otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 7:33 am
boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 8:11 am
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 7:20 am
boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 2:41 pm
The artist confessed to it.
Evidence please.
Are you suggesting that you are not aware of this and have not read the document (I find this unbelievable) - or, are you asking me to produce something you have already rejected on some grounds?
Why the games?
Who's the one playing games? It is you making the claim and you didn't even provide a reference to back your claim. Per the rules of debate here, you'll need to provide evidence to back up your claims when asked for. So, please just follow the rules instead of just making personal accusations.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.
viewtopic.php?t=6
Sigh...
So, in all your investigations you never came across this - I simply find that incredible:
https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/link ... andum.html
The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.
Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed. Moreover, the grave suspicion thus thrown upon the relic is immensely strengthened by the fact that no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud or its coming to Lirey.
....
As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression made by the sweat of Christ, i.e. probably in a yellowish tint upon unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the shadow of Paleotto's reproduction of the images on the shroud is printed in two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and æsthetic effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the artist used a model to determine the length and position of the limbs, etc.; the representation no doubt was made exactly life size. Secondly, the impressions are only known to us in photographs so reduced, as compared with the original, that the crudenesses, aided by the softening effects of time, entirely disappear.
Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm
Like I said, just look at it. I find it absolutely stunning that you can't accept the more mundane explanation and must spend your finite hours of your life thinking you've found the new "bacteria flagellum" (which is another rabbit hole Theists went down, thinking they've found proof of God.)
It was used to gin up interest and extract money by unscrupulous church representatives.
I wonder if you've recognized the power of the Shroud and have cynically used it to draw more traffic to your site?
