| Line 96: |
Line 96: |
| | | | |
| | Another argument against the legitimacy of this artifact is based on John's account, as Calvin mentioned above. | | Another argument against the legitimacy of this artifact is based on John's account, as Calvin mentioned above. |
| − | {{cquote|...[Simon Peter] saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. -<small>{{Bible ref|John|20|6-7|version=NKJV}}</small> | + | {{cquote|...[Simon Peter] saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. -<small>{{Bible ref|John|20|6-7|version=NKJV}}</small>}} |
| − | This account clearly says that the cloth around his head was separate from the cloth around the rest of his body. Some translations even refer to strips of cloth that had been wrapped around him, rather than one solid cloth. | + | This account says that the cloth around his head was separate from the cloth around the rest of his body. Some translations even refer to strips of cloth that had been wrapped around him, rather than one solid cloth. |
| − | {{cquote|[Simon Peter] saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head -<small>{{Bible ref|John|20|6b-7a|version=NIV}}</small> | + | {{cquote|[Simon Peter] saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head -<small>{{Bible ref|John|20|6b-7a|version=NIV}}</small>}} |
| | | | |
| − | These arguments have been used by a variety of people to say that scripture itself disproves the claims of the Catholic church.<br /><br /> | + | These arguments have been made to assert that Scriptures disprove the authenticity of the Shroud, but the second cloth for the head could have been supplemental to the large cloth. |
| | | | |
| | Another critic was the scientist Walter McCrone (1906-2002), who insisted that it was a painting; this possibility has been thoroughly disproven.<ref>[http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm Disproof that the Shroud is a painting, as explained by a professional artist]</ref> | | Another critic was the scientist Walter McCrone (1906-2002), who insisted that it was a painting; this possibility has been thoroughly disproven.<ref>[http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm Disproof that the Shroud is a painting, as explained by a professional artist]</ref> |