Basically the idea is that there is no reliable way to show where the shroud came from. Was it faked in the 14th or the 5th century? The photos I've seen look very similar to the late Roman iconography. for instance look at the length of the index and middle finger. In orthodox iconography very long fingers are supposed to represent divine grace. The length of the fingers on the shroud are abnormally long. Just like the surviving 5th century icons. That to me suggests that the so called miraculous nature of the shroud isn't. Furthermore there is a long history of fraudulent holy artifacts, especially with relics directly associated with Jesu Bar Joseph. Also there is no contemporaneous accounts of the man. Given the flashy nature of the final result of crucifixion (an eclipse, storms etc), one would have expected at least some mention in the contemporary chronicles independent of the early Christians. Yet it was approximately 30 years before Josephus Flavius mentioned it, and even the Testimonies is now considered suspect.
BTw you suggest that the coatings are microns thin, and other so called miraculous features, provide some independent citations please. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250360 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
