Posted on 04/28/2019 8:33:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
It is well accepted that veneration of Holy Relics could enhance the income of churches and cathedrals, but when the Shroud first appeared in the possession of Geoffrey de Charny in the small hamlet of Lirey, France, Sir Geoffrey who had been the standard bearer for the King of France, and the author of the French Code of Chivalry, built a small church to house the Shroud, and would accept no donations from pilgrims to venerate it.
Instead, Geoffrey’s family funded everything itself until it nearly bankrupted itself supporting the church and its clergy to the point that his Granddaughter had to sell the Shroud to the Savoy family, the royal family of Italy to prevent that bankruptcy.
When the Shroud has been displayed, it has never been displayed with an admission charge. Donation boxes are available for those who wish to make a donation, but there is no mandatory cost.
I’ve been to some of these local Shroud information centers and there may be a small admission charge, but that’s to keep the doors open.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence for your contrived hypothesis about a statue or tile 14 feet long being transferred to a cloth over centuries. . . In fact the legend and history of the Mandlyon has details that exclude anything such as what you describe including the fact that the Mandylion was universally described in the story as just a face, not a doubled front and back image of a crucified man. Secondly, all images of the Mandylion or the Image of Edessa show it to have been inside a lattice framework. Thirdly, the Image of Edessa was also described as a Tetradiploid, i.e. Fourdouble folds. If the cloth of the Shroud is folded in just such a manner, the face is what can remain showing. It would be highly unlikely that a cloth would be mounted over a statue/frieze carved in stone fourteen feet long. Fourth, there would be no way that the secret followers of small newly born religion such as the Cult of Christianity in its early years could have made such an image much less transported a LARGE, HEAVY STONE CARVED IMAGE of its founder a long distance to King Abgar V of Osreone, (capital: Edessa) to save him from his debilitating disease. Such an undertaking would have caught the attention of the Romans and been stopped. The stone would have cracked at the very least on such an arduous journey. Finally, King Abgar V died in 40 AD. . . Just seven years after the crucifixion of Jesus, when Christianity was very small.
There is just no way such a statue/frieze was involved in the story of the Mandilyon/Shroud creation. Your theory does not comport with the actual blood stains on the Shroud and the fact that the image does not exist beneath the stains, precluding the blood stains being added after the fact of the image creation which would solve the registration problem. Neither would your hypothesis account for the approximately 120-140 bloodstained images of flagrum wounds on the Shroud, none of which could or would be transferred from a imagined statue/frieze “tile” to a piece of cloth. None of this is possible. No natural process is going to create blood on the cloth over centuries of radiation from a stone.
Nothing in “your take” has any basis in evidence. It is easily “debunked” and that is the proper word in this context.
Some minor corrections to comport with the science as it is understood as of today.
In addition, the light of a laser is essentially infinitely efficacious in reach, retaining its potency and ability to melt the toner at great distances. The agency that changed the surface linen thread’s fibers did not act at great distances and in fact rapidly attenuated in a linear fashion as it lost potency and was essentially no longer capable of enacting the change after it had travelled about 15 or so centimeters. Whatever type of energy it was, it did not act at all like light, and was absorbed by mere first contact with any atom or molecule, including the atmosphere, traveling no farther.
Finally, any such laser would have to operate from the body’s surface only in the vertical axes, both up and down, with out any spill over on the horizontal axes in any direction. In other words, the energy would have to be vertically collimated, otherwise the image creation modality would and could not be so focused, yet as near as can be ascertained no such focusing mechanism existed between the body and the cloth.
So mostly you are correct but imprecise with today’s latest findings. . . That precision is important. The skeptics love to walk through the imprecision with their so-called debunking articles for the general public. . . and especially when they create one of their modern attempts to make a Shroud with alternate means they claim were available to medieval artists.
First it is not a relic. It’s an icon. Even the church does not recognize it as “real”.
There are many cloth artifacts that are even older, but not that are that large or that were preserved as their original sizes or separate from another archaeological find, such as the wrappings of Egyptian mummies. Many of those were far older. Few are in as good a condition.
You know it would have been impossible for a forger from the middle ages to have made it.
Yet you say it was a fake from the middle ages.
p
wow!! thanks!
Well; it sure isn't CHRIST's fault!!
Didn’t we just go round and around over the Shroud about a week or two ago?
If Joseph Smith had gotten hold of THIS!!!
Uh; Jesus did NOT 'own' this shroud.
Joseph of Arimethia possibly put some kind of wrapping around Jesus before laying Him in the tomb; for linen wrappings were found there.
The Bible tells us that the Roman soldiers took one item of His clothes for themselves; four separate pieces; and the outer; the one piece garment; went to the lucky guy with the winning lot throw.
There is no chain of custody on the SoT that links it to Christ.
For whatever it is and whomever it was placed upon is merely conjecture.
Bingo
First of all, Sacajaweau, Bishop Pierre d’Arcis letter has actually never been found, only his rough draft. Your article claims:
“D’Arcis told the pope that his predecessor as Bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers, had fairly quickly discovered “the fraud” and obtained a confession from the artist who produced it that it was “a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.”
Pierre d’Arcis claimed that his predecessor found that Geoffrey de Charny “being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore.” and that as proof, his predecessor, Bishop Henry of Troyes had found the “painter.”
This letter was never sent to either the Vatican or to the anti-Pope at Avignon, as searches of the archives have not revealed a final version of the memoranda letter in either location. There are several reasons why this claim cannot be true.
As for the article’s next section recapitulating the 1988 C14 testing showing a medieval dating, that has been falsified by no less than six peer-reviewed scientific and statistical proofs showing that the sample that was taken from the Shroud was contaminated with foreign, later dated material. The first red flag that should have been noted by the three C14 labs that did the testing themselves was that the four tested sub-samples—cut from the supposedly homogeneous master sample cut from the one area of the Shroud the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project scientist ALL agreed should be avoided in their agreed protocols due to it being different both chemically and physically from the main body of the Shroud—had tested dates none of which had degrees of confidence that overlapped the next adjacent sub-sample’s degrees of confidence. Not one. This red flag lead to controversy as the averaged date of the sub-sampled dating did not comport to some of the known history of the Shroud. Then peer reviewed science started falsifying the results of the C14 test:
What I find dispositive about there entire attitude is the following statement from their original paper:
This might also help to understand how this ancient death penalty practice—of which almost nothing is known—was performed. Thus, the current authors are only dealing with the patterning rather than the controversy about the nature of the stains (blood or tempera painting?) 6-11.
These two so-called experts give more space in their footnotes to the totally discredited reports from visual light microscopist Walter C. McCrone than they do to several world-class BLOOD EXPERTS (four self-published in-peer-reviewed articles in his own Journal, compared to two peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals for Heller and Adler) and none at all to electron-microscopy, electronmicro-spectrometry, and other tests, including human immunoassays which proved without a doubt there was no “tempera paint, pigments, or vermilion paint” which McCrone claimed to have seen on the image or blood areas of the Shroud of Turin to which these to BOZOS are implying there is still possible “controversy.” Only intransigent skeptics still lift up McCrone, and his unethical shenanigans, as dispositive of anything when it comes to the Shroud of Turin. This obvious, but unreported bias in their studies spills over into their methodology and scholarship by what they choose to omit from their reports and what they include.
Ain’t that the truth!
The inverse terrain map data is consistent with the penetration of 200 nm ultraviolet (UV) light, also called deep UV (DUV) and vacuum UV (VUV), most of it is gone after only 4 to 6 inches of air.
IF whatever transition or divine intervention the body of the person in the shroud went through was accompanied by an intense burst of DUV, the energy delivered to the linen would 'map' the distance between the skin and the linen.
Where the linen was closest to the body it would have its chemical structure disrupted, but because DUV is so strongly absorbed, only the surface of the side of the fibers facing the body would be damaged. A bit further away, less DUV gets through the air, and there is less damage. A foot away, no DUV survives and the linen is undamaged.
The damaged areas gradually brown on exposure to air developing an image.
As an agnostic, I provide this as a plausible photochemical mechanism for the image being formed. That's the how. The why is beyond my ken. *sigh*
I always thought the image looked like a Viking.
But we know from the Bible he looked like the average person in his time and place. So devoid of any outstanding features that no one could give a description to the Romans good enough to distinguish him from any one of thousands of other men in the area.
He wasn't the only blond, blue-eyed, sunburned viking within a hundred miles.
He had to be betrayed in person.
There is actually a history that tracks it under different names. . . And an inventory of it in the relics at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople from 944AD onward, after the Sermon of Grerory Referendarius of August 15, 944, in which the Image of Edessa was first brought there, after it had been in kept in Edessa since it was found walled up in the Eastern Gate for four hundred years. It was purported to have been carried there by Thaddeus to cure Abgar V before he died in 40AD of a severe skin disorder in response to a letter he had sent to Jesus before the crucifixion. It was walled up to protest the image and lost for a couple of hundred years when Edessa was over run by a horde of iconoclastic Arabs had conquered the city.
We know the Shroud existed a couple of centuries before the 1988 C14 dating puts its creation due to the existence of an image of it in an illuminated Hungarian Prayer Codex with a known providence showing the Shroud with its distinctive twill weave and the distinctive “poker holes” that predated the 1532 fire and the first known copies. There is also an eleventh century coin with an image of the Shroud on it. . . Putting it three centuries before the C14 date. . . And its appearance in Lirey France in the possession of a Geoffrey de Charny, grandson of another Geoffry de Charney, (note the difference in spelling, which were a matter of opinion in that era) who was the co-leader of the 4th Crusade which sacked Constantinople and would have had ample opportunity to claim the Shroud as spoils of war, something not looked down on in that era.
That Geoffry de Charney would be later burned at the stake in Paris along side Jacques De Molay, then head of the Knights Templar, when the King and the Pope seized their treasuries (the Knights Templar were the banking system in medieval times— one could safely deposit gold at one temple and with a letter of credit safely withdraw it at another temple). . . Who were said to worship a disembodied head, but were also said to kiss the foot of an image of the Crucified Jesus, neither of which has ever been found. However, an image of the head was found in Knights Templar building which bears a striking similarity to the Shroud being used as a door.
.....”no one could give a description to the Romans good enough to distinguish him from any one of thousands of other men in the area”.....
Well I just think it’s quite a stretch and then some the attention the Shroud has garnered...people want to believe so they will always try and ‘find’ what will support their belief.....and making it a mystery in itself gathers attention.
I prefer solid facts..and in this case it’s not there.
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.