Sun, 08 Aug 1999 20:01:01 +0000
At 08:44 PM 08/08/1999 -0400, Rick Becker wrote:
>I just have to jump back in, in spite of my inclinations to the contrary.
>From a forensic standpoint, I can not conceive of any way the shroud could
>ever be unimpeachably linked to the Lord, (much as we might wish to.)
>Before one gets into an epistomological tangle, one should examine the
>probabilities of unequivocal "proof". If there is none, beware of
>overexertion in the pursuit of the argument. If anyone can show me the
>error of my ways, I for one would be thrilled; but as an inveterate
>empiricist, (physics is unmerciful that way), I have to be equally
>dispassionate in evaluating the data. 99% is nice, but as a good
>Calvinist, salvation is based on Faith&Love. "Evidence" makes me
I would agree with you that there is no way to 100% connect this thing with
the Lord. But that is the nature of all historical/forensic evidence.
There is no way to 100% prove that a given person is the perpetrator of any
crime either. Once one accepts that as a basic limitation, then one has to
deal in probabilities like the rest of us.
My own personal take on the shroud is one of skepticism. Its early history
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Lots of information on creation/evolution