Leonardo: The Man Behind the Shroud?

Originally Posted by Don Enrico

But if the image isn't miraculus in any way, of what importance is it in this case?

From my point of view, there are this options:

• ...
• The Shroud came into existence by natural means while the cloth was wrapped around a dead body. This wouldn't tell us more than there was a man of that-and-that features and with certain wounds buried at some point in time. The way his image happend to be kept on the cloth is of scientific interest, but nothing more.
• ...

The "ice man" found frozen in the Alps a few years ago isn't miraculous in any way. His body also isn't the missing body of Jesus. The way he was frozen may be of very little scientific interest, as I think scientists already understand very well how that happens.

So therefore perhaps we should just discard his body, as it has no importance in this case? On the contrary - the archaeological and anthropological knowledge we've gained from his body has been vast, and I believe additional information is still being gained.

[ganzfeld]

I'm pretty sure it's just a Messiah with mange. The shadows don't look right.

[damian]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

I'm pretty sure it's just a Messiah with mange.

He's not the Messiah. He just a very naughty boy.

Sorry

[Malruhn]

I heard a perfectly plausible theory on this one.

When the Knights Templar were disbanded, Jacques de Molay, the last official Grandmaster of the Order, was allegedly subjected to the same tortures as the Christ as part of an "ultimate humiliation" to an order that is supposedly supporting the Church and was allegedly worshipping Satan all along...

The conjecture was that the shroud was actually Jacques de Molay's - NOT the shroud that was used on Jesus.

I don't know how true it is, but at least the dates line up with the carbon dating.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

I heard a perfectly plausible theory on this one.
[...]
The conjecture was that the shroud was actually Jacques de Molay's - NOT the shroud that was used on Jesus.

This theory is dicsussed on the Wiki entry.

Originally Posted by Malruhn

I heard a perfectly plausible theory on this one.

When the Knights Templar were disbanded, Jacques de Molay, the last official Grandmaster of the Order, was allegedly subjected to the same tortures as the Christ as part of an "ultimate humiliation" to an order that is supposedly supporting the Church and was allegedly worshipping Satan all along...

The conjecture was that the shroud was actually Jacques de Molay's - NOT the shroud that was used on Jesus.

I don't know how true it is, but at least the dates line up with the carbon dating.

Interesting theory. It wouldn't explain how the weaving and stitching matched samples found at Masada.

De Molay and the Shroud of Turin

Two Masonic historians, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, have written a controversial book called The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud, and the Great Secret of Freemasonry, which claims that the Turin Shroud is actually an image of Jacques de Molay, not of Jesus Christ as is common belief. They claim that when King Philip IV of France and Pope Clement V seized and dissolved the Order of the Knights Templar, that one of the French king's inquisitors, Guillame de Nogaret, tortured and crucified de Molay in a parody of the crucifixion of Jesus. He then put a cloth on de Molay's head, and de Molay's face was imprinted on the cloth.

For reference, "controversial" in the above would more accurately read "pseudohistorical." The book in question would have it that the Knights Templar were the literal and metaphorical descendants of the original church (which possessed secret teachings about Jesus suppressed by Rome) kept hidden for a thousand years before their journey to Palestine, and that they were killed on orders from the Pope who feared their revelations could thwart his power. Also makes a number of claims linking the Templars and the Masons, and linking both with an underground Christian sect dating back to the time of Jesus.

other books of theirs claim that the angel Uriel was an astronomer priest from Britain, his exploits detailed in the Book of Enoch, and that Masonic ritual dates back to ancient Egypt and was used by the early Church.

I don't go for blaming the messenger, but I have yet to see a single source other than these guys support the theory that the shroud is the image of Jacques de Molay, or that he underwent torture consistent with that of Christ. And given their almost complete lack of reliable referencing or support outside of the conspiracist-pseudohistory scene, I'm...a little skeptical, let's say.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Base Ten

Interesting theory. It wouldn't explain how the weaving and stitching matched samples found at Masada.

Why not? The Templars served (originated!) in the "Kingdom of Jerusalem," the Crusader kingdom that lasted about 100 years. The Templars would certainly have inspected Masada to check it out for purposes of fortification.

I'm quite sure, if you were to visit Masada today, you would find significant traces of PVC, neoprene, nylon, etc. This doesn't mean that such materials existed 2,000 years ago!

Silas

[Don Enrico]

Originally Posted by Base Ten

The "ice man" found frozen in the Alps a few years ago isn't miraculous in any way. His body also isn't the missing body of Jesus. The way he was frozen may be of very little scientific interest, as I think scientists already understand very well how that happens.

So therefore perhaps we should just discard his body, as it has no importance in this case? On the contrary - the archaeological and anthropological knowledge we've gained from his body has been vast, and I believe additional information is still being gained.

First: Other than the Shroud, the "ice man" isn't just a picture, it's the actual man (or what remains of him). Archaeological and anthropological knowledge that can be gained from a body can't be gained from a picture.

Second: Why should anybody discard anything just because there is no knowledge to be gained from it (and where did I say or imply that)? Go ahead, keep the Shroud, put it on display, hide it in a cellar, do whatever you (general you) want with it. You (general you again) can even claim that it is the true shroud of Jesus Christ and that it proofs his existence.

Just don't expect me to follow your claim.

Don Enrico

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Don Enrico

First: Other than the Shroud, the "ice man" isn't just a picture, it's the actual man (or what remains of him). Archaeological and anthropological knowledge that can be gained from a body can't be gained from a picture.

I think it should be kept and studied as a good example of people believing incredible things without much evidence. In fact, we should start a museum of such things. It's going to be one BIG museum, I tell you!

okay, so there is a lot of back and forth on this subject. Unfortuently, we will probably never know the truth. I remember seeing something on either Discovery or the History channel that said that the carbon dating of the shroud is not dependable because of a fire that once broke out in the church that the shroud was kept in. The cloth itself was in a wooden chest, so the scientists on this program said that the carbon from the fire would have corrupted the actual dating. IIRC they said that the fire damage would make the shroud appear older than it actually is.

Originally Posted by daisys747

okay, so there is a lot of back and forth on this subject. Unfortuently, we will probably never know the truth. I remember seeing something on either Discovery or the History channel that said that the carbon dating of the shroud is not dependable because of a fire that once broke out in the church that the shroud was kept in. The cloth itself was in a wooden chest, so the scientists on this program said that the carbon from the fire would have corrupted the actual dating. IIRC they said that the fire damage would make the shroud appear older than it actually is.

Actually, the supposition is that the carbon from the fire would make the Shroud look younger than its true age. There is an interesting program currently on Discovery, IIRC "Uncovering the Shroud". In it they discuss the various tests performed, the results found, and the various rebuttals of the results from other experts.

[Singing in the Drizzle]

The problem with historic religious artifacts, is that there is a very high burden of prof required to prove they are not what they claim to be. The opposite is the case with modern discoveries in that you are trying to prove what it maybe, not what it is not. In the case of the "ice man" there were scientist studying all the facts and data to make sure the evidence said it was a ice man with another group trying to find faults with the facts and data. In the case of the Shroud some group claims a cloth with some sorta stains on it in a some what human shape to be evidence of the some great thing that happen to their god's avatar. Now the scientist can try and disprove this claim after all the many years and damages it has taken over that time. Not to mention the lack of access to really study the cloth and its stains.

I was reading something years ago about how Kings, Popes or other very high officials would quick find things that no one else could. The king would send out a group to find religious artifacts or holy places and after a few year of finding nothing major the king goes to the site to do the job personally and a few week later he find the Shroud of Jesus or other such item or holy place. The article was just noting that historically that these High Officials (especially kings) had a unusually high success rate at finding valuable things and historic places of high importance. You must also remember if you wish to be around long enough to make sure you genecit materal lived past a few generations, it was good idea to at least agree with the king and better to back him up.