Christs image is it what you think?

Ray Glenn said:

Everything from that study was contaminated before they began.

A fire during the medieval period in the church where the shroud was stored. Massive smoke and burn damage to the cloth. There is no way to do a carbon study of anything with the amount of damage done before science got their hands on the cloth. Funny, The History Channel doesn't describe that in detail. The History Channel also ignores reality. If the Shroud is created during the medieval period, what did medieval artists believe at the time of it's creation? Interesting thought when considering one fatal flaw in the period. Interesting still that Mel Gibson fouled up when he laid his own hand on the crucifix in his film. The nail went through the palm of his hand, wrong . Scientific evidence and poof provides one clue that would be impossible on the shroud had it been created during the medieval period as claimed by this expert scientific team. The shroud shows the "Wrist" wounds and not the palm of the hand as claimed. Medieval artists believed what they read. Unfortunately for them, the Greek language does not have a word for wrists. Wrists were considered part of the hand. Every crucifix painted, sculptured and created at the time is historically wrong. However, archeology proves the point of the location where the nails were driven. Case after case of bones from crucifixions prove the nails went through the wrists and not the palms of the hands. One in particular is evidence of the nail striking a knot in the plank. The nail could not be removed, so the plank was cut with wrist and the nail intact. It was buried with the body.

The scientific team was not united on the final findings. Since that study, more modern Carbon testing has occurred that question the initial findings. Not one artist anywhere has come up with a method to copy the image. Every wound on the shroud, front and back, testify evidence that was not known at the supposed time of the claimed creation of the shroud. The scourging of this victim proves what a typical wounding of a person would look like according to history.

Given the presentations of several of the team disputing what was found and claimed, I would not consider the History Channel to be valid proof of anything. I've seen and read the testimonies and have listened to the video presentations of those in dispute. As well as, reading and listening to the new wave of scientists that call this study into question.

Click to expand...

Gregory95 said:

The Error of the Long-haired Jesus

Please read the article , and give your input

NO acting like a child with name calling or snarky comments. Be a adult and have a meaningful discussion.

Click to expand...