Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: All

This post is from another thread on the same subject. It wasn’t answered there and it probably won’t be answered here either.

First, let me assure everyone that I do believe the Shroud to be authentic.

**************************************************

Second, let me ask those who doubt: Who benefits from faking such a thing? Someone, somewhere had to make something off such a monumental forgery, otherwise there’s no reason to do it. If some talented painter faked it, who paid him, and why? Even if some medieval artist painted it (which I doubt) why would he do it and why not take credit for his work?

Once the doubters answer those questions I’ll entertain suggestions that the Shroud is a fake - not before.

****************************************

Anyone?


30 posted on 05/08/2010 11:31:42 AM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: oldfart
The more interesting question involving forgery would ask why one would fake this relic and for approximately 600 years wait for the forgery to be discovery as a forgery. If one had a motive to create a forgery to deceive, then one would logically expect to present it to the world as authentic during one’s lifetime not wait for hundreds of years for the imprint to be discovered. How did the forger know in the 13th or 14th century that photography would be invented in the 19th century thus allowing for the discovery of his forgery which had laid hidden for hundreds of years ?

The circumstantial evidence surrounding this relic is so fraught with informed scientific testimony, blood types, wounds matching , pollen spores only found in Judea, that one must question the competence of the custodians of the shroud who allowed the medieval patch to be taken as a representative sample. However, even more perplexing is explaining the ability of a painter in the 16th century to reflect those present in a room looking at an inanimate imprint of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Scientists again are at a loss to explain the methodology employed to effect this fact.

33 posted on 05/08/2010 1:45:33 PM PDT by bronx2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: oldfart
Who benefits from faking such a thing? Serious question? Seriously? Ain't it blatantly, blindingly obvious that the Shroudholder makes money off the Shroud? Pilgrimage, religious tourism, place-name recognition... that's why all those medieval and renaissance-era churches all over Europe had all those fake relics like the vials of Mary's milk, dessicated saints' body parts, "true cross" splinters, and the like.
The relics collected and worshipped by medieval Europeans ranged from the mundane to the truly bizarre. Bones or body parts of saints and martyrs were always in high demand. One church proudly displayed the brain of St. Peter until the relic was accidentally moved and revealed to be a piece of pumice stone.

Relics of Christ or the Virgin Mary were considered to be extremely valuable and included items such as the milk of the Virgin Mary, the teeth, hair, and blood of Christ, pieces of the Cross, and samples of the linen Christ was wrapped in as an infant. Numerous churches even claimed to possess Christ's foreskin, cut off during his circumcision. The Shroud of Turin, believed to be the funeral shroud in which Christ was buried, is perhaps the most famous medieval relic of all.

The biggest clue that the relics were fake was that there was often more than one... many more than one... of the same relic. The sixteenth-century protestant reformer John Calvin, who believed the veneration of relics to be a form of false worship, commented that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three."

The real value of relics lay in their ability to perform miracles. A relic that was an acknowledged fake could become 'real' if it performed a miracle. The European faithful regularly made pilgrimages over hundreds of miles to visit the most powerful relics. This pilgrimage traffic had an enormous impact on local economies, leading towns to go to extreme lengths to obtain the relics that would draw the most pilgrims.

Some of the lengths to which towns would go in their quest to obtain the most popular relics have been documented by Patrick Geary in his book Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages. He notes that towns were usually reluctant to simply buy or trade relics. After all, why would anyone willingly sell or part with a miracle-performing relic? Presumably they would only do so it if it no longer possessed its powers, meaning that the relic was worthless. Instead, towns often stole the relics they desired, or surreptitiously bought them while publicly claiming to have stolen them. Relic thefts were highly organized affairs, and the successful thieves were treated as local heroes. Geary tells the story of the Italian town of Bari which in 1087 commissioned a team of thieves to obtain the remains of Saint Nicolas (known more popularly today as Santa Claus) from the Turkish town of Myra. The expedition was a success, and for decades Bari basked in the glory of being the town that owned the stolen bones of Santa Claus. http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_medieval_relic_trade/

39 posted on 05/08/2010 9:54:21 PM PDT by flowerplough ( Pennsylvania today - New New Jersey meets North West Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson