I hate to be a wet blanket,but even if the shroud turns out to be authentic,who's to say the image is actually Jesus?
That's actually a valid question. The case that the image is of a crucified man is based on the location of several large areas purported to be bloodstains (wrists, feet, side). To the best of my knowledge, these areas aren't part of the image itself. If they're not part of the image, it can always be argued that these bloodstains were added some time after the fact, perhaps simply to turn an artifact representing an ordinary man into one representing Jesus.
I agree that that is a valid question, one I have asked before. The only two aspects I can think of are these:
1. The regular method for finishing the execution were to break the bones of the condemned person's legs with an iron bar. This caused death by asphyxiation, due to the pressure of hanging for hours by his arms, which only allowed him to exhale. He would push up with his legs to be able to take a breath. Jesus, because of the rush to take the prisoners down (Passover), was pierced with a spear instead.
2. I don't know how often prisoners were forced to wear a crown of thorns, but I suspect that this was rare.
The shroud exhibits both of these events. Those aren't conclusive observations, but I think they limit the possibilities.
The image has evidence of pennies on the eyes the were coined in the time of Pilate. So we are talking about a man crucified, flagelated severely, forced to wear a crown of thorns (because He was called a king), and Who had a punctured side (to see if He were already dead so soon).
Doubt anyone one else in that time just happened to have all those things done to them.
Wow -I never considered that -thanks for wetting yourself.
It doesn't matter.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
While The Shroud may be interesting as a religious icon, it has no worth or purpose to those who believe that Jesus is Lord and have given over control of their lives to Him.
Is it fascinating? Yes. Do we need to find provenance of it's autheticity? Not so much.
Okay, let's say it is a burial shroud of a crucifixion victim. Science cannot in any way, yet thought of, confirm that it is the shroud used by Jesus.
It was rare that crucifixion victims were buried in tombs. We only have one archeological example: the 1968 discovery of a crucifixion victim, named Johanan ben Ha-galgol, found near Jerusalem at Giv’at ha-Mivtar; a crucifixion victim nailed through the wrists and reburied in an ossuaries.
On the rare occassion that someone was buried in the traditional late-Second Temple Jewish manner of burial used by those who could afford it or had a benefactor (as seems to be the case for Jesus) a chain of highly certain events took place. Within hours heavy amines gases would be emitted from the body. Any linen cloth manufactured in the manner outlined by Pliny the Elder in the first century, because it would likely have an evaporation surface of starch fractions and saccharides, and would thus become brown in places as a result of a natural amino/carbonyl reaction. Ray Rogers has shown that to a very high degree the brown color would have image properties. So far, so good. There are problems of diffusion yet to be resolved, if in fact they can be resolved. The fact of the matter is that the Shroud does contain just such a brown, caramel-like substance where there is image.
Could it be Jesus? Consider this: After about two to three days (depending on ambient temperatures, humidity and body chemistry) liquid decomposition products form. These would immediately ravage the cloth and any image that might have formed. By the time anyone opened the tomb for reburial in an ossuary (typically a year) there would be no flesh and certainly no whole cloth.
Could it be Jesus? If a crucifixion victim was buried in a tomb his shroud could only exist if the tomb was open and if the cloth was separated from the body within about three days.
I INFER from the evidence at hand that it was the Shroud of Jesus.
I discuss this in more detail at http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-burial-of-caiaphas.htm
Dan Porter