[the OlLine Rebel]

This is my biggest doubt, if you will. I think it's entirely possible the shroud is from the region and time-period of Jesus, but maybe not actually Jesus.

It seems silly to me that every1 - faithful and cynics - seems to base its legitimacy purely on its age. Cynics are desparate to point out it's not that old, while faithful are desparate to find it IS that old. As if that's the only pointer to it being the shroud of Christ.

As it is, I'm open to the possibility.

[pgyanke]

Consider the wounds depicted. Many were crucified by the Romans. Jesus, however, earned a unique torture.

Jesus bore the crown of thorns because He was mocked as "king of the Jews". No one else was.

He was scourged before His crucifixion... normally these were mutually exclusive punishments. One was corporal, the other capital.

He was pierced in His side to prove He was dead. Others had their legs broken. The robbers crucified with Him had their legs broken. Prophecy foretold that the Christ's limbs would not be broken.

Jesus's sufferings were unique to His circumstance. The wounds depicted on the shroud match those tortures. It may not be definitive proof (and I only point to evidence--not declare absolute faith in the relic) but it is compelling.

God be with you.