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.
An image exists. That is all that can be said. Who it is or how it got there is quite another matter. Excercise: Paint your face and hair liberally with a non-toxic paint. Wrap linen around your head, making sure to allow the paint to contact the linen. Now remove it and you will find -not a 2d image as though it were a portrait; but, rather something distorted like a flattened orange peal. There is appearance and there is reality. And in this case appearance belies reality - thusly telling us something about the appearance.. ie that it is a fraud.
If he cannot explain how the image that does exist came to be first before making his conclusion, then his reasoning falls.
Ou contrare. If I have a sword pretending to be an original Katana of the early school of Japanese Ninjitsu - the first ever made, it matters not how it came to be but what can be proven about it. If it can be shown it can't have been made in that time, then how it came into being is irrelevant. By your logic, I could sell a 19th century Rocking chair to someone, claim it belonged to John the Baptist and until it can be discovered how it was made or came into being, we can't conclude it didn't come from the Baptist. People are not this stupid with all due respect.
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.
Rome makes a claim without a basis in fact and that is the core issue here. I can make a conclusion with a firm basis in fact - that basis would be Rome's track record for producing items and claiming them to be something they are decidedly not. I would be on firm footing to reject the word of a known liar or deciever for practicality's sake. And on a matter of that doesn't touch faith, that smacks of the opposite and in light of prior tall history of failings, it is pragmatic to do so. I look at it from the standpoint of a common knowledge of how Rome works knowing that a *conclusion* without basis in fact is fine as long as they're the one concluding. And knowing that to them, a conclusion with no basis in fact is superior to an opposing conclusion bathed in fact disproving their claim. Cults are the same way - no amount of facts or truth is enough to dispell blind indoctrination. And that extends to 'holy' places and 'items'. Again, there is a track record and an overabundance of caution required due to it. I disbelieve on it's face knowing it matters not a whit one way or another. And I do so because I won't be taken in based on feelings or trinket chasing. The world involves itself with such spiritual vacuity, Christians need not mirror them.