[BroJoeK]

"early representations of Jesus, much closer to the era of reverence for Zeus, were young, clean shaven men depicted as shepherds with a very Mediterranean appearance some would call Apollonian. The question has to be asked why the early Christian church would suddenly decide that Jesus Christ at the age of 33 would look like Zeus, a god that was then several centuries out of vogue?"

"Comparisons to the statues of Zeus find fewer than 15 points of congruence... about the amount one would expect of an image of any bearded man."

Extraordinarily interesting. That change in imagery from "young Apollo" to "older Zeus" has long been commented on, and assumed to correspond with the apotheosis of Christianity -- from persecuted fringe group to the Roman Empire's officially enforced state religion. And so it's assumed -- along with the rest of the Church, Jesus Himself was "promoted:" from Apollo to Zeus.

From Wikipedia:"The oldest known surviving example of the icon of Christ Pantocrator (illustration, right) was painted in encaustic on panel in the sixth or seventh century..."

Wiki: "It was only when the overpainting was cleaned in 1962 that the ancient image was revealed to be a very high quality icon, probably produced in Constantinople."

Swordmaker: "The theory that the man on the Shroud is Jacques de Molay has one major problem. Forensic pathologists have concluded that the image is most certainly that of a dead man... but de Molay was BURNED alive at the stake on March 18, 1314 and his body was totally destroyed."

If I remember that history, de Molay was first severely tortured, then allowed a long recovery before being burned at the stake. So the suggestion is that during de Molay's recovery, the Shroud was used as a miraculous aid to healing. The image then would result from de Molay's high fever and sweating. That's the suggestion.

I would question how "forensic experts" could conclude the image was "most certainly" that of "a dead man."

But anyway, the history you cite sounds as strong as any -- at least to the sixth century. It would remain to establish that this particular material is that referred to in the histories, by dating the material. It seems the previous effort was done rather clumsily, indeed astonishingly so, considering the original plans. Presumably, we will eventually see more carefully analyzed results.

If the material is as ancient as claimed, then whether it was used to aid de Molay's recovery would simply be an interesting side note.

[Swordmaker]

If I remember that history, de Molay was first severely tortured, then allowed a long recovery before being burned at the stake. So the suggestion is that during de Molay's recovery, the Shroud was used as a miraculous aid to healing. The image then would result from de Molay's high fever and sweating. That's the suggestion.

That's sort of a chicken and egg conundrum, Joe. If the image is de Molay, then what made the Shroud, sans image, anything more than an old sheet? In other words, why would it have had any miraculous healing abilities if it did not have the image of a crucified man on it? Which came first? The image or de Molay healing to make the image? It is illogical grasping at straws by a certain group of skeptics who want the Shroud to be something other than what it appears to be.

King Phillip order four men executed on March 14: Templars Jacques de Molay, Geoffroi de Charnay (Grand Preceptor of Normandy), Hugh de Peyraud (Visitor-General), and Guy d’Auvergne (Grand Preceptor of France). 40 years later, the Shroud would be put on display in a little wooden chapel in Lirey, France, by one Geofrey de Charney, King John II's Standard bearer, author of the French Code Of Chivalry, and thought to be either de Charnay's great nephew or grandson. The differences in spelling in those times was a matter of opinion. So there certainly appears to be some connection to the Templars.