Evidence: The Gathering

[Metis]

The shroud as it looks today.



Now, the earliest mention of this thing in history is

The first time we hear of the Turin Shroud is in 1389×90, when Pierre d’Arcis (or d’Arcy, Bishop Pierre II of Troyes 1377-1395) wrote a letter to Pope Clement VII (1342-1394, elected Pope at Avignon in 1378, in opposition to Pope Urban VI). He objected to an exposition of the shroud in the collegiate church at Lirey on the grounds that it was being done by a landowner, who “falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore”.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pla...in_shroud/

Modern shroud nuttiness begins when someone took a photo and looked at the negative and "Mama Mia...THERE'S FUCKING JESUS!!!"  But I rather doubt that Bishop Pierre would have been impressed by the current shroud enough to call it "cunningly painted."  This suggests that it was painted and faded (badly) over the centuries because no one had any fucking idea how to conserve it.

Oh they know how to "preserve" them alright, take the Tilma (a type of Aztec Tunic) over in Mexico bearing the image of "Our Lady of Guadalupe"



There's similar fanaticism over this object as there is of the Shroud. Supposedly negatives have revealed what is thought to be either St. Juan Diego (an Aztec man to whom this shroud belongs, you'll see some irony with the name there more than suggestive of an everyman myth) or the Bishop of Cordoba.



I personally think this later point is a bit of a stretch, but there is one key point that even the RC has admitted in regards to this Tilma which has supposedly not aged, nor could even be destroyed by a fire in the basilica where it was previously kept; It's been painted over at least once that we know of for certain.



The virgin standing on a black moon looks more death metal than sanctified doesn't it? There's a reason for that, it was painted over in a silver-infused paint that has since tarnished. Supposedly this image was not created with paint or by any process currently known to man, so why did people need to paint over it to freshen it up?

They're very clever the way they handle and present things like this. Supposedly all of the blood relics of Jesus they've had tested too all reveal the same blood type, but I would be interested to know how many out of their thousands they actually tested and how many were hand picked to back the theory. I'd also love to know if one of them was the foreskin they abducted from Spain which nobody has seen since

I'm a seminary mdiv graduate who teaches thomastic theology to undergrad students. That's right, I'm just as qualified as your parish priest and were I a thiest I would have been ordained one.

You want to talk about Aquinas? Come on then, wow me with you arcane wisdom that during several years of theological study I couldn't uncover for myself. I hope you know your Church fathers well though because Ido.

Wonderful! Then we should engage in a formal debate within the Debate Area subforum. Due the complexities I suggest that we focus primarily on Aquinas's First Way before tackling the other four.

I'll be more than happy to tackle all five eventually, even though it's only the first three that are considered by Catholics and other Christians who have drawn from his works to be conclusive proof of God.

Before I ask one of the admins about the debate area, will it just be you or perhaps Randy, Catholic_Lady or one of your other fellow believers would like to join in as well?