Posted on 02/08/2005 10:03:05 AM PST by Swordmaker
Do you spend more of your time contemplating the shroud than you do contemplating God?
Sure! But are we heading into a game of semantics or priorities machinations? We all have our talents.
I have a friend who is a Jesuit priest; a man of great faith, very pious and very devout. He says a brief mass every morning at 6am. He tells me that his final prayerful words as he leave the church each morning are: “I’ve got things to do now, God, so I’ll see you tomorrow if you can spare me a few more minutes.” The rest of the day he does God’s work and forgets about worship. He tells me he is so conditioned to doing what he does that he doesn’t even think about God until the next day.
That is sort of the way I am with the Shroud.
Dan
I understand. I have an intense interest in the Declaration of Independence, even unto the lost "Fair Copy", that Jefferson presented to the Committee of Five before the "official" declaration was drafted and presented to the Continental Congress. It is only a little over 228 years old and is extinct. I would now consider any finding of it to be a "copy" or a deliberate forgery. The Shroud of Turin is assumed to be about 2000 years old. Absent the supernatural, the existence of the original dressing of Christ's body, even assuming great care was tendered to it by His early followers, is highly unlikely. I didn't say impossible, but highly unlikely, which is close as close to impossible as one can get. Given the shrouds finding at the Battle of Poitiers, during the Hundred Years War in the Middle ages, with this times propensity to fabricate holy relics for financial and political reasons, the likelihood of the shroud being authentic is, well, not likely.
But whether the shroud is authentic is not my bone of contention with regard to any relic, it is an example of the reasoning behind the Second Commandment. That being, essentially, that nothing from Heaven can be possessed on Earth. Ponder the wisdom behind this commandment. It is meant to prevent a great deal of bloodshed. Any group, religion, tribe, congregation or nation in possession of a truly holy relic, must somehow have God's approval or, be offending God by being an infidel in possession of a holy object of the truly faithful. Being in actual possession of the true Ark of the Covenant, the True Cross or Mohammed's Saddle, would be cause for war.
Therefore, were the Shroud of Turin somehow proved to be Christ's actual burial shroud, could that not be an excuse for the excesses of religion that has killed millions of people over the millenniums? 9/11 being just a recent reminder.
This I tell you true, If I had the complete True Cross, the Holy Grail (probably wood and decayed by the first century), the ruble of the true Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai, Mohammed's Saddle and Buddha's pillow, I would destroy them all. Not in the name of destroying religion, but in the name of peace and goodwill to all Men.
The Shroud of Turin, even if authentic, by the Grace of God and for the good of Man, must be considered "un-proven".
Regards, Buck.
That's Barrie Schwortz site. This particular link you provided is amazing in that it explains the finger marks where fluid was coming from the nose and was suppressed. I could just see the Virgin Mary helping her son. Absolutely breathtaking details come to light when you read these papers.
As I've said, I've spent days reading from Barrie's site and others. But his is the most indepth of them all. To some they would seem boring, but once you start, they are truly fascinating.
Please feel free to ping me to anything you have though, as I'm happy to get all I can get my hands on. The information we got from this thread was new to me.
Thanks, and FRegards. God Bless!
It's amazing the kind of information that's out there once you start looking around.
I'll ping you if I bump into something else. And thanks. God Bless you as well!
I don't know where you got the idea the Shroud was found at the Battle of Poitiers. It wasn't. It's owner, Geoffrey de Charny, standard bearer of the King, author of the French Code of Chivalry, died defending his King. His widow and daughter, strapped for cash to continue endowing the chapel in Lirey that Geoffrey built to house the shroud, decided to display the relic.
If you noticed de Charny's position, it was the standard bearer for the King which meant that he fought at the side of the King and was the King's last line of defense in battle. It means that de Charny was the most exalted of all the knights in France... and the most trusted. He also wrote the book that established the STANDARD for knightly conduct, the code of Chivalry. This is not exactly your standard dishonest charlatan who would have a fake shroud manufactured so that he could waste his own fortune on maintaining the church he built to house it.
You find it unlikely that the followers of the most important man in history would retain and care for things that touched him or were left behind by him... I don't.
I might agree with you on the sudden appearance of the "Fair Copy" of the Declaration should be looked at with skepticism... but NOT to dismiss it out of hand as you do. In 1989 a bargain hunter discovered one of the 500 "official" authorized copies of the DofC behind a painting he bought for $4. The lucky finder sold it for $2.42 million... and it was resold in 2000 for $8.14 million. It had been hidden for up to 228 years as well.
The provenance of the Shroud IS shrouded (excuse the bad pun) in mystery... but it does have a history beyond 1356. We KNOW a shroud existed as it was listed in the inventory of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. We have the Sermon delivered when the Image of Edessa was brought to Constantinople in 944 in which the monk who delivered it talked about the image. We have the tradition of the Mandylion, an acheiropoieta ("made without hands") true image of Jesus, that preceded to Shroud and was most likely the Shroud itself. All of these things were revered and PROTECTED from damage except for very short, and usually violent events which they survived because of the sacrifices of believers and the risks they took to save them... including the shroud.
Yes, there are holes in the "chain of evidence". The first occurs between the Tomb and the arrival of an "acheiropoieta" image of Christ in Edessa, Turkey, as a gift reportedly from Jesus to King Akbar of Edessa. The image stays in Edessa for the next three centuries... revered and used as a palliative against attack.
The second gap occurs from the siege of Edessa in the 4th Century when the "Image of Edessa" was paraded on the city walls to invoke its protection (which apparently didn't work too well) and its finding, walled up in the city gates, during repairs after an earthquake in 525 or 544.
The Image of Edessa, resided there until 944 when it was handed over to the Emperor in Constantinople in exchange for the release of 200 Muslim POWs. There it was renamed the Mandylion but apprently later discovered to be the shroud as the Mandylion is de-emphasized in literature and the listing of the shroud appears.
The final gap in the chain of custody occurs starting in 1204 when the French Knights of the Fourth Crusade, out of boredom from long delays in sallying forth to Palestine, sack Constantinople and steal many of the relics before torching the buildings that housed them. The disappearance of the Shroud in the sack of Constantinople begins a 150 year gap in the chain of evidence.
Among those participating in the Fourth Crusade was a group called the Knights Templar, a rabidly devout group of priestly knights who would be most interested in seizing relics. In 1307, Jaques de Molay, Grand Master of the Templars was burned at the stake for "idolatry" in that the Templars were reported to be worshiping an image, and the Templars were hunted down and killed. Burned along with De Molay was the Master of the Paris Temple, one Geoffry de Charney.
The modern age of the shroud starts in 1355 in Lirey France where the Shroud turns up in the possession of one Geoffrey de Charny. There are no gaps in the chain from then on.
. . . This I tell you true, If I had the complete True Cross, the Holy Grail (probably wood and decayed by the first century), the ruble of the true Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai, Mohammed's Saddle and Buddha's pillow, I would destroy them all. Not in the name of destroying religion, but in the name of peace and goodwill to all Men.
My, what arogance. What if GOD arranged to leave the shroud as another testament to the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus (and if it is authentic, that is exactly a description of what happened)? You claim that you would substitute GOD's judgement with YOURS as to it value and importance.
It is this very hubris that allows the Taliban to destroy ancient religious artefacts in the name of their religion.
Very well said.
Dan
Since I did a paper on the Hundred Years War and the Shroud is mentioned contemporary to the events of the Battle of Poitiers, the Shroud is often referenced in this context. My error, admittedly, is one of pre and post battle disposition, but not of time and place. The widow of de Charny petitioned the French Court for possession of the Shroud.
It means that de Charny was the most exalted of all the knights in France... and the most trusted. He also wrote the book that established the STANDARD for knightly conduct, the code of Chivalry.
Well, whoop-de-do! So, de Charny wrote books, got himself killed and allowed his King to be taken prisoner by the Black Prince. King John II of France was transported to England where he became the house guest of the English King Edward III. I presume that this incident at Poitiers begins the French tradition of surrender. After Poitiers, the Black Prince went on to win more battles in Spain. In return, "Pedro the Cruel", King of Spain, presented the Black Prince with a large ruby known as the "Black Prince Ruby". This gem is still in the position of honor on the front of the English Imperial State Crown. It would seem that de Charny's writing books on chivalry and possessing the sacred Shroud did him little good as a combat battlefield soldier.
My, what arrogance. What if GOD arranged to leave the shroud as another testament to the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus (and if it is authentic, that is exactly a description of what happened)? You claim that you would substitute GOD's judgement with YOURS as to it value and importance.
"What if GOD..." What if, indeed? Absent any other knowledge, I would use my judgement. Were God to desire a different disposition of these relics, I would hope He would instruct me. As it is however, I think the 2nd. Commandment of the Decalogue: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;", is the instruction that guides my judgement.
It is this very hubris that allows the Taliban to destroy ancient religious artifacts in the name of their religion.
Perhaps, but that is your perception and interpretation. Any act I would do would be in private, unknown, and the fact carried to my grave, not a public demonstration of terrorist value as did the Taliban. As well, the statues of Buddha were known to be man made and not considered to be supernaturally manufactured holy relics. Furthermore, to reference me to the Taliban is to miss the entire point. They destroyed icons in order to promote Islam. I would destroy ANY relic of ANY religion that I knew (somehow) for a fact was authentic. I would not promote Christianity by destroying Mohammed's Saddle while proffering to the public, the True Cross. I would destroy them both. Now remember, this presumes the artifacts are, indeed, "real". That means that there is a Jahveh (Yahweh), Christ and an Allah. The same Great Spirit by many names. To promote one over the other would be disingenuous. Destroying both Cross and Saddle would be the chivalrous thing to do.
If you can't see the difference, one wonders how you would react to any proven facts about the Turin Shroud. Would you go mad and commit suicide were it proven beyond doubt to be a fake? Would you murder those who proved it to be fake? More to the point, would you murder those who refused to accept its authenticity should it be proved "real"? Would you forsake your family and become a monk were it proven real? Or would you bid on e-Bay for a grilled cheese sandwich that had the image of The Virgin burned onto the bread? Just how emotionally invested are you in this dubious artifact? The question is rhetorical and I don't need to know the answer. Perhaps you and others do.
Therefore, I stand by the judgement that nothing from Heaven can be possessed on earth. It is against God's will as expressed in the Second Commandment.
Therefore, I stand by the judgement that nothing from Heaven can be possessed on earth. It is against God's will as expressed in the Second Commandment.
And what would you do with your narrow interpretation of the Second Commandment if, beyond any doubt, it was proven genuine and produced by a miracle? Would you presume justified to destroy something made by God?
Would you explain -- what -- to God?
Dan
. . .events of the Battle of Poitiers, the Shroud is often referenced in this context. . . The widow of de Charny petitioned the French Court for possession of the Shroud.
You know, Bucko, I have been reading articles, books, papers, scientific treatises on the Shroud for over 35 years and I have never seen the Shroud referenced in context to the Battle of Poiters... I have seen it mentioned only as an aside that the shroud's owner died in the battle. As to de Charney's widow petitioning the court for possession of the Shroud. She did not. She petitioned to continue the rente that the Crown had been providing to de Charny. "Within a month his widow, Jeanne de Vergy, appeals to the Regent of France to pass the financial grants, formerly made to Geoffrey, on to his son, Geoffrey II. This is approved a month later. The Shroud remains in the de Charny family's possession."
Well, whoop-de-do! So, de Charny wrote books, got himself killed and allowed his King to be taken prisoner by the Black Prince. King John II of France was transported to England where he became the house guest of the English King Edward III. I presume that this incident at Poitiers begins the French tradition of surrender. After Poitiers, the Black Prince went on to win more battles in Spain. In return, "Pedro the Cruel", King of Spain, presented the Black Prince with a large ruby known as the "Black Prince Ruby". This gem is still in the position of honor on the front of the English Imperial State Crown. It would seem that de Charny's writing books on chivalry and possessing the sacred Shroud did him little good as a combat battlefield soldier.
Non Sequitur... de Charney's success in battle had nothing to do with his respect and stature in society, nor his honesty. The point is that this guy was an upstanding citizen not prone to chicanery.
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;"
The evidence is mounting that it was NOT made by any human agency in which case this does not apply.
Absent any other knowledge, I would use my judgement. Were God to desire a different disposition of these relics, I would hope He would instruct me. . . I would destroy ANY relic of ANY religion that I knew (somehow) for a fact was authentic. . . Destroying both Cross and Saddle would be the chivalrous thing to do.
You are arrogant... and scary.
If you can't see the difference, one wonders how you would react to any proven facts about the Turin Shroud. Would you go mad and commit suicide were it proven beyond doubt to be a fake? Would you murder those who proved it to be fake? More to the point, would you murder those who refused to accept its authenticity should it be proved "real"? Would you forsake your family and become a monk were it proven real? Or would you bid on e-Bay for a grilled cheese sandwich that had the image of The Virgin burned onto the bread? Just how emotionally invested are you in this dubious artifact? The question is rhetorical and I don't need to know the answer. Perhaps you and others do.
Those questions are insulting... as they are intended to be. It is YOU who claim who would commit violence, all-be-it to inanimate objects, not I. I am merely following the science. The authenticity or non-authenticity of the Shroud is not something ANYONE should commit violence over. It is you who appear to be an arrogant, iconoclastic fanatic who would forcefully impose HIS opinion on others.
The answer to ALL of your "rhetorical", but actually ad hominum attack questions, is "No."
No. Only because I do not believe that any holy object, except for all of Creation itself, has been left by God for Earthly possession, including the Shroud of Turin. Therefore as long as the Shroud's "Holy Authenticity" is always in question, it is quite safe from me.
However, the real crux of this discussion is not whether holy relics are safe from me, but rather is the World safe from the believers of the Shroud. Should the Shroud somehow prove to be authentic, would it become a banner about which to start a Holy War? The implications are enormous. Think about. That's why the 2nd. Commandment exists and why Moses destroyed the Ten Commandments Tablets that were wrought by God on Mt. Sinai. This act by Moses is an allegorical example that nothing made by God is to be be possessed on Earth for reasons of mans own good.
The Shroud of Turin is only a harmless, Medieval relic, as long as it is only regarded a symbol for what it represents and does not become "Holy Unto Itself".
I do believe that I nobly have corrected myself in regards to this question in my previous post. That the "Owner of the Shroud of Turin" was killed at the Battle of Poitiers" is often mentioned in many texts and web sites. Even on pro-Shroud web sites, i.e.:
"September 19, 1356: Geoffrey de Charny is killed by the English at the Battle of Poitiers, during a last stand in which he valiantly defends his king. Within a month his widow, Jeanne de Vergy, appeals to the Regent of France to pass the financial grants, formerly made to Geoffrey, on to his son, Geoffrey II. This is approved a month later. The Shroud remains in the de Charny family's possession."
excerpt from: www.shroud.com.
If that is not "context" than what is? The point is now moot and only of import to you.
Non Sequitur... de Charny's success in battle...."
I beg your pardon, but if ever there was a non sequitur it's using the name "de Charny and "success in battle" in the same sentence. de Charny was taken prisoner at the the battle of Morlaix in 1342, where his captor was the English Knight, Richard Talbot. de Charny also failed in his attempt to capture Calais and little to nothing is mentioned of de Charny's valor at Crecy`. And of course, your glorious French knight was killed by the Black Prince's Welsh Longbow men at Poitiers. So much for de Cherny's battle success.
The point is that this guy was an upstanding citizen not prone to chicanery.
Do tell. Well according to the British Shroud Society, de Charney: "After returning from serving his second known term of imprisonment, directly thanks to Pavia, Geoffrey conducted a daring night raid on the traitor's castle, reputedly finding him in bed with his English mistress Marguerite. Taking him captive to St.Omer, there he decapitated him, quartered his body, and displayed it on the town gates. As Professor Kaeuper drily adds: 'To show that all this was a private matter and not a part of the business of war prohibited for a time by the current truce, Charny took possession only of Aimery himself, not his castle'. So, de Charny had to sneak up on his enemies, because when he faced them he was either captured, or finally killed. In short, in light of the reputations of such men as Chandos, Holland and de Bohun of the English, Geoffrey de Charny was nothing more than a French punk.
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image,...
The evidence is mounting that it was NOT made by any human agency in which case this does not apply.
I beg to differ. The only acceptable evidence will be the "Second Coming".
You are arrogant... and scary.
I could say the same of you, but I won't. "A 'Gentleman' should never fertilize the seeds of ignorance and superstition into the mind of the innocent with a spade full of manure in the form of harsh criticism". (elbucko)
You raise this question, impugning the motives of Shroud researchs and "believers", without a shred of evidence that such a thing would happen. If it proves to be authentic (an event I doubt can occur) WHY do you think it would it become a "banner about which to start a Holy War?"
I beg your pardon, but if ever there was a non sequitur it's using the name "de Charny and "success in battle" in the same sentence. de Charny was taken prisoner at the the battle of Morlaix in 1342, where his captor was the English Knight, Richard Talbot. de Charny also failed in his attempt to capture Calais and little to nothing is mentioned of de Charny's valor at Crecy`. And of course, your glorious French knight was killed by the Black Prince's Welsh Longbow men at Poitiers. So much for de Cherny's battle success.
You are elevating your non-sequitur. The success or lack of success in battle has NOTHING to do with de Charny's honesty. You base your criticism on a few lines in one paragraph in a biographic blurb that is far from complete. You imply that de Charny was incompetent in battle, an opinion that obvious was not shared by his King, who trusted his life to him. The fact that his reputation and actions resulted in his being elevated to a high, trusted office, his authoring of a book used as an exemple of proper and honorable behavior for all of French noblemen, ARE facts which might be probative, NOT how he died... along with thousands of others... in a battle that resulted in his King being captured.
Your next reference cut-and-pasted from Barrie Schworz's web site, you add stresses to the quotation to imply that de Charny was "imprisoned" for some nefarious deeds. He was not. He was imprisoned as a prisoner of war due to the actions of a traitor, Pavia. You then imply that his act of justifiable retribution against Pavia was a cowardly, dishonorable act. You then refer to de Charny as a "French punk" because of this act of retribution. De Charny was a product of his times and in accord wthe mores of his culture, acted honorably in the matter. In fact, it is pointed out that de Charny captured ONLY his traitorous enemy; it was considered remarkable that de Charny DID NOT SIEZE Pavia's castle and lands (which he would have been entitled to do but did not because he considered dishonorable to do so), but merely exacted a justifiable beheading and quartering on a traitor to the state. Yes, his retribution was brutal, but it was done legally and according to law. That does not make him a "punk."
Contining commentary from last post...
My point has been that contrary to the shroud debunkers' contention that the Shroud was created to extract money dishonorably from poor (or not so poor) pilgrims, the man in whose possession the Shroud first enters modern history DID NOT DO SO! Instead he funded the church where he stored his possession from his family coffers and from all records did NOT allow donations for that purpose. Furthermore his record does not support the idea of his being a con-man.
This is a fact that no one can ever really know. Medieval fables and chronicles are noteworthy for their inaccuracy and outright fabrication. The English chronicler of the Hundred Years War, Jean Froissart, has de Cherney trying to talk King John (Jean)II into a combat of 100 champions instead of enjoined armies on a battlefield. If so, it is not too difficult to conclude that de Charny was, indeed, capable of being a shroud hustler, or the sucker for a good con game played on him. As it was, the French King rejected de Cherny's suggestion as there not being enough glory to go around for the French knights. The French King wanted a battle and he got one. King John was captured by the Black Prince and caught a boat for England. Your hero, de Cherny, was killed and the Oriflamme dropped in the muck.
The fact or fable of a tournament suggest strongly that de Cherny was a moron and/or an arrogant fool. A charlatan or a chump. Probably all. The army of the side loosing the tournament would certainly attack the winners at the drop of the first fair maidens hankie. Rules of Chivalry? Oh, be serious. The Hundred Years wars was not a game on the internet or a booth at a Renaissance Fair. It was the serious business about some serious real estate and a dispute of international feudal law. It wasn't about "Honor". Having been a soldier, I can assure you that chivalry on the battlefield toward the enemy is folly. It makes for a nice, romantic story to be told by the fireside to ones grandchildren by the ruthless and the victorious.
As for the Shroud, I seriously doubt that a particular linen object, i.e. Christs Shroud, could have survived the 1316 years (1316 + 33 = 1349 A.D.) since the death of Christ. That some linen shrouds of someone could have survived 500 to 1000 years is possible. The wrapping of dead bodies in a burial cloth has been done by humans for millenniums. That's what I think the Shroud of Turin might be along with being a Medieval fake. The burial shroud of some unknown person that has survived the centuries to become a religious curiosity and controversy. As for the "science" as you both put it, it too is subject to legitimate criticism.
In short, the "Shroud" is like "Global Warming". Some believe, some do not. I, for one, do not. Therefore, if I had possession of the shroud, would I destroy it? Of course not! I'd put it up for bid on e-Bay and give the proceeds to Army and Marine Corps wounded vet support groups.
Regards, Buck.
Thanks. One of those links led me to the official site for the Shroud!! I'd never had that one before. Wow. Great find.
Really appreciated. FRegards, and God Bless!!
There is a clear documentary record of the permissions vis-a-vis the Shroud granted to de Charny and to his wife extant in the Papal records. De Charny requested permission of the Pope to build his chapel to house and display the Shroud. It is HE who suggested restrictions on its display and assured the Pope that he would not accept donations or charge admission. This is a very rare request... most people who possessed a "relic" merely opened up shop and started accepting donations from the public.
There are also records in the Regency files about the rente. There are also the records of the Bishop of Troyes. They are in agreement about the nature of the exhibitions of the Shroud before de Charny's death. It is only after his death and his wife and daughters determination to display the shroud as an object of veneration did controversy arise. The one letter which raises the question of "the painter who painted it" is merely a draft indicating it is a letter the Bishop intends to send with marginalia indicating changes and deletions. This draft copy exists only in the Bishop's files and there is no original "trasmitted" letter or copy in either Avignon or in Rome, which, given the completeness of the files in both locations, would tend to indicate it was never sent. There is indication that the Pope was appraised of the situation because he issued a permission to de Charny's family to display the Shroud AND ordered the Bishop to perpetual silence on the matter. The Pope, although never having seen the shroud, ordered that it be displayed only as a "representation of the Shroud of Our Lord."
I would suggest that the ENGLISH Chronicler of the Hundred Years War might have had other motives for disparaging one of the chief advisors to the King of France. Your assumption that de Charny is a "moron and/or an arrogant fool. A charlatan or a chump. Probably all." does not follow from the evidence. IF it is a "fable" then it certainly doesn't.
We have our own modern form of the Code of Chivalry for modern battle. It is called the Geneva Convention. It sets down certain battle practices that certainly would give an advantage to the side using them that are not permitted. If you were to act contrary to the Geneva Convention against an opponent also signatory to the Convention, the rest of the world would be aghast. We are currently in discussions over whether non-signatory terrorists should also be covered in the Geneva Conventions.
AS to the survivability of the Shroud for 1300 years. That is one of the real reasons for doubting the authenticity of the Shroud. However, studies of the image on the shroud have revealed information UNKNOWN about Jewish burial customs that were confirmed after the fact of the Shroud research and tend to argue in favor of a First Century provenance. It is MUCH more likely that a Shroud of the founder of a major religion would be revered and saved than the gory shroud of Joe Schmoe.
Further, we have the example of the Sudarium of Oviedo which has a KNOWN provenance of early 6th Century (and a supected provenance of 1st Century). However, it is the fact that this PARTICULAR piece of linen HAS INDEED been preserved for 1400 years without further damage. It is important to note that the custodians of this cloth would have the same motives as any custodian of the Shroud cloth.
With the latest discoveries proving the 1988 C-14 sample are completely compromised by intermixture of mid-16th Century linen with original shroud material, the C14 dates are now considered invalid. Dr. Harry Gove, the inventor of the C14 technique used on the Shroud samples agreed givien the latest findings that the sample was no good. When he was asked what date the ORIGINAL material would have to be to give the 1260 - 1390 with the observed percentages of "new" linen. Gove did some calculations and said original material would have to be First Century, plus or minus 100 years. Gove is not a "shroud fanatic".
In addition, there are extant 10th Century Icons with KNOWN and certain provenances that show representations of the Shroud... indicating its existance FAR OUTSIDE the plus or minus 25 years degrees of confidence of the C14 test. This proves the shroud was copied at least 100 years before the earliest date of the C14 test reports.
Finally we have the results of the Vanillin tests which show the ratio of Lignin to Vanillin in the threads of the original shroud to be less than than detectible. Comparisons with other linen cloths show that this level of detectibility is found on cloths only older than 1300 years. Whether the Shroud had an image on it or not, it seems the cloth is at least 1300 years old. Interestingly, the threads from the patch show a ratio that gives it a Vanillin content equivalent to 500 years or so.
As I said, I am following the science and the scholarship as presented in peer-reviewed journals... you are following your predetermined opinions and cherry picking negative information from doubtful sources.
I will bid on your auction on e-Bay... Thanks for dropping your iconoclastic determination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.