[Mr Ramsbotham]

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.

[Swordmaker]

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.

They are not part of the image... but they were put on the Shroud before the image was. There is no image under the blood stains. This has been confirmed in independent tests. The blood pre-existed the image.

[thombo]

I agree.Too many questions that imo will never be resolved.