Replies

But you need to explain "how" it came to exist before you assert your flawed "why".

Onus for proof belongs on the claimant, not on the detractor. Christ didn't come saying "I'm Christ till you prove otherwise.' Contrarewise, he came proving he was Christ by the prophecy and mission he fulfilled. And that we know from scripture. Somehow, many of you have gotten your laws of proof reversed and seem to think you can claim what you want and have an air of authority till someone debunks you. That is neither a Scientific nor a Christian stance to take. Nor is it new with Catholicism to introduce the name - wherein it is argued "authoritatively" that Peter was bishop of Rome and died in Rome because no other city claimed him.. This is authoritative as saying That the bones of Mary are in Indiana and until someone else claims otherwise, it's true. It isn't true; but, that's the fallacious type of thinking invoked as though it meant something. If one has the truth, one need not behave oneself in such manner.

You are the claimant. So, following your own advice, prove what you just said.

Look, my friend, I believe in the Resurrection of Christ. That is a matter of faith. I cannot prove it and faith would not want it so.

I believe that the Shroud is a genuine burial cloth of a Roman-style crucifixion victim. This is not a matter of my faith but of science and history; stuff that I am highly confident about. I also am able to infer from history and scriptural content that it is the burial cloth of Jesus. I cannot prove that but I am reasonably convinced that it is so.

Is it related to my faith? Of course it is, just as the canonical gospels are and signficant extra-canonical works of the early Church fathers are. And just, too, as the archeological finding in the environs of Jerusalem are important. But these things are not underpinnings for my faith but things I love to understand because of my faith.

I'm not Catholic, by the way. I am deeply involved in the informal Shroud research skunkworks and many of the researchers are friends or associates. Many are Evangelical Christians (including Fundamentalists), Orthodox, Anglican, Jewish and Agnostic. Some are conservative and some are liberal when it comes to theological interpretation.

The Shroud of Turin is not a Catholic thing. It is a treasure of all Christians and all who are open minded to possibilities.

Shroudie

Onus for proof belongs on the claimant, not on the detractor.

Yep. And the image does indeed exist, does it not? The person I addressed made the claim it exists to confuse the masses.

The onus is on him to demonstrate how the image came to be in order to prove his assertion as to the why. If he cannot explain how the image that does exist came to be first before making his conclusion, then his reasoning falls.

Don't confuse my logical reasoning with an insistance that one believe that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. No, I have not ever said one must believe that or question it. But the person made a *conclusion* without basis in fact.

Somehow, many of you have gotten your laws of proof reversed and seem to think you can claim what you want and have an air of authority till someone debunks you.

What exactly have I claimed?

You seem to be leaping to conclusions, too.