Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

You know that the stuff you just quoted says exactly nothing? It's just hollow words without meaning. Of course, that's the only answer that can come. Expecting an exact replica by any method is inane. And where was "an exact replica" stipulated? The words are not hollow: they mean that t...

But demonstrably the science seems to offer competing accounts, so there is a conflict within science at some level. One has to go further than the superficial. I know you want to follow the skeptical bishops of the middle ages, but there may still be more to say. "Nothing connects this shroud ...

JW also talks about McCrone and paint. Here's further information about that: McCrone has publicly stated that he stakes his professional reputation on the Shroud being a fake. This position scarcely encourages objective research. His conclusions are largely based on his examination of material obta...

JW says "The Scientific evidence indicates The Shroud is a 14th century forgery. If it is 14th century then it is not 1st century." All too simplistic, misleading, and wrong. Science is not monolithic, and you left out Fanti's research. I accept the later radiocarbon dating for the later r...

National Geographic says "Every scientific attempt to replicate it in a lab has failed." Wrong. From wikipedia : Kapyong Kapyong was premature in his appreciation of Nicholas Allen's achievement. Here's what a real expert on the Shroud concludes: The proto-photography theory proposed by P...

National Geographic says "Every scientific attempt to replicate it in a lab has failed." Wrong. From wikipedia : Medieval photography According to the art historian Nicholas Allen, the image on the shroud was formed by a photographic technique in the 13th century. [174] ... Kapyong This i...

Mark ends at 16:8, every subsequent gospel embellishes the story more and more, so your source is now GJohn? Written way after that fact, not even by an alleged eyewitness. But why should some historical details not filter through, even in John's gospel? It depends on the line of transmission. Alex...

It is highly unlikley that, in those days, a crucified person's body would be taken down, carefully wrapped, and entombed. Perhaps that is why the initiative / sponsorship of Joseph of Arimathea was needed: John 19:38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a se...

Interesting question about the kind of wrapping. Was it in strips like mummies? Here is one article that points to a far more philological one.

Fundamentalist-apologists for the inauthenticity of the Shroud might consider some recent science: But the coup de grace for the dating process came from a study released on 20 January 2005, in which Raymond Rogers, a scientist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of the original members ...