that's the thread; you're right. but the shroud has potentially an interesting past.
>I
>recall also that the supposed "blood" marks on the shroud were shown not to
>be of that peculiar substance.
>
>Particularly humorous and/or revolting at the time of my viewing of the
>shroud display was the enthusiastic spiel of my docent in the church in
>describing in abundant detail the scientific studies that had been made of
>the physiology and psychology of the torture of crucifixion.
>
>Mike Ferro
sounds like good cocktail party chat. ;-) interesting how your church docent's obsession parallels the obsessions of censors and moralists with studying the "evils" of obscenity and pornography first hand. shades of mel gibson turning out a piece of S&M that obliterates any message of love, empathy and hope which may have preceded it.
R
>on 11/6/04 10:04 AM, R at rhisiart at charter.net wrote:
>
> > At 10:13 PM 11/5/2004, you wrote:
> >> I have forgotten the details, but the statement is that the material
> of the
> >> shroud dates from the 14th century or some such non-Jesus time period.
> >>
> >> Mike Ferro
> >
> > my information, mike, is that it dates from the time of the demise of the
> > knights templar; and that it could well be authentic, in fact the image of
> > jaques de molay, which would date it during the early 14th century. the
> > dating would jibe with what you recollect. not authentic jesus stuff but
> > authentic nonetheless. there's a book about this if you're interested.
> >
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk