Comments on: Another towering achievement of FSB – the shroud talks!

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:19:27 +0000

I will never say that this shroud did not cover Jesus body.

By: SnoopyTheGoon

SnoopyTheGoon — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:37:40 +0000

Or three inches for that matter…

By: SnoopyTheGoon

SnoopyTheGoon — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:37:11 +0000

But what about the sandals? There must have been sandals then, so what is one inch for a good cobbler?

By: Sabba Hillel

Sabba Hillel — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:27:57 +0000

There is a superstition in the Ozarks that he was “exactly 6 feet” tall. I guess that means that this is not the shroud.

By: SnoopyTheGoon

SnoopyTheGoon — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:10:48 +0000

Er… maybe it was considered impolite mentioning this specific deviation from the norm then…

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 10:57:15 +0000

In Richard Sapir’s “The Body,” an Israeli archaeologist debunks the Shroud with a simple observation: it can’t be the body of Christ, because it’s too tall.

The figure is 5′9″. At the time, the average height of an adult male was significantly less. Had Christ been that much taller than average, at least one of the Gospels would have referred to it — caling him “the tall one,” or mentioned how he “stood out from the crowd,” or “overlooked the masses” — but there’s not a single mention of what should have been a defining characteristic.