Orthodox_Freethinker

Timeline of the Shroud of Turin

6th cent.

First reports of an image of Christ found in the city walls of Edessa, Turkey.

944

The Image of Edessa was transferred to Constantinople. Gregory Referendarius, archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, made a sermon about the shroud in which he mentioned it was a full-length image and carried bloodstains.

1203

A Crusader knight named Robert de Clari claims to have seen the cloth in Constantinople.

1205

A letter from Constantinople to the Pope after the Fourth Crusade says that the invading Venetians had taken many relics, including "the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death and before the resurrection." This is the last surviving mention of the Image of Edessa.

1354

First historical mention of the Turin shroud. It was recorded in the hands of the famed knight, Geoffroi de Charnay, Seigneur de Lirey.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...n.htm#timeline

"The Image of Edessa was reported to contain the image of the face of Christ, and its existence is proven since the sixth century. Some have suggested a connection between the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa. That image was reported reliably since the middle of the sixth century. No legend connected with that image suggests that it contained the image of a beaten and bloody Jesus, but rather it was said to be an image transferred by Jesus to the cloth in life. This image is generally described as depicting only the face of Jesus, not the entire body. Proponents of the theory that the Edessa image was actually the shroud, led by Ian Wilson, theorize that it was always folded in such a way as to show only the face...
On the occasion of the transfer of the cloth to Constantinople in 944, Gregory Referendarius, archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople held a sermon about the artifact. This sermon had been lost, but was rediscovered in the Vatican Archives and translated by Mark Guscin in 2004. This sermon says that this Edessa Cloth contained not only the face, but a full-length image, which was believed to be of Jesus. The sermon also mentions bloodstains from a wound in the side. Other documents have since been found in the Vatican library and the University of Leiden, Netherlands, confirming this impression. "[Non tantum] faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris" (You can see [not only] the figure of a face, but [also] the figure of the whole body). (Cf. Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69 and Vatican Library Codex 5696, p. 35.)

In 1203, a Crusader Knight named Robert de Clari claims to have seen the cloth in Constantinople: "Where there was the Shroud in which our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday raised itself upright so one could see the figure of our Lord on it." After the Fourth Crusade, in 1205, the following letter was sent by Theodore Angelos, a nephew of one of three Byzantine Emperors who were deposed during the Fourth Crusade, to Pope Innocent III protesting the attack on the capital. From the document, dated 1 August 1205: "The Venetians partitioned the treasures of gold, silver, and ivory while the French did the same with the relics of the saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death and before the resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their predators in Venice, in France, and in other places, the sacred linen in Athens." (Codex Chartularium Culisanense, fol. CXXVI (copia), National Library Palermo)"
http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...d_of_turin.htm

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

According to the Catholic Church, it is still an on-going investigation. Otherwise, it would make an official statement on the matter.
So far, the evidence leans heavily towards the shroud being authentic.

Peace.

John A. Broussard

Your last sentence completely contradicts your earlier statements. If this is the first historical mention, what in the world does all that earlier material have to do with the matter?

Orthodox_Freethinker

Why would the "SHROUD OF TURIN" even be mentioned before it arrived in Turin? Before being in the hands of the Catholic Church, it was given a different name.


Peace.

John A. Broussard

So now you are not claiming authenticity, just that "the evidence leans heavily towards the shroud being authentic," which would indicate that you have some doubts.

Do you mind telling me what those doubts might be?

Thank you.

John A. Broussard

How do you know the "it" of the earlier passages is the later Shroud? No self-respecting art historian would do anything more than shake his head of this kind of provenance.

"First reports of an image of Christ found in the city walls of Edessa, Turkey," for example, simply heightens the absurdity. An image found in the city walls is a shroud??

Orthodox_Freethinker

I would wonder why it took 600 years for the shroud to be found. How could it remain hidden for that long?

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Please re-read the passages. What we have is burial shroud of Christ that dissapeared in the East and reappeared in the West.

Peace.

lpetrich

Since you know what species they are, you ought to have no trouble telling us their Linnaean names.

Like:
Lilium lancifolium -- tiger lily
Taraxacum officinale -- common dandelion

And how can one be sure that these Shroud plants are from species that are found only near Jerusalem rather than more broadly in the Mediterranean basin? That seems like bizarre biogeography, if nothing else.

Orthodox_Freethinker

I'd recommend the experts on the Shroud that I've quoted before on this one.

Peace.