Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not concerned about you only. It might help someone. You should just ignore this thread and it will run its course. Then in a few months later I can repost for any new people that might be open to the truth. 😏
There is nobody who actually cares about evidence for whom the Shroud would be convincing was my point.
The reasons being that even if you could establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this was actually wrapped
around a guy who lived 2000 yrs ago who had just been crucified and who was called Jesus Christ (which you
emphatically can't do) It would still not be evidence of anything supernatural.
While I don't believe that JC actually existed or that any of the events in the NT actually happened (or happened anything
like it says they happened) it wouldn't be in any way surprising or interesting to learn that actually there was a bloke who
went by that name who lived at that time who did the non-supernatural things in the bible and upon whom the religion was
What you need to prove that the religion is true is evidence of the supernatural, of actual miracles, of god.
This isn't evidence for any of those things, even if you assumed the best case scenario for it's authenticity.
The reason you keep clinging to nonsense like this is that you have no real evidence to show.
Harking on about this like it was a trump card or something worthy of looking at doesn't make your case stronger to
anyone who cares about evidence.
It makes it weaker. It makes you look desperate.