Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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: shroudie
> Actually, it is not up to anyone to prove to you that it is real.

Well, you sure seem to be trying real hard...

> We must, of course, consider Jewish attitudes regarding blood.

Why? If this shroud is, as it's history suggests, a painting done for the Pope around 1357, it would hardly have been Jews who would have been involved.

> ??? I guess if you put no stock in history...

I put great stock in what is recorded accurately. A Jesus of Nazareth may well have existed. But as to him having been anything other than a guy... evidence is entirely lacking. There is no more evidence of miracles from him than are provided in, say the Book of Mormon, the Koran or Scientology.
51 posted on 04/15/2004 3:28:58 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | 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