Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Tyrone
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
I believe that the shroud has been tested and dates back to the 14th century.
That was wrong. Later testing was done better.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/20...ud-of-turin-to-the-time-of-christs-death

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.

These days we have bleeding Mary statues - the miracles continue (well, after someone refills the statues anyway).


Well, this has surfaced before.

I note that you seem to take the “memo” to be legit.

The document you are referring to is unsigned, undated and certainly not corroborated by other outside and independent historians. Perhaps not even written by old Pierre…..bogus, yet you put some stock in it.


Would you have us believe this document should be taken with some degree of seriousness?

The gospels have much more corroboration than this……

That's a bit rich. The shroud came with no certificates, but you are okay with that, or even mention in the bible - you'd think that would add more credibility to the tale. The bible even says that Jesus was covered in strips of linen, with a separate cloth only covering his face, which would be normal for a Jewish burial at the time. Nothing about a bed sheet.


You seem to have a comprehension issue…. What is a “bit rich?”

I was not defending the shroud at all….

As usual, you missed the point.

You missed the point. It's about double standards, unless you also dismiss the authenticity of the shroud. Feel free to dodge.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Tyrone
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
I believe that the shroud has been tested and dates back to the 14th century.
That was wrong. Later testing was done better.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/20...ud-of-turin-to-the-time-of-christs-death

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.

These days we have bleeding Mary statues - the miracles continue (well, after someone refills the statues anyway).


Well, this has surfaced before.

I note that you seem to take the “memo” to be legit.

The document you are referring to is unsigned, undated and certainly not corroborated by other outside and independent historians. Perhaps not even written by old Pierre…..bogus, yet you put some stock in it.


Would you have us believe this document should be taken with some degree of seriousness?

The gospels have much more corroboration than this……

That's a bit rich. The shroud came with no certificates, but you are okay with that, or even mention in the bible - you'd think that would add more credibility to the tale. The bible even says that Jesus was covered in strips of linen, with a separate cloth only covering his face, which would be normal for a Jewish burial at the time. Nothing about a bed sheet.


You seem to have a comprehension issue…. What is a “bit rich?”

I was not defending the shroud at all….

As usual, you missed the point.

You missed the point. It's about double standards, unless you also dismiss the authenticity of the shroud. Feel free to dodge.


Nope, I merely pointed out that a reference used by you to make a “point” was simply bogus.

You are the one that chose not to address this objection and the went on about the shroud….. never mentioning that the Pierre d’Arcy doc is undated, unsigned and likely not even written…and perhaps not even composed by Pierre.

You did try a weak attempt to “dodge” the issue….and then you say to me “Feel free to dodge” simply reveals that you are simply dishonest…. Also prone to “just dream up in substantiated baloney.”

The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”