Orthodox_Freethinker

The Catholic Church does not have an official opinion on either side given that the authenticity of the shroud is still an on-going investigation. The Catholic Church encourages the individual Catholic to form his own conclusion on the shroud.

Given that the shroud has imprints of flowers, plants and other objects that are native only to the region which Jesus was crucified, that does raise some interesting questions. Don't you think?

The reason why the Shroud of Turin is not in the record of the Roman Church until the 13th Century is because that it is the time when it was stolen from the Eastern Church. There is a record in Eastern Orthodox history of a first-century relic very much like the shroud that mysteriously dissapeared at the same time that the Shroud of Turin was first in the hands of Rome.

Peace.

Wads4

Thrice nay and again nay,-it is much more likely that whoever concocted this silly story about Jesus being buried with a sadists toolkit and toiletries was intent on "discovering" a grave full of Jesus artifacts which he could then say "see, it is definitely Jesus, just look at that scourge". We already know about other examples of the determined efforts of relic-forgers to fool the public into Jesus-acceptance, not least of which is the Turin shroud.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Basically... You are saying this is a first-century forgery from the same area where Jesus lived and has the imprint of a crucified man with real blood? Interesting.

Peace.

NZSkep

did he say 1st century? I missed that bit.

Orthodox_Freethinker

There are imprints of objects that one would only find in the first century, such as the imperial coins.

Peace.

NZSkep

so noone has found imperial coins since the first century?

is it posible that the person who forged the shroud would have had a 1st century coin and put an imprint on there to make it look authentic?

Edit: where about is the coin imprint on the shroud? I've never noticed it.

also, why, if the shroud is real, does the figure bear a striking resemblance to how christ looked in all the paintings from 13c england i.e. a male with long perfectly straight hair and a beard, with caucasion features.
I always figured he would look more like people who live in jerusalem today.

Orthodox_Freethinker

As I've shown before, there are imprints of flowers and plants on the shroud that are native only to the area in which Jesus was crucified. Would a forger travel all the way from France to Israel just to round up some flowers?

On the eyes of the man, as was the tradition of the time.

He looks rather Jewish to me.



Peace.

John A. Broussard

I've read a great deal about the Shroud--enough to know that it's a 13th Century forgery which even the Catholic Church with all of it's relics of Jesus' foreskin simply refuses to accept. However, I have never heard that the Catholic Church stole the Shroud from the Orthodox Chuch.

I would very much appreciate knowing the source of your information.

Thank you.

John A. Broussard

OF will have an easy answer for that. Since the shroud is authentic, 13th Century artists copied it for their paintings so that they would have a true picture of Jesus.

John A. Broussard

Ongoing investigation!?

I thought the whole matter was settled. You've been arguing that way for the past dozen or so posts. And now you claim there's an ongoing investigation?

Which is it? Is it for sure the shroud of Jesus or is there still some question about it?