T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Sadly, this thread seems to be attracting little interest. 
- Status
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Bless you too, Jeanne.
1) The Shroud is not âessentially a perfect three dimensional photographic negative image.â
Look at the VP-8 image analyser pictures - you can easily find them on the internet. The 3D image is very flat and looks like a bas-relief, not a perfect three dimensional body lying downâ
Then look at the negative. There are no clear edges to the body or limbs, no indication of furrows on the brow, eyebrows, ears, nipples, navel or fingernails, and the hair appears white. This is not a perfect negative.
2) The Shroud did not change âthe entire iconography of Europe after 360 AD.â
Have a look at the various different representations of Jesus in pre-360 catacombs, and you will find heavily bearded Jesuses among beardless ones. Then have a look at the Ravenna mosaics (6th century), and you will find a similar variety.
3) The 1978 STuRP team were not convinced that the Shroud was authentic.
A few were, a few werenât, and most didnât comment. Not one of their published papers assert the authenticity of the Shroud, and neither did the official summary of STuRPâs findings.
4) The radiocarbon dating did not suggest that the Shroud came from the 15th century.
The paper published in Nature gave 1260-1390 as the date. Thatâs 13th to 14th century.
5) The radiocarbon sample was not a single strand.
There are easily found photographs showing Luigi Gonella cutting a strip about 8cm long and 1.5cm wide
6) Sue Bedford and Joe Marino did not analyse any sticky tape samples.
Neither Benford nor Marino had access to any sticky tape samples. They published several articles, all on shroud.com, which make no mention of sticky tape at all.
7) No sticky tape tests were done on the Raes sample.
The Raes sample was taken in 1973. At that time, the only sticky tape samples were taken by Max Frei. There is no evidence that he took any from the corners.
8) The Shroud is not âtriple-thickâ
I think Spitzer is confusing the 3/1 chevron weave with some kind of description of the thickness of the cloth. The Shroud is only one layer of cloth.
9) Ray Rogers never suggested that the radiocarbon sample was purposely taken from âa bad part of the Shroudâ.
It is difficult to prove a negative, but I cannot find any suggestion in any of his publications that Rogers thought âa bad part of the Shroudâ was deliberately chosen.
10) It is incorrect to say that there is no cotton on the main body of the Shroud.
John Heller, Walter McCrone and Gerard Lucotte, among others, all found cotton in samples from the main part of the Shroud.
[to be continued]
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
And off we go again!
11) Rogersâs findings have never been validated âagain and again and againâ.
Rogersâs paper published in Thermochimica Acta describes observations made by him on a few shreds of material derived from threads extracted from the radiocarbon sample, the Raes sample and possibly the main body of the Shroud. None of his observations of dye, or the water soluble gum in which it is supposed to be set, have been repeated, let alone validated, nor his observations about vanillin. His description of exactly what he used, and exactly what he did, is very vague. He was probably the most renowned of all the STuRP scientists, (if we leave out Walter McCrone, whose connection with STuRP is contentious) and his scientific integrity cannot be doubted, but there are flaws in his his paper which badly need clarifying. Sadly there is little enthusiasm among those who have access to his materials to attempt to disprove his hypothesis.
12) The radiocarbon corner was not affected by the 1532 fire.
Any photo of the Shroud shows the two longitudinal lines of scorches, and the many patches on either side, which represent the area of the folded Shroud affected by the fire. By folding a copy of the Shroud to match the scorch-lines and patches (as shown by Aldo Guerreschi), you can see for yourself that the radiocarbon corner ended up on the opposite side.
13) There are no patches from 1534 near the radiocarbon corner.
For the reason explained above, the radiocarbon corner was undamaged in the 1532 fire, and did not require patching. The patches applied by the Poor Claire nuns in 1534 can be clearly seen in any pre-2002 photo of the Shroud.
14) The radiocarbon sample did not come from a 1534 patch.
For the reason explained above, the radiocarbon corner was undamaged in the fire, did not require patching, was not patched, and so the sample didnât come from a patch.
15) The decay of vanillin cannot be used as a dating mechanism. let alone âclosely.â
The decay of vanillin is very temperature dependent, so that any variation in temperature affects the rate of decay. Rogers pointed this out himself. Without knowing the thermal history of a material, any assessment of its vanillin content is unrelated to its age.
[Part Three on its way!]
11) Rogersâs findings have never been validated âagain and again and againâ.
Rogersâs paper published in Thermochimica Acta describes observations made by him on a few shreds of material derived from threads extracted from the radiocarbon sample, the Raes sample and possibly the main body of the Shroud. None of his observations of dye, or the water soluble gum in which it is supposed to be set, have been repeated, let alone validated, nor his observations about vanillin. His description of exactly what he used, and exactly what he did, is very vague. He was probably the most renowned of all the STuRP scientists, (if we leave out Walter McCrone, whose connection with STuRP is contentious) and his scientific integrity cannot be doubted, but there are flaws in his his paper which badly need clarifying. Sadly there is little enthusiasm among those who have access to his materials to attempt to disprove his hypothesis.
12) The radiocarbon corner was not affected by the 1532 fire.
Any photo of the Shroud shows the two longitudinal lines of scorches, and the many patches on either side, which represent the area of the folded Shroud affected by the fire. By folding a copy of the Shroud to match the scorch-lines and patches (as shown by Aldo Guerreschi), you can see for yourself that the radiocarbon corner ended up on the opposite side.
13) There are no patches from 1534 near the radiocarbon corner.
For the reason explained above, the radiocarbon corner was undamaged in the 1532 fire, and did not require patching. The patches applied by the Poor Claire nuns in 1534 can be clearly seen in any pre-2002 photo of the Shroud.
14) The radiocarbon sample did not come from a 1534 patch.
For the reason explained above, the radiocarbon corner was undamaged in the fire, did not require patching, was not patched, and so the sample didnât come from a patch.
15) The decay of vanillin cannot be used as a dating mechanism. let alone âclosely.â
The decay of vanillin is very temperature dependent, so that any variation in temperature affects the rate of decay. Rogers pointed this out himself. Without knowing the thermal history of a material, any assessment of its vanillin content is unrelated to its age.
[Part Three on its way!]
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
16) There was no âcarbon absorptionâ during the 1532 fire.
The idea that organic materials produce younger than expected dates after being in fires is not supported by any radiocarbon dating yet carried out. However, just in case, the Oxford laboratory carried out an experiment in 2008 which was expressly designed to force carbon atoms into a cloth during a fire. Subsequent radiocarbon dating showed that the experiment had had no effect on the carbon content.
17) Chemical decay cannot be used as a dating mechanism.
As mentioned above, chemical decay is highly temperature dependent, so cannot be used as a âclockâ to assess age, unless a detailed thermal history of the material tested is both known and accounted for.
18) Mechanical decay cannot be used as a dating mechanism.
Mechanical decay is related to chemical decay (see above), and also to the mechanical history of the material. Threads or fibres which have been creased, folded, rolled or detached have obviously been subjected to greater mechanical stress than those which havenât. For this reason mechanical decay cannot be used as a âclockâ to assess age.
19) Max Freiâs pollen identification has been wholly discredited.
Frei claimed to have identified nearly sixty different species of pollen on the Shroud. Identification of most pollen to species precision is almost impossible, even today. In the absence of any database with which to compare the pollen he found on the Shroud, he assembled his own collection of reference specimens, and, perhaps not realising that pollen grains are not as distinctive as is popularly thought, simply identified any Shroud grain that looked like a reference specimen as that particular species. Palynologists Uri Baruch, Thomas Litt and Marcia Boi have either been unable to confirm or have firmly re-identified Freiâs identifications, and botanist Avinoam Danin, who controversially thought he saw numerous imprints of flowers on the Shroud, did not identify many which corresponded to Freiâs list.
20) The Mandylion was not the Shroud.
This has been discussed above. Firstly the Shroud face looks nothing like the Mandylion face, and secondly there are lists of relics containing both of them separately.
Phew! I hope that helps. If youâll forgive me I wonât go through the rest of Fr Spitzerâs lecture, but I have watched it all, and it does not get any more factually accurate.
The idea that organic materials produce younger than expected dates after being in fires is not supported by any radiocarbon dating yet carried out. However, just in case, the Oxford laboratory carried out an experiment in 2008 which was expressly designed to force carbon atoms into a cloth during a fire. Subsequent radiocarbon dating showed that the experiment had had no effect on the carbon content.
17) Chemical decay cannot be used as a dating mechanism.
As mentioned above, chemical decay is highly temperature dependent, so cannot be used as a âclockâ to assess age, unless a detailed thermal history of the material tested is both known and accounted for.
18) Mechanical decay cannot be used as a dating mechanism.
Mechanical decay is related to chemical decay (see above), and also to the mechanical history of the material. Threads or fibres which have been creased, folded, rolled or detached have obviously been subjected to greater mechanical stress than those which havenât. For this reason mechanical decay cannot be used as a âclockâ to assess age.
19) Max Freiâs pollen identification has been wholly discredited.
Frei claimed to have identified nearly sixty different species of pollen on the Shroud. Identification of most pollen to species precision is almost impossible, even today. In the absence of any database with which to compare the pollen he found on the Shroud, he assembled his own collection of reference specimens, and, perhaps not realising that pollen grains are not as distinctive as is popularly thought, simply identified any Shroud grain that looked like a reference specimen as that particular species. Palynologists Uri Baruch, Thomas Litt and Marcia Boi have either been unable to confirm or have firmly re-identified Freiâs identifications, and botanist Avinoam Danin, who controversially thought he saw numerous imprints of flowers on the Shroud, did not identify many which corresponded to Freiâs list.
20) The Mandylion was not the Shroud.
This has been discussed above. Firstly the Shroud face looks nothing like the Mandylion face, and secondly there are lists of relics containing both of them separately.
Phew! I hope that helps. If youâll forgive me I wonât go through the rest of Fr Spitzerâs lecture, but I have watched it all, and it does not get any more factually accurate.
Last edited:
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Hi Hugh,
None of the material you have posted is sourced. Where did it come from?
Could you provide a link please?
Thank you and may God bless you and all who visit this thread.
jt
None of the material you have posted is sourced. Where did it come from?
Could you provide a link please?
Thank you and may God bless you and all who visit this thread.
jt
U
undead_rat
Guest
Hi Jeanne,
First of all you should be aware that, although he is certainly a respectable Christian man, Mr. Farey is one of those who does to believe that miracles can actually happen. So he does not believe that the Image on the Shroud could have been caused by the vanishing of Jesusâ corpse because that would be a miracle. Now there is really nothing wrong with a person having this belief. It is not recorded in the Gospels that one must believe in miracles. Rather one must follow the teachings of Jesus, and Mr. Farey has affirmed his commitment to this philosophy.
Now for his criticism of your video, much of what he says is true. But he has two crucial errors in his thinking. The first is that the 1988 C-14 dating results âproveâ that the Shroudâs linen could not have been grown 2000 years ago. But in our discussions Mr. Farey has admitted that their is another way to look at the C-14 results, and that way is what is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis. This idea holds that Jesusâ corpse vanished into another dimension while it was wrapped in the Shroud, and, as it vanished, it left residual proton and neutron radiations which account for both the divine Image and for the C-14 dating results of 1195 to 1448.** Mr. Farey has praised this idea as being easy to either prove or disprove, and that it is. The prediction is that, for every inch that a sample from the Shroud becomes closer to the Image, its C-14 date will become younger by about 100 years.
Mr. Fareyâs second big mistake is that he believes that the Shroud has no history prior to 1357 AD, and he goes to great lengths in his vain attempt to prove this. Now if there were no history of a miraculous image of Jesus on a cloth prior to 1357, then he might have a point. But the truth of the matter is that we find an incredibly strong history of Jesusâ divine and miraculous image being on a cloth and this history goes all the way back to 33 AD!!
The Image of Edessa, and the Holy Mandylion, and the Shroud of Turin are all one and the same, not withstanding Mr. Fareyâs belief that Jesusâ corpse could not have vanished from His sealed tomb.
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
First of all you should be aware that, although he is certainly a respectable Christian man, Mr. Farey is one of those who does to believe that miracles can actually happen. So he does not believe that the Image on the Shroud could have been caused by the vanishing of Jesusâ corpse because that would be a miracle. Now there is really nothing wrong with a person having this belief. It is not recorded in the Gospels that one must believe in miracles. Rather one must follow the teachings of Jesus, and Mr. Farey has affirmed his commitment to this philosophy.
Now for his criticism of your video, much of what he says is true. But he has two crucial errors in his thinking. The first is that the 1988 C-14 dating results âproveâ that the Shroudâs linen could not have been grown 2000 years ago. But in our discussions Mr. Farey has admitted that their is another way to look at the C-14 results, and that way is what is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis. This idea holds that Jesusâ corpse vanished into another dimension while it was wrapped in the Shroud, and, as it vanished, it left residual proton and neutron radiations which account for both the divine Image and for the C-14 dating results of 1195 to 1448.** Mr. Farey has praised this idea as being easy to either prove or disprove, and that it is. The prediction is that, for every inch that a sample from the Shroud becomes closer to the Image, its C-14 date will become younger by about 100 years.
Mr. Fareyâs second big mistake is that he believes that the Shroud has no history prior to 1357 AD, and he goes to great lengths in his vain attempt to prove this. Now if there were no history of a miraculous image of Jesus on a cloth prior to 1357, then he might have a point. But the truth of the matter is that we find an incredibly strong history of Jesusâ divine and miraculous image being on a cloth and this history goes all the way back to 33 AD!!
The Image of Edessa, and the Holy Mandylion, and the Shroud of Turin are all one and the same, not withstanding Mr. Fareyâs belief that Jesusâ corpse could not have vanished from His sealed tomb.
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
Most people reading this thread, I think, may believe or not believe in the shroudâs authenticity, but I doubt that for any of us it is a matter of faith one way or the other. I think that even among dedicated shroud researchers there are those who believe it is the burial cloth of Jesus and those who doubt that conclusion.
While undead_rat is in the authenticist camp, Mr. Farey seems to be a longtime and well known critic of shroud authenticity. Itâs doubtful that the rest of us can glean enough evidence from this thread alone to make a definitive judgment, and it is not something, in any case, that keeps me awake at night.
Having read several of Ian Wilsons books, I tend to think that the shroud is authentic. But even if it is proven not to be, I would still wonder why and how the image was produced.
While undead_rat is in the authenticist camp, Mr. Farey seems to be a longtime and well known critic of shroud authenticity. Itâs doubtful that the rest of us can glean enough evidence from this thread alone to make a definitive judgment, and it is not something, in any case, that keeps me awake at night.
Having read several of Ian Wilsons books, I tend to think that the shroud is authentic. But even if it is proven not to be, I would still wonder why and how the image was produced.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Eh? Itâs all sourced. However, to be specificâŚ
1. The Shroud is not âessentially a perfect three dimensional photographic negative image.â
The VP-8 image analyser photo: The VP-8 Image Analyzer
The negative image of the Shroud: Shroud Scope, a Tool to Analyze the Shroud of Turin
2) The Shroud did not change âthe entire iconography of Europe after 360 AD.â
Catacomb pictures: Google Images âcatacomb images of Jesusâ
Ravenna mosaics: Google Images âRavenna mosaicsâ
3) The 1978 STuRP team were not convinced that the Shroud was authentic.
STuRP summary: A Summary of STURP's Conclusions
STuRP papers: a full list can be found at STURP's Published Papers
4) The radiocarbon dating did not suggest that the Shroud came from the 15th century.
Paper published in Nature journal: Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin
5) The radiocarbon sample was not a single strand.
Picture at: http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/
6) Sue Benford and Joe Marino did not analyse any sticky tape samples.
Benford and Marinoâs papers are at: Shroud of Turin Website Library
7) No sticky tape tests were done on the Raes sample.
The best account of the 1973 Scientific Commission is in: McCrone Walter, Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud.
An account of Max Freiâs sticky tape gathering is at: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi03part3.pdf
8) The Shroud is not âtriple-thickâ
The best technical description of the cloth is at: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi3839part4.pdf
9) Ray Rogers never suggested that the radiocarbon sample was purposely taken from âa bad part of the Shroudâ.
Ray Rogersâs papers are listed at: Shroud of Turin Website Library
10) It is incorrect to say that there is no cotton on the main body of the Shroud.
Heller John, Report on the Shroud of Turin
McCrone Walter, op. cit.
Lucotte GĂŠrard, Exploration of the Face of the Turin Shroud. Linen Fibers Studied by SEM Analysis
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
11) Rogersâs findings have never been validated âagain and again and againâ.
Rogersâs Thermochimica Acta paper is at: http://www.sindone.info/ROGERS-3.PDF
12) The radiocarbon corner was not affected by the 1532 fire.
Aldo Guerreschiâs investigation is at: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/aldo4.pdf
13) There are no patches from 1534 near the radiocarbon corner.
Picture of the Shroud: Shroud Scope, a Tool to Analyze the Shroud of Turin
14) The radiocarbon sample did not come from a 1534 patch.
Picture of the Shroud: Shroud Scope, a Tool to Analyze the Shroud of Turin
15) The decay of vanillin cannot be used as a dating mechanism. let alone âclosely.â
Arrhenius equation showing effect of temperature in Ray Rogers Thermochimica Acta paper op. cit.
16) There was no âcarbon absorptionâ during the 1532 fire.
Account of attempt to install new carbon into old cloth at: ORAU - Shroud of Turin
17) Chemical decay cannot be used as a dating mechanism.
See reference to Arrhenius equation above.
18) Mechanical decay cannot be used as a dating mechanism.
Common sense?
19) Max Freiâs pollen identification has been wholly discredited.
See detailed discussion at: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n79part8.pdf
20) The Mandylion was not the Shroud.
Images of the Mandylion: Google images âmandylionâ
and see discussion above
Rogersâs Thermochimica Acta paper is at: http://www.sindone.info/ROGERS-3.PDF
12) The radiocarbon corner was not affected by the 1532 fire.
Aldo Guerreschiâs investigation is at: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/aldo4.pdf
13) There are no patches from 1534 near the radiocarbon corner.
Picture of the Shroud: Shroud Scope, a Tool to Analyze the Shroud of Turin
14) The radiocarbon sample did not come from a 1534 patch.
Picture of the Shroud: Shroud Scope, a Tool to Analyze the Shroud of Turin
15) The decay of vanillin cannot be used as a dating mechanism. let alone âclosely.â
Arrhenius equation showing effect of temperature in Ray Rogers Thermochimica Acta paper op. cit.
16) There was no âcarbon absorptionâ during the 1532 fire.
Account of attempt to install new carbon into old cloth at: ORAU - Shroud of Turin
17) Chemical decay cannot be used as a dating mechanism.
See reference to Arrhenius equation above.
18) Mechanical decay cannot be used as a dating mechanism.
Common sense?
19) Max Freiâs pollen identification has been wholly discredited.
See detailed discussion at: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n79part8.pdf
20) The Mandylion was not the Shroud.
Images of the Mandylion: Google images âmandylionâ
and see discussion above
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Hi Jeanne Therese,
Undead-ratâs last post (to you) is the best he has written for a long time, and although I think I am not âmistakenâ, much of what he says is sensible.
I myself think that the Shroud is 14th century, not because I donât believe in miracles, but because I think there is more evidence that it is a medieval European cloth than a first century middle eastern one. However, I do not discount the idea of a miraculous burst of radiation, and certainly commend Mark Antonacciâs desire to have the cloth dated again, although I have no confidence that his prediction will be fulfilled.
As to the Shroudâs earlier provenance, I certainly agree that there are any number of references to miraculous images of Jesus. However for various simple reasons I do not believe that any of them refer to the Shroud of Turin.
Undead-ratâs last post (to you) is the best he has written for a long time, and although I think I am not âmistakenâ, much of what he says is sensible.
I myself think that the Shroud is 14th century, not because I donât believe in miracles, but because I think there is more evidence that it is a medieval European cloth than a first century middle eastern one. However, I do not discount the idea of a miraculous burst of radiation, and certainly commend Mark Antonacciâs desire to have the cloth dated again, although I have no confidence that his prediction will be fulfilled.
As to the Shroudâs earlier provenance, I certainly agree that there are any number of references to miraculous images of Jesus. However for various simple reasons I do not believe that any of them refer to the Shroud of Turin.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I have my beliefs and my reasons for them, but Iâm not nearly as educated about the Shroud as some of the posters. I have seen the actual Shroud, though, but I donât think itâs constantly on display any longer. Too fragile.Sadly, this thread seems to be attracting little interest.
Itâs good to see you here @TheOldColonel.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I feel that way, too.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Good to see you, too, soldier. Keep up the good work!
U
undead_rat
Guest
Perhaps we should pay a little attention to these profound statements made by our holy fathers. Pius XI made his statement, âsurely not of human making,â some years after Secundo Piaâs incredible first photographs of the Shroud. In my opinion, those shocking photos are all that is needed to confirm the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
Then we have St. John Paulâs statement using the word ârelic.â Relics of the Lordâs Passion would be the nails, the wood of the cross, the thorns, and the linen cloths. The burial cloth in particular is mentioned as a relic in all four Gospels. It is the only relic to be so mentioned in the Gospels after the burial of Jesus, and it is a relic that St. Helena did not find when she opened Jesusâ tomb.
An âiconâ would be a painting or reproduction of a relic, but St. John Paul does not use that word. By using the word ârelicâ he is deliberately choosing to refer to an historical object which, in this case, is the linen burial shroud. Perhaps a medieval artist somehow obtained Jesusâ burial linen, complete with His bloodstains, and then enhanced this linen with an image of Jesus, That would explain how St. John Paul could refer to the Shroud of Turin as a ârelicâ while, at the same time, the Image is a forgery.
Oh, and donât forget, the forger also enhanced the C-14 content of the linen. Quite a guy!
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
The opinions of the leaders of the Church should always be taken seriously, but that does not necessarily mean that they are true, or form any part of the teaching of the Church itself. St John Paul specifically said this in his Address on Sunday 24 May 1998:
âThe Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence. It first of all requires of every person, particularly the researcher, that he humbly grasp the profound message it sends to his reason and his life. The mysterious fascination of the Shroud forces questions to be raised about the sacred Linen and the historical life of Jesus. Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross. The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers.â
Note also that he entrusted the discovery of satisfactory answers specifically to scientists.
And no, the forger did not enhance the C-14 content of the linen.
âThe Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence. It first of all requires of every person, particularly the researcher, that he humbly grasp the profound message it sends to his reason and his life. The mysterious fascination of the Shroud forces questions to be raised about the sacred Linen and the historical life of Jesus. Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross. The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers.â
Note also that he entrusted the discovery of satisfactory answers specifically to scientists.
And no, the forger did not enhance the C-14 content of the linen.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
I still believe that the Shroud of Turin is Jesusâ real and actual burial cloth. And that to create the âimageâ requires high energy physics ⌠unavailable to us mere mortals.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Thatâs OK, MonteRCMS; lotâs of people agree with you.
And lotâs of people donât.
And lotâs of people donât.
U
undead_rat
Guest
I notice that Saint John Paul uses a capitol letter for the words Shroud, sacred Linen, and Sheet. This indicates to me that he still considered the holy Image of our Lord to be genuine even after the British Museum committed the crime of bearing false witness against our Lord and His sacred burial Linen. Our Lord Jesus endured a great suffering to be able to send this marvelous gift to us. For the life of me I cannot understand how any Christian person can turn his back on it, and, even worse, commit the travesty of conducting an insidious campaign of slander against it.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Youâre beginning to lose coherence (and politeness) again. I think you are correct that St John Paul thought that the Shroud was genuine; however, he made it quite clear that his opinion was not the teaching of the Church, that Catholics were free to think it genuine or not, and that scientists were entrusted to continue to investigate it.
Your contention that the British Museum committed a crime, your insinuation that I have âturned my back on the Shroudâ and your accusation that anything I have said is slander, are all mean-spirited and unjustified. If you really had any sympathy for the the Lord Jesusâs âgreat sufferingâ, or any respect for his âmarvellous giftâ, you would not - indeed you could not - couch your objections in those terms, even if you believed them to be valid.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Interesting book:
https://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Codex...rd_wg=n7o3N&psc=1&refRID=13086ZAC0SWQ99DAX5R0
by Jerry Corsi
https://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Codex...rd_wg=n7o3N&psc=1&refRID=13086ZAC0SWQ99DAX5R0
by Jerry Corsi
- Status