Actually, I have no need to prove a miracle. Did you really read what I said. Nor do I have a need to prove that the Shroud is authentic. The evidence favors authenticity. There is no realistic evidence to the contrary. The carbon 14 testing has been discredited
Carbon 14. The evidence for a chemical image (by whatever means) is clear
Chemistry of the image. You can invent scenarios or conspiracy theories or whatever it is to defend you fundamentalism-of-another kind. I welcome, instead, open minds.
I am quite sure that it is, as I have said repeatedly, archelogically the Shroud of a 1st century crucifixion victim. I think the inference that it is Jesus is reasonable, in fact close to certain. Is there a miracle involved in the Shroud. In a sense, I think so. But I'm not sure what it is.
Do I believe in miracles? Yes. I once did not. Do I believe that Jesus is the Christ? Yes, I do. That he was resurrected? Yes, I do. Does the Shroud affect my faith? No, but I find it wonderfully mysterious and inspiring.
Am I willing to investigate and think about things? Sure, and the science of the Shroud is compelling as is the history; least to people who are open minded.
The point of this thread has been to understand and discuss the second image on the Shroud. It lends credence to the idea that the Shroud is authentic.
Now your understanding of negatives is a bit faulty. It really doesn't make sense that a positive image must be whiter, as you suggest. How do you explain that to every artist who has ever started with a white canvas. Come on blam blam, do some thinking before you type. Shroudie
> Nor do I have a need to prove that the Shroud is authentic.
Riiiiiight. Sure thing, "Shroudie."
> The evidence favors authenticity. There is no realistic evidence to the contrary.
Oh, sure. Just as the evidence favors Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and that tortilla with the Baby Elvis on it...
> I think the inference that it is Jesus is reasonable, in fact close to certain.
Wow. Let's assume that it *really* *is* 1st century and formed due to havign an actual dead guy wrapped in it. Do you have any idea how many guys were crucified in the 1st century?
> Sure, and the science of the Shroud is compelling as is the history
Indeed. The provenance of the shroud is indisputable, and goes back all the way to when Christ was crucified in 1357.
> The point of this thread has been to understand and discuss the second image on the Shroud.
So capilary action drew the image dye to the other side. Whoop-de-crap, big hairy deal.
> Does the Shroud affect my faith? No...
But it does seem to consume you. Why do I have this image of Gollum?