T
thistle
Guest
You seem to be conveniently missing my point. The Shroud may or may not be authentic. My point is you cannot state that it is authentic as a fact!! It is simply YOUR OPINION!
- Status
U
undead_rat
Guest
My OPINION is that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Others have a different viewpoint which they take quite seriously.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/
http://theflatearthsociety.org/
Last edited:
There have been a few other proven miracles that the media stays silent on and that people just do not pay attention to.
Proving the shroud authentic would illicit a similar response.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Sancta Romana Ecclesia (It’s a Latin title, quite well known.)
( I never refer to the Prophecy of St. Malachy as it is currently being censored as an “unapproved private revelation.” Referring to this prophecy, especially in a positive manner, earns one a suspension, or worse.)
( I never refer to the Prophecy of St. Malachy as it is currently being censored as an “unapproved private revelation.” Referring to this prophecy, especially in a positive manner, earns one a suspension, or worse.)
Last edited:
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
Oh end time stuff?
L
Lost4words
Guest
The shroud is a miracle. How? Nobody can say with confidence how it was ‘made’. Who was the ‘artist’. It is unique.
I see it and i see Jesus. I see the suffering. I see a ‘REAL’ person. I dont see a painting!
Science had a go at examining it but failed in explaining it.
Jesus left it for us.
I see it and i see Jesus. I see the suffering. I see a ‘REAL’ person. I dont see a painting!
Science had a go at examining it but failed in explaining it.
Jesus left it for us.
U
undead_rat
Guest
The “DOCTRINE OF ADDAI THE APOSTLE” is a work that was excluded from the western Church by Pope Gelasius VI. It contains some interesting perspectives. King Abgar of Edessa sent a delegation to contemporary king of a nearby city, and that delegation subsequently “headed towards Jerusalem; and they saw many people, who came from far away to see Christ, because the eminence of His great deeds had traveled to the remotest of lands.” After Hanan returned and reported to King Abgar, that King “wrote an epistle and sent it to Christ by the hand of Hanan, the keeper of the archives” in which he requested Jesus to come to Edessa and heal him and also invited Jesus to reside in Edessa under his protection. Jesus wrote back, “I will send to you one of my disciples, and he will cure the disease which you have . . .Your city shall be blessed, and no enemy shall ever triumph over it again.”
“…Hanan . … since he was also the kings’ painter, . . began to paint a portrait of Jesus with a variety of paints, and brought it with him to King Abgar, his master. . . .King Abgar placed it with great honor in one of his palace’s compounds.”
This work goes one to explain how the Apostle Thomas sent “Addai the Apostle, who was one of of seventy-two apostles” to Edessa, and how Addai healed King Abgar and established Christianity there. No mention is made of any image of Jesus being presented to the King Abgar, and that part of this work is not consistent with the other legends of how an image of Jesus came to reside in Edessa. Nonetheless I find that this booklet is worthwhile reading.
“…Hanan . … since he was also the kings’ painter, . . began to paint a portrait of Jesus with a variety of paints, and brought it with him to King Abgar, his master. . . .King Abgar placed it with great honor in one of his palace’s compounds.”
This work goes one to explain how the Apostle Thomas sent “Addai the Apostle, who was one of of seventy-two apostles” to Edessa, and how Addai healed King Abgar and established Christianity there. No mention is made of any image of Jesus being presented to the King Abgar, and that part of this work is not consistent with the other legends of how an image of Jesus came to reside in Edessa. Nonetheless I find that this booklet is worthwhile reading.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Interesting. What His Holiness Pope Gelasius wrote, in his Decretum Gelasianum, of the Doctrine of Addai and many similar works, was that these teachings should be “non solum repudiata verum ab omni Romana catholica et apostolica ecclesia eliminata atque cum suis auctoribus sequacibus sub anathematis insolubili vinculo in aeternum confitemur esse damnata”.
“Not only rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and their followers to be damned in the indissoluble shackles of anathema forever.”
How things have changed.
U
undead_rat
Guest
We must thank Mr. Farey for his corrections of my mis-representations concerning that decree.
In the future I will be sure to include the appropriate disclaimers warning readers that I am a “blatant liar” and that I write nothing but “incoherent gibberish” anyway.
gatesofnineveh.wordpress.com
In the future I will be sure to include the appropriate disclaimers warning readers that I am a “blatant liar” and that I write nothing but “incoherent gibberish” anyway.
The Letters of Abgar V
An Arab by ethnicity, known as Abgar in Greek (and Acbarus or Agbarus in Latin), Abgar V was the king of a small Syriac kingdom called Osroene, with his capital at Edessa.[1] Osroene was generally …
gatesofnineveh.wordpress.com
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I did not correct your misrepresentation of the Doctrine of Addai at all. You mentioned that the work was ‘excluded’ by the Pope. I was merely supplementing your warning to the faithful that any credence given to it would result in severe danger to their souls.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
However, since you mention misrepresentation, I do find your quotation (above) in contradiction to your conclusion (above). Don’t you?
U
undead_rat
Guest
Yes, once again you have found out my mistake. I should have said, “No mention is made of any miraculous image being presented to King Abgar (by Addai.)”
Thank you so much, Mr. Farey, and, especially, for pointing out the “severe danger to our souls” should we open this book.
Thank you so much, Mr. Farey, and, especially, for pointing out the “severe danger to our souls” should we open this book.
Last edited:
P
petra22
Guest
Did you think that if the shroud of Turin is authentic… Jesus didn’t just work a miracle, he used scientific protocol that was put in place by him (and a miracle of taking back his life)… (You scientists know more about what I’m talking about than I do… radio carbon dating, photographic negative, etc…)
In the same way he used what science he had created to become human. He could have appeared via a marvelous miracle but chose to use the science of human birth via a mother… (also part miracle with the holy spirit…)
***I think God is trying to tell us and show us that YES science is all the things you can see and understand–but oh, so much more that you can not see and cannot understand…+++
In the same way he used what science he had created to become human. He could have appeared via a marvelous miracle but chose to use the science of human birth via a mother… (also part miracle with the holy spirit…)
***I think God is trying to tell us and show us that YES science is all the things you can see and understand–but oh, so much more that you can not see and cannot understand…+++
Last edited:
B
bobperk
Guest
How many truly anonymous artistic masterpieces exist in the world? I am talking true masterpieces, something along the lines of the Mona Lisa. Of which the Shroud, if indeed it is a piece of art, would be considered - an anonymous masterpiece. Has anyone proposed the identity of the artist who supposedly produced the Shroud? Would someone really have produced such a work and have stayed hidden, never to reproduce another work like it or anything else bearing his name?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Good question. The concept of the ‘artist’ is very much a medieval phenomenon, from about the 13th century onwards. Before then, art and craft, whether painting or bricklaying, were considered jobs to be done by people whose job it was to do them, rather than individual expressions of creativity. Of course, the attribution of artistic masterpiece is something of a subjective opinion, but a quick review of almost all the pre-medieval, and indeed a great many medieval art-works, will show that we have no idea who made, painted, sculpted or built them. In more modern times, we have begun to recognise individual talent in a way that was never done before, and attributed some medieval work to “the master of…” this or that, without knowing his name. Sometimes, research into archives will reveal an individual name (usually in connection with having been paid for a job), but more often than not, the earlier the artwork, the more anonymous the artist.
Furthermore, the Shroud was not intended, in my view, as a ‘signature’ artwork. It was a functional artefact with a job to do, and as such, almost any of the known artists from the trecento could have produced it. They could not have known of its ‘negative’ effect, of course, which is an accidental outcome of the skill of their original design, which was to produce an image that might have been produced by a recently traumatised corpse.
If I was given the research grant hypothesised by nooooby above, some of it would certainly be diverted into the study of the Italian artists of Siena and Florence of the time, some of whom also spent some time in Avignon with the exiled popes, with a view to characterising their individual styles with that of the image on the Shroud. They could well have been known to Bishop of Troyes Henri de Poitiers, who allegedly, as we know, knew who had created the Shroud.
Furthermore, the Shroud was not intended, in my view, as a ‘signature’ artwork. It was a functional artefact with a job to do, and as such, almost any of the known artists from the trecento could have produced it. They could not have known of its ‘negative’ effect, of course, which is an accidental outcome of the skill of their original design, which was to produce an image that might have been produced by a recently traumatised corpse.
If I was given the research grant hypothesised by nooooby above, some of it would certainly be diverted into the study of the Italian artists of Siena and Florence of the time, some of whom also spent some time in Avignon with the exiled popes, with a view to characterising their individual styles with that of the image on the Shroud. They could well have been known to Bishop of Troyes Henri de Poitiers, who allegedly, as we know, knew who had created the Shroud.
B
bobperk
Guest
I appreciate your response. I supposed that I may have had an anachronistic concept of the role of an artist.
U
undead_rat
Guest
“Yet another of Raes’s findings was of minute but unmistakable traces of cotton adhering to the linen threads, suggesting to him that wherever the Shroud had been woven, it had been done on equipment that had also been used for cotton. Since the particular variety of cotton that Raes found was ‘Gossypium herbaceum,’ a characteristic middle east variety, . . . rather good evidence for the Shroud having originated in the middle east.”**
**THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD, Wilson, 1998
**THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD, Wilson, 1998
U
undead_rat
Guest
In fairness to anyone that would want to post a negative comment, I respectfully request that no comments at all be posted regarding this back-lit photo. TY. (Use the second link of numbers for a larger picture)
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
In THE SHROUD (pg. 233, PB) Wilson mentions a work titled:
THE STORY OF THE IMAGE OF EDESSA—(NARRATIO DE IMAGE EDESSENA)–
“. . .the single work that more than any other has enabled us to piece together a cogent history for the Image.”
The Greek text together with its translation is available in Prof, Mark Guscin’s book of 2009:
THE IMAGE OF EDESSA.
The STORY OF THE IMAGE OF EDESSA gives two versions of how the image of Jesus came into existence.
In the first, King Abgar’s messenger, here called Ananias, was noticed by Jesus as he attempted to paint the Lord’s portrait. Jesus had Ananias brought to Him and:
“. . .washed His face in water and wiped the liquid from it onto a cloth that He had been handed, and arranged in a divine way beyond understanding for His own likeness to be imprinted upon the cloth. He gave it to Ananias and told him to give it to Abgar…”
In the second version:
"It is said that when Christ was about to willingly undergo suffering, He displayed human weakness and prayed in anguish. The gospel tells us that His sweat fell like drops of blood and then it is said that He took this piece of cloth, which can still be seen, from one of His disciples, and wiped off the streams of sweat on it. The figure of His divine face, which is still visible, was immediately transferred to it. He gave it to Thomas and told him to send it to Abgar with Thaddaeus after His ascension . . .
“Just before he [Thaddaeus] came into the king’s presence, he placed the likeness [Jesus’ image] on his own forehead and went in thus to Abgar. The king saw him coming from afar and seemed to see a light shining out of his face, too bright to look at, sent forth by the likeness that was covering him. . .”
I find these legends instructive in that they show how the ancients attempted to explain the formation of the indistinct sepia outline of Jesus’ face that they observed on a folded up cloth which was not presented as a bloody burial shroud. The first is deficient in that it does not explain the obvious drops of fluid on Jesus’ face. The second explains these, but, on a close examination, a bruise under Jesus’ eye can be noticed, and this second legend does not account for it.
Later a third legend arose in which both the drops of fluid and the facial bruising were accounted for. I have never seen this legend in any Orthodox written work, but it is noticeable on at least two Orthodox icons of the Mandylion which have three smaller scenes included. One of these small scenes is of a woman offering Jesus a cloth as He is carrying His cross. At that time His face would have the blood drops from the crown of thorns and would also be bruised as a result of being struck the previous night.
Since we now know that this divine Image of Jesus’ face is part of His burial Shroud, we also know that the ancient legends of how His divine face came to be imprinted on the Image of Edessa are not true.
THE STORY OF THE IMAGE OF EDESSA—(NARRATIO DE IMAGE EDESSENA)–
“. . .the single work that more than any other has enabled us to piece together a cogent history for the Image.”
The Greek text together with its translation is available in Prof, Mark Guscin’s book of 2009:
THE IMAGE OF EDESSA.
The STORY OF THE IMAGE OF EDESSA gives two versions of how the image of Jesus came into existence.
In the first, King Abgar’s messenger, here called Ananias, was noticed by Jesus as he attempted to paint the Lord’s portrait. Jesus had Ananias brought to Him and:
“. . .washed His face in water and wiped the liquid from it onto a cloth that He had been handed, and arranged in a divine way beyond understanding for His own likeness to be imprinted upon the cloth. He gave it to Ananias and told him to give it to Abgar…”
In the second version:
"It is said that when Christ was about to willingly undergo suffering, He displayed human weakness and prayed in anguish. The gospel tells us that His sweat fell like drops of blood and then it is said that He took this piece of cloth, which can still be seen, from one of His disciples, and wiped off the streams of sweat on it. The figure of His divine face, which is still visible, was immediately transferred to it. He gave it to Thomas and told him to send it to Abgar with Thaddaeus after His ascension . . .
“Just before he [Thaddaeus] came into the king’s presence, he placed the likeness [Jesus’ image] on his own forehead and went in thus to Abgar. The king saw him coming from afar and seemed to see a light shining out of his face, too bright to look at, sent forth by the likeness that was covering him. . .”
I find these legends instructive in that they show how the ancients attempted to explain the formation of the indistinct sepia outline of Jesus’ face that they observed on a folded up cloth which was not presented as a bloody burial shroud. The first is deficient in that it does not explain the obvious drops of fluid on Jesus’ face. The second explains these, but, on a close examination, a bruise under Jesus’ eye can be noticed, and this second legend does not account for it.
Later a third legend arose in which both the drops of fluid and the facial bruising were accounted for. I have never seen this legend in any Orthodox written work, but it is noticeable on at least two Orthodox icons of the Mandylion which have three smaller scenes included. One of these small scenes is of a woman offering Jesus a cloth as He is carrying His cross. At that time His face would have the blood drops from the crown of thorns and would also be bruised as a result of being struck the previous night.
Since we now know that this divine Image of Jesus’ face is part of His burial Shroud, we also know that the ancient legends of how His divine face came to be imprinted on the Image of Edessa are not true.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
A couple of interesting points, I think.
- Cotton.
a) There is a strong school of authenticist thought (to which neither I nor Undead_rat belong, to be fair), which claims that the Raes sample was part of an alleged ‘medieval reweaving’ process, and that any cotton found there, or anywhere else in that corner, is from a date considerably later than the 14th century, when cotton was well known and extensively used throughout Europe.
b) However, assuming the cotton is integral to the cloth, there is a suggestion in the quotation given by Undead_rat that it was readily available in 1st century Palestine, but not in 14th century Europe, and that therefore its presence lends support to authenticity. The red herring (Gossypium herbaceum) is trailed across the story to add spurious authority to the idea. Actually, of course, G. herbaceum was originally the only cotton west of Mesopotamia, and although it was grown mostly in North Africa, its use spread northwards to Palestine (indeed before the 1st century), and Spain (before the 9th century), and Italy (before the 13th century), and so on. - The Image of Edessa.
The origin of the Mandylion as a cloth against which Jesus pressed this face is a good story for the generation of a miraculous image, and the various accounts about when this may have happened - while Jesus was teaching, in the Garden of Gethsemane, or on the way to Calvary - all grew up after the image had arrived in Constantinople. Earlier stories, as Undead_rat recounts above, talk of actual paintings. In none of these stories, however, nor in any representation of the Image of Edessa or the Mandylion, is it clear that Jesus’s face was either monochrome or ‘negative’, two of the most distinguishing characteristics of the Shroud image. That the image was considerably more than a mere sweat or blood transfer is suggested by the Narratio’s amazement that Christ “arranged in a divine way beyond understanding for his own likeness to be imprinted upon the cloth”.
- Status