Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H


Interstingly the book quotes a line from the Tablet which says the figure srongly resmeles the Jesus depicted by the old masters! The book discudess how the sroudl shows Jesus as tall even though the average and norjal ight of a man in his day in Palestine was under 5 4.
Linen from 4000 BC is to be seen in Egyphain musems thus concderning those who say the preservation of the linen is miracle! The book admits there are no ancient profs that herigginbone twil was used at the time of jesus. It assumes that a loom with the sophistican to do the job “could easily have been invented by the time of Chrirst”. Thjsi is too major of a thing just to teat like that. We need evidence that the twill did exist inthose days otherwise the idea that Jesus got one of the first herringoblne twil shrouds is too far-fetched.
The srhoudl fits the legend that Jesus was peairaced int eh side and his legs were not broken to hasten death by the Roamns. But the breaking of the legs was not an act of kindness but a visual deterenence. The violence of the act and its finality was meant to say something to the peole. So even if Jesus was cut in the side that was not enough.
The book admits that at he time of the d’Arcis affair there was obody there to tell anybody wehre the shroud came from. The book points out tha the clergy at Lirey would have been puzzled at how a modelsty wealthy family among thousands in the back end of the country could have such an amazing relic.
The documentraly evidence that the Shroud did exist before that time is not given to us. We hace hearsly from Wuenschel that inforaiton does exist in the archivces at Troyes related to the issue.
He overs the research of Vignon that the shroud blood looks so realistic. There is no mentin of how you cannot really clal it realistic unless you know the full cirusmtances of how it got on. And it is too realistic. There is such a thing!
Vignon assumes the bllod might have been poured onto the cloth eexpet that would absurb into the liene and get in between ther threatws. Vignon with a straight face says the blood would have spread unevenly along the threats but did not. Incredibly, the book tells us that if you bandage a would that is the way the blood travels. This is comalte contraditio. Vignon wants to say the blood was no poured on but went on the clean way it did by a contact print. Then we are told how blood travels on the contact print of a gauze bandage! Vignon esxplain that seat was one reason the dry blood transifeerd to the cloth. The book then says that Vignon did tests and found it is impossible ot get transvers done to the standard of the Srhoud. A here and there success on the small scale is no match.
Vignon argued that the blood mark on Jesus’ head was intrubield buy a wrinke on his forehead . So juch for wrinkgles going smooth on dead people!
Vignon thinks the nail wound is in the wrist not the hand. But that is unbrovable.
We are told ththat the resrech of Professor Romanese and Professor Judica-Cordiglia made good attmes at a sourd image with spices, turpentine, olive-ouil and aminblae blood. They used the faces of corupses. The faces turned out smudged but they did manage some feature such as the diffuslion of the imaogne.