Posted on 10/05/2009 11:22:44 AM PDT by Gamecock
More likely the painter did. If eyewiness testimony conflicts with forensics, the forensics win, and the shroud is not painted or stained.
I’m figuring that if anyone subjects this new fake mentioned in the article to microscopic analysis, they’ll find the fibers are deeply pigmented, whereas the shroud is not.
Has he reproduced the Shroud of Turin using the image of “The One...OBAMA?”
I'd like to see that artist that can paint a photographic negative!
I notice that the maker of this fake claims to use materials and techniques that were AVAILABLE in the Middle Ages. I do not see where he has offered a shred of proof that anyone had actually DISCOVERED this technique in the Middle Ages.
For his claim to have any validity he would have to produce examples of his method actually being used during the Middle Ages. My guess is that if medieval artists had the ability to produce photo-quality images we would have hundreds of examples.
God Bless you.
Even if it were the actual burial shroud, so what. My faith is in Jesus. I don't need a physical object to believe.
For the same reason those that claim to believe go to such lengths to try and prove them "authentic". There is no real faith where a relic is required to prove an event.
Amen Brother!
Next thing you know it will be claimed that special consideration will be given to those that touch, kneel down and pray to, or possess relics.
Well said DR.E!
The resurrection is all the proof I need.
More likely the Devil is using it to mislead people.
Jesus gave proof to humanity who He is with the Resurrection and then His Ascension.
LOL
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
I'm sticking with Jesus.
His students and biographers? You mean like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? How exactly are we to "pay more attention to the words of Christ" without paying attention to the guys who actually wrote them down? How would you even know what Christ said if it wasn't for these students and biographers?
Actually valid point, I should have said...rather than the understandings and opinions of, the interpretations of....
|
|
|||
Gods |
This is already past 350 posts, and be aware that this topic has turned kinda ugly. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
So, the Bible is an editorial essay? The evangelists included their opinions in their accounts? News to me.
As far as I know, the only inconsistent opinions, understandings, or interpretations of the Bible occur when individuals read it and make their own conclusions. Careful, your arguments are coming close to Catholic Apologetics.
He's endorsing her honoring of his mother because of him.
Dead wrong. He is correcting those who seek His mother and brothers...
But he answered and said unto him that told him, who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." -- Matthew 12:47-50"Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Believers are the equal of Mary. She holds no higher esteen in God's eye than you or I do.
Had she not believed the angel you’d not be a believer.
She is the first believer. Period. Her belief in the Incarnation made the incarnation possible. God does not rape. He asked her consent.
She gave it.
You owe her big-time honor precisely because you worship her Son.
And who said anything about Rome? I gave you the most plausible reading of the Luke passage, based on the structure of Luke, the Greek meaning of the word with which Jesus begins his response, the straight content of what he said.
You are the twister. Jesus honored his own mother, even from the Cross. You claim to be His follower but you slap him in the face, claiming to know better than he whether his mother deserves honor, among women.
And then there’s Elizabeth, her cousin. You’re smarter than she?? She honored the mother of our Lord more than other women.
And, if Jesus did not honor his mother because she was his mother, wouldn’t he be breaking one of the Ten Commandments? What kind of God Incarnate can’t be bothered to keep His own Commandments?
Most Protestants at least honor Mary to some degree. You are so hard-bitten a hater of Catholicism, East and West, that you have to reduce Mary to nothing more than Joe Six-Pack the deacon of Pastor Bob’s Bible Church.
It would be humorous if it were not so sad. You remind me of the Dwarfs in C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle. They are in paradise but refuse to see what they see and thus box themselves into a shed whose walls have disappeared with only the door remaining.
But despite your blindness, Mary loves you. So does her Son.
What gives you the impression that my evaluation of the evidence is not “exceedingly careful”? Have you actually looked at the evidence? It’s astounding. How many times do I have to repeat: as a professional historian, I know of no other artifact that has undergone this degree of forensic scrutiny. It’s simply astounding. And it preponderantly points to authenticity.
It has nothing to do with the basis for my belief in Jesus as Christ. The basis for that is trusting the testimony of a chain of witnesses over the centuries, including those who wrote the New Testament.
But as a historian, it’s perfectly plausible that the burial cloths of Jesus would have been preserved as a relic by the early Christians. Since they are explicitly and ostentatiously mentioned in the four gospels, it would be very implausible if they had not been preserved. There’s a decent “custody of evidence” pedigree over the centuries until it appears in full light in the 1350s and the modern forensic tests are persuasive.
Can it be proven 100 %, no. But no artifact can be proven that way. I’m just saying that the standard of proof for artifacts we have no trouble believing in is about 300,000 times lower than the standard of proof people expect in this case. I’d just like them to admit the double standard, then treat this as an artifact with a very high degree of credibility.
That’s all.
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.