Shroud of Turin supports Resurrection, expert affirms

Let the data speak for themselves? Brilliant! Just like in my post #18, hayna?

Doubledown throwdown, yo. C-14 Retest,

Winner

Takes

All.

Except that Turin Cathedral, once bitten, twice shy, won’t risk their moneymaker for objective truth...

Nondestructive testing would be better.

But when I speak of data, I am talking about the information content in the image itself, which is not something possible to encode, certainly not in the 14th century. Do you dispute the information content in the image?

information content in the image? Hand holes in the right place, no visible brush strokes, that sort of thing? No dispute there, but nothing much more, either. The thing appeared, like magic, after a thousand years of mystery and myth; I have no confidence in the authenticity of so valuable and convenient an artifact discovered so long after the fact.

You should get out more.

The first thing that bothers you is that it is not magic, it is a real piece of cloth. This makes it an inconvenient artifact.

No brush strokes, how did that happen? No curiosity?

An image burned on by a radiant burst of energy, affecting only the microscopic tips of the microfibrils. An image whose details are nanoscale.

An image that when run through forensic software can produce a 3D object that reflects....

I’ve got to go. Open you eyes, that you might see.

No brush strokes, how did that happen?

1988 C-14 test puts it right about when it was “discovered” by de Charney, how did that happen?

You can conject all the conjecture you need to, but Thomas wouldn’t believe “unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side...” Likewise, when the proven-corrupt-down-thru-the-centuries Church runs some real tests (again) on the cloth, that’ll about settle things. ‘Til then, enjoy wondering and wishing. I imagine someday, though, descendants of ours will see our Shroud veneration in somewhat the same way we now view the True Cross’ discovery by Saint-ess Empress Helena, Constantine’s mom:

Seems Emperor Hadrian had previously built a temple to Venus over the site of Jesus’s tomb near Calvary, so Helena, much later, ordered the temple torn down and chose a site to begin excavating, which led to the recovery of three different crosses. Then, refusing to be swayed by anything but solid proof, the empress had a woman who was already at the point of death brought from Jerusalem. When the woman touched the first and second crosses, her condition did not change, but when she touched the third and final cross she suddenly recovered, and Helena declared the cross with which the woman had been touched to be the True Cross.

Yeah. That’ll probably be how they see us, someday.

You still have not addressed the information content in the image itself.

I suppose you also do not believe in miracles? I think makes perfect sense for St. Helena to rely upon a miracle to discern the True Cross from others. For those who believe, miracles are a rule of Faith, a rule used to discern.

Incorruptible saints bodies are also make believe? Even St Thomas would upbraid anyone who denied that the bodies of these special friends of God are incorrupt.

Which Church is not corrupt? Which is one, spotless, without blemish? Maybe the one that produces saints whose bodies do not corrupt?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.