[AnAmericanMother]

Looks like you're a very concentrated specialist. :-)

Of course I haven't read all those documents. The very existence of so much controversy, however (not to mention so many surviving documents), as well as the players' alignments, tells me that this was primarily a political dispute. When you add into the mix the fact that Geoffroy went over the head of the Bishop to get the exposition approved, and that Clement VII saw fit to approve the cultus (with conditions), it looks even more political. And if we want to talk about revenue, the Shroud was fought over fiercely throughout its history precisely for that reason (just ask the poor canons of Lirey). Geoffrey's family was criticized for exhibiting the Shroud for profit and the sale of souvenirs (and Margaret de Charny was excommunicated for refusing to return it to Lirey). Add that Margaret de Charny on several occasions admitted that the shroud was merely a "representation" of Christ, that Clement allowed exhibition of the Shroud only with the caveat that it was a pious representation and not authentic, that D'Arcis's predecessor (and D'Arcis) stated that they knew the name of the artist who painted the Shroud, and that Chevalier's investigation (which is the reason we have all the documents) concluded that it was a representation rather than a relic, it creates more than a little doubt.

Color me still unconvinced.

[steve8714]

Unconvinced is OK, convinced is OK, we do not need relics to have faith, do we?

[shroudie]

Good. I like an open, well informed mind. I don't find evidence that Henri knew any such thing. Pierre is the only testament to this. Henri was dead. And there is no record of an inquest as would be expected. The criticism of the profit motives of the Geoffrey's family is non-evidentiary to my way of thinking. And I find Margaret's "representation"s and Clement's caveat political. So we disagree.

There is significant new evidence that the Shroud was a Besancon possession ca 1207 to 135?. This must be discussed at a later time. Publishers (not mine) and peer review and all that sort of stuff for now. That should be an important development. I never bought into the Templar theory all that much.

I do find, as I suspect you do, that the historical conspectus of the era presents us with a fuzzy picture. That is why we must turn to science. The simple fact of the matter is that science has irrefutable proven that it is not a painting. This is verified by spectrophotometry, fluorescence photography, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, microscopy, microchemistry, laser microprobe Raman spectrometry, and pyrolysis mass spectrometry. While non-image contaminants of pigments used in paint and dye are found on the surface of the Shroud (as there are many other particles), nowhere on the Shroud is there a sufficient concentration of this material to form a visible image.

The backside image, which is what this thread of discussion is about, is simply further proof.

With all due respect for your precision and scholarly content . . . I love a good debate . . . and I am convinced.

Shroudie

[netmilsmom]

Until Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman get the Wayback Machine going, we can't prove that it was the Shroud of Christ anyway.

I'll go with Faith and Inspiration everytime.

[Alex Murphy]

Color me still unconvinced.

Actually, if they color you than you must be a forgery. You will have to emanate the colors all by yourself :)

I'm unconvinced, too.