Globalnomad
Senior Veteran
- Apr 2, 2005
- 5,390
- 660
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Seeker777, I don't need to disprove all the thirty-nine reasons you gave why the Shroud is a forgery. Some of them are perfectly plausible, others I could tear apart in an instant. The point is that they are demonstrably agenda-seeking, not objectively scientific. One example is enough: the introduction of logically superflouos arguments on the pattern of the well-known joke " I never stole the apple, and anyway, it was sour." Look at the point that it is not a true negative, since it makes the beard come out white - and the very next point, the author explains how such a negative image can easily be produced.
And the big point is still not addressed. The body image is not painted - either by rubbing or in any other way. No pigment has been found to account for it. Those who tried to reproduce such an image by light scorching over a heated metal mannikin have failed.
Look, I have an easier job than you, because my position is simply that the Shroud, unlike all other known relics, is truly puzzling, unexplainable, and could possibly be the real thing. I am not trying to prove that it is real, I am only trying to prove that those who are trying to prove it is NOT, are failing, because they are not addressing all of the puzzles. And I am certainly not trying to prove the existence of God, nor the Resurrection, by it!
But one thing is sure: the arguments in favour of the authenticity of the Shroud are no bigger mumbo-jumbo than the arguments against it. Why can't we just agree that it is a complex unexplained puzzle, instead of throwing nasty words?
Perhaps just one more point. We think that it WAS known in the East before the Crusades. There is a mention on an eight-century document, kept in the Vatican, about a cloth on which Christ's body was imprinted, kept in a church in Cappadocia. And there is a codex from an ancient Hungarian library, dating well before the first recorded appearance of the Shroud, with a picture of Christ being buried in a sheet draped in just this unusual way. I think there are other plausible traces too, that I cannot remember off-hand.
And the big point is still not addressed. The body image is not painted - either by rubbing or in any other way. No pigment has been found to account for it. Those who tried to reproduce such an image by light scorching over a heated metal mannikin have failed.
Look, I have an easier job than you, because my position is simply that the Shroud, unlike all other known relics, is truly puzzling, unexplainable, and could possibly be the real thing. I am not trying to prove that it is real, I am only trying to prove that those who are trying to prove it is NOT, are failing, because they are not addressing all of the puzzles. And I am certainly not trying to prove the existence of God, nor the Resurrection, by it!
But one thing is sure: the arguments in favour of the authenticity of the Shroud are no bigger mumbo-jumbo than the arguments against it. Why can't we just agree that it is a complex unexplained puzzle, instead of throwing nasty words?
Perhaps just one more point. We think that it WAS known in the East before the Crusades. There is a mention on an eight-century document, kept in the Vatican, about a cloth on which Christ's body was imprinted, kept in a church in Cappadocia. And there is a codex from an ancient Hungarian library, dating well before the first recorded appearance of the Shroud, with a picture of Christ being buried in a sheet draped in just this unusual way. I think there are other plausible traces too, that I cannot remember off-hand.
Upvote
0