled.” There have been little bits leaked to the press every so often, each alleging conclusive proof. And, others pick up on such news articles and feel there really must be something there, or it would not be in the news.

However there are some facts we need to carefully examine before we jump to any hasty conclusions lest we find ourselves out on a limb with no where to go. One important fact, mentioned in the Reader’s Digest (Jan. 1984), is that there is no way to prove conclusively that this actually is the burial cloth of Jesus. It was examined for proof, and while I some interesting things were discovered about whatever is or, the cloth, the author (one of those actually studying the cloth) had to admit there was no way they could prove it to be the actual cloth used on Jesus. This factual statement is made in spite of some strong statements to the contrary in other press releases.

Actually, this is not the only shroud that alleges to be the burial cloth of Jesus. Rodney Miller in his bulletin (Feb. 1981) noted that there have been “No fewer than forty-three similar ‘true shrouds’ circulated in medieval Europe at the time the Turin cloth appeared.” Some of these are still on public display! The Turin shroud, which first appeared in 1356 A.D., is but another in the long line of Catholic relics (like the cup used in the last supper, the bones of Peter, the hairs of Jesus, the robe at the cross, etc.) which is being promoted for publicity and profit by the Catholic church – often in spite of the evidence, and not because of it. The fact the shroud was exposed and renounced by the Catholic Church at the time it was originally revealed as a fraud is quietly buried in the past. The fact that Popular Photography showed how similar shrouds could be made using materials available even in the 14th century is ignored (Nov. 1979). The fact the Catholic Church will not even allow a Carbon 14 test (using a piece of material no larger than a postage stamp) to establish a valid date is also brushed aside. The fact there is even a difference of 2-3 inches in height between the image front and back view is quietly brushed aside as well. And the fact the feet are clearly visible (ever try making a clear footprint lying on your back with both legs straight out?) on the cloth is also ignored. Instead one hears, “But it has been proven now conclusively to be the burial cloth of Jesus.” Hardly! “Is it the shroud of Christ Himself? That, say both scientists and theologians, will remain forever outside the bound of proof” (National Geographic, July 1980).

Actually that one would even seriously consider it to be such is a bit amazing, especially in view of John 20:5-7. John here makes it abundantly clear that the body of Jesus was not wrapped in a shroud (or sheet), but rather was wrapped in small strips around the body. While it is true Mark 15:46 uses the term “sheet” in the NASB, it is not in the original or in the KJV! John again made it clear that the facial cloth was also separate from the other wrappings. Lenski, in commenting on Luke 23:53, says, “Like Matthew and Mark, Luke says only that the body was wrapped in sindown, cloth of fine linen which was torn into long strips for the purpose of wrapping it around the limbs and1the body. John speaks of these othonia or bands, between which the aromatic spices were sprinkled as they were being wrapped. Only the head was left free to be covered with a special cloth after the body had been deposited in the tomb” (Commentary on Luke, p. 1162). Thus the Shroud of Turin can not be the burial cloth of Christ! The language of the Bible does not support the Shroud!

“But,” comes the reply, “how do you explain the coin, the date and misspelled word ‘Caesar’ using a ‘C’ rather than the ‘K’. Does this not clearly establish the cloth as valid?” Such reasoning would be humorous, if some were not so serious about it. First of all, as we have just shown from the Bible, the cloth does not fit the wrappings used to wrap around the body of Jesus (nor account for the separate facial cloth). But, just how conclusively is the “proof” of the coin?

To properly understand the reasoning, one needs to understand the philosophy behind the alleged “photograph” on the shroud. It is alleged that when Christ was in the tomb, still -in the “burial cloth” (not “wrappings”), that the brilliant light that illuminated from His body in Matthew 28:3 “must have” burned an image into the cloth like a flash bulb on film – hence the reason it is a reverse image and must be viewed as a negative. Now, think with me for a moment: If the brilliant light came from the body of Christ, and the coins were lying on his eyes, would they not be black spots? How could one read dates, etc., off an object on the back side of a flash image? A third grader ought to be able to reason better than that! A hand stuck in front of a camera will not show if it has freckles or warts on the back side you can’t see the back side!

But, let us examine this “proof” a bit more closely. Who contends the coin is “conclusive proof”? Do all the scholars? Nol Every reference comes back to one person: “The Rev. Francis L. Filas, a professor of theology at Loyola University” (Aurora Beacon News, 11 – 17-8 1). And what is Loyola University? A Catholic school! And who is Mr. Filas? “A Jesuit priest” (Carbondale Southern 11linoisan, 9-2-81)! No wonder he is speaking so boldly in defense of the cloth!

And how conclusive is the “proof” he has produced? Not worth the time it took for the press to set the print for the story! Note that according to the article in the Reader’s Digest the image was so faint and hard to visualize that one had to stand back three foot to even see it at a (Jan. 1984). Further note that the letters, which appear on the side of the coin away from the light source, are but “one-thirty second of an inch high” (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81). Further note that these tiny letters, on the wrong side of the coin, which must be viewed from 3 foot away, are so clear that he has even determined the word “Caesar” was misspelled with a “C” rather than a “K,11 and that this proves conclusively it was a coin issued in the time of Christ (per Mr. Filas, who has a relic to preserve). But, “critics contend experts have no historical record of a coin containing the rare misspelling in Greek of the name Caesar, using a ‘C’ instead of a ‘K,’ and that the markings found on the shroud could have been distorted by age and the texture of the cloth” (Beacon News, 11-17-81). “Some researchers doubt whether a coin really exists in the photographs of the shroud. ‘I think the problem is whether there is any indication of a coin (emp. mine – DPA), said Dr. Walter C. McCrone, a Chicago microscopist who has done research on the shroud. ‘Not very many people except Father Filas (emp. mine – DPA) are able to see it… (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81).

Although Mr. Filas affirms, “As far as I’m concerned, I see no way of objecting to this (conclusion) anymore” (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81), we simply remind him and other Catholic relics collectors that we have heard many such strong statements before – in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. In this case, we find no exception. The Shroud of Turin was exposed as a fake when it was first revealed in 1356 A.D., and though it has undergone a variety of tests, Catholicism will not allow any test that will expose it for the fraud it actually is; but rather, they will continue to boldly proclaim their “great find” to those gullible enough to follow their many (and false) relics of the past, the facts notwithstanding!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 8, pp. 240-241
April 19, 1984