> Basically the idea is that there is no reliable way to show where the > shroud came from.
It's probable that you are right...but not due to lack of corroborating historical data, but simply because the shroud itself has moved around and been handled so much, that it is very contaminated at this point. But we do know that the herringbone cloth used is consistent with 1st century Palestine, and it certainly is *possible* at some point to accurately carbon date it as well. Other evidence certainly supports it being there, but definitive proof is probably not likely. > The photos I've seen look very similar to the late Roman iconography. Which is a basic chicken-egg conundrum. Were they based on the shroud...or vice versa. > That to me suggests > that the so called miraculous nature of the shroud isn't. Why? This really means virtually nothing in terms of proving whether someone made it or not. To do that, you have to provide the means. And again, why are you bringing in a discussion of it being "miraculous"? Just because it was not man-made does not automatically mean it must therefore be miraculous. But this is precisely why most skeptics are so determined to believe someone made it, because they feel a need to discredit even the *possibility* of a miraculous origin. > there is a long history of fraudulent holy artifacts, especially with > relics directly associated with Jesu Bar Joseph. So? All of those we can explain how they were created...and thus can conclude that they *are* fakes. > Given the flashy nature of the > final result of crucifixion (an eclipse, storms etc), one would have > expected at least some mention in the contemporary chronicles > independent of the early Christians. Uh, I'm not about to get into a discussion of whether Jesus even existed or not...other than to point out that as I said to Jim, there certainly *are* atheists that will debate his existence as a historical figure. ;-) > BTw you suggest that the coatings are microns thin, and other so > called miraculous features, provide some independent citations please. How is the chemical makeup of the images a "miraculous feature"? Again, you are clearly not looking at this from a scientific point of view at all, so I doubt you would give credence to anything I give you. But fine...here's a quick summary of the image chemistry: http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-chemistry.htm - this is not supposition, this is what extensive scientific study of the image has revealed as known fact. (Actually I was wrong about it being microns thin...it's nanometers, which is far thinner.) For a full list of citations, here's the document to read. This lists most known papers on the shroud, hypotheses on the image formation, and summarizes the information in groups, from what is known fact, confirmed observations, observations still under debate, and also comparisons with biblical accounts for anecdotal purposes.The citation list included is very comprehensive, McCrone's papers are included, the "shadow shroud" theory, etc. Links to papers and sites on the internet where available are included. http://www.shroudstory.com/ListOfFacts.pdf ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250364 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
