The difference is that a fake means that someone read about the story of Jesus in the Gospels and tried to create some proof out of wholeclath. A replica means that there really was a cloth with Jesus' image on it that may have helped promote the Gospel version of events that we no longer have. If you can't see the significance of that distinction, and I can imagine why you won't, then let's just drop the subject.
Which is exactly what a forger would want to accomplish, a creditable fake, with as much detail as possible, not a reasonable facsimile.
You are playing the deconstruction game here by ignoring the context of the original comments. My original comments were made with respect to claims, which you apparently supported but are now ignoring, that the shroud could be an authentic burrial shroud but simply show some J. Random Victim of crucifiction rather that Jesus. The fact that the image on the Shroud depicts distinctive wounds that would be either rare or specific to Jesus disputes that particular claim. It doesn't prove that the Shroud is real, nor was it meant to. Please play your game of ignoring the context with someone else. I'm not playing.
Though the Middle Ages are considered to be an age of ignorance, it was not a time totally absent intelligent, cunning and greedy persons. To assume that persons of high office, both religious and political, as well as craftsmen with the necessary talents were intellectually and materially incapable of fabricating the Shroud and its myth is hubris.
Not at all. It's called "familiarity with the age in question" and the question is not only whether they could have fabricated the Shroud but how likely it was that if they did have the technology, it would look like it did.
The Dean of the church at Lirey simply predated Jim and Tammy Faye Baker by a good 600 years. Today we build amusement parks to accomplish what the Shroud was manufactured for.
Just because 99% of all Medieval artifacts were fabricated fakes does not mean that this one was. I'm not claiming that there were no fake Medieval artifacts. Of course there were, and there was certainly motive to fake them. But most of those fakes are trivially easy to identify as fakes. They used the bones of pigs as the bones of saints. They used Medieval weapons and wood and so forth. Why? Because they didn't have to face modern science and, as their paintings of Biblical scenes with Medieval trappings show, lacked the same sense of history and changing technology that we have. Does the Shroud deserve some skepticism? Of course. But skepticism and other cases of forgeries do not prove that this particular shroud is a fake.
But, hey, believe whatever you want. It's clear that you care more about assumptions than evidence and have no interest in an objective assessment of the details. How do I know that? Because you have utterly failed to address any detail and prefer, instead, to deal in sweeping statements that contain little or know factual information.
And in terms of ulterior motives for having strong feelings about the shroud, I'd say that those who insist the shroud is a fake have far more at stake than those of us who think the shroud is real. If the shroud is fake, that doesn't really prove or disprove anything about Jesus. If the shroud is real, then atheists are sure gonna have alot of 'splainin' to do.
But the fabricator of the Shroud had to face his own contemporary science, such as it was, and knowledgeable laymen. Though it was a superstitious time, there were still persons capable of rational skepticism. Therefore, I doubt many butchers were taken in by "the bones of pigs".You are making the assumption that no one else, save personages of church and castle were intelligent ( or honest).
If you can't see the significance of that distinction,
You have clarified your definition. When I had a racing shop, I used to "fabricate" copies of English Formula Racing Cars suspensions and even whole chassis's. Though they were "replicas", they were not fakes by virtue that they were mechanically and materially true to the originals that I copied. After a while, my copies became superior to the originals to the point that originals, to the uninitiated, seemed to be poor replicas. Why did I commit this unlicensed forgery? Because the English chassis makers charged $3,000 through their American distributor and I could produce the same or better for $1,800. The doctors and lawyers that bought my parts and chassis' considered themselves astute for saving the money. Later on, they would attempt to sell these cars as "originals". I always remained silent.
I belive the Shroud was manufactured under similar circumstances.
(Ah,Hah! She thinks, now we have the motive for "elbucko's dispute of the shroud, he's a bloody forger his' self").
Not so, I prefer Craftsman and "Replicator". Forgery is dishonest.
You are playing the deconstruction game here...
No I'm not. You present contradictions, such as:..."The fact that the image on the Shroud depicts distinctive wounds that would be either rare or specific to Jesus disputes that particular claim."
The; "that would either be rare", contradicts "specific to Jesus". Furthermore, I doubt that in the long history of the Roman Empire that Jesus of Nazareth was the only person that was ridiculed with a crown of thorns or had his side pierced with a lance and legs left un-broken. Especially if it was late in the day and the crew wanted to go for beers. I believe this treatment was more common than supposed. That the records come down that this was done to Christ is not proof that it was done only to Him.
It's clear that you care more about assumptions than evidence and have no interest in an objective assessment of the details.
I beg your pardon, but the assumptions are that its authentic, whereas objective science, that is science without an interest in the conclusion, suggests otherwise. As well, the Shroud is always in the custody of those who have an interest in maintaining the mystery (and therefore the interest). Would the Catholic Church turn the Shroud over to the National Institute of Science for analysis, the results would be more credible. As it is now, the evidence has the veracity of O.J.Simpson's hunt for the "real killers' of Ron and Nichol.
If the shroud is fake, that doesn't really prove or disprove anything about Jesus.
True, but it will raise many questions about the nature of man and what he is willing, in the name of whatever, to believe. From "Get Rich Quick" schemes to the promise of 72 Virgins.
If the shroud is real, then atheists are sure gonna have a lot of 'splainin' to do.
I am not an atheist, far from it. But I am a skeptic. Sorry to disappoint you.