Posted on 01/26/2005 7:31:12 PM PST by ArcLight
1351 - Shroud first shown in Lirey, France, to close family and frinds of Geoffrey de Charny. De Charny endows a church to house his posession which opens in 1355. Shroud is shown again and then secreted away in the altar.
April 14, 1452 - Leonardo da Vinci born
even giving their argument maximum benefit of the doubt, the shroud definitely existed at most a year after da vinci was born.
LOL!
Well, the two guys who wrote and sold a book based on the Da Vinci theory were historically challenged. On the other hand, they were aware of the date discrepency, They decided that the Lirey shroud was a poor fake and that da Vinci surrupticiously replaced the bad fake with a good fake(!) and no one noticed the substitution.
Another novel (in the fictional meaning) is that the image on the Shroud IS the shroud of a dead man... but not Jesus. They say it is Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar who was executed along with another Templar... one Geoffrey de Charney (note the almost identical spelling) Lodge Master of the Paris Temple. The fly in this particular ointment is that both men were burned at the stake... and left no body to be covered by a shroud.
However, the connection and the similarity in names, leads to a well thought of theory that the Shroud was in the posession of the Knights Templar since they looted it in the eleventh Century when it was last reported as being in the inventory of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople before the knights of the fourth crusade burned and sacked the city.
It is a logical conclusion that Geoffrey de Charny and Geoffrey de Charney might be grandson and grandfather and that the Shroud was handed down in the family.
Barrie Schworz's Shroud of Turin Web Site.
Another good source is Freeper Shroudie's Shroudstory
thanks for straightening that one out for me. I won't ever assume that national geographic knows what the hell it's talking about ever again.
Wow, without any scientific training or experiments, I had it pegged at between 400 and 3,000 years old - I was pretty close! Do I get a prize?
That is just Catholic sophistry. People worship the shroud and other relics.
There is a new book I haven't read yet that is recent: "The Shroud of Turin" by C. Bernard Ruffin - that looks promising. (Most of the books I have are out of print.)But there are several good on line sites that keep pretty well up to date. http://www.shroud.com/bstsmain.htm
http://www.nhne.com/articles/sashroud.html
http://shroudofjesus.com/
http://www.nhne.com/articles/sashroud.html
http://www.nhne.com/articles/sashroud.html
Have fun - it is very intriguing and may "speak" to the part of you who 'knows'
"Wouldn't that have affected the results?"
Absolutely. So will "bioplastic" a film of organic matter laid down over a surface like cloth over centuries which incorporates more recent carbon into the test samples.
Curious observation. Are you Muslim???
This is hardly a graven image. Its an historical artifact.
A compounding of errors - soot, sampling method and bioplastic.
Since even the radiocarbon testing indicates the shroud is older than DaVinci, that seems to make little sense to me.
Maybe National Geographic should stick to debunking alllegations that Mohammad was a pedophile.
"However, the connection and the similarity in names, leads to a well thought of theory that the Shroud was in the posession of the Knights Templar since they looted it in the eleventh Century when it was last reported as being in the inventory of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople before the knights of the fourth crusade burned and sacked the city."
I agree with you.
I'm not a Catholic, but Catholics don't WORSHIP anyone but God. They VENERATE the Shroud.
A real distinction. Veneration is not worship.
soot was cleand. bioplastic would have to outweigh original material 2 to 1.. that leaves sampling error... and that is what has now been conclusively proved. The sample was not the same as the rest of the Shroud.
indeed. I'm just glad I went ahead and sent the post about the NG special - I very nearly didn't - so I could be disabused.
before my fellow freeper pointed out the brazen and glaring anachronism, I vaguely took it for granted that there must be at least a kernel of substance to the Da Vinci angle.
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.