3 ms·
1. There is no known painting technique - even now, for getting this image onto the shroud. There were no pigments or dyes in sufficient quantity to explain the
by pkphilip 2y ago
1. There is no known painting technique - even now, for getting this image onto the shroud. There were no pigments or dyes in sufficient quantity to explain the image on the shroud.
2. About the second point - it remains a mystery but that in no way makes the shroud itself a fake.
- kergonath 2y ago> 1. There is no known painting technique - even now, for getting this image onto the shroud. There were no pigments or dyes in sufficient quantity to explain the image on the shroud. It still does not mean that it has anything to do with Jesus. There are plenty of things we don’t know how to make anymore.
- pkphilip 2y agoI am not saying that it has something to do with Jesus. But if someone is calling this a fake, they should be able to demonstrate how something like this can be created
- kjkjadksj 2y agoUv damage perhaps? Maybe make the imagery with selective application of sand and leaving it in sunlight?
- tsimionescu 2y agoAbout the first point, that's true, but mostly irrelevant. There are many niche painting techniques lost to time. Even more so, no one can truly predict the effects 6 centuries of display and exposure and a fire will have on some obscure painting style. We know there are traces of pigments on the cloth, so probably at some point there was much more. It was almost certainly a much less convincing and haunting image at the time it was made, the centuries of wear have just hidden the more obvious marks. The second point was only in reply to someone saying "but what if it was some random shroud from the 1st century unrelated to Jesus?", and I merely explained why that makes much less sense than even the miracle explanation.