That's embarrassing. Historians have uncovered a memorandum in 1390 by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, stating that the shroud was a fraud and he even knew the artist and how the shroud was painted. Odd that scripture would also omit mention of such an important "historical" piece of "evidence". Irrespective, a blood stained cloth would not prove a resurrection.
It's not paint and there's not an artist out there that has been able to reproduce it.
Never said it was paint. You can paint with various fluids.
Of course it can be easily reproduced, just not by removing a corpse from a cross and placing it on a sheet.
The original fake looks nothing like Jesus anyway:
If it wasn't paint, what is it? And who can reproduce it? If it's easy, someone would do it.
You know what Jesus looked like? How?
If it wasn't paint, what is it?
You can "paint" without paint.
And who can reproduce it?
Anyone could have a go at reproducing it. Those with artistic skills could make a good go of it.
If it's easy, someone would do it.
Maybe they have.
You know what Jesus looked like? How?
Nope. Given where he was born, he would've been dark skinned, otherwise that would have been another note-worthy miracle. Nobody seems to have mentioned in the bible that Jesus was a whitey.
