Replies

but the fact remains that the contemporary record describes it as a produced work of art.

so NOT a 'fact" -

I wish people would at least do some in depth research before pontificating.

I've been following, for 50 years, researching and communicating with a scientist who has actually touched and examined and studied the Shroud - and kept up with the plethora of books, articles, web site and documentaries on the Shroud.

Any sort of paint or 'work of art' has been ruled out long ago.

If you're going to opine on the Shroud, may I suggest you, at minimum, watch the latest documentary aired this spring?

http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/face-jesus-revealed-10248139

LIVE LINKS NEXT POST

Please don't read into my carefully limited observation things that are not there.

I'm not "pontificating", I'm making an observation on the contemporary record.

It is a fact that the contemporary record describes it as a forgery. It is also a fact that the bishop said he knew whodunnit.

That doesn't mean it's a fact that it is a forgery. It's just one piece of the puzzle. The contemporary record itself could conceivably be a forgery, or the bishop may have had the facts wrong, or the bishop may have not been - ahem - candid. But if we're really looking for the truth, we don't discard out of hand facts that we don't like.

Also, the vehemence of the defenders of authenticity can shade over into "true-believer" hostility. That sort of no-holds-barred advocacy does the opposite of convincing doubters.