“Hardly. I would love this cloth to be real.
“
“But it appears to be fake”
Sorry, no one who has read the evidence can make that statement. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of authenticity.
That’s why the last two highly publicized challenges to authenticity have totally ignored the evidence in favor and have resorted to this “I can produce the same thing myself.”
In each case, what they produce isn’t remotely the same thing. Not even close. At most they could say, “I have shown that it’s possible to produce a handful of characteristics.” But that proves nothing. One has to show that one can produce using present means the same combination of properties that constitute the Shroud. And some of those properties (pollen evidence, matching with the Oviedo facecloth, the evidence that shows that the linen is close to 2000 years old—the only contrary evidence was the now discredited C-14 tests, all the other textile evidence points toward 2000-year-old cloth), the 3-D nature of the image that differs from what is produced by draping over a body and so on and so forth).
But to those who have a religious need to know that this is a fake, no amount of evidence can convince.
You nail it here. It's somewhat like atheists, who claim they have no religion but then are often more zealous than any one in preaching and pushing their particular faith. Here we have people so intent on stopping idolatry that they then feel the need to invent idols so they can have something to work against. Sad way to go thru life when you think about it.
The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of authenticity.
Huh?
The fact that a natural process hasn’t been identified doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it was a miraclous process. We don’t know is the right answer.
The carbon dating is inacurate for a number of reasons. OK, but that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it’s older. The only thing about its age we can say is a fact is that it is at least as old as its first documented appearance (around 1200). There is no evidence indicating it is older (there’s no evidence it isn’t either.) The answer again is: we don’t know how old it is.
It contains plant matter that is only found in the middle east. OK, but the only thing that tells you is that sometime during its existance it was in the middle east. That’s it. It doesn’t say when. It could have been at the time of Christ’s burial, or 300 years later (or 300 years earlier for that matter.)
It bears an image. Even if we assume the image is of someone, who is it? There’s no evidence that it was specificly Jesus. Crucifixtion was a common practice for the Romans (as was physically abusing/beating them.) The fact that the image shows signs of physical abuse and crucifixtion does not indicate it was Jesus. Crucifixtion was too common a practice to assume that. Again, the answer is “we don’t know” when it comes to who the image is.
If you want to believe the shroud is authentic, fine. I don’t think it makes much difference one way or the other. But the bulk of the evidence doesn’t favor authenticity, it favors an unkown conclusion. In other words: we don’t know.