7 Comments
User's avatar
Steve HH's avatar

After watching John Campbell, it hit me as to how strong the evidence is. If in court I'd say beyond reasonable doubt. I look forward to seeing him but a sneak view is welcome.

Expand full comment
Kelly Harbeson's avatar

I find it quite interesting that the shroud is mentioned in 141 CE anf that it was removed from Jerusalem in 68 CE. I was totally unaware of this. I am a believing Christian but had always been skeptical of the authenticity of the shroud.

Expand full comment
FirstFactCheck's avatar

Me too

But I think it’s authentic after looking at the evidence….

Expand full comment
Steve HH's avatar

After watching John Campbell, it hit me as to how strong the evidence is. If in court I'd say beyond reasonable doubt. I look forward to seeing him but a sneak view is welcome.

Expand full comment
Gerhard Jehle's avatar

Catholics and apostate "messianic" Jews alike promote the authenticity of the shroud, throwing a tantrum on the more serious researchers, who have already proven, that it is a fake, forged in the heyday of persecution, when the mob raided our houses ("Deus vincit"). The "Shroud" contains the blood of a slain Jew and must be buried in a Jewish grave

Expand full comment
FirstFactCheck's avatar

I looked at your profile - no likes, no activity, no subscriptions, no nothing, I wouldn't be surprised if you're a bot.

Expand full comment
FirstFactCheck's avatar

Seriously you really haven’t looked at the evidence have you? My goodness I have no “skin in the game” I’m not Catholic nor a Messianic Jew, but I love the Jewish people - I have worked in Jewish institutions and still have very close friends who are Jewish. Yeshua loves you my friend, and he is risen. And if you can tell me how they put a photographic negative together before photography existed and 3d depth information into the shroud before there were computers good luck to you.

Expand full comment