“... the Shroud is consistent with the Gospel accounts and not with common Roman practice, as one would expect for some other crucified man.”
That seems correct to me. I am a Christian, not Roman Catholic, and I have looked at as much of the scientific evidence I have been able to study on the shroud. I am a scientist.
I believe we do not know whether the shroud is or is not the burial cloth in which our Lord was wrapped, but there is enough evidence to suggest that it could be that. The discussions here about the napkin and the linen cloth(es) are interesting. The napkin likely was over the head, and the linen cloth was under and over him. Then all that was wrapped, probably with additional linen clothes, wrapping the body and pressing the piece we know as the shroud tight against the body. There is no reason to think that the napkin would interfere with blood stains or image being transferred through the napkin to the shroud. The word for linen clothes in John 20:7 suggests a large piece of cloth, like a linen sail cloth. (Strong’s # G3607, G3608).
The blood stains and the obvious evidence of the head punctured and bleeding, as would be from a crown of thorns, has significance. That in itself makes this shroud unique. Also the belief I have that it is only resurrection power likely to be such that it could impress an image on the shroud.
I have not touched on all the objections that might be posted here or elsewhere regarding the authenticity of the shroud. As I said earlier, I believe we have evidence supportive of it being the shroud that was used to bury our Lord, and that was then impressed with an image at the ressurection.
For me it does not reek of idolatry to regard it as His burial shroud. Why would He not give us something such as this, to be passed down to this time?
If the authenticity is ever proven, there are a few groups today, such as the Amish, who might change their mind about photographs :) Of course we may not know for sure until our Lord comes again into our midst, or we are with Him where He is.
I also admire the Catholic Church position that does not say it is or it isn’t. This has been treated cautiously by the Church.
Careful consideration of what the shroud apparently shows, and if it is His burial cloth, shows an extraordinary glimpse of the awfulness of torture He experienced leading up to His death on the cross. Look at it that way, and consider, not the cloth, but Him. Revere Him, our Lord and Savior, and read Isaiah 53 again, carefully and reverently. Bow, and worship Him.
Thank you for your very kind post.
As you know from the philosophy of science, no hypothesis can ever be proven correct by means of the scientific method. This is because the scientific method procedes by inductive rather than deductive reasoning. It can, however, prove an hypothesis false, merely by finding a single counter-example. So scientific theories are different in character from mathematical theorems. The latter are obtained by deduction.
At present the carbon-dating results do seem to disprove the Shroud's authenticity, and that will eventually have to be addressed by further tests. Many questions still remain. The best scientific inquiry can do is suggest a plausible explanation.
The purpose of relics (Acts 5:14-16 and 19:11-12), as you say, is to point the mind and heart to Him, not to be an end of themselves. The Shroud in particular, if authentic, makes clear just how much Our Lord suffered for us, and that can be a very fruitful meditation for all of us, especially in this season of Lent. We need to remind ourselves of our own role in causing His suffering by our sinfulness, so that we can rejoice fully on Easter in His great mercy and forgiveness.
Relics, as well as our attempts to reason about theological matters, are not substitutes for faith, but may serve to make the leap of faith a bit smaller. In this sense, they can be useful tools for evangelization, especially of skeptics.
If authentic, how could we not be grateful to Our Lord for leaving us this artifact?