Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

JW : [giving you the benefit of the doubt]You seem blissfully unaware of the evidence indicating The Shroud is a painting from the 14th century[/giving you the benefit of the doubt]. The best evidence that it is is that it was carbon dated to the 14th century by three prestigious independent creden...

To read about the Vignon markings and the very likely impact of the Shroud on the iconography of Christ from at least the 6th century, see this page.

Relics are a discredited witness. This is all too fundamentalistic, simplistic, and dogmatic a statement. You are a "true (dis)believer" indeed! If we can have the body and mask of Tutankhamun (14th c. BCE), and if we can have Phidias's cup from Olympia (5th c. BCE) , certainly prized obj...

To iskander: "Some relics were faked" does not mean "All relics are fake." Simple logic. Skepticism is fine. A priori close-mindedness not. For this shroud to be a fake, you would have to have a brilliant master-forger who could work miracles. To Paul the Uncertain: Sephardic sim...

Sorry I messed up the formatting again. Corrected: That's what we don't have with the shroud. All efforts to turn the shroud into primary evidence are circular or at least question-begging. I do not see how you can a priori determine that the Shroud is not evidentiary. One might easily disprove a fa...

That's what we don't have with the shroud. All efforts to turn the shroud into primary evidence are circular or at least question-begging. I do not see how you can a priori determine that the Shroud is not evidentiary. One might easily disprove a fake: it was made out of the wrong materials or in t...

But - there are no witnesses testifying to the truth. All you have is claims from unknown sources in anonymous stories - Kapyong Lots of names point to the original dramatis personae , and there were likely many people who lived on, maybe even to the years 80 or 85 or 90. And there are known people...

The Shroud of Turin seems to tell the same story as gospel accounts. How? See the 23 parallels mentioned above. Semitic male -- scourging (with Roman flagellum) -- marks possibly from a crown of thorns (very rare, perhaps unique in crucifixion accounts) -- nail wounds -- crucifixion -- lance -- dea...

. . . If two people see the same car accident from two separate buildings, the coincidences of their accounts do not drive us to posit a greater likelihood of a common source other than the reality itself. The reality of the event is the common source. The historical truth is not "another ques...

Gday, If two independent witnesses tell the same story, the veracity of the story is bolstered. Many ancient books tell the tale of the creation of Adam and Eve - do you think that is historical ? Many ancient writers tell us about the magical exploits of Dionysus - does that make them historical ?...