[elbucko]

..but it would provide further evidence for many's faith.

Faith and evidence, by definition, are mutually exclusive. Evidence proves fact, not faith. Faith depends upon belief alone. The certainty of that which is unseen, unproven. It is the depth of ones faith that is important, not the evidence.

I have no problem with those who have their faith reinforced by relics, as long as there is understanding that relics can be fashioned by man to deceive the faithful as well.

Whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic or fake, the knowledge of either condition should not increase or diminish the depth of the faithful.

[TexasGreg]

Faith and evidence, by definition, are mutually exclusive. Evidence proves fact, not faith. Faith depends upon belief alone. The certainty of that which is unseen, unproven. It is the depth of ones faith that is important, not the evidence.

Faith, in it's verb-form, is an action which one takes (i.e., trust manifested in an outward affirmation) based upon belief, and that belief is sustained by a level of confidence in the object of faith. In its normative meaning for Christians, one's confidence in their belief is rooted in the revelation of Jesus Christ through (1) the written word, (2) the teachings of the church, and (3) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Other evidences -- like a relic, or a trip to the Holy Land -- can also help to build that confidence. Making a trip to Israel and visiting Golgotha and the other Biblical sites can serve as evidences and help build confidence in one's belief and appreciation of one's faith without being "proof." The shroud -- if ever discovered to be authentic -- could serve a similar role.

In short, the way some want to define faith makes it almost the equivalent of "believing without any reason." Faith is never without any reason; evidences support confidence in one's belief, but are not -- themselves --the object of one's faith. Are such evidences "proof" of the gospel? No. We're not talking about a proof of the theological meaning of the death (i.e., the substitutionary atonement) or even of the resurrection; we're talking about possible proof of the historical existence of Jesus, whom some (like G.A. Wells) have, in the past, denied even existed. We're talking about a piece of possible evidence that points to the historic fact of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, something with some have a also denied. That Jesus lived isn't a "proof" of his divinity or of the Gospel, nor is his crucifixion and death a proof of the theological content Gospel. However, they DO serve as a piece of evidence supporting confidence in one's belief that the one who lived, crucified, and died, was also Divine and died for our sins.

If dating of the material that is not part of the repair weaving proves the shroud was made in the 1200s, this wouldn't effect how I currently view the shroud -- it is an amazing piece of religious iconography, one which truly does challenge our ability to comprehend how it was made back in the 13th century ... and, not only how, but WHY it was made to have the characteristics which it manifestly has. If nothing else, it has value as a piece of religious iconography.