Archived podcast for paid Subscribers only. Please login to access.1st Half (Free Dreamland)
The Shroud of Turin has been debunked as a medieval forgery. The blood marks on it have been called paint. But more sophisticated research has shown that the origins of the cloth and the image on it are much more enigmatic. In fact, the weave of it suggests an earlier origin even than the first century CE. As famed author and researcher Gregg Braden theorizes in this program, it could have been a precious family heirloom, handed down for generations before it was used on the man of the shroud.
In fact, you will learn more about the shroud and the present state of research into its authenticity in this program than you will almost anywhere else.
2nd Half (Subscriber Continuation)
Whitley and Anne Strieber join Gregg Braden and William Henry for a discussion of what the shroud is telling us about the process of transformation. The image the Man of the Shroud left behind indicates that his body expelled a tremendous burst of light energy. At the same time, beings of light, orbs and flashes of light have played a huge role in human history. (For example, St. Paul’s encounter with one on the road to Damascus started the first Christian ministry among the gentiles, and is arguably the beginning of Christianity as we know it.)
So how does this work? What are orbs and beings of light? Are they us? Is the Shroud an illustration of what energies are involved in this transformation, and can we therefore use it as a template? If so, then it is also a message to our time, because we can now understand the energies that were involved in its formation, and possibly also how they could be generated in a human body.
An absolutely unique discussion for our Easter special!
Visit Gregg Braden at GreggBraden.com.
William and Clare Henry are leading a tour to Turin to visit the shroud. Learn more here.
Subscribers, to watch the subscriber version of the video, first log in then click on Dreamland Subscriber-Only Video Podcast link.
If there is real authenticity
If there is real authenticity to the shroud and it still has an active connection to heaven than it could be tested by letting those worthy of wearing it do so and see if anything unusual or mystical occurs.
At one point in this
At one point in this interview, William Henry mentioned Jesus as being a ‘supernatural being’. I tend to disagree with this point of view. I feel that the real beauty of this man known as Jesus Christ was that he truly was an ordinary human being who studied, learned, and transcended to become something much greater, a light being. He was foremost, a great teacher for his time and going forward to this day. I have never been comfortable with the idea of worshipping Jesus, preferring instead to see him as something to aspire to and incorporate into my own being. (By the way, I have a long way to go!) He is who we are, and that is his message, albeit one with a pretty steep learning curve!
I always enjoy Gregg Braden, and it was great hearing him again on Dreamland!
Wear the shroud? It is almost
Wear the shroud? It is almost as fragile as dust. Anyway, it’s not the shroud but the man–and I emphasize that word, man. We all contain the seeds of transcendence. They grow in the medium of compassion, just as Jesus said.
Son of Man [bar enash(a)]
Son of Man [bar enash(a)] … Has anyone ever figured out what Jesus meant by that term?
Kudos on both Dreamland and
Kudos on both Dreamland and Whitley’s reading from The Mark. What a lovely and timely Easter gift/presentation. Thank you to Whitley, Anne, William and Gregg 🙂 God speed your journey towards ascension today, 4ever, and always! Happy Easter and/or Passover celebration of the spirit and soul’s triumph of God’s will over the illusion of death, to all my friends at Unknown Country! Much to contemplate during the holy days before and beyond!
Where’s the outrage that the
Where’s the outrage that the church hasn’t allowed another scientific study of the shroud? I realize that they have many other issues to attend to, but….how is it that they should be able to control, i.e. limit, access to this shroud? If there’s doubt that the fiber samples used for carbon dating were adequate, how hard could it be to provide another fiber, from an unburned portion of the shroud? I’m reminded of the words of the Master of the Key, about secrecy. The veil needs to be removed, no pun intended.
Hi CG, maybe Pope Francis can
Hi CG, maybe Pope Francis can learn from the Dalai Lama, who is very open to scientific inquiry into the mystical Buddhist Tradition.
This is relevant to “The Key”
This is relevant to “The Key” material.
Wow! William you hit a home
Wow! William you hit a home run with this podcast. I really enjoyed the show and it is a wonderful Easter gift from UnknownCountry. This one should be nominated if they have Emmy awards for internet radio.
Is Whitley reading ‘The Mark’ available to the free audience? I hope so. –if you aren’t a subscriber you’re missing a whole lot!
Happy Easter
,.. while it is true that the
,.. while it is true that the Aramaic phrase in it’s indefinite form (bar enash rather than the definite bar enasha) can be translated as “a son of man ” or just “man,” the Greek version [ho huios tou anthropou] can only mean ” the son of man.” The difference between the Aramaic and Greek is significant and not likely the result of a poor translation by the evangelists.
In employing the definite form of the phrase … Jesus was not calling himself “a son of man.” He was calling himself THE Son of Man. (emphasis mine).
From the book Zealot, by Reza Aslan p-138
your comments are strange
your comments are strange Whitley. Are you angry?
I enjoyed this show
I enjoyed this show immensely. Best Dreamland in a while. I could listen to the three of you for hours. Thanks for this show!
I’ve always though the Son of
I’ve always though the Son of Man meant the offspring of humankind– as in the next evolution of humans…?
I think you’re right Danaan,
I think you’re right Danaan, it’s some sort of evolutionary term. Of course, like a lot of these things, something of the original context gets lost in the translation.