The shroud of Turin... Authentic or fake???

The Sudarim is definitely the supposed cloth from Jesus' tomb. I'd forgotten about the one you speak of though.

The Sudarim is definitely the supposed cloth from Jesus' tomb. I'd forgotten about the one you speak of though.

OK it looks like there is another Sudrahim known as the veil of Veronica.

The story of the image's origin is related to the Sixth Station of the Cross, wherein Saint Veronica, encountering Jesus along the Via Dolorosa to Calvary, wipes the blood and sweat from his face with her veil.

I just wondered if they picked up the myrrh and aloe that Jesus body was going to be anointed with as well. or whether that was part of the cloth/shroud.
And the crown of thorns, what happened to that.

@Moses_Young @DeanM @Gideon300 @GaryA @Mark47Oz @Lynx @Lanolin @TabinRivCA

Its an interesting one isn't it? All claimed holy artifacts are interesting i reckon...

Has anyone heard of the Holy Prepuce???

I used to believe it was fake, but since so much effort has been spent trying to refute it, I now have my doubts. If something is fake, it is usually not worth the time of the Deep State to devote to it much effort.

what about the holy grail
what is that even

I have never read anything about a grail in the Bible.

I think its the cup used by Jesus and the apostles at the last supper.

ok what happened to Jesus sandals. Desperately need to know what size his feet were.

I was kind of wondering, perhaps the opposite of you. I have heard said that the shroud is the "most studied" object, etc. If that is true, what is the need of all this study if not to reach a desired outcome or proof? Test, test again and keep testing until you get it.

Testing has been done and is inconclusive.

Whatever it is, it's a graven image.

The reason I believe it is a graven image is because I don't believe this shroud object manifests the Glory of God on earth nor do I believe he uses objects to glorify himself. He uses his word to save. He is a jealous god and will not share his praise with any graven image.

Here are a couple of verses why I believe this object is a graven image and not a manifestation of the glory of the Lord.

Deuteronomy 4:12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.

Deuteronomy 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

If the Lord was careful to show no similitude of himself to Israel, should they go and grave an image? If they saw a similitude, wouldn't they run right out and grave images in the similitude they saw? Isn't that what he expressly forbad them to do?

And if you are of the opinion that this object is not a graven image by men, that it is some spiritual miraculous object made by God and given to us to marvel and wonder at, doesn't that kind of contradict God's words in the above citations? He was seemingly very careful not to provide any similitude. If he did, wouldn't that cause people to sin by either worshipping/reverencing said image and/or graving multiple images in the image of the similitude he would have shown the people ... if he showed them a similitude?

What do you think of Noah's Ark"?

Are you asking me if I think Noah's Ark is a graven image of God? I think it was a life raft.

No, I didn't ask that. However I believe the Shroud is real and hard to think of it as a graven image. It's not a matter of salvation and I respect the voices of all on this subject.

No, I didn't ask that. However I believe the Shroud is real and hard to think of it as a graven image. It's not a matter of salvation and I respect the voices of all on this subject.

Ewwwwww. I'd heard of the Holy Grail, but that... The following is from Wikipedia.

"The first reference to the survival of Christ's severed foreskin comes in the second chapter of the apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel which contains the following story:

And when the time of his circumcision was come, namely, the eighth day, on which the law commanded the child to be circumcised, they circumcised him in a cave.
And the old Hebrew woman took the foreskin (others say she took the navel-string), and preserved it in an alabaster-box of old oil of spikenard.
And she had a son who was a druggist, to whom she said, "Take heed thou sell not this alabaster box of spikenard-ointment, although thou shouldst be offered three hundred pence for it.
Now this is that alabaster-box which Mary the sinner procured, and poured forth the ointment out of it upon the head and feet of our Lord Jesus Christ, and wiped it off with the hairs of her head."

To me, this just screams fake. Luke 2 tells about Jesus' circumcision, and no mention of a cave - inn or stable, maybe, but not a cave.
Luke 2:20 - 21 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

The article goes on to state "Foreskin relics began appearing in Europe during the Middle Ages" and "Depending on what you read, there were eight, twelve, fourteen, or even 18 different holy foreskins in various European towns during the Middle Ages."

Fake, fake, fake! First, why would anyone in his/her right mind preserve foreskin from a circumcision? Let alone keep it in the same box as the storage container for perfume? Second, these relics mysteriously start circulating centuries after Christ's death? Very strange they weren't known about previously, if genuine. Third, there are eventually 18 of these circulating around? At least 17 were fakes for certain. This comes across to me as a very fake claim, not to mention gross. And I think, greatly irreverent, considering it is said to come from God Himself, not just a mere man.

Ahhhh yes.

The RCC is sitting on all sorts of relics that are worthy of sharing with our Christian Brothers for discussion and scrutiny.

I'd love to share some eucharistic miracles, but it's early days and I don't want to come off as a Catholic missionary lol.