nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 11:11 amIt fails as a relic because it lacks the provenance (among other data) required to establish its relicicity.
Now, if you have any substantive counterarguments to what I've presented regarded the provenance of the TS, please present it.
Provenance, or chain of custody is understood, if only by me, to mean there's a documented trail of possession from step one, all the way through to the last possessor. The TS does not have this record of posession until it shows up during the era for which scientifically sound dating has said it belongs.
Beyond that, as a relic, there's still no record of the blood on the shroud belonging to Jesus.
Among other issues, there's the story of a virgin birth. A virgin birth, to a guy that would walk on water, and magically turn water into wine. These claims are sound enough reason to dismiss the Jesus story as something other than fact. No magic water walking virgin birthed baby, nobody to've been dead, only psyche, he ain't.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
Wow 240 pages. But then it has had a number of debates. I have to say that the narrative of the passage of the shroud from tomb to the Christians at Edessa, to Byzantium where it was wrapped around a thing of some kind so just the face was visible (creases caused by the folding still being claimed to be detectable) then takes in the Crusader sack of the city so the shroud was taken to France and the rest is indeed valid history, is a plausible one.
But is it circumstantial? I know that for Christianity circumstantial evidence is "Sufficient", but these 'dots to be joined' (as one poster long ago put it) to make the narrative, are they as validated as they seem? It might be worth looking at this tale of the Edessa Icon and the Mandylion of Byzantium, and also the thing worshipped by the Templars. Are the historical references as clear as the Christian narrative portrays it? How possible is it that there are many other 'image' relics and a couple werepicked that made a convincing narrative? Maybe I'll have a browse, just to put it all into context
The journey of the shroud fromJerusalem to Lirey (from oneof the several apologetics sites) Going into the details of this path, in Jerusalem, the Shroud could not have been kept for long because of the outbreak of the revolt of the Palestinian Jews against Rome.
Indeed, according to Eusebius the Christians of Jerusalem escaped to Pella, bringing with them all the relics and main religious objects. Their escape occurred before the destruction of the Temple (year 70), probably at the beginning of the revolt. In particular, the Icon of Beirut was described as an image representing the entire body of Jesus Christ — with the wounds endured during the Passion — by Anastasius the Librarian in the year 873, who also narrated its origin and travel from Jerusalem to Beirut, where it remained until the year 975
After this period, this icon was brought to Constantinople where, if it coincides with the Shroud, it remained until 1204 — the year of the Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, when it was allegedly stolen by crusaders.
The Shroud appeared publicly for the first time in Europe, in 1354 in the hands of Geoffroy de Charny. In 1350, he built a small church in Lirey (France), where he was the lord, with the purpose of hosting several relics, among which the Shroud was likely included. In 1453, his granddaughter Marguerite gave the Shroud to the Savoy, a noble family based in Chambéry, where it was damaged by fire in 1532. It was moved to the new Savoyard capital, Turin, in 1578, where it is still kept.
So we have Anastasius saying an icon was brought from Jerusalem to Pella and there is Beirut/Edessa. That is a little confusing. Then the claim it went to Constantinople. That is something to look up. That the Icon was taken during the sack of the place is hypothetical but a plausible scenario.,
There's an interesting paper on the Beirut relic that says "This is a perfect example of how the legends associated to sacred objects only try to explain what the object is but they 7 Manuscript Rossianus 251, f 12 vº. Vie de Saint Jean Climaque par le moine Daniel. Circa 11th century. Vatican Library 4 do not tell necessarily historical facts. In conclusion, we find evident that there were two different sites, Pharos
and Blachernae, for two different relics, Mandylion and Shroud ." The Beirut icon and the Shroud - César Barta , Pedro Sabe and José Manuel Orenga
It seems that shroud disappeared but Mandylion remained in Constantinople until it went to a different chapel in France. "The Mandylion or Image of Edessa remained in the Byzantine city until 1248 when it was sent to Paris to remain in the Sainte Chapelle until the French Revolution."
Early days, but it is often tempting to select evidence that fits the narrative and leave out anything that doesn't.
oldbadger wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:37 am
Now if Paul had written to a congregation and included mention of such a cloth being sent to them, or if Peter had included mention in his letters.....etc etc. But there is nothing like that at all. This item seems to have sprung in to existence 700 years ago.
Now, if you have any substantive counterarguments to what I've presented regarded the provenance of the TS, please present it.
I can't help you, otseng. The age of the material as found in carbon dating by three separate researchers, one being Oxford university, completely lost any interest of mine in this debate some weeks ago.
In any case, I don't think that Jesus died that day, I think he survived and was got clear away. There is an ancient tradition that Jesus came to Cornwall, England with the Levite Merchant Joseph, and since the Phoenicians were sailing to Cornwall from Tyre and Sidon a thousand+ years before Jesus's time, to trade for tin, then that is not such a wild proposal. Jesus is said to have founded the first ever church on the hillside at Glastonbury, and English folks have held this to be true all down through the ages.
You may even have sung about this yourself in hymns, but did not realise it.
And so, no..... for several reasons I do not place any value on the Turin shroud.
Jerusalem, by William Blake.
1 And did those feet in ancient time
walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
on England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
among these dark satanic mills?
oldbadger wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 1:43 am
...
There is an ancient tradition that Jesus came to Cornwall, England with the Levite Merchant Joseph, and since the Phoenicians were sailing to Cornwall from Tyre and Sidon a thousand+ years before Jesus's time, to trade for tin, then that is not such a wild proposal. Jesus is said to have founded the first ever church on the hillside at Glastonbury, and English folks have held this to be true all down through the ages.
You may even have sung about this yourself in hymns, but did not realise it.
And so, no..... for several reasons I do not place any value on the Turin shroud.
Jerusalem, by William Blake.
1 And did those feet in ancient time
walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
on England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
among these dark satanic mills?
The tales are there, where Jesus is said to have found new lands to trod. Heck, some say he made it all the way to Japan. Or even Murica.
What better way to declare one has "divine authority" over others than to declare they've got Jesus hollering from his Barcolounger from next door?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
Regarding the talk of the shroud at Edessa ;associates for BViblical research' has this to say
"Eusebius included in his Ecclesiastical History a brief late 3rd century version, reporting a famous letter from Jesus still kept in the Edessan archives (Eusebius 1991: 43-47). But later in the 4th century (or possibly early in the 5th) a Syriac writer penned a much expanded text. Known as The Teaching of Addai (hereafter TA) one small passage has Abgar, who is corresponding with Jesus by way of a messenger Hanan, instructing him to make a picture of Jesus:
When Hanan the archivist saw that Jesus had spoken thus to him, he took and painted the portrait of Jesus with choice pigments, since he was the king’s artist, and brought it with him to his lord King Abgar. When King Abgar saw the portrait he received it with great joy and placed it with great honor in one of the buildings of his palaces (Howard 1981: 9 - 10).
Most modern scholars usually reject The TA as reliable history for a variety of reasons, but sometimes admit “a substratum of fact” (Segal 1970: 179–181). Wilson recognizes numerous “anachronisms and interpolations” more characteristic of Abgar VIII’s time than Abgar V’s but also concludes that many “elements of the story have an authentic period ring” (Wilson 1998: 165). As for the picture, this is the only certain place in antiquity that mentions the Edessa Image, and by itself would lead no one to dream that it was actually the NT sindon or Turin Shroud. Writers like the Edessan Church Father Ephrem in the 4th century show no knowledge of the picture, leading some scholars to believe there never was such an object in ancient Edessa (Drijvers 1998: 17). Others believe it was there, just not very famous (Drews 1984: 75). Historian Daniel Scavone opines that the story is “made up after the fact, when the real history was forgotten, to explain the presence of the Christ-picture in Edessa” (Scavone 1991: 180). What the TA may also suggest is that there was a distant memory in 4th century Edessa of a Christ picture coming to their city in an early evangelization, and if a lengthy history (like The TA) were to be written, contemporary readers might expect it to be included. However, because of persecution, it had to be hidden away and perhaps even lost, with only confused memories surviving by the 4th century (Wilson 1979: 129 – 130).
With hindsight and the eye of Faith, this talk of a painted icon can be reinvented to be a garbled memory of the faint negative image of the Turin shroud. But even though it makes a convenient dot on the journey of the shroud from Jerusalem to France, it requires a rather familiar element of Ecclesiastical exegesis - beginning with the Belief and fiddling the evidence to fit - to turn a painted icon into the shroud.
We already saw some doubt that the shroud and Mandylion were the same relic, and if the Edessa image was a painted icon, that drops that dot as a link in the narrative. There is still the suggestive claim of an image 'not made with hands' but I'll have to see if and where that fits in.
Acts of Thaddaeus (7th c earliest, says Wiki) "And Ananias, having gone and given the letter, was carefully looking at Christ, but was unable to fix Him in his mind. And He knew as knowing the heart, and asked to wash Himself; and a towel was given Him; and when He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen, He gave it to Ananias, saying: Give this, and take back this message, to him that sent you: Peace to you and your city! For because of this I have come, to suffer for the world, and to rise again, and to raise up the forefathers."
The whole is fantastical obviously borrowed from the Bible accounts in some places and sound quoite like the Gospel of Peter at times, but I can see how this would suggests an image though it is nothing like a post crucifixion image (no blood etc) could be used to back up a claim that the icon was an actual contact image not a painted one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER on Mon May 22, 2023 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 11:37 pm
Wow 240 pages. But then it has had a number of debates. I have to say that the narrative of the passage of the shroud from tomb to the Christians at Edessa, to Byzantium where it was wrapped around a thing of some kind so just the face was visible (creases caused by the folding still being claimed to be detectable) then takes in the Crusader sack of the city so the shroud was taken to France and the rest is indeed valid history, is a plausible one.
But is it circumstantial? I know that for Christianity circumstantial evidence is "Sufficient", but these 'dots to be joined' (as one poster long ago put it) to make the narrative, are they as validated as they seem? It might be worth looking at this tale of the Edessa Icon and the Mandylion of Byzantium, and also the thing worshipped by the Templars. Are the historical references as clear as the Christian narrative portrays it? How possible is it that there are many other 'image' relics and a couple werepicked that made a convincing narrative? Maybe I'll have a browse, just to put it all into context
Yes, I agree it's circumstantial evidence. I believe we can at least accept it was in Constantinople and Edessa. As to how it got from Constantinople to Lirey, there are many theories, but I would lean toward somehow the Templars were involved. I covered how it got from Edessa to Constantinople. The legend of Abgar V is probably mostly fictitious, at least the later versions are. But, I accept the core idea that Abgar V was healed and the cloth was brought into that city in the 1st century.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 6:20 am
With hindsight and the eye of Faith, this talk of a painted icon can be reinvented to be a garbled memory of the faint negative image of the Turin shroud. But even though it makes a convenient dot on the journey of the shroud from Jerusalem to France, it requires a rather familiar element of Ecclesiastical exegesis - beginning with the Belief and fiddling the evidence to fit - to turn a painted icon into the shroud.
We already saw some doubt that the shroud and Mandylion were the same relic, and if the Edessa image was a painted icon, that drops that dot as a link in the narrative. There is still the suggestive claim of an image 'not made with hands' but I'll have to see if and where that fits in.
My argument is different from others. I am not using provenance as evidence the TS is authentic. I only use scientific evidence to demonstrate its authenticity, not historical textual evidence or art evidence. Given all the historical and art evidence I've so far presented, I'm only presenting a plausible provenance of the shroud. If the shroud is a medieval fake, then it's up to skeptics to give a rational alternative explanation for all the evidence I've presented regarding the provenance:
Why the similarities of the Pray codex to the features of the TS?
What did Robert di Clari see?
What is the archetype of all the Byzantine art and coin images of Christ?
What exactly is the image of Edessa and where is it now?
What exactly is the Acheiropoieta?
Why are the Orthodox, Byzantines so infatuated with icons?
How and why did the legend of King Abgar V arise?
Sure, it's possible to create ad hoc explanations for each of these. But the TS shroud answers these in one fell swoop without the need for hypothetical explanations.
Byzantine Iconoclasm occurred during the periods 726-787 AD and 814-842 AD. During these times, many icons were destroyed in the Byzantine empire.
The Byzantine Iconoclasm (Greek: Εικονομαχία, romanized: Eikonomachía, lit. 'image struggle', 'war on icons') were two periods in the history of the Byzantine Empire when the use of religious images or icons was opposed by religious and imperial authorities within the Christian Church (At the time still comprising the Roman-Latin and the Eastern-Orthodox traditions) and the temporal imperial hierarchy. The First Iconoclasm, as it is sometimes called, occurred between about 726 and 787, while the Second Iconoclasm occurred between 814 and 842.
The Byzatines actually called it iconomachy, but modern historians call it iconoclasm.
Iconoclasm is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture's own religious images and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called iconoclasts, Greek for "breakers of icons" (εἰκονοκλάσται), a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any person who breaks or disdains established dogmata or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are derisively called "iconolaters" (εἰκονολάτρες). They are normally known as "iconodules" (εἰκονόδουλοι), or "iconophiles" (εἰκονόφιλοι). These terms were, however, not a part of the Byzantine debate over images. They have been brought into common usage by modern historians (from the seventeenth century) and their application to Byzantium increased considerably in the late twentieth century. The Byzantine term for the debate over religious imagery, "iconomachy," means "struggle over images" or "image struggle".
Interestingly, during these periods of iconoclasym, the image of Edessa would not have been affected because Edessa was occupied by the Muslims, starting in the 7th century.
The Armenian chronicler Sebeos, bishop of Bagratid Armenia writing in the 660s, gives the earliest narrative accounts of Islam in any language today. Sebeos writes of a Jewish delegation going to an Arab city (possibly Medina) after the Byzantines conquered Edessa
And it was in 944, after the Byzantine Iconoclasm, that the Edessa image was retaken by the Byantine empire.
Rebuilt by Emperor Justin, and called after him Justinopolis (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., IV, viii), Edessa was taken in 609 by the Persians, soon retaken by Heraclius, but captured again by the Arabs in 640.
The Byzantines often tried to retake Edessa, especially under Romanus Lacapenus, who obtained from the inhabitants the "Holy Mandylion", or ancient portrait of Christ, and solemnly transferred it to Constantinople, 16 August, 944.
It was as if the cloth had a mind of its own and knew it would not be safe, even among Christians, and avoided being possibly destroyed by being in "enemy" hands.
Pilgrims had freely travelled to Edessa for many years, even while it was under various empires. It was in the 12th century that tensions arose when it was conquered by Zengi in 1144. This prompted the Second Crusade in 1145-1149.
In 1144, Zengi began the siege of Edessa against the crusader County of Edessa, the weakest and least Latinized crusader state, and captured it on December 24, 1144, after a siege of four months. This event led to the Second Crusade, and later Muslim chroniclers noted it as the start of the jihad against the Crusader states.
The news of the fall of Edessa was brought back to Europe first by pilgrims early in 1145, and then by embassies from Antioch, Jerusalem and Armenia. Bishop Hugh of Jabala reported the news to Pope Eugene III, who issued the bull Quantum praedecessores on 1 December of that year, calling for a second crusade.
The reappearance of the shroud in France (having been filched by De Charnay from Constantinople during the Crusader sack (the Mandylion 'image not made with hands' apparently still being left in the city ended up with the Templars the evidence for this being that they were accused of worshipping a head of some kind. This (even without the suspicion that the Church took down the Templars out of dislike of a rival Church power and a desire for their wealth) was backed up by an account of templars ushering an acolyte into the presence of an image sounding very shrtoud like.
It is a worry that this was not (apparently) published as a historicalpaper but is one of three books by the same author. I shouldlike to know more of the sources and eviudence for all this.
Wiki says: In June 2009, Frale published, always for Il Mulino, another essay dedicated to the Templars, I Templari e la sindone di Cristo, where she debates some documents concerning the mysterious idol, which was cited during the process as a charge against the order to accuse the order itself of idolatry, being actually a particular image of the dead Christ, which has similar characteristics to the Shroud of Turin.
In November of the same year another essay, La sindone di Gesù Nazareno, Il Mulino (historical Library) followed the above-mentioned volume, where Frale examines some presumed sketches of writing discovered on the shroud in 1998 by a team of French scientists, experts in the analysis of marks of the Institut Superieur d’Optique d’Orsay – Paris; comparing them with other ancient documents and inscriptions. This essay received the national prize "Torre di Castruccio" for the year 2010, the section of Letter, and the National Cultural Prize "Brava Barbara!” promoted by the Cultural Association "Santa Barbara nel mondo" of Rieti.[12] It has been translated in French (Bayard, Paris 2010) and in English (Maveryck house publishers). In April 2010, Frale published for the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the historical essay La Sindone e il ritratto di Cristo, and on 2 May she carried out the historical commentary broadcast live from Turin Cathedral, linked up to the Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI on the occasion of his pilgrimage to the shroud.[13]
Death certificate of Jesus
In November 2009 Barbara Frale claimed that she had discovered the burial certificate of "Jesus of Nazareth" on the Shroud of Turin, and that the date was in accord with the Gospel records.[14] Frale stated that her reconstruction of the text reads:
"In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year".
Since Tiberius became emperor after the death of Octavian Augustus in AD 14, the 16th year of his reign would be within the span of the years AD 30 to 31.[14][15]
Frale's methodology has been criticized, partly based on the objection that the writings are too faint to see.[16][17]
The 'death certificate'of Jesus is a huge red flag for this claim.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 7:02 am
It is a worry that this was not (apparently) published as a historicalpaper but is one of three books by the same author. I shouldlike to know more of the sources and eviudence for all this.
Wiki says: In June 2009, Frale published, always for Il Mulino, another essay dedicated to the Templars, I Templari e la sindone di Cristo, where she debates some documents concerning the mysterious idol, which was cited during the process as a charge against the order to accuse the order itself of idolatry, being actually a particular image of the dead Christ, which has similar characteristics to the Shroud of Turin.
Ian Wilson was the first to propose the Templars was involved with the TS. Wilson disputes Frale's claims about the Sabbatier document contained "a long linen cloth on which was imprinted the figure of a man."
In April 2009 the London Times, along with other quality newspapers across the world,
reported that Dr Frale had discovered in the Archives Nationales in Paris a hitherto unknown
document describing an initiate to the Order of Knights Templar, Arnaut Sabbatier, being
shown the Shroud at one of the Order’s secret reception ceremonies held in the year 1287.
The newspapers’ reports were based on an article that Frale had written for the Vatican
newspaper L’Osservatore Romano in which she specifically referred to the object shown to
Sabbatier as being ‘a long linen cloth on which was imprinted the figure of a man’.
Although Dr Frale had never ever contacted me , her article mentioned me by name,
speaking of her discovery as ‘vindicating’ my theory, first published in 1978, that the
Knights Templar had owned the Shroud at some time during the so-called ‘missing years’
period between its disappearance from Constantinople in 1204 and its reappearance in
Lirey, France during the 1350s.
Furthermore, Frale’s assertions that the lineum (whatever its nature), was ‘long’
and was ‘imprinted’, both crucial elements for identifying it with the Shroud, were simply
not present in, or supported by, the original Latin text.
In summary, and quite aside from her seriously questionable behaviour towards me, Frale’s
so extravagant claims to the world’s media as made back in 2009 simply cannot justify the
conclusiveness that she so publicly attributed to them. Besides her misinforming the world
in general, she misled me, and thereby seriously misdirected the line that I took in chapter
14 of my latest book. This is not to say that I have rejected my original theory of Templar
ownership. Although the details have always been hazy and the hard evidence hard to
come by, for me the broad theory remains the most plausible explanation for how Geoffrey
de Charny of Lirey came to be in such suspiciously unprovenanced possession of the
Shroud in the mid 14 th century.
One evidence the Templars is associated with the TS is the Templecombe panel.
It has been reported by Ian Wilson (The Turin Shroud„ Gollancz 1978), and by others like
myself who have based their information on Wilson's account, that a painting of the head of
Christ was discovered by accident in an outbuilding in Templecombe in the 1950s. This
remarkable artefact has been on display in the Templecombe parish but attracted little special
attention until Wilson, in 1978, published his important theory that the painting was a direct
copy from the face of the image of the man on the Holy Shroud, one of many such copies
made by the Templars to be kept in their various preceptories to remind them of their most
precious possession, the Holy Shroud, and to be used as an object of veneration.
It measures some 4'9" wide by 2'9" high and is believed to be about 2" thick.
Alan Whanger of Duke University has pointed out that
under his method of polarising overlay technique which he applies to any supposed copy of
the Shroud, the Templecombe panel has 125 points of congruence with the Shroud face.
The painting is on a panel with hinge and lock facilities and yet it is painted with the panel
horizontal which would not have been done on, or for, an upright door.
The panel is clearly then, the lid of a great box. The dimensions are almost exactly those one
would choose to contain the Holy Shroud as we know it when folded in eight as it usually
was during the middle ages. The fleur-de-lys decoration of the panel strongly suggests French
influence and the quatrefoil design is recurrent in Templar (and other) decorative motifs.
Templecombe is six miles from the probable site of the centre of Arthurian activity and the
quest for the Holy Grail, now shown by strong evidence actually to have been the Holy
Shroud, and is therefore a most likely place for this most precious of Christian relics to have
been taken by its owners, the Knights Templar, until Europe was considered safe for its
return.
The church in Templecombe was built in the 12th century and once held by the Templars.
The Anglican Church of St Mary at Templecombe, within the English county of Somerset, was built in the 12th century and is a Grade II* listed building.
One of the manors within the parish was held by Earl Leofwine who gave it to Bishop Odo of Bayeux after the Norman Conquest. The church was probably established during the period when the manor was held by Shaftesbury Abbey, but granted to the Knights Templar while it was held by his descendant Serlo FitzOdo,[3][4] who established a preceptory in the village in 1185.[5][6] The preceptory served as an administrative centre for the lands held by the Templars in the south west of England and Cornwall. It may also have been used to train men and horses for the Crusades.[7] After the Knights Templar were suppressed following the 1307 order by Pope Clement IV,[8] it was granted to the Knights of St John, who held it until the dissolution of the monasteries.
In the church is a painting on wooden boards of a head, which was discovered in the roof of an outhouse of a local building in 1945.[12] The tenant of the cottage was collecting wood in an outhouse where part of the ceiling had fallen down. She noticed a face above her which was on a wooden panel fixed by wire to the inside of the roof and previously plastered over.[13]
The painting is thought to be from the 13th century,[1] and connected with the Templecombe Preceptory (or Combe Templariorum) which was established in the village in 1185. It was given to the church in 1956.[14]
Restoration work in the 1950s and again in the 1980s has identified gold stars on the picture and microscopic evidence for bright colours which are no longer in evidence.[15] The colours were present in the 1940s when it was discovered, but impaired when the local vicar cleaned it in his bath with Vim.[7] The addition of a keyhole and hinges at some time in the past suggests it was used as a door.[14]
For many years the head has been believed to be that of Christ but without the halo which was the norm in religious iconography at the time. The Knights Templar were suppressed partly because of their use of the image of Christ without the halo.[3] There has been speculation linking the image with the Shroud of Turin.[16] Other explanations suggest the image is not of Christ but of John the Baptist.
