Bip, just a thought - as you are our resident expert on "All Things About the Shroud" - as there are several KEY and apparent misinformed/easily rebutted assertions that supposedly reveal the Shroud to be a mere forged (however), old artifact, it would be cool to begin a thread that lists them (Thread: "Common False and Rebutted Assertions About the Shroud": 1) Carbon 14 Tests Show Shroud is no older than..."), with a brief paragraph explaining why a specific assertion is proven false, and then just place the best of your many posts links pertaining to it, underneath. As the false assertions we are reading over and over are typically one of a handful that we are seeing repeated over and over, and think that would be a cool thread to point for those any of us encounter.
Bip, I'd like you to really think on a MUCH BIGGER scale with your Shroud research - as I would think, likely,
NO other person in the entire world has researched so many source materials and qualified experts as you have!
Really, what you have done on this forum to educate us on this matter is astonishing. It shows your great enthusiasm and passion. Really, an ancient, pre-modern / scientific age "artifact" that has 3-dimensional/spatial imagery, perfectly accurate to Scripture's description of the wounds of Christ, with an image that no one can figure out how it got on the cloth (excepting some enormous burst of energy), that can't, even now, be duplicated, that analysis shows even the correct pollens unique to the Holy Land on it, that has a NEGATIVE image on it, pre-photography, that ALL of these incredible aspects of it just happen to make it the most EXPERT-studied artifact IN THE WORLD, and it just so happens that we know that many hundreds of years ago it was considered to be the actual burial garment of Christ. What an amazing array of conincidences, eh? And HOW - as who in the ancient world would even have the expertise to create something so sophisticated, much less that can't be replicated by modern techniques, and whose 3-dimensional features and photographic image wouldn't have even been understood (by any supposed ancient forger)? And WHY, when a simple painted fake would have been more than enough to fool ancient pilgrims? None of this makes ANY sense - UNLESS...
fun post man, thx.
