Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Swordmaker
> Since he can't refute the latest "Flawed Sample" proof

It's hardly proof. There are patches that MIGHT be more recent. But even if so... how much more recent?

The obvious conclusion to draw from any such thing as the shroud is Forgery. Forgeries are far more common than True Miracles; consequently, it is up to the believers in miracles to provide their evidence that the shroud is anything more than clever art. So far, that has not been done.

Hell, for all we know, the shroud could well be 1st century... taken from a burial, sold to an artist, who then painted on it. Given that there is no blood on the shroud but there is iron oxide and other pigments...

Occam's Razor.
47 posted on 04/15/2004 1:27:45 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: orionblamblam
The obvious conclusion to draw from any such thing as the shroud is Forgery. Forgeries are far more common than True Miracles; consequently, it is up to the believers in miracles to provide their evidence that the shroud is anything more than clever art. So far, that has not been done.

Actually, it is not up to anyone to prove to you that it is real. There is ample evidence that it is not been proven to be a fake and no evidence that it is. There is significant evidence to make a strong case that it is a first century burial cloth. As for miracles, we need only concentrate here on the formation of the images. Much work is being done to show that they might be the result of a perfectly natural phenomenon. Of course, if they are miraculously induced images it is unlikely that science could prove that.

Hell, for all we know, the shroud could well be 1st century... taken from a burial, sold to an artist, who then painted on it. Given that there is no blood on the shroud but there is iron oxide and other pigments...

Good stretch in thinking. (Oh, did you miss the point about their being blood and no concentrations of pigments or iron oxide to form an image). Now for that to be so we must assume that the cloth was separated from the body it contained. We must, of course, consider Jewish attitudes regarding blood. Now you might develop your theory a bit more to think that Romans unwrapped the body or maybe they had some of their Syrian slaves do it.

Occam's Razor you say. Are you for real?

theortical Jesus ??? I guess if you put no stock in history you probably put no stock in science either. Maybe this explains where you are coming from.

48 posted on 04/15/2004 1:55:15 PM PDT by shroudie (http://shroudstory.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: orionblamblam
There are patches that MIGHT be more recent. But even if so... how much more recent?

With that one question, Orion, you demonstrate you have absolutely no idea of nature of proof any scientific test must meet. Just the fact that the sample is (shall I shout this in your ear? Yeah, I think I will, nothing else seems to get through.) NOT SIMILAR to the rest of the Shroud is sufficient to invalidate the entire test!

Hell, for all we know, the shroud could well be 1st century... taken from a burial, sold to an artist, who then painted on it. Given that there is no blood on the shroud but there is iron oxide and other pigments...

What a stretch!

So now your hypothesis is that some 14th century archaeologist or grave robber excavated a tomb in the Jerusalem area, found a pristine shroud, unsullied by decomposition products from the body it covered, removed it, carried it to Lirey France where he sold it to an unknown artist, who "paints" an image of Christ's crucified body on this conveniently properly aged cloth which is contrary to every previous or current artistic style, utilizing a technique never used before or since, incorporating data that cannot be decoded for at least 800 years, and including details that demonstrate he has an encyclopedic knowledge of First Century Jewish customs, Roman execution techniques, the concept of negativity, anatomy and blood chemistry, merely so he can show a "relic" to ignorant rubes who would pay just as much to see a bed sheet daubed with chicken blood.

Right. Sure.

And you have the gall to shove "Occam's Razor" at us?!

Who is your authority for your assertion that there is "no blood on it?" Joe Nickell? Joe's PhD degree is in ART, not science.

54 posted on 04/15/2004 7:05:11 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson