Stephen Jones continues his critique of Charles Freeman’s "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 2: First Century Relics in Medieval Europe Continuing from part 1.
This is a good piece. I guess you might want to read it in order: ( part 1 and part 2 )
Bravo? Jones begins with a false statement:
Freeman employs the “guilt by association” tactic beloved of atheist/agnostic Shroud anti-authenticists like Joe Nickel (sic):
1. Most Christian relics are fake;
2. The Shroud of Turin is a Christian relic;
3. Therefore the Shroud of Turin is a fake.
Nowhere in the article says Freeman that the Shroud of Turin is false “because many relics are false”. Freeman concludes: “I think it is unlikely to the very first of these thousands to be proved to be genuine and the onus is on those who claim a first century origin to provide the evidence for this.” He concludes that after examining the evidence and refute it. We may agree or disagree with this rebuttal, but not falsify his argument. This is unacceptable.
It is useless intend to argue with someone who refuses to discuss with others claiming that he is too superior to stoop to the level of the plebs. This is the case of Mr. Jones. (And Mr. Fanti also! This is an epidemic!) But since his comment starts with something false (and it is not the first time he does it), the rest does not interest me at all. I guess it will be similar.
Bravo? I do not see why.
I think there are two interesting things about the Shroud… No one has copied it… and … well… one thing that is very interesting about the Shroud is that there are NO copies after all these years.