[steevytraunse]

I'm not sure what category to post this under, so I just chose one. If it's in the wrong place, I apologize.

I recently watched a documentary where the filmmakers were given the opportunity to run tests on the Sudarium of Oviedo. For those unfamiliar with this relic, it was the cloth used to cover Christ's face when he was lowered from his cross. The Sudarium is drenched in blood and testing has shown it bears puncture marks from the crown of thorns as well.

The Catholic church allowed the filmmakers to also take a sample of the blood to a laboratory for DNA testing. The blood came back as A+, which is common to the Mediterranean, but the truly miraculous finding is there is no paternal DNA. The scientists were at a loss to explain how this is possible.

I've mentioned this finding to atheists because I wanted to see their reactions, but they merely laughed in my face and claim the findings are obviously falsified.

So, I wonder what you, the Orthodox community thinks of these findings?

[Roxanjbra]

I would have the same reaction.

These stories have been propogated for decades if not centuries. Come on George; don't believe everything you hear.

[Beriilosal]

but the truly miraculous finding is there is no paternal DNA. Then this would mean the blood did not contain evidence of a Y chromosome. Which means that the blood could not have come from a male, or that the testing was flawed or meaningless. I would also seriously question the ability of a 2000-year-old blood trace in supplying undamaged or undegraded DNA.

[tweriaroats]

And what would the first Adam's DNA have been?

[QiuCIOdO]

Which means that the blood could not have come from a male.

I am no scientist but is what you mean, normal human males? If God in Christ had no human father, wouldn't one expect some aspects of his bio science to be different? As I am no scientist I can't really assist there.

[proslaviy]

I would have believed it just as you did, George. I would have no reason to doubt or mock the film makers and their findings.

I believe in relics that are held in the West just as much as I do for those that still remained in the East.

When my husband was once in Bruges many years ago he had the blessed opportunity to venerate the Holy Blood. Just because it isn't in Orthodox hands, that doesn't mean it isn't real.

The relic of the Holy Blood was brought to Bruges by Thierry of Alsace in the 12th century after the Second Crusade. The blood is preserved on a cloth claimed to have washed the body of the dead Christ as related in one of the apocryphal gospels. Popular legend ascribes the origins of the relic to Jerusalem however it was more likely looted from Constantinople during the sack of the city in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. The relic is encased inside a rock crystal phial decorated with gold coronets. The relic was extremely important to Bruges’ cultural and religious history. The Basilica of the Holy Blood, where the relic is kept, was a popular pilgrimage destination and pilgrims were granted indulgences by the Pope for visiting the relic. The relic is also the centerpiece of the Procession of the Holy Blood that occurs every year since 1303 on Ascension Day. The parade is one of the largest religious celebrations in Belgium and the arrival of the relic to the city and various Biblical narratives are reenacted throughout the festivities. Although the blood is normally congealed, the relic is said to liquefy once a year on this day.

http://sites.tufts.edu/bloodrelics/2...ood-at-bruges/

[TNOULbr2]

I was not suggesting this is not real blood. I am suggesting it is a not real story.

You know, a publicity stunt to throw "hapless bible clinging freakazoid Christians" into a frenzy about something totally ridiculous. And they succeeded. What better way can people laugh at us when we are so gullible to believe every silly thing that comes down the pike?

[CowextetleSix]

So, I wonder what you, the Orthodox community thinks of these findings? exposing to a great risk. Anyway, this is not much of an Orthodox approach. I think you will not find in Orthodoxy a genuine scientific research of any kind of relics. The church has other ways of proving the authenticity of the holy relics. And, following the church confirmation, we simply believe.

[shinesw]

I may have missed something in my readings but was Christ buried with the crown of thorns?

[drugimpotence]

I may have missed something in my readings but was Christ buried with the crown of thorns?

Good question. I'm going to guess no.

[HenriRow]

I may have missed something in my readings but was Christ buried with the crown of thorns?

I've always understood that the crown was meant as a symbol of mockery. I don't think they would have left it intact for burial.

Good observation.

[denwerdinoss]

I may have missed something in my readings but was Christ buried with the crown of thorns?

His brow and head would have been pierced though, and some blood might still have been seeping out when he was laid in his tomb. As to the authenticity of the shroud I have no opinion because I have read so many different things about it that I am totally confused. And, I do not trust the Roman Catholic Church.

[SergZHy67]

I've always understood that the crown was meant as a symbol of mockery. I don't think they would have left it intact for burial.

Good observation.

My thoughts exactly. As Christ underwent the burial practices of the Jews, I can't imagine they would leave on the thorns.

[AsmViktor]

His brow and head would have been pierced though, and some blood might still have been seeping out when he was laid in his tomb. As to the authenticity of the shroud I have no opinion because I have read so many different things about it that I am totally confused. And, I do not trust the Roman Catholic Church.

I think Kusanagi is questioning what the OP means where it states that the cloth shows puncture marks from the thorns. The question I have for George: do you mean that the cloth itself shows to be pierced and punctured, or do the blood stains rather show secondary signs to suggest piercings to the scalp and brow?

I guess the argument can be made that this cloth was applied on Jesus as soon as He was taken off the Cross where it may have been punctured and then reapplied later after the removal of the thorns. There is a lot of speculation in all this, for sure. Knowledge of the burial practices of the Jews at that time would be helpful. For example, would the same cloth used to cover the person immediately after taking them off the cross be the same one they would be buried in?

George, do you know if this documentary is online?

[RogerButton33]

If it's anything like the 'documentary' made about the Shroud of Turin where they used loads of pseudo science and speculation to claim that the cloth left a 3d imprint, etc, then I'd take it with a grain of salt. Often times scientists own claims are not properly displayed in these 'documentaries'. The producers take some creative credit and give their own account of what would be most interesting. Another I can think of is the 'documentary' called "Water". It's produced by the same folks who did "What the bleep do we know". Terrible terrible speculative new age pseudo science throughout, and unfortunately "Water" pulls on the heartstrings of the Orthodox because of the inclusion of a very prominent Orthodox figure...however, someone's inclusion in these videos should not make one assume that they had any control beyond what they were interviewed to answer.

[feqlmwtuqx]

As to the authenticity of the shroud I have no opinion because I have read so many different things about it that I am totally confused. And, I do not trust the Roman Catholic Church. To be fair to the RCC, it's modern position is not to pronounce on it one way or the other. On the other hand, a crypt chapel devoted to the shroud has been made at Sretensky Monastery in Moscow.

[highattainlet]

I believe the reference to "puncture marks" would be the image or impression on the cloth of the puncture wounds made by the thorns in the flesh, not actual punctures in the cloth itself. That is, you can see where the puncture marks were made in the flesh on the cloth, probably due to blood flow captured on the cloth itself.

[EntectCelpelm]

If it really were the precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, it definitely would have flowed forth myrrh by now.

I remember from somewhere that the Holy Angels gathered up our Lord Jesus Christ's precious Blood at the Crucifixion.

With agape in our Lord Jesus Christ,
+ Father Stephanos

[sesIgnose]

I must confess. I took the crown. I hid it along with the Ark, the other ark and His wisdom teeth and buried them all in Area 51 right after the alien space ship brought me back to the future in their flying DeLorean. I took pictures and everything. Wanna see?

[viagra_generic]

Gentlemen please,

Firstly, it was not a hoax video, it was done by National Geographic.

Secondly, it was not the blood of a woman. I didn't say it lacked a Y chromosome, I said it had no paternal DNA. I choose my words carefully so let's pay attention before tossing the match on the pyre shall we?

Thirdly, I like how there was all this speculation about Hebrew burial practices without anyone taking the time to research them. The sudarium was a piece of cloth -- in accordance with Hebrew burial rites -- that was used to immediately cover the face and sop up as much blood as possible immediately because the Jews believed the soul resides in the blood. They wrapped the cloth around Christ's head without removing the crown of thorns, creating puncture marks in the cloth. The crown was removed later and the crown of thorns was taken apart over the centuries after it was taken from Byzantium. The thorns are scattered among churches and royal houses around the globe.

Lastly, no matter what your opinions of the Catholic church -- are you denying they have holy relics because they are the Catholic church? Really? That's pretty juvenile and specious reasoning. Do you also not recognize a Palestinian state? The sudarium is referenced in John 20:6. It is not some imagining or construct of the Catholic church.

The video in question was "The Blood of Christ" from National Geographic and can no longer be found online as it was removed from YouTube and the only other source is no longer functioning. Otherwise I would have posted the link to the video and let you draw your own conclusions.

Any other questions? I've been reading these when I get them in my inbox, but as I have more important matters on my plate, I haven't had the time to address each. Some made me laugh. Others, not so much.