Knights Templar Hid the Shroud of Turin

bergeredearcadie · **Joined:** 07 Nov 2006 11:57 pm **Posts:** 3856

One could make a very compelling argument for the idea that Mary Magdalene was a Shetland pony based on what the Scriptures don't say about her.

I just had a thought TCP. Why dont you demonstrate the above?

And i am off to bed for an early night, i look forward to reading it tomorrow, surgery permitting of course :lol:

lovuian · **Posted:** 15 Apr 2009 11:49 pm

I'll keep you in my prayers

jb1717 · **Joined:** 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am **Posts:** 2935

Look how the head is offset in the front and rear images. It's not in the same position in both views. I think they did one side at a time, turning the body over. They couldn't get the head in the exact same position both times. It's flopped over toward the left in the rear view. I could be wrong, but it looks different to me.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6952

It's lactic acid reacting with the starch (probably frankincense) in the cloth.

Lactic acid can be extruded through the pores if the person has been subject to physical stress e.g. Torture.

Just the Holy Roman Church again doing what seemingly comes naturally to them. All in the name of Jesus apparantly.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6952

Roger wrote:

You think the Roman Church tortured someone to fake the Shroud?
When do you think they did that? In the Xth century, when it was in custody of the Byzantine Church?

Your hatred blinds you.

Jacques de Molay.

What? He wasn't tortured?

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6952

Roger wrote:

What connection to the Shroud? Please develop your theory... This is gonna be a keeper! :lol:

Not my theory old chum. But I do find it plausible.

[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Messiah-Templars-Shroud-Freemasonry/dp/0099227320]Second Messiah
Knight and Lomas[/url]

Already mentioned but ignored.

Jacques de Molay, a man accused by the church of "being deceived by an ancient error" (whatever that means), a man burned at the stake along with a relation of the family first linked to the shroud.

[Thinks: Bet his response is to attack the messengers as if this is some kind of argument]

seneschal · **Joined:** 26 Feb 2009 6:20 pm **Posts:** 62

roscoe wrote:

[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Messiah-Templars-Shroud-Freemasonry/dp/0099227320]Second Messiah
Knight and Lomas[/url]

Already mentioned but ignored.

So it should be! these two have the convenient ability to pose a question on one page and refer to it as a fact ten pages later. For example, 'Rosslyn Chapel was begun in 1440 and it has shown itself to be the earliest monument that has clear connections with both modern Freemasonry, the Knights Templar and first century Jerusalem.'
Only if your name is Sinclare or your trying to sell your novel.

jim · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 12:55 pm

The item has been "described" in many differnt forms and there are serious gaps in it's known whereabouts. There is no telling whether the first cloth, which may have been a painted image, was not replaced at a later date with a copy, or a more realistic looking forgery. It's been reported there were hundreds of forgories and copies of this and simular cloths thru the ages. There is absolutely no way of telling when this particular image was tranposed on to the cloth we have today. But I guess if one believes in mircles and devine intervention, then pretty much anything is possible.

Pilrig · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 1:08 pm

Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it

- Professor Edward Hall, Oxford University.

Robert N · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 1:39 pm

Roger wrote:

Perhaps, but tell me how they did it, I'm all ears, and don't try to tell me it happened AFTER it arrived in Constantinople.

As there is no evidence that the Image of Edessa is the Shroud of Turin your request is a nonsense. You don't want facts just fantasy?

jim · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 2:37 pm

In no way does the existence of A shroud confirm the existence of THE shroud.

jim · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 3:47 pm

No need, there is no indisputable evidence confirming these reported sightings are dealing with the exact same cloth to begin with. It's simply a case of believers trying to connect the dots. Show me one drawing (of the many supposedly produced) absolutely confirm this as the orginal.

jim · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 4:07 pm

Nice pic, shows absolutely nothing to confirm anything other a burial. Look close and you will see other "holes" as well. As for "detailed" accounts, they can easily be speaking of any one of the many forgorgies that were known to exist.

Quote:

researchers, including Alan Adler, a chemist specializing in analysis of porphyrins, identified the reddish stains as type AB blood and interpreted the iron oxide as a natural residue of hemoglobin. But the problem with a blood type AB for an authentic shroud is that it is today known that this type of blood is of relative recent origin. There is no evidence of the existence of this blood type before the year AD 700. It is today assumed that the blood type AB came into the existence by immigration and following intermingling of mongoloid people from central Asia with a high frequency of the blood type B to Europe and other areas where people with a relatively high frequency of the blood type A live

jim · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 4:30 pm

Disputed on what evidence. by who?

TCP · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 6:32 pm

bergeredearcadie wrote:

One could make a very compelling argument for the idea that Mary Magdalene was a Shetland pony based on what the Scriptures don't say about her.

I just had a thought TCP. Why dont you demonstrate the above?

And i am off to bed for an early night, i look forward to reading it tomorrow, surgery permitting of course :lol:

It's really very simple, I learned this method from Starbird years ago and she's employed it very effectively in all of her "theories".

Nowhere in Scripture - canonical, apocryphal, pseudepigraphical or hagiographical - does it state that Jesus and Magdalene were or were not married. So by her estimation this gives her 50-50 odds that they were; and as Margaret likes those odds, she wagers it all on her pet hobbyhorse.

Nowhere does it say that Magdalene was or was not a Shetland pony, so with a 50% chance that she was, I'm playing those odds. :wink:

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 6:39 pm

bergeredearcadie wrote:

The Greek development of the VS, known as the ‘Epistola Tiberri ad Pilatum’ which quite categorically replaces the person of Veronica with Mary Magdalene, is also fascinating. Why change the person to Mary Magdalene?

Sandy, I posted a link to an English translation of that very document. Where and in what manner does it replace Veronica with Magdalene? Magdalene isn't even mentioned. When you say "Greek development", are you speaking of a later re-working of the original? Is this available anywhere to look at? And why would we discount an original source document in favor of a later re-worked version?

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 6:53 pm

bergeredearcadie wrote:

one would think so, except that this could only have bearing on the Shroud, and not on the various legends surrounding the "Veronica".

Can no one see the argument i am trying to make?

That the original relic was the burial cloth/shroud ... folded up .... so that only a face was seen?

And that copies of this or later legends ascribed scenarios about how the image appeared etc? Hence a Veronica legend? I dont think a literal woman called Veronica lived ..... but i speculate that a Jewish woman close to Jesus may have got the relic. And that this Jewish woman (who had an issue of blood) as some people have pointed out, might be referring to Magdalene.

And as there is mix up in all the legends between the shroud, the mandylion, the Veronica .....

I do get it, Sandy, I just think there are far too many "what ifs" that ned to be inserted in order to make that hypothesis tenable. And I keep drawing analogies to Starbird because this is exactly the method she uses to promote her own pet theories. I don't know if Veronica was a real person or not, but for whatever reason, a myth was invented to explain the existence of her "veil". But why would a saint have to be invented if in fact it was Mary Magdelene who had it?

TCP

Pilrig · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2009 7:15 pm

Roger wrote:

Pilrig wrote:

Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it

- Professor Edward Hall, Oxford University.

Perhaps, but tell me how they did it, I'm all ears, and don't try to tell me it happened AFTER it arrived in Constantinople.

There's an old Yiddish saying, here in New York, that translates more or less as "don't piss down my back and try to tell me it's raining".

I'm just quoting a boffin who was involved in the carbon dating of a piece of the Shroud.

I have no idea how the image came to be on the fabric. Like you I doubt the Lomas & Knight suggestion.

jb1717 · **Joined:** 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am **Posts:** 2935

Here's how we can be sure that the Shroud is not really the burial shroud of Jesus. Jewish burial custom requires that the body be cleaned before burial. The bloodstains would not be on the body when the shroud was placed around it. The only reason those stains are there is to indicate that it was Jesus, therefore, it is a staged image. They also bound the wrists, ankles and jaw with linen strips in Jewish burials, and the Shroud doesn't show such binding. It's clearly a fabricated religious relic, but it dates to the early years of Christianity.

Shasta · **Joined:** 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am **Posts:** 1702

Quote:

jb said: Here's how we can be sure that the Shroud is not really the burial shroud of Jesus. Jewish burial custom requires that the body be cleaned before burial. The bloodstains would not be on the body when the shroud was placed around it. The only reason those stains are there is to indicate that it was Jesus, therefore, it is a staged image. They also bound the wrists, ankles and jaw with linen strips in Jewish burials, and the Shroud doesn't show such binding.

Ahaaa JB, that is precisely correct! When taken from the cross, a body would then be placed on a slab of wood, an old door either carried or placed in a donkey cart, anything to carry it away..the same is done all over Asia and India today...how to get the body from its place of death to its place of buriel. The cloth would have been laid down on the board, place body on the board, then pull the sheet over top of body...sometimes only a small piece of cloth is available and used...
The body is then taken somewhere to be washed and cleansed before buriel IF there is a friend or family member around to do the cleansing....THEN the body is taken to a buriel or cremation grounds.

So the Shroud would have been the first cloth used...wrapped around him when he was taken from the cross.....a fresh new cloth would have been used for actual buriel later..technically speaking, there were probably two cloths used....

Shasta

jb1717 · **Joined:** 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am **Posts:** 2935

Can't see them using a costly piece of linen to cover a bloody body on a stretcher. I suppose it's conceivable, but wouldn't it have been kept and mentioned in the Bible? For that matter, if an image appeared on anything touching Jesus after the crucifixion, it would certainly have been mentioned in the Bible. It seems to me that somebody took the story about the Veronica and decided to make a full body image on a shroud similar to the image described in regard to the Veronica. The Shroud and Sudarium were produced at the same time, since they match, and both first appear in history shortly after 500 AD. Oddly, they didn't put the face image on the Sudarium too. That shows that Jesus didn't really leave his image on any cloth that touched him.

It's possible that the Shroud and Sudarium really did cover the body of Jesus, but that the Shroud image was added later, to match up with the already present blood stains. This may explain why there is no image layer beneath the blood spots, as reported by scientists.

The person who had those cloths on him was definitely dead, as mentioned in these facts about the Sudarium;

Quote:

It seems to be a funeral cloth that was probably placed over the head of the corpse of an adult male of normal constitution. The man whose face the Sudarium covered had a beard, moustache and long hair, tied up at the nape of his neck into a ponytail.

The man was dead. The mechanism that formed the stains is incompatible with any kind of breathing movement.

The man was wounded before death with something that made his scalp bleed and produced wounds on his neck, shoulders and upper part of the back.

The man suffered a pulmonary edema as a consequence of the terminal process. The main stains are one part blood and six parts fluid from the pulmonary fluid.

The only position compatible with the formation of the stains on the Oviedo cloth is both arms outstretched above the head and the feet in such a position as to make breathing very difficult, i.e. a position totally compatible with crucifixion. We can say that the man was wounded first (blood on the head, shoulders and back) and then 'crucified.'

On reaching the destination, the body was placed face up and for unknown reasons, the cloth was taken off the head.

The Sudarium contains pollen grains of Gundelia tournefortii, identical to that found of the Shroud that grows only east of the Mediterranean Sea as far north as Lebanon and as far south as Jerusalem.

The blood (stain symmetry, type and other indicators) on the Sudarium matches the blood on the Shroud. http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-sudarium.htm

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 17 Apr 2009 9:04 pm

. That shows that Jesus didn't really leave his image on any cloth that touched him.

Thats an interesting point to clarify JB.
If the Sudarium (of Oveido) was placed on the body in the tomb as described in the Synoptic Gospels at the same time as the Shroud, then it would have been closer to victims head than the Shroud. If this is the case then why does the image of a face appear on the Shroud but not the Sudarium which was touching the head?

Further more, the Sudarium's journey to Spain via North Africa is a diametrically different one to that of the Shroud/ Mandylion via Constantinople and Athens to Chambery. Following your graphic of matching blood stains are you suggesting they were created at the same time and then split up, either as fakes or the real thing ?
Kind regards,

jb1717 · **Joined:** 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am **Posts:** 2935

Yeah, apparently they got separated. I guess Shasta is probably right that if the Shroud really was from Jesus it must have been used prior to the actual burial, by which time he would have been cleaned up. The Sudarium website says that it was put over the face while he was still in a vertical position. So they must have put that on while he was still on the cross and then laid him on the Shroud with the Sudarium still on. The burial would have used fresh cloths for the cleaned body.

Robert N · **Posted:** 19 Apr 2009 9:15 pm

"Did you hear the one about the Turin Shroud?"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 047121.ece

Pilrig · **Posted:** 19 Apr 2009 10:28 pm

David Aaronovitch - he's older than the Priory of Sion ! :lol:

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Knights Templar Hid the Shroud of Turin

Who is online