Changes

Many of the arguments by modern skeptics against the authenticity of the Shroud have been debunked and disproven.  For example, some claimed that a misspelling on one of the coins over an eye could not be authentic, but in fact several other coins having the same misspelling have since been found.<ref name="Coins"/>

Many of the arguments by modern skeptics against the authenticity of the Shroud have been debunked and disproven.  For example, some claimed that a misspelling on one of the coins over an eye could not be authentic, but in fact several other coins having the same misspelling have since been found.<ref name="Coins"/>

Over the centuries there have been critics and doubters of the Shroud being the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. One of the earliest unbelievers was Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes who wrote a scathing letter to the pope in 1389 claiming that the Shroud was a "cunning" painting and that the artist had been discovered.<ref>The Shroud, Ian Wilson, 2010, page 102.</ref> An enemy of the Catholic Church, [[John Calvin]], repeatedly ranted against relics and he wrote against the Shroud in 1543:  

Over the centuries there have been critics and doubters of the Shroud being the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. One of the earliest unbelievers was Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes who wrote a scathing letter to the pope in 1389 claiming that the Shroud was a "cunning" painting and that the artist had been discovered.<ref>The Shroud, Ian Wilson, 2010, page 102.</ref> [[John Calvin]], a Reformer, repeatedly ranted against relics and he wrote against the Shroud in 1543:  

:''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''<ref>[[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>

:''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''<ref>[[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>