If the shroud were just another fake Medieval forgery, the flaws should be so obvious that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I agree. I can accept the possibility that the shroud in question may be the actual burial wrap of some real human being of unknown, but ancient, origin. Note the word, "may". That it may be the actual burial shroud of Christ has not even been circumstantially hinted at by any form of "evidence", let alone proved. The "tests" performed upon the shroud only confirm the findings of that particular test and not in any way the validity of the shroud being that of the Christ. IMO.
However valid the shroud may be as the actual burial shroud of some unknown human, its approximate time of "discovery" in the Middle Ages and that it "begins to appear in the church records of the time", would more than likely subject any shroud to being fraudulently offered to; "people who were willing to believe that animal bones were the bones of saints and so forth".
In other words, a person or persons acquired the burial shroud of some anonymous human and proffered it to the gullible persons of the Middle Ages as the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. From there, the fraud becomes a legend and now a "scientific-religious mystery" of great import (to some) The "Shroud" is, at best, an authentic fraud.
What I find to be an interesting paradox and commentary on human nature is that those who believe the shroud is from the supernatural turn to science for validation of their belief. It may be only a game of words, but I presume that science can only prove natural facts and would be incapable of proving the "supernatural". But then there are those who would counter that the Shroud is not, in itself "supernatural", but the "natural evidence" (there's that word again) of the existence of the supernatural. With that, one is right back where one started (sigh).
The best reply I have read in this whole Shroud thread is by "Drammach" at post # 67. Well said, Drammach.
For example he asserts that all crucifiction victims suffered the same wounds... not true at all. Most were not scourged, as far as we know none were crowned with a crown of thorns, and few were likely to have been stabbed in the side with a Roman Lancium to insure death... if quicker death were desired, the Romans would break the lower legs (crucifragium) to hasten death. The Romans seldom allowed a crucifixion victim to be buried at all... they were left on their crosses as examples for others of what happens to those who oppose the Empire.
I agree that the tests only confirm the results of that particular test... but it is in the proper interpretation of the tests that give them meaning. Sheer numbers mean nothing without comparison to other exemplars. I agree with Drammach that even proving a First Century provenance would NOT PROVE the shroud is Christ's but it would be one more piece of evidence to be considered in the overall picture the circumstantial evidence is building.
You keep harping on the "fact" that the Church history of the Shroud starts after its appearance in Lirey France... again, untrue. We have earlier Icon's with known provenance that are obviously taken from the Shroud. We have the August 15th 944 sermon of Gregory Referendarius, Archdeacon of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, in which he describes the Shroud and links it to the newly arrived Image of Edessa. You choose to ignore anything that doesn't agree with your prejudged opinions... as you admitted. This is not good scholarship or science.
You would prefer to accept a host of improbable and historically impossible events in the medieval age rather than follow the evidence. You postulate conspiracies involving unnecessary steps, slander the memory of a knight whose contemporary record was considered above reproach, and impute motives to researchers they do not have... all so you can dismiss what is probably the most enigmatic artefact in human history. We continually provide evidence from peer-reviewed sources to you that refutes your assertions... and you continually return to the same refuted claims.
As to Shroud researchers trying to use science to prove the "supernatural" that is also not true. All science can prove is what it is NOT. Science cannot prove what it is. We have been using science to check the various theories of Shroud creation. So far none has been shown to be a complete answer. I think the latest findings of the Chemistry of the image is probably closest to the truth although we cannot find how it worked only vertically collimated. This finding does not require "miraculous" means, but it does completely invalidate any claims for it being a "painted" image.
The circumstantial evidence is growing... but I suspect that if Jesus Christ came back, draped the Shroud over his head and said "Perfect fit, although not in as good a shape as I left it." You would still not accept that evidence.
I believe it is either the real burial shroud of Jesus (whether he was divine or not is a seperate debate) or a copy of an authentic shroud.
Note the word, "may". That it may be the actual burial shroud of Christ has not even been circumstantially hinted at by any form of "evidence", let alone proved.
You are correct that it has not been proved (and probably never will be, in my opinion, in a purely scientific sense) but contrary to Drammach's assertions, which you seem to agree with, the wounds depicted on the shroud are fairly distinctive, unique, and consistent with the Bible while also adding some anatomical details not found in the Biblical narrative (e.g., the nails through the wrists instead of the palms). Could it be someone else? Sure. Could it have been any random crucifiction victim? No. It would have had to have been someone crucified in the same unusual manner in which Jesus was crucified in the Bible accounts.
However valid the shroud may be as the actual burial shroud of some unknown human, its approximate time of "discovery" in the Middle Ages and that it "begins to appear in the church records of the time", would more than likely subject any shroud to being fraudulently offered to; "people who were willing to believe that animal bones were the bones of saints and so forth".
It appears after the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, and there is some other information suggesting that it may very well have spent years there. Also bear in mind that the historical record is hardly continuous as one goes back in time. There are plenty of things missing from records that we know about because they are mentioned in other surviving works. There are also plenty of things missing that we'll probably never know anything about.
In other words, a person or persons acquired the burial shroud of some anonymous human and proffered it to the gullible persons of the Middle Ages as the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. From there, the fraud becomes a legend and now a "scientific-religious mystery" of great import (to some) The "Shroud" is, at best, an authentic fraud.
That just happened to have wounds consistent with the Biblical account?
What I find to be an interesting paradox and commentary on human nature is that those who believe the shroud is from the supernatural turn to science for validation of their belief. It may be only a game of words, but I presume that science can only prove natural facts and would be incapable of proving the "supernatural". But then there are those who would counter that the Shroud is not, in itself "supernatural", but the "natural evidence" (there's that word again) of the existence of the supernatural. With that, one is right back where one started (sigh).
Few things in life are certain. Read more philosophy if you don't believe that.
The best reply I have read in this whole Shroud thread is by "Drammach" at post # 67. Well said, Drammach.
I've already addressed that post. If that's the best argument againt the shroud being authentic, then I'm not impressed.