https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/science/shroud-of-turin-oresme-philosopher>Shortly after, the documents noted, the bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, announced that the cloth was fraudulent, adding he had met the artist who created the image. About 30 years later, when the cloth began to attract popular attention once more, the following bishop, Pierre d’Arcis, also stated in his letter that the cloth was artwork, and the pope decided soon after that it could continue being on display only as a representation of the true Shroud of Christ.
Not a single Medieval artifact should ever be taken seriously. The entire medieval economy was built around selling bogus horse shit like Jesus’s ear wax or Abrahams foreskin.
>>18047232I remember reading there are three different churches that claim to have the head of John the Baptist.
>>18047256One of the churches is actually the Umayyad Mosque but muslims also see him as one of their prophets.
>>18047293That's funny. Reminds me of the story that Henry VIII purchased Christ's foreskin because it was believed if you hung it up over your bed it would guarantee you get a son.
>>18047228>the artist*an artist. The original text is ambiguous. Given the guy said the shroud was painted (it's not), it is obvious he just found someone who would say what he wanted.
>>18047354>an artist. The original text is ambiguous. Given the guy said the shroud was painted (it's not)It is tho? It's just a statue that was dusted and then pressed with a sheet.
>>18047256Was he a Hydra or Chimera?\
>>18047228All we have found in this is that more primitive men were skeptics too.That doesn't change the facts, whatever they may be, but that people want more PROOF.
>>18047228what is the obsession with it in general? its authenticity would only prove that jesus existed, which afaik historians agree on more or less.
>>18049112Because some of USA christians lose their shit over it, as if it proves that the bible is real.
>>18047759>just a statue that was dusted and then pressed with a sheet.It's much more complicated than that. This video is probably the best naturalistic explanation for it and this theory proposes that a device was used that we have no evidence for.https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=33166.0
>>18047228I don't understand how a burial cloth could prove a resurrection
>>18047256There are enough pieces of Jesus's claimed foreskin to build Noahs Ark. Fact.
bump
>>18051461Its was supposedly covered in some kind of magical ectoplasm that is so pure it captured divine light directly and proves some kind of divine miraculous intervention.
>>18051585Yea and if you graft them together using splinters from the authentic cross of christ, you can basically make a titanic shaped ark.
>>18049112No, according to tradition, the captured image also proves some kind of unexplainable internal divine spark illuminated and irradiated the whole thing during the resurrection.
>>18052892>>18052897This bright divine light isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible...
>>18052916Yes it is, it was described as lightning.>suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.>There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.Also the holy spirit is regularly associate with a light or a bright flame and jesus specifically calls himself the light.
>>18047232People knew it at the time. Chaucer makes reference to pig's bones being peddled as authentic relics. That being said, there are definitely authentic relics of holy men spread across Christendom
>>18052892>jesus was slimyHERETIC!You will BURN.
>>18052981Yeah, I burn local, but he was described more as oily than slimy.
>basedience can't disprove it>look guys, even back in the day they thought it was fake!
