Prove the Shroud of Turin a Fake

Originally posted by Suzianne
The Vatican has bigger fish to fry these days (pun intended).

"Bingo after church!"

"All-you-can-eat Fish Fry, Friday Night, 7:00pm"

Watch for the white smoke.

My prediction, an Italian from Rome. Papal name: Peter

Would that be Peter II ?

Out of respect for the Apostle Saint Peter, the first Pope, no Pope has ever adopted the name Peter II. It is considered unlikely that any future pope would choose the name. Many popes have, however, had Peter (or a regional variant) as their baptismal name, most recently Pope Benedict XIII (Pietro Orsini).

Originally posted by RJHinds
Would that be Peter II ?

Out of respect for the Apostle Saint Peter, the first Pope, no Pope has ever adopted the name Peter II. It is considered unlikely that any future pope would choose the name. Many popes have, however, had Peter (or a regional variant) as their baptismal name, most recently Pope Benedict XIII (Pietro Orsini).

Good grammar and no spelling mistakes!!!!
That must be cut and paste.
Quote your source like a good boy plagiarist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Peter_II

-Removed-

I wonder why must I deal with numbnuts?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I wonder why must I deal with numbnuts?

Because you have an affinity for them. Like goes to like and all that.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Good grammar and no spelling mistakes!!!!
That must be cut and paste.
Quote your source like a good boy plagiarist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Peter_II

Why? You did not have any trouble finding it, did you? 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Would that be Peter II ?

Out of respect for the Apostle Saint Peter, the first Pope, no Pope has ever adopted the name Peter II. It is considered unlikely that any future pope would choose the name. Many popes have, however, had Peter (or a regional variant) as their baptismal name, most recently Pope Benedict XIII (Pietro Orsini).

But the one thing you miss is that this is the last Pope.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Would that be Peter II ?

Actually, Petrus Romanus.

Not Peter II. Peter is not a Roman name.

-Removed-

A fake relic, of course.

The Church did a robust business in these around the time of the first Crusades.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic

Originally posted by Suzianne
A fake relic, of course.

The Church did a robust business in these around the time of the first Crusades.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic

Yes, and not evidence of a miracle, which it appears to be to the faithful. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, and not evidence of a miracle, which it appears to be to the faithful. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

I am as full of Faith as the mustard seed, and yet I have not made up my mind on whether the Shroud is a true relic or not.

After all, Calvin once made a comment that a ship could be made from all the "pieces of the True Cross". I do get his point.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why? You did not have any trouble finding it, did you? 😏

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Good grammar and no spelling mistakes!!!!
That must be cut and paste.
Quote your source like a good boy plagiarist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Peter_II




Its not a question of finding it.
Passing of the ideas of another as your own is plagiarism.
Bad form.

I guess when you are devoid of your own ideas it is all you are left with ... 😞