howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
thanks for that bit of history chris, that explains why they thought a knight was under the turin shroud.
still had his bonce on his shoulders.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
What a barbaric species we`ve been and still are. I wonder sometimes why we get nostalgic about Ivanhoe, Robin Hood, Richard the Lionheart, and the rest. I think if we colonised another planet it wouldn`t be long before the arguing and bickering started.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Quite right, Sid, he was burned at the stake. However, the shroud was supposedly worn by him for months after his arrest and before his execution; it was the only form of clothing he was allowed, and he (literally) lived in it.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
A good point you put forward PaulB. Personally I think that the shroud is a manufact from the Crusader times, when very many items were brought to Europe by western Europeans and offered around as relics with holy powers. However, please don't feel this as a statement against Christian Faith. The Gospel is the only testimony we have on Jesus, together with the other scripts of the New Testament, all translated from original Greek into many languages. Also there are the prophetic testimonies to Jesus in the Old Testament.
But I do agree with you that it is a mystery how anyone maneged to get that picture as they did! But, somehow, the statement that the woven material was a replacement of the original strands, if accepted, would mean that morally the catholic church should put another strand of the shroud up for examinations.
As stated by other participants here concerning their faith, the same applies also to me: it wouldn't affect my faith in Jesus, which is secure.