Hey pumparse ... 651

As is my entitlement. It's you that has the monopoly on reason in this debate, remember? I can cite whatever irrational and fantastic sources I like, for I am defending a superstition and an anachronism.

Keep that in mind as we continue this debate Le Dieu. For starters, try not to discredit your sources in the morning if you're going to use them that very evening.

I've presented most of the scientific data pertaining to the Shroud of Turin in posts to this newsgroup dating from mid-September to the present. they're easy to find. So far nobody has taken these posts and refuted them point by point on a scientific basis. The only person to cobble together a semblance of a case against the Shroud is you, tonight, a full month later, and ironically you've had to appeal to the artwork of the early Christians and of medieval Christendom, and to the Bible to support your case.

Not once have you cited a credible scientific source. McCrone was laughed at by the way. His work on the Shroud was not considered reliable enough to publish in "peer-reviewed" scientific journals.

Unless you read the Scriptures in the original of course, instead of some dumbed down version for the mbuttes.

Simple -- it's not a forgery.

Next.

So, because there were two pieces, then two pieces should survive?

Again, you'd do well to learn a bit of Koine Greek and avoid these quibbles. There was a "soudarion" about his face, and a "sindon" extending from his feet over his head and back to his feet again, front to back. I don't see the problem.

Next.

The Pbuttover was coming. As it says in those very Scriptures you are now quoting, they did not have time to bury him according to the customs.

Next.

And thus ends your entire case against the Shroud of Turin.

A case you have put together using the New Testament as your main source.

Well done.

The wheel is turning.

-- + His Holiness Pope Pompous XVIII

"This is all Blarney!" -- Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth I