Pauli had several theories, none of which are found in the Bible except in Psals 14:3 and 53:3. God did not move any of the apostles to make much of keeping any such relics, so why should you? The controversy over the hypothesized shroud is amusing?? In what sense does the chinstrap fit into this cobbled-together narrative?
I didn't mention his theories, only one of his snarks.
God did not move any of the apostles to make much of keeping any such relics, so why should you?
You don't know that. The most you can say is that the New Testament doesn't mention it happening.
And, newsflash. Sola Scriptura was not a doctrine of the Christianity historically.
It's a later development. Ironically enough, one taught by men. It's not found in the Bible.
The controversy over the hypothesized shroud is amusing??
Your air of pretension and superciliousness is amusing.
To wit:
So am I (PhD in it), and observe that however and whenever this piece of linen cloth received the markings discernable on it, some of they may have been by blood-staining it (which would have been through and through), but widely and generally the visible differentiation must be due to the formation of either molecular color centers, and/or local carbonization of the cellulosic flaxen fibers.
Yeah, the coloring of the image is local to the fibers, on the order of a angstrom or so thick. It's not an external chemical substance such as paint.
Said image is also separate from the bloodstains; which have been tested by multiple independent methods during the 1978 STURP study.
From a paper by Adler in 1981:
TESTS CONFIRMING THE PRESENCE OF WHOLE BLOOD ON THE SHROUD 1) High Fe in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
2) Indicative reflection spectra
3) Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra
4) Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence
5) Positive hemochromagen tests
6) Positive cyanmethemoglobin tests
7) Positive detection of bile pigments
8) Positive demonstration of protein
9) Positive indication of albumin specifically
10) Protease tests, leaving no residues
11) Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls
12) Forensic judgement of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks
Any shading perceived as depth of features must be studied to determine how the color centers were formed, and whether or not by radiation damage from an external source.
They don't *know* any putative mechanism, other than that the image is a 2-D image of a 3-D surface; collimated vertically without deviation (e.g. not a "point source"), and with the inverse intensity of the image relating to 3-D data. (They still can't create, or re-create that effect, today).
In analyzing the markings, any resulting from blood stains should be clearly localized and separated from other visible marking, and each studied as separate entities.
Already been done.
First, according to Adler, mentioned above, the stains are not from fresh blood, but from exudate; and there is no image beneath the blood stains, so the blood stains pre-dated the image.
Second, they tested for the pigments from paints: not coincident with the image.
Third, scanning electron microscopy of the filaments, showed that the image is on only the top surface of the fiber, IIRC something akin to a Maillard reaction. Not something a medieval forger would have known how to do.
Oh, and there is an image of a coin over one I with Caesar misspelled; and the nails went through the wrists, even though everyone back then thought that crucifixions were done by nails through the palms.
Regarding exposure to excessive heat in the silver container, was any of the cloth exposed to silver vapor or other to the effect of other metallic impurities in the molten (~1000 oC) state. And what about the vapors and particulate smoke generated by burnt natural fibers in the heating of the silver coffin?
That's not going to help much in any direction, since we don't know the details of the fire (intensity, duration, whether the entire casket was evenly heated,...or, for that matter, whether the fire even got hot enough to melt the silver.
Of course, the worshiping of this piece of cloth has prevented its submission for direct thorough examination, non-destructive or destructive, by thoughtful and experienced professionals.
*Snerk*. It's a unique in all human history artifact. You can't call Grainger and get another one. Of *course* they want to be careful with it.
What is patently obvious in this matter is that the superstition of Roman Catholicism proceeding from the papal oversight has so thoroughly ruled that impartial analysis and impassive conclusions have not been permitted.
Which is why several members of the STURP team who studied in 1978, who were (and who remained) Jewish, nonetheless became convinced of the Shroud's authenticity: because their original tests were designed to suss out what *type* of painting it was, and they found out first that it was not paint, and secondly, they could neither reproduce the image nor come up with a mechanism for the observed features of the image: features which would have been unknown (beyond the state of the art) to medieval forgers.
Getting embroiled in argumentation over it is asinine. The essence to development of spiritual maturity is not even zero--it is negative, fit only for the natural soulish human who cannot receive the deep things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness to him/her. The Shroud of Turin has no spiritual significance. Engrossment with it is entirely carnal, not to be disregarded, but only fit for those whose perception and belief is limited by their lack of regeneration in the Spirit.
Don't blaspheme, 'kay? If it does happen to be genuine, it's a direct touchstone to the crucifixion and (presumably, given the image and all) the Resurrection.
And even if not, one can still treat it as a work of pious Art, as an aid to devotion.