Knights Hid Holy Shroud, Vatican Says

[OneTrueCathApos]

A little humility wouldn’t hurt you, OTCA. It is a Christian virtue. And since when were you elevated to the chair of Judgment?

Just curious - are you EVER wrong? I know I can be - why can’t you admit it?

You know… your OWN demeanor sometimes gives you away, too.

I don’t have a problem admitting I’m wrong but NDfan is trying to tell me I WASN’T at the Vatican? You people always try to undermine the Catholic church and the faith, but you only fool yourselves and insult Christ every time.
This is about the Shroud and the people who protected it. Keep it that way. If you cannot have an intelligent response, DON’T RESPOND.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I guess the Vatican appreciates art no matter what its origins. In a way I kinda like that, because they can see beauty in all things.

P.S. Were they nudies?

LOL Josie. yes they were nudies, and the Vatican has tons of statuary. Much of it was recovered during archaeological excavation. No doubt some of it was preserved where it might well have been destroyed during WWII or perhaps during the destruction of the Empire. I don’t know how long they have been in possession of some of the pieces.

The Online Vatican museum is worth a look see. It’s quite extraordinary. Many of the painting were commissioned by various popes, and are of course masterpieces in their own right.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

**what difference does it do you all here to try and disgrace someone as myself? I was at the Vatican, received Mass there, not only did I go to the Vatican and Rome for 5 days, but I also received the Eucharist in France, Sicily, Spain and Croatia.
what you are talking about is the VATICAN MUSEUM. Not the Vatican itself.

spiritmeadow, you are not a nice person, you sound like you need acceptance of people and you sound like a control freak. You are not Catholic and your demeanor proves you every time, as if you are angry to be of “another” denomination, other than what Christ founded.

NDfan, I won’t even dignify your posts with a response…a lost soul.**

I apologize for upsetting you so deeply. It was not my intent. May the peace of Christ decend upon you and hold you. Let us not speak directly to each other again. I fear that nothing I can say would be acceptable in your eyes. Blessings.

 

[O.S.Luke]

You people always try to undermine the Catholic church and the faith, but you only fool yourselves and insult Christ every time.

All right, OTCA - you have shown your true colors now. Or as the kids these days say, “You’re busted.”

NEVER ONCE have I ever tried to undermine the Catholic church or the faith; on the contrary, I have great admiration and respect for the Catholic church.

Your use of “you people” simply shows that you feel you have a moral superiority over “us people”. That’s not a trait confined to Catholics or Protestants. What’s humorous to me is that more often than not, you are telling off fellow Catholics.

I don’t always agree with SpiritMeadow, but I do agree with him on this: there is nothing ANYONE can say or do to you - Catholic or Non-Catholic - that is acceptable to your eyes if it disagrees with you.

I think, if I were you, that I would be more worried about the truth than my own version of it. Maybe one of these days you might realize that the Faith is a lot bigger than your very small worldview, or my own very small worldview.

There’s nothing wrong with being occasionally mistaken, OTCA. But there is something wrong with you when you can’t admit it. So far, on your short time here at CAF, you’ve never admitted once you could be mistaken. And on this thread… you still haven’t.

Oh well. Whatever you say, OTCA. Whatever you say.

 

[kalt]

On the shroud.

So many think that it’s the real deal and don’t question its authenticity.

I want to know how it is that it doesn’t have a single wrinkle in it.

If you wrap something in fabric - or even just lay something on it, it will wrinkle. Yet the image shows no evidence - front or back - that something had been wrapped in it or placed on it.

While all of you are arguing over who should have it - was it really rescued or was it stolen - the more important question is, is it real?

Why aren’t there any wrinkles or folds in it?

I don’t mean why aren’t there any wrinkles or folds now - it could have been ironed or stretched. That’s easy to account for. What I’m asking is, why doesn’t the image in the cloth show evidence of a fold or wrinkle? If the cloth had been around the body when the Christ’s body passed through it, the image left would be distorted by any minor wrinkle or fold. (We know that Christ was truly man, that he had a real body with weight and dimension.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

On the shroud.

So many think that it’s the real deal and don’t question its authenticity.

I want to know how it is that it doesn’t have a single wrinkle in it.

If you wrap something in fabric - or even just lay something on it, it will wrinkle. Yet the image shows no evidence - front or back - that something had been wrapped in it or placed on it.

While all of you are arguing over who should have it - was it really rescued or was it stolen - the more important question is, is it real?

Why aren’t there any wrinkles or folds in it?

I don’t mean why aren’t there any wrinkles or folds now - it could have been ironed or stretched. That’s easy to account for. What I’m asking is, why doesn’t the image in the cloth show evidence of a fold or wrinkle? If the cloth had been around the body when the Christ’s body passed through it, the image left would be distorted by any minor wrinkle or fold. (We know that Christ was truly man, that he had a real body with weight and dimension.)

I think it would truly be a wonderous thing if it were real, yet everything I have read or seen suggests it is not. I continue to hope maybe they will be proved wrong, since it would be wonderful to have a true relic undisputed. The most compelling evidence I saw against it was from a anatomical expert who said that the pressure points, those places where the outlines of the body are, are simply wrong, the body image on the shroud is totally distorted from that of a real body. That was more convincing than even the dating issues.

It obviously continues to have problems since the Vatican still refrains from a decision after all these years.

I always look forward to hearing of new information about it however.

 

[Steven_John]

I posted earlier that the single cloth was not in line with Jewish custom.

While scripture accounts of the tomb i posted contradict the single cloth.

in prayer i was reminded scripture also offers his being in tombed was rushed due to the Sabbath approaching.

If the shroud is true this would offer reason for it being a single cloth and not in line with custom.

 

[kalt]

I think it would truly be a wonderous thing if it were real, yet everything I have read or seen suggests it is not. I continue to hope maybe they will be proved wrong, since it would be wonderful to have a true relic undisputed. The most compelling evidence I saw against it was from a anatomical expert who said that the pressure points, those places where the outlines of the body are, are simply wrong, the body image on the shroud is totally distorted from that of a real body. That was more convincing than even the dating issues.

It obviously continues to have problems since the Vatican still refrains from a decision after all these years.

I always look forward to hearing of new information about it however.

The face and hair look an awful lot like the later Italian depictions of Christ. It shows a face with a beard, I believe, and long hair on the head.

Was this a common look in the area at the time? I heard that most Jews in the area had short hair, probably curly, and wore no beards. But I heard that on the History Channel, which is always suspect.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I think it would truly be a wonderous thing if it were real, yet everything I have read or seen suggests it is not. I continue to hope maybe they will be proved wrong, since it would be wonderful to have a true relic undisputed. The most compelling evidence I saw against it was from a anatomical expert who said that the pressure points, those places where the outlines of the body are, are simply wrong, the body image on the shroud is totally distorted from that of a real body. That was more convincing than even the dating issues.

It obviously continues to have problems since the Vatican still refrains from a decision after all these years.

I always look forward to hearing of new information about it however.

The Shroud of Our Lord is mentioned in all three of the Synoptic Gospels:
**In Matthew:
“And Joseph taking the body wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth” (27:5)
In Mark:
“And Joseph buying fine linen, and taking him down, wrapped him up in the fine linen” (15:46)
In Luke:
“And taking him down, he wrapped him in fine linen” (25:53)

The STURP team arrived in Turin with two and a half million dollars worth of laboratory equipment, and were given 120 by the church authorities to conduct a whole series of intricate tests. Most of the team members were Protestant and had never been inside a Catholic Cathedral. At the end of their allotted five days, a priest said a prayer, bent and kissed the Shroud. Ernie Brooks, a Presbyterian, waited until he was alone with the Cloth, and he kissed it too.
Barry Swartz one of the Jewish members of STURP, had said “The image of the Shroud matches the account of the crucifixtion in the New Testament down to the 9th degree. Evidence is mounting that the Gospels are quite accurate. This may cause consternation among my family, and other Jewish people, but in my own mind, the Shroud IS the piece of cloth which wrapped Jesus after he was crucified”. **

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**Furthermore, the STURP team after careful analysis established the fact that the blood stains on the Shroud are indeed that of human blood.

**

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The face and hair look an awful lot like the later Italian depictions of Christ. It shows a face with a beard, I believe, and long hair on the head.

Was this a common look in the area at the time? I heard that most Jews in the area had short hair, probably curly, and wore no beards. But I heard that on the History Channel, which is always suspect.

Kalt, I’ve probably seen some of it myself. The History Channel is uneven, sometimes very good, and sometimes just awful. I fully expected the shroud to be real and was disappointed that so far everything I’ve seen or read seems to negate that. Still, research goes on, and perhaps a different result will come forth.

Your idea about the hair is interesting and somewhat persuasive. There is no doubt that Jesus has often been pictured throughout history as not very Jewish, but much more European in look. This is obviously wrong, and I agree, the shroud does seem to portray a more European look.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Kalt, I’ve probably seen some of it myself. The History Channel is uneven, sometimes very good, and sometimes just awful. I fully expected the shroud to be real and was disappointed that so far everything I’ve seen or read seems to negate that. Still, research goes on, and perhaps a different result will come forth.

Your idea about the hair is interesting and somewhat persuasive. There is no doubt that Jesus has often been pictured throughout history as not very Jewish, but much more European in look. This is obviously wrong, and I agree, the shroud does seem to portray a more European look.

Spiritmeadow, do you only listen to others who simply do not have any knowledge of the Shroud? Or do you just purposely ignore my facts in posts 89 and 90 about it. You have some sort of vendetta against me, but the fact of the matter is I know very well about the Shroud of Turin, due to the fact my uncle was one who saw and investigated it.

 

[GKC]

Spiritmeadow, do you only listen to others who simply do not have any knowledge of the Shroud? Or do you just purposely ignore my facts in posts 89 and 90 about it. You have some sort of vendetta against me, but the fact of the matter is I know very well about the Shroud of Turin, due to the fact my uncle was one who saw and investigated it.

The Shroud is not one of my interest areas, but it is for my wife. She owns maybe 15+ books on the subject, all of which I’ve read, and all of which are packed deep in the attic, or some place similar, not to resurface for years…

The level of evidence for the uniqueness of the Shroud, as I have read of it, is impressive. I do not propose to argue the case for it, since I can’t reinforce my memories by reference to the sources, but it is so. And most of the objections I see in the thread here are addressed in the literature.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spiritmeadow, do you only listen to others who simply do not have any knowledge of the Shroud? Or do you just purposely ignore my facts in posts 89 and 90 about it. You have some sort of vendetta against me, but the fact of the matter is I know very well about the Shroud of Turin, due to the fact my uncle was one who saw and investigated it.

I don’t know what is wrong with you. I have apologized for any part I played in your recent meltdown. I have asked you twice now to stop addressing posts or comments to me. I have no vendetta against you, I simply want to be left alone from your ranting. Please don’t speak to me further.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I don’t know what is wrong with you. I have apologized for any part I played in your recent meltdown. I have asked you twice now to stop addressing posts or comments to me. I have no vendetta against you, I simply want to be left alone from your ranting. Please don’t speak to me further.

Like I said, you don’t want to know the truth in anything Catholic. you can’t even answer my questions. And since I started this thread, it only makes sense if you refrain from it because I will defend this true burial cloth of Christ if you continue to insult it.

 

[Steven_John]

A strange people we are, we were given Jesus (pbwh) but we cling so hard and with excitement over material stuff.

I have an old crucifix that came with my ancestors from Ireland besides the fact that it is a prism with a stone (making it useful to those who know) i treasure a material thing.

Guess my appreciation of relics misses the message God gave through Jesus (pbwh) and is only self serving.

This has been good thread about shroud for me I appreciate lots of your (name removed by moderator)uts.

 

[mark_a]

**According to Dr. Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican secret Archives, the Shroud had disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the fourth Crusade, and did not resurface again until the middle of the 14th century. **

I never knew this part of the story. If the story is as simple as it sounds, we should return it.

I’m curious as to how the Shroud came to be in posession of Constantinople.

 

[mark_a]

shroud.com/menu.htm

The site of Barrie Shwortz, one of the main photographers of the shroud.

He is also on Catholic Answers Live today.

I caught this show and was impressed with his (name removed by moderator)ut.

He also has no dog in this fight. He is a devout Jew with no interest in becoming Christian.

 

[Right_Glory]

Like I said, you don’t want to know the truth in anything Catholic. you can’t even answer my questions. And since I started this thread, it only makes sense if you refrain from it because I will defend this true burial cloth of Christ if you continue to insult it.

You again manage to come off more like a child with hurt feeling than an apologist. Your almost comical anger at everything is probably not the best way to win people over.

 

[kalt]

I don’t know what is wrong with you. I have apologized for any part I played in your recent meltdown. I have asked you twice now to stop addressing posts or comments to me. I have no vendetta against you, I simply want to be left alone from your ranting. Please don’t speak to me further.

SM, don’t worry about it. We are merely bringing up things that we wonder about. I don’t think the shroud is Jesus’ shroud, and I don’t think there is any way to proved that it was his. Even if they could date it to the time, can they prove that it was his and not some other person’s shroud? I doubt it.

Still, I, as a non-professional on the topic, haven’t said that anyone else has to agree with me.

I have no idea why as a fellow non-professional, OCA has to insist that everyone has to accept his pov as fact.

It seems childish to think that unless everyone agrees with your pov, they’re damaging your self-esteem or reputation, or whatever the problem is.

Don’t worry about it. You are entitled to your pov, and you are free to discusss your doubts here.