Oldbear83 said:

---

Yet now you are playing that same game, denying the well-known complicity and even direction of massacres by the RCC when it held political power in Europe.

I hoped you were better than that.

---

I'd thought you at least try.

With the "ubiquitous" knowledge that "Catholics committed mass murder", I would think it would be super easy for you to simply type something to the point like your Holocaust comment:

Hitler, 1939-1945 - Poland, Austria, France, Germany.

Let's at least investigate those crimes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will not comply with demands that I prove water is wet, that cats and dogs are not the same in behavior or usefulness, or that people who gain political power often abuse it and persecute their enemies.

---

In other words, you can't name the Popes and the peoples. Just do a little research.

Finally, I have now stated (three times) that Catholics and Protestant have both kill the other when in power. I don't understand what you want here.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yet now you are playing that same game, denying the well-known complicity and even direction of massacres by the RCC when it held political power in Europe.

I hoped you were better than that.

---

I'd thought you at least try.

With the "ubiquitous" knowledge that "Catholics committed mass murder", I would think it would be super easy for you to simply type something to the point like your Holocaust comment:

Hitler, 1939-1945 - Poland, Austria, France, Germany.

Let's at least investigate those crimes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will not comply with demands that I prove water is wet, that cats and dogs are not the same in behavior or usefulness, or that people who gain political power often abuse it and persecute their enemies.

---

In other words, you can't name the Popes and the peoples. Just do a little research.

Finally, I have now stated (three times) that Catholics and Protestant have both kill the other when in power. I don't understand what you want here.

---

So the next time you post to BusyTarpDuster, understand you are posting to your double.

Same bullying tactics, same moral cowardice,

You might want to start here:

Why Pope Francis Just Asked Protestants for Forgiveness



https://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-protestants-forgiveness-persecution-419512



Then consider this:

Five of the most violent moments of the Reformation

https://theconversation.com/five-of-the-most-violent-moments-of-the-reformation-71535




And this:

Pope says sorry for sins of church

" He has apologised for the crusades, the massacre of French Protestants, the trial of Galileo and anti-semitism." [Pope John Paul II]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion


And of course, this:

Inquisition

including this gem:

"There were countless abuses of power. Count Raymond VII of Toulouse was known for burning heretics at the stake even though they had confessed. His successor, Count Alphonese, confiscated the lands of the accused to increase his riches.

In 1307, Inquisitors were involved in the mass arrest and tortures of 15,000 Knights Templar in France, resulting in dozens of executions. Joan of Arc, burned at the stake in 1431, is the most famous victim of this wing of the Inquisition."

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/inquisition


But sure, pretend the Protestants were just like the Papists.

Did you watch the videos I posted about the history of the Catholic Church????

I am going to step away from this board for a few months to focus on my studies.

I am currently perusing a Postgraduate Certificate in Shroud (of Turin) Studies from the Pontifical University Regina Apostolorum based in Italy.

The Shroud of Turin is reported to be the burial shroud of Jesus. I've been fascinated with the Shroud for more than 35 years. I heard about this program last year and decided that I want to know more about the history, scriptures, and science behind the mystery of the Shroud.

My ultimate goal is to present this information to parishes, churches, and private schools in Central Texas (and beyond) if someone desires to their group to learn about the shroud.

I have greatly enjoyed our discussions on the theology; however, it is distracting me from my three courses this semester. I have tests and papers due in January and I begin three more courses the following week. I should be done sometime after in April or May.

I will miss the lively debates, research, and discussions. They help me better prepare the teens that I work with at my parish in Waco.

I going to remove my Bookmark from this Topic so that I am not temped to visit. I will most likely pop in from time to time on the Premium Board to read about basketball or our impending football coaching search.

God Bless and Sic'em!

Your Brother in Christ,

Coke Bear

Coke Bear said:

---

I am going to step away from this board for a few months to focus on my studies.

I am currently perusing a Postgraduate Certificate in Shroud (of Turin) Studies from the Pontifical University Regina Apostolorum based in Italy.

The Shroud of Turin is reported to be the burial shroud of Jesus. I've been fascinated with the Shroud for more than 35 years. I heard about this program last year and decided that I want to know more about the history, scriptures, and science behind the mystery of the Shroud.

My ultimate goal is to present this information to parishes, churches, and private schools in Central Texas (and beyond) if someone desires to their group to learn about the shroud.

I have greatly enjoyed our discussions on the theology; however, it is distracting me from my three courses this semester. I have tests and papers due in January and I begin three more courses the following week. I should be done sometime after in April or May.

I will miss the lively debates, research, and discussions. They help me better prepare the teens that I work with at my parish in Waco.

I going to remove my Bookmark from this Topic so that I am not temped to visit. I will most likely pop in from time to time on the Premium Board to read about basketball or our impending football coaching search.

God Bless and Sic'em!

Your Brother in Christ,

Coke Bear

---

I am also interested in the Shroud of Turin. I have recently seen a video where an artist took the shroud image and extrapolated a likely image of Christ. It would be great if you could share your findings with us here. Please visit this thread often.amd your comments are welcome.

Thanks very much for all your contributions, Coke Bear. The board is more enlightening and enjoyable with your posts.

Hope we see you back next year with new knowledge and insights to share!

Fundamentalists still arguing over esoteric doctrine since 34 AD

Just in case the topic matters to you, Waco, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?

What do you think is its origin?

If it is real, what does that mean?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Quote:

---

You've worked this thread down a pointless rabbit hole over Mosaic law. My only point is EVEN if it was actual blood, in a cup, Jesus was fulfilled the Mosaic law and declare all thing clean. For this topic, the disciples were "harvesting" i.e. doing work on the Sabbath, which according to Jesus tradition, was doing work. As we discussed, this belief is evidenced today with the strict Eruv wires. Enough with that. Back to the real point is the real presence of Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the under the appearance of bread and wine.

When we examine the drinking of his blood in John 6, we need to look back to the ratification ceremony on Mt. Sinai in:

Quote:

---

Exodus 24:8 said:
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

---

Jesus at the last supper, explicitly eludes to same covenantal language found in Exodus 24 in:

Quote:

---

Matthew 26:27-28 said:
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

---

The Last Supper is the ratifying ceremony of the New and everlasting Covenant.

Moses used real blood from the victim to seal the ratification of the old covenant. Jesus would have to use real blood, His Blood, in the New and everlasting Covenant.

If it was just a symbol, it would be inferior to the old covenant. This wouldn't happen. The New "types" are always superior.

The same goes with the Passover meal. Jesus says, "This is my body, take and eat." He is the Lamb of God that must be eaten. Once again, if Jesus meant it figuratively or symbolically, this would have made Jesus' sacrifice inferior to the OT, which isn't possible.

You can deny all you want. That's on you. You are trying to argue with nearly 2000 years of consistently held teachings and scriptures going back to the first century.

Please locate the first person (and when) to deny this in history. Anything else is just YOUR fallible opinion on scripture. Why should I trust your opinion over 2000 years of history and scripture?

---

Since CokeBear has stepped away from the thread, I will answer this post as a stand alone comment, because I think it needs responding to.

1. Jesus had not completely fulfilled all of Mosaic Law at the Last Supper, because he had to do so for his whole life. If Jesus sinned after the Last Supper before he was crucified, then he would have failed. Therefore, it wasn't until Jesus told His Father "It is finished" and then died on the cross when he completed the fulfillment. Therefore, the disciples were still bound by the Law during the Last Supper, and drinking blood would have been a violation. And Jesus would have sinned if he commanded them to violate the Law.

2. Jesus(God) did not claim "all things clean" until after his death and resurrection (Acts 10). He did not make all things clean during the Last Supper, when he was still alive.

3. Even if one thinks the disciples "harvested" on the Sabbath, thus breaking the Sabbath law, the point remains that Jesus did not "harvest" with them, and he did not command them to do it. Thus, he did not commit a sin.

4. The covenantal language in the Old Testament, which involved REAL blood, was still fulfilled in Jesus Christ in the literal sense, because Jesus shed his literal blood on the cross. The idea that because real blood was used in OT covenantal ritual then it means it was REAL blood in the Last Supper cup, is a non sequitur. If one has concluded that because the OT covenant ritual involved real blood then it must be Jesus' real blood in the cup, then one must also take the literal stance that drinking Jesus' literal blood is an absolute requirement for salvation - "unless you drink my blood, you have no life within you." But clearly this isn't taught as the gospel in Scripture. Not to mention, it falsifies many proclamations in the bible about how to get saved, because eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood are never mentioned.

Imagine for a moment, being told in person, directly BY JESUS HIMSELF, that you are saved. That is the thief on the cross. You'd have a hard time explaining how he got saved, even though he didn't get water bapized or eat and drink Jesus' literal flesh and blood. He was saved merely by a proclamation of his true faith.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just in case the topic matters to you, Waco, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?

What do you think is its origin?

If it is real, what does that mean?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

---

If the Shroud is real, it's further evidence, not only that Jesus Christ was a real Historical figure, but that He really did die and rose from the dead.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just in case the topic matters to you, Waco, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?

What do you think is its origin?

If it is real, what does that mean?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

---

If the Shroud is real, it's further evidence, not only that Jesus Christ was a real Historical figure, but that He really did die and rose from the dead.

---

I'd like to hear from Waco on that question.

In Acts chapter 21, Paul goes to Jerusalem and visits the apostle James. Here James tells Paul of what he had instructed the Gentile believers to do, in regards to the observance of the Law:

"But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 21:25)

So why would the apostles command Gentile believers to not eat blood, if they understood the Eucharist to be the real blood of Jesus?

It's obvious from the above that the apostles themselves did not believe the Last Supper involved the actual eating of Jesus' literal flesh and drinking of his literal blood. Otherwise, they wouldn't be commanding Gentile believers against it. Any thoughts on this from Catholics or Orthodox?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

I am also interested in the Shroud of Turin. I have recently seen a video where an artist took the shroud image and extrapolated a likely image of Christ. It would be great if you could share your findings with us here. Please visit this thread often.amd your comments are welcome.

---

For those of you interested in the Shroud, the Holy Face of Manoppello is mind blowing.



"Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed." - John 20-6:8

Imagine the effect of seeing this folded in the empty tomb on someone who had never so much as seen a black and white photograph of anything.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just in case the topic matters to you, Waco, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?

What do you think is its origin?

If it is real, what does that mean?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

---

If the Shroud is real, it's further evidence, not only that Jesus Christ was a real Historical figure, but that He really did die and rose from the dead.

---

I'd like to hear from Waco on that question.

---

Why?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just in case the topic matters to you, Waco, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?

What do you think is its origin?

If it is real, what does that mean?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

---

If the Shroud is real, it's further evidence, not only that Jesus Christ was a real Historical figure, but that He really did die and rose from the dead.

---

I'd like to hear from Waco on that question.

---

Why?

---

You believe Christ rose from the dead. Waco very clearly does not, so his thoughts on the Shroud offer some fruit for effective discussion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You believe Christ rose from the dead. Waco very clearly does not, so his thoughts on the Shroud offer some fruit for effective discussion.

---

Disbelief is usually the fruit of a moral "I prefer not to", not an intellectual "I can't". The percentage of people who are willing to weigh evidence and look in a mirror is surprisingly small.

Yes I believe in the resurrection. Paul is clear in I Corinthians 15 what that is.

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes I believe in the resurrection. Paul is clear in I Corinthians 15 what that is.

---

Waco, you have said before that you do not believe in the Supernatural. Wouldn't rising from the dead count as 'Supernatural'?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes I believe in the resurrection. Paul is clear in I Corinthians 15 what that is.

---

Waco, you have said before that you do not believe in the Supernatural. Wouldn't rising from the dead count as 'Supernatural'?

---

You can't say that you don't believe in the Supernatural, while accepting what the Bible says.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes I believe in the resurrection. Paul is clear in I Corinthians 15 what that is.

---

Waco, you have said before that you do not believe in the Supernatural. Wouldn't rising from the dead count as 'Supernatural'?

---

You can't say that you don't believe in the Supernatural, while accepting what the Bible says.

---

Read some of Waco's posts. He rejects everything but where Jesus agrees with his materialist version.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sure, there are things done by Protestants which are horrible and evil. But mass murder is something pretty much a Roman thing.

---

This is my last request for the names of Popes. I will not do a back and forth for 15 posts like BDT17 did trying to get you to reply.

Please provide the names of the Popes that committed mass murder and who those people were.

Please eloborate on the "mass murder" that was perpetuated.

Failure on either one of these parts, and we can move onto a different point of discussion.

---

Some time ago, Coke Bear, you and I had seemed to reach a similar sadness that another member insisted on denying any claim until it was proven to absurd extremes, a behavior that made productive discussion impossible.

---

What were these "absurd extremes"? There were absolutely no absurd extremes given.

Rather, it sounds like you guys couldn't answer the questions, which made your positions untenable, so you had to find some way to invalidate the questions.

Care to expound on these "extremes"?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And we both know that's like a German today demanding proof Hitler ordered Jews killed.

Catholics murdered Protestants when Catholics held political power. Do you deny that?

Come on, give a straight answer like a man.

---

I agree BOTH Protestants and Catholics have been killed by either side - Elizabeth I and Henry VIII vs. Mary Queen of Scots; however, I am still waiting for you to list the POPES that you clams killed Protestants and who were they.

I want to research the whole story behind these events.

---

So, no straight answer then.

Disappointing.

---

Sooooo ironic......

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

---

It is my understanding that most non-RCC theologians say the Church is Christ's Queen, as evidenced in Scripture:

Matthew 22:1-4

Luke 12:36

Revelation 19:7-9

Christ also made clear who was his family in Matthew 12:46-50 "For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother".

---

I don't see queen listed in any of these passages. Scripture refers to Christ's bride as the Church. Not as a Queen. As realitybites mentioned, the Hebrews never referred to the King's wife as Queen. The Queen was always the King's mother.

With respect to Matthew 12:46-50, many Protestants try so present this as Jesus reducing the importance of Mary and His family. Quite the contrary. Jesus, who would never break the 4th commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother, is stating that as important as family is, those that do God's will are part of His Kingdom, which is ultimately the most important thing.

---

** sigh **

Bottom line, the Gospel accounts very clearly do not regard Mary with the status given by so many Roman Catholics.

All the double-talk in Rome won't change that.

---

Would you say, then, that those prayers to Mary which call her "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Co-Mediatrix", "god of this world" and that we should "entrust our soul and salvation into her hands" are heretical and idolatrous?

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

I am also interested in the Shroud of Turin. I have recently seen a video where an artist took the shroud image and extrapolated a likely image of Christ. It would be great if you could share your findings with us here. Please visit this thread often.amd your comments are welcome.

---

For those of you interested in the Shroud, the Holy Face of Manoppello is mind blowing.

"Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed." - John 20-6:8

Imagine the effect of seeing this folded in the empty tomb on someone who had never so much as seen a black and white photograph of anything.

---

Where do you get from that passage that the disciples saw Jesus' image in the shroud?

Wouldn't that be something the disciples would have been sure to write about?

What makes you guys believe the Shroud of Turin to be authentic? The Gospels say that Jesus was buried wrapped in strips (plural) of linen, with a separate linen around his head. So how would Jesus' entire image be on one large sheet?

Also, I'd like to add that the Shroud being real doesn't really prove either way that Jesus rose from the dead, so it wouldn't really be a good argument against someone who doesn't believe it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Where do you get from that passage that the disciples saw Jesus' image in the shroud?

Wouldn't that be something the disciples would have been sure to write about?

---

If you read that chapter carefully it becomes clear that they arrived at the tomb, saw the stone rolled away, saw that it was empty, and saw the grave clothes before setting foot inside. It was only after they went in did they see the facecloth. Whatever they saw after going in is what caused the other disciple to believe.

Whether or not the shroud of Turin was present on that morning, seeing the blood of a dead man on it would not have been surprising. But seeing a burial facecloth with that image on it - eyes open - would be more than enough to get those two from "they stole the body" to "He's alive".

As far as writing about it, maybe - and maybe not. There are many reasons why they would not have. He appeared to them bodily before the ascension multiple times for one. They had the facecloth in their possession for another. They didn't necessarily expect that 2000 years plus would pass and that people reading those accounts would be this far from the events. Keep in mind that the Bible itself tells is that the New Testament is not a complete historical record.
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25).

Throughout Christian history there is a thread of "the image made without hands". Keep in mind that this would be something quite unusual in a religion that originated in a Jewish faith that had serious commandments against idolatry.

But if you start pulling on this thread from Archeological sources, it keeps reappearing. Thomas had it and took it to Edessa and left it with King Abgar the Fifth. After Edessa was overrun by Muslims it went to Constantinople where it was carried by the armies of Byzantium like the Ark was carried by the armies of Israel. It then reappears at the Vatican. How it got from Constantinople to Rome is a bit murky but my best guess is that transfer occurred around 1200-1300 AD between the time of the fourth crusade and the dissolution of the Templar Order and one of those two groups brought it west.

When the armies of the Holy Roman empire sacked Rome in 1527 it disappears again and eventually reappears in Manopello. The residents there say an angel brought it to them. Maybe...or maybe someone inside Rome saw what was about to happen and arranged for its safe keeping.

The loss caused such a disturbance in the Vatican's revenue stream that the Pope had a fake commissioned that they only showed to the public once a year and ordered the destruction of all previously made images of Christ in existence because they reflected the original).

Roman Catholic mythology has a Saint Veronica who supposedly had Jesus' image magically transferred to her handkerchief when she wiped the sweat off His brow on the Via Dolorosa. There is no evidence for a Saint Veronica. But even in that is a clue. Veronica...Vera Iconia. Latin for the true image.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

---

It is my understanding that most non-RCC theologians say the Church is Christ's Queen, as evidenced in Scripture:

Matthew 22:1-4

Luke 12:36

Revelation 19:7-9

Christ also made clear who was his family in Matthew 12:46-50 "For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother".

---

I don't see queen listed in any of these passages. Scripture refers to Christ's bride as the Church. Not as a Queen. As realitybites mentioned, the Hebrews never referred to the King's wife as Queen. The Queen was always the King's mother.

With respect to Matthew 12:46-50, many Protestants try so present this as Jesus reducing the importance of Mary and His family. Quite the contrary. Jesus, who would never break the 4th commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother, is stating that as important as family is, those that do God's will are part of His Kingdom, which is ultimately the most important thing.

---

** sigh **

Bottom line, the Gospel accounts very clearly do not regard Mary with the status given by so many Roman Catholics.

All the double-talk in Rome won't change that.

---

Would you say, then, that those prayers to Mary which call her "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Co-Mediatrix", "god of this world" and that we should "entrust our soul and salvation into her hands" are heretical and idolatrous?

---

BTD, I understand your desire to start a bar fight among the denominations. I prefer trying to persuade Coke Bear and Curtpenn to recognize the danger in such choice of words.

The simple fact that people who never met Mary are praying to her is heading down a dangerous road. Not unlike playing with a Quija board, you don't really know who or what is talking to you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What makes you guys believe the Shroud of Turin to be authentic? The Gospels say that Jesus was buried wrapped in strips (plural) of linen, with a separate linen around his head. So how would Jesus' entire image be on one large sheet?

Also, I'd like to add that the Shroud being real doesn't really prove either way that Jesus rose from the dead, so it wouldn't really be a good argument against someone who doesn't believe it.

---

What do you think the Shroud is? The many tests have eliminated it being a painting, and the fabric is consistent with first-century linen.

I would think any reasonable person would want to understand how that image could have been made.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.
...

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What makes you guys believe the Shroud of Turin to be authentic? The Gospels say that Jesus was buried wrapped in strips (plural) of linen, with a separate linen around his head. So how would Jesus' entire image be on one large sheet?

Also, I'd like to add that the Shroud being real doesn't really prove either way that Jesus rose from the dead, so it wouldn't really be a good argument against someone who doesn't believe it.

---

What do you think the Shroud is? The many tests have eliminated it being a painting, and the fabric is consistent with first-century linen.

I would think any reasonable person would want to understand how that image could have been made.

---

I think it is the actual burial cloth of Christ. The image was likely made when He rose again from a burst of radiation/light of some sort. If you look at the negative of the shroud image, it becomes even more incredible.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What makes you guys believe the Shroud of Turin to be authentic? The Gospels say that Jesus was buried wrapped in strips (plural) of linen, with a separate linen around his head. So how would Jesus' entire image be on one large sheet?

Also, I'd like to add that the Shroud being real doesn't really prove either way that Jesus rose from the dead, so it wouldn't really be a good argument against someone who doesn't believe it.

---

What do you think the Shroud is? The many tests have eliminated it being a painting, and the fabric is consistent with first-century linen.

I would think any reasonable person would want to understand how that image could have been made.

---

I think it is the actual burial cloth of Christ. The image was likely made when He rose again from a burst of radiation/light of some sort. If you look at the negative of the shroud image, it becomes even more incredible.

---

It's frankly amazing that in 2023 we can't be sure of how the image was made. Certainly we lack the means to reproduce the effect, although I seem to recall someone tried once and failed miserably.

With respect

I believe it has been established that the cloth dates centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Therefore the image is not of our Lord.

KaiBear said:

---

With respect

I believe it has been established that the cloth dates centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Therefore the image is not of our Lord.

---

That is not correct. A claim was made that a tested portion of the cloth was from later, but that portion was not from the original cloth but additional backing added later to reinforce the fabric. The original cloth has been tested and is known to be consistent with the 1st century. More detailed testing is not possible because so much fabric would be needed that it would deface the image.


Also, you have not even attempted to explain how the image was formed. Kind of a big thing to ignore, sir.

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

With respect

I believe it has been established that the cloth dates centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Therefore the image is not of our Lord.

---

That is not correct. A claim was made that a tested portion of the cloth was from later, but that portion was not from the original cloth but additional backing added later to reinforce the fabric. The original cloth has been tested and is known to be consistent with the 1st century. More detailed testing is not possible because so much fabric would be needed that it would deface the image.


Also, you have not even attempted to explain how the image was formed. Kind of a big thing to ignore, sir.

---

Have not read anything remotely similar to your cloth dating explanation. Have only read the cloth involved was from a far later period.

And if the cloth is not of the 1st century it is irrelevant how the image was formed.

FWIW I get no enjoyment pointing out the likelihood the image is not of Jesus Christ.