Does This Finding Prove Jesus’ Resurrection? New Book Offers Stunning Details About the Shroud

The Blaze ^ | March 28, 2013 | Billy Hallowell

[grey_whiskers]

You had written:

I didn't say you were. But this isn't all about you. All the info concerning the Shroud suffers from being widely scattered. However, in post #105 you wrote of me:

Just look at grey whiskers reply @102 this thread. One is supposed to chase down all those scattered arguments? Really? That's the sort of thing, sending others off on a wild goose chase, first to comments scattered here & there, which one would then need backtrack to find the precise argument or item under discussion and allegedly being refuted, that is the establishment of some [imagined] great height from which one can stand to hurl "nice try, troll boy" insults?>>

The reason I thought it was about me -- to the extent that I did -- was that a troll (dino) made a demonstrably false claim about me, on both my identity and posting history.

You took up for him, while he ran away.

That happens to resemble the practice of "tag-team" trolling: which is why I came out with guns blazing.

Note that after a couple of go-rounds, I actually read your posts to Swordmaker as well as to me, and adjusted somewhat -- to the point that I am now "in the neighborhood" as you just wrote.

Now that *that's* somewhat cleared up, what is it you *do* want on this thread, or, with respect to information on the Shroud? I comprehend that you don't want anyone here to build a WattsUpWithThat-type site or link concerning the Shroud, though in your heart of hearts you'd love to be able to stumble over one.

One of the difficulties in discussing the Shroud--similar to your earlier comments--is that the skeptics are on the unfamiliar ground of actually having real, hard, testable, physical evidence to work with, instead of second- and third- hand accounts and conjectures. So the usual skeptic trick of "I constructed something nominally similar; since we don't have anything realistic to compare it to, then by Occam's razor, my putative explanation stands" doesn't hold. But too many of those skeptical of the Shroud don't seem to have caught on; the irony is that they come off in their shrillness, cut-and-pasting of already discredited arguments, and the like, just like YECs on creation-evolution threads.

It would also help, if the skeptics realized, that with the existence of the original artifact, it is not enough merely to reproduce gross morphological characteristics such as a 3-D type of shape; the Shroud exhibits certain specific features such as the image being contained in the outer layer of the soap residue on the cloth fibers, and NOT corresponding to either the wavelengths of light, nor the distribution, of the old blood fractions or flecks of paint. Not to mention being a photographic negative which is only visible from 13 or 15 feet away; nor yet again the presence of anatomical details unknown in the middle ages, such as the curling of the thumbs consistent with the nerve damage of crucifixion, or the correct placement of the nail holes in the wrists, contrary to the settled belief of the middle ages that the nails went through the center of the hand.

And on and on...

Cheers!