Re: Shroud

["Gerry Sinclair" <g.jsinclair@dlcwest.com>]

Is there not a cloth that is purported to be the one that was wrapped around
our Lord's head, housed in a church in Spain. I don't recall the name of the
town, but I believe it is Oveida or something similar.

Gerry Sinclair

----- Original Message -----
From: Privateers <Privateers@privateers.org>
To: <sinclair@mids.org>
Sent: September 10, 1999 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: Shroud


> Dear Tim
>
> If we all agree that the carbon dating was flawed and that the test proved
> nothing we are still faced with proving the  shroud, an object "worthy of
> veneration" is the burial cloth of our Lord.  JSQ has directed my
attention
> to
> The Holy Bible" where in John Chapter 20:Verse 7 it states "And the
napkin,
> that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped
> together in a place by itself." this is not the description of a single
> piece of cloth.  The shroud is continuous.  "the napkin about His
head....in
> a place by itself" how did the continuous imprint occur?
>
> This, of course does not advance the argument that de Moley is the imprint
> that we see but it lends body to the argument that it is not the imprint
of
> the living God.  To prove something in the negative is hard,
> if not impossible.  It is all in how you ask the question.
>
> Did King Robert make a arraignment with the devil when at Bannockburn he
> enlisted William Sinclair and the Knights Templer? The Papal Bull had
> poscripted them de Molay was burned at the stake. Pope Clement V and
> Philippe the fair dead  The order disbanded but in Scotland and Portugal
> they found refuge, even land and honours.  The Scottish rite keeps de
Molay
> name alive.
>
> I  erred when I stated that the carbon dating was released on the same day
> de Moley was burnt it should read the carbon dating was released on the
same
> day the members of the Order were arrested  by Philippe the fair in the
> early hours of Friday 13th October 1307 the royal seneschals descended
upon
> the orders Preceptories everywhere in  France and arrested every Templar
> that they found. Philips actions were highly illegal, he had no authority
to
> arrest members of an order responsible only to Rome, but he hoped to
justify
> his actions with the trumped up accusations provided by two former
Templars.
> The royal troops  forced there way into the Paris Temple and placed the
> Grand Master, Jaques de Molay, and 60 more Knights under arrest. The
Knights
> offered no resistance even though the Paris Temple was built as a highly
> defensible installation. William Sinclair was at the time a postulant he
was
> not arrested they followed a secret order with grandmasters lasting until
> 1804 and probably still exists.
>
> The Bishop of Alba read out on 18 March 1314 the confession of de Molay,
he
> had been sent to prison for life.  The Grandmaster replied
> "It is just that, in so terrible a day, and in the last moments of my
life,
> I should discover all the iniquity of falsehood, and make the truth
triumph.
> I declare, then, in the face of heaven and earth, and acknowledge, though
to
> my eternal shame, that I have committed the greatest crimes but it has
been
> the acknowledging of those which have been so foully charged on the order.
I
> attest - and truth obliges me to attest - that it is innocent!
> I made the contrary declaration only to suspend the excessive pains of
> torture, and to mollify those who made me endure them.
> I know the punishments which have been inflicted on all the knights who
had
> the courage to revoke a similar confession; but the dreadful spectacle
which
> is presented to me is not able to make me confirm one lie by another.
> The life offered me on such infamous terms I abandon without regret."
>
> his reply caused sure furore the when reported to the King Philippe
ordered
> his immediate death. The order was carried out the next day
>
>
>
> The grandmasters that we after de Molay know the name of are under noted
>
> Bannockburn was 24 June 1314  shortly after the quasi-judicial murder of
de
> Molay. 19 March 1314.  The wounds on the shroud are consistent with de
> Molays.  I will wait with interest, God willing, for your book to view
> evidence of the shroud being that of Christ. I have seen none only
arguments
> over a Scientific test which on propensity of evidence is flawed.
>
> Sinclair
>
> under note
>
> Johannes Marcus Theobald
> Arnald de Braque
> John de Clermont
> Bertrand Gueselin
> John of L'Armagnac
> Bernard of L'Armagnac
> John of L'Armagnac
> John Croviacensis
> Robert de Lenoncoud
> Galeas Salazar
> Philip de Chabot
> Gaspard Cesinia
> Henry Montmorency
> Charles Valasius
> James Rufelius
> John de Dufort of Thonass
> Philip of Orleans
> Louis Auguste Bourbon of Maine
> Bourbon-Conde
> Louis Francois Bourbon-Conty
> De Cosse-Brissac
> Claude Matthew Radix-de-Chevillon
> Bernard Raymond
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Wallace-Murphy <tim@templartim.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <sinclair@mids.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 10:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Laird
>
>
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > Re the shroud, suggest you read Ian Wilson's "The Blood and the Shroud"
> and
> > more importantly, Garza-Valdes own book, "The DNA of God" which, despite
> its
> > appalling title provides a compelling scientific argument for a
> > re-assessment ofthe carbon dating. Early next spring, Element Books are
to
> > publish our latest work, "Rex Deus: the True Mystery of
Rennes-le-Chateau"
> > which lays out,insomedetail, how the Templars held the Shroud for over a
> > century before it passed into the hands ofd the de Charney family.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> > [ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
>
> [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> [ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
>

[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html