It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jaques de Molay...The Face In The Shroud ??

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 08:07 AM
For more than 700 years The shroud Of Turin has been venerated by believers in the christian faith from all over the world..However a 1988 carbon 14 test proved that the cloth could not have been made before 1260.

In spite of the various accusations of christian investigators there exists NO proof of the existance of the shroud before its first public display in the small church of the French town of Lirey in 1357.

The cloth was donated to the church by Jeanne de Vergy, the widow of Geoffrey de Charney a noble who had died in September the year before.
Its importance was soon recognised by the inhabitants of Lirey, and the act was commerated by a special medal, which carried the coat of arms of Jeanne and Geoffrey de Charney.

But there exists no proof or information as to how they came to posses the shroud.
In 1359 Enrique de Poitiers, the archbishop of Troyes ordered the destrucion of the shroud ???( a strange order for a christian)
The order was never carried out, Jeanne hid the shroud in some place and it dissapeared until 1389 when it went was put on display again by another family member also called Geoffrey.

With the death of Geoffrey in 1398 the shroud passed into the hands of his daughter Margret and her husband, Humbert Count Of Roche who transferred the shroud to a safe place, the castle of Monfort.

In 1457 Margret, now old, sold the shroud to Loius de Saboya, son of pope Felix v, for two castles.
The Saboya family, from whom come the kings of Italy, are still the owners of the shroud even today.

The cloth has a relativamente sophisicated herringbone weave with the weave having a cross ratio of 3:1, which wasnt used in Europe until the begining of the 14th century.
This date is the thorn in the side of christians who wish to believe the shroud is that of jesus.
It cannot be said that this process of weaving WASNT in use in the 1st century, but its highly unlikely.

One of the strongest sources of information about the shroud is the pollen found in the fibres.
Doctor Max Frei-Sulver,forensic investigator, analized pollen samples found to determin in which zones of the world the shroud had passed through.

The shroud contained a lot of pollen but none from olives, which would have been the direct link to the holy land, as the area is full of olive trees.
The resulsts of the analysis would be later coroborated by scientists from Isreal.

If in the 14th century the shroud was known by the achishop of Troyes to be the shroud of Jaques de Molay and NOT the face of christ, this would clearly explain his order to destroy it, the extermination of the Templars being still fresh in the mind of many having passed only a century before.

The wounds clearly match the torture wound inflicted on Molay and not a man on the cross as the flow of blood is at a different angle to a man on the cross.

If the catholic church is aware that the face is of De Molay ,and no Jesus because the carbon 14 dating prooves that the dates are incompatible, then why guard it ???

Why in the face of irrefutible scientific proof is the catholic church willing to display a false relic ???

Why is the church willing to use the shroud when it could be possble that the face in it is of a man accused of heresy against the church..The face of a man who knew the truth about Jesus and the lies of the church.

Are the church wiling to accept the use of the shroud knowing that the face is of the first grand master of the Templars simply to maintain the "faithfull".

In 2007 it will be 700 years since the persecution and the prohibition of the templars..Will it be the year that the Catholic church officialy accepts its wrong doings and gives the templars their long overdue pardon ??

Will the church continue to use a false relic to attract and keep its followers believing in a faith in which more and more people now DONT believe.

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 09:25 AM

Are the church wiling to accept the use of the shroud knowing that the face is of the first grand master of the Templars simply to maintain the "faithfull".

actually deMolay was the LAST Grand Master. The First was Hugh de Payens
2 centuries earlier.

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:36 PM
yeah, weren't that grandmaster guy crucified upside down or something
I heard that was who the turin shroud was really from aswell. I dont think crucifictions were that common then and his was the only one around that time.

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 06:55 PM
No, The Kights Templar had the Shroud when Jaques de Molay was still alive, so I do not think it could be him. Also, Jaques de Molay was burned alive over a fire pit. So I don't think there was much left of his face to make an perfect human print in a shroud.

I think the Shroud might be John the Baptist.

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 08:27 AM
Yes, i made the mistake of saying first grand master when i meant last and Jaques de molay was tortured and imprisoned for years before he ws fianlly burnt at the stake in paris..This is how the templars were in possession of the shroud while he was still alive..

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:49 AM
A theory from the book 'The Templar Revelation' by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince puts forward the theory that the shroud is actually the face of Leonardo Davinci and was created using techniques for photography. In other words, it was the first photographic negative ever produced. That would explain why the face and body are in negative format when re-produced in 3D. In other words the impression goes 'in' instead of 'out' (or vice versa).

The head has also been decapitated from the body and, according to the writers of the book, therefore shows that Leonardo Davinci was using symbolism to convey his veneration of John the Baptist (who was beheaded) above Jesus Christ.

The symbolism employed in Davinci's works of art, the Last Supper in particular, is difficult to ignore. Especially the John the Baptist 'finger'.


posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:32 AM
yes, Kyuudousha that is the way i have heard it.

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:13 AM

Originally posted by andy1972
Yes, i made the mistake of saying first grand master when i meant last and Jaques de molay was tortured and imprisoned for years before he ws fianlly burnt at the stake in paris..This is how the templars were in possession of the shroud while he was still alive..

Why did he get burnt?

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:21 AM
Burning was the common form of execution as they believed that the flames would clean the souls of the accused.

It was especially popular with enemies of the church, heretics, witches, devil worshippers and anyone who didnt agree with the bible etc...

A public execution provided a form of family entertainment aswell...suppose it beats football on a sunday!!

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:53 AM
I do not remember the author, but a book called the second crucifixtion makes a very believable case for the shroud being from De Molay's recovery from his torture at the hands of Phillip the fair. Subsequently, several years later he was indeed burned at the stake. There is ample verifyable evidence that he was indeed tortured and crucified to near death and allowed to recover as an example to other templars who had not yet surrendered or been captured. (i.e. The lost Fleet). Check your history books, my research has shown that there was no mention of the shroud until it "appeared " in the medevial ages. Carbon dating of the shroud places it exactly at the time of Molay's torture.

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:36 AM
I have a question about your theory that the shroud is an image of De Molay.
How can it be the image of De Molay when he was burned at the stake On March 18, 1314? As far as im aware he was imprisoned and tortured for at least 7 years before that. Now the shroud is without a doubt in my mind the most brilliant piece of art, i see the shroud as more like a painting than a imprint of a mans dead body, ever created. Now there were very few artists that could have pulled off something like that so whoever commissioned the shroud, assuming it was commissioned by someone, must have paid a great deal of money for it to be done.
I would also imagine the work itself took a long time. I really don't think that a man condemned to death for heresy and the recanting of his confession, thats the real reason he was burned because to recant a confession was a sentence of death in the middle ages, would be allowed to have something like the shroud painted that showed him in the pose of a Crucified Jesus.
And it couldn't have been done after his death as he was burned to a cinder and i doubt there would have been much left of him to base something like the shroud on.
I think the shroud is exactly what a lot of Scientists suspect it to be. A fake Holy Relic designed to bring in the masses and generate money for the Church and who ever owned the shroud at the time. The faking of Religious relics was wide spread and very common at the time, there must have been enough pieces of the true Cross about to build a ship with for instance.
Going on a pilgrimage to see this Relics was akin to going to a modern day theme park for your typical Middle Age pilgrim and it generated a lot of money for the church.
Interesting idea though

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:06 AM
Yes indeedy...
Jaques de Molay suffered 7 years of prison, abuse and torture after retracting his earlier confession gotten under torture.

His torturar was a man called GUILLERMO IMBERT (head of the inquisition in France and personal preacher to Felipe The Fair), a man who was well versed in the art of torture, Felipe gave him carte blanche to get his confession by "whatever means necessary".

The Pope had authorized the use of torture on all herectics with few exceptions, the Templars were part of this exception, Imbert knew that the templars answered only to the Pope and his powers to "interrogate " them were useless.
However , Felipe told him to go ahead as, in his condition as king of France, he had permission to torture the high ranking Templars as a papal bull told all christian rulers to " lend all aid possible to the holy office of the inquisition", leaving Imbert with legal authority to torture Jaques and without doubt a big smile, as the most heinousof the 10 charges against the Templars was that they spat and stamped on the cross, and Guillermo was a fanatical christian, his anger would know no bounds.

Part of the templar ritual was the "REBIRTH" where the Templar was simboically reborn, using a skull, 2 leg bones and a shroud..Imbert was in possesion of these objects from the temple in Paris.
We know from the records of the inquisition that the templars were brought naked to be tortured.
And we know from the same records that Molay was tortured in the following way -
1 - He was tied at the wrists with rope and then whipped with a whip which probably had bones at the ends.
2 - They placed on his head with force a "crown" with sharpend points with sufficient force that it pierced the skin and forehead.
3 - he was then dragged to a wall with wood panels or a door frame where he was placed on a stool, his right arm extended upwards above head height, which was then nailed to the wood through the wrist between the bones taking care not to damage the veins, this blow forced the thumb of the right hand to be forcibly pushed towards the right palm such a way that the thumb was dislocated and the nailed cut into the flesh of the hand.
4 - The left arm was then extended upwards at a lesser angle than the right, just below head height and this was then nailed to the door, then the stool was dragged away and the feet nailed to the door through the 2nd and 3rd metatarsal of the right foot which was then placed on top of the left and the both nailed to the door with one nail.
With the removal of the stool the dislocation of the right shoulder was almost immediate,a method with little blood loss and the person concious and in tremendous pain.
Just opening and shutting the door backwards and forwards and slaming it shut the victim now semi concious would suffer tremendous pain.

Doctors have identified that the form in the shroud suffered from the disclocation of the shoulder and the thumb.
The direction of the blood flow on the forearms is also relevant to the position of the "crucifixtion".
The wounds would have provoked a great rise in lactic acid in the victims bloodstream, causing tremendous cramps and making worse the rate of production of carbon dioxide in his system which started with his breathing problems, provoking "acidosis respitoria" causing intolerable cramps, profuse sweating, low blood pressure and accelerated heart rate.
But Imbert had no intention of killing him....when Molay thought he woud die....Imbert cut him down???

Now came the moment for Imbert to show Molay the the "unholy" use of the shroud in the Templar iniciation ceremonies, hadnt gone unoticed.
After he was let down, Imbert had him placed on the shroud from the temple in Paris, and with the cloth left over they covered him from the front upto the head. Afterwoods they placed him on the bed that they had dragged him from hours earlier, placing pillows under the head and shoulders to aid with his troubled breathing,the shroud touching only the highly elevated body parts.
The body of Molay was now covered in sweat, which when it evaporated, transferred to the shroud.
Being in a soft bed with pillows, the head was higher than the waist and the ankles being bent so that the hands rested on the thighs.
Imbert was under strict orders NOT to kill Molay, however the heretic would have to suffer some more.
Molay had no direct family in the area, but his fellow prisoner and right hand man, the perceptor of Normandie also being tortured at the time helped him.
They belive that the family of geoffrey de Charney, Jean de Charney his brother, was called to help them and care for the two men who where later to be burnt togeter for "herescey".
The Charney family took the shroud, stained with blood and sweat, the shroud still being usefull white linen it was washed and folded and kept.
The carbon 14 dating shows the cloth to come from the years 1260 to 1380. Exactly the dates which coinside with Molay.
In 1995 doctor Alan Mills said after studying the shroud -

1 - the inexistance of a great distorcion to the cloth which happens in direct contact.
2 - The density of the image is inverted between the cloth and the skin at a distance of 4cms.
3 - There is no dye marks in the image.
4 - The image only effects the superficial fibres of the cloth and doesnt penetrate right through.
5 - the variations of density of the image are caused by changes in the density of the "yellow" fibres, on the surface and not by changes in the shade of the "yellow" fibres.
6 - the incrustacions of blood have protected the fibre from "yellowing".

The marks on the shroud where formed by some form of reaction with the lactic acid on the body of Molay and NOT by direct contact.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by andy1972
Part of the templar ritual was the "REBIRTH" where the Templar was simboically reborn, using a skull, 2 leg bones and a shroud

How do we know that this was a templar ritual?

Also, is there a citation for your other information, or is it original?


posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:04 PM
Interesting thread...

However, I would double check your source on the fabric not being around before the middle ages.

See this article, about a woman who restores ancient textiles, including the shroud of Turin.

a quote from the article


"Flury-Lemberg had originally been approached back in the early 1980s to try to date the Shroud by analyzing the structure of the cloth. She refused, "because," she says, "it is impossible to get a serious result dating a textile by textile analysis alone." In 1988, the keepers of the Shroud permitted radiocarbon dating of the relic -- with unanticipated results. The tests indicated that the cloth had been made sometime between 1260 and 1390 A.D., and thus was a medieval forgery rather than the actual burial shroud of Christ. And yet, when Flury-Lemberg finally did agree to head the restoration and conservation of the linen in the summer of 2002, the Shroud had a far different story to tell her. She first noticed that the entire cloth was crafted with a weave known as a three-to-one herringbone pattern. "This kind of weave was special in antiquity because it denoted an extraordinary quality," she says. (Less fine linens of the first century would have had a one-to-one herringbone pattern). That same pattern is present on a 12th century illustration that depicts Christ's funeral cloth, which, she says, is "extremely significant, because it shows that the painter was familiar with Christ's Shroud and that he recognized the indubitably exceptional nature of the weave of the cloth." Flury-Lemberg also discovered a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is surprisingly similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 B.C. and 73 A.D. The evidence, says Flury-Lemberg, is clear: "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high quality product of the textile workers of the 1st century."


It is also my understanding that older textiles were frequently of higher quality than today's textiles. This is probably because the weavers did not want to have to make as much, so they made textiles that would last. Apparantly weavers made amazing fabrics in ancient times with intricate, dense weaves on their hand looms.

Poor quality textiles would probably only be made by those who were novices, or who did not possess good equipment. Today's fabics are possibly even of lower quality than ancient fabrics because fancy power looms are more expensive. I also think that they make poor quality fabric today on purpose so it will wear out faster (increases their sales).

So, I conclude that the fabric itself, although remarkable for the 1st century due to it's quality, was not completely unknown.

This does not necessarily proclude the shroud belonging to DeMolay. It is possible, I suppose, we just don't know.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:22 AM
Nygdan - One of the Templars arrested on that fateful Friday 13th was Jean de Foligny.

Jean de Foligny wasnt made of the same stuff as Molay or Charney and didnt stand up to the torture for long...less than a week..and he quickly blurted what happened in the private ceremonies conducted in the small capillar of the Temple in Paris, which was found in main tower which held the "treasure".
He describes the capillar as "a secret place" without windows.

Exactally like the temple in Jerusalem and the masons before, the Templars gaurded a shroud of linen in which the iniciates would be wrapped when they were going to be made "superior members". It was a ritual of simbolic death followed by simbolic rebirth into the new life and into the new community in which they would serve.

The candidate would be "murdered" simbolically, only to rise anew from a ritual tomb, reborn.

UMA - The real date will NEVER be known as the roman catholic church will NEVER allow a real examination of the shroud and will never part with anything but pieces that they know are additions...

While they can maintain doubt about the REAL date they maintain the faithfull. Meanwhile if its found to be fake....
By allowing an extensive scientific examination of the cloth they will prove its a fake or at last not from the necessary time period..and this they CANNOT permit to happen.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:52 PM

Originally posted by andy1972
he quickly blurted what happened in the private ceremonies

It seems like that would make his description comprimised no? Is there any record of what the authorities wanted him to confess to? IOW, was this confession part of what was used to condem him? Or were they trying to find out what they do?

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:26 PM
I'm of the opinion that any information gained under torture is worthless and inaccurate. The point of torture, as we know, is to gain information that the person being tortured would not normally give voluntarily.
The trouble with torture is that the person who is being tortured will often tell the interrogators exactly what they want to hear, even if they have to make up some outlandish lie to stop the pain.
The few Templar that were taken in England were not tortured by Edward Long Shanks as the English legal system of the time recognized that torture was worthless as a means of gaining accurate info, in fact as far as im aware he really wasn't that enthusiastic about per suing the Templars at all and a lot fled North to Scotland ( just in case ).
My point is that the Templars who couldn't stand the torture told their interrogators exactly what they wanted to hear and that the initiation rites of the Order were not fantastic and incriminating enough to satisfy their tormentors so they made something up to stop the pain.

new topics

top topics


log in