. . .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."
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)