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.
I seriously doubt that it is.
..(whether he was divine or not is a separate debate)..
A point in any debate that is irrelevant to me.
..or a copy of an authentic shroud.
If the "Shroud" is a copy of a presumed, "authentic" Shroud, it is, well, only a copy. If its a copy, it's a "fake" by definition.
Could it have been any random crucifixion 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.
This implies that you believe that Christ was the only person crucified by the Romans in this manner. Given the Romans brutality, I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was the only person so crucified in the same manner during the over 1000 years of Roman history. As well, you note that there are some added; " anatomical details not found in the Biblical narrative (e.g., the nails through the wrists instead of the palms)". This would hint at Medieval embellishment indicating forgery rather than some esoteric detail incidental only to Christ's crucifixion. On one hand it is, on the other hand it's not and on both hands it could or couldn't be so.
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.
Yes, I know (sigh). These same reasons are used by both sides when arguing the merits of "Evolution" vs "Creationism".
That just happened to have wounds consistent with the Biblical account?
More than likely, especially for a fake. If I were to counterfeit $20 dollar bills, I would not put the Queen of England's portrait on them.
Read more philosophy if you don't believe that.
I beg your pardon?
If that's the best argument against the shroud being authentic, then I'm not impressed.
If that's your best argument in favor of the shroud being authentic, then I am not impressed.