It is interesting that so many focus on trying to prove or disprove that the image is of Christ. If every single factor perfectly matches the biblical account, most would say that it still doesn't prove it was Jesus. I am not sure that is the big question. The big question is that we have the image of some type of person imprinted on a cloth with no rational explanation for how it got there. It has been scientifically proven to be truely three dimensional, negative (as if a photograph), possessing skeletal features (as if an X-ray). The cloth has no pigments, and the image is not from body oils, vapors or burning. It bears blood stains which have been proven to be real (contrary to claims in other posts), which correspond to a severe beating, something sharp being placed around the head, crucifixtion, and a wound at the 5th rib. The cloth bears pollens found only around Jerusalem. The best explanation to date is that the image was produced by some type of radiation source. The C-14 test did show it to be only 728 years old, but this has been seriously challenged more recently (1996). Regardless of who it was, it gives one reason to pause. I think the bigger question is: what kind of man could produce such an image? Looks pretty futuristic to me. Maybe we have found ET.
> i thought the fabric had been dated to the middle ages and
> the position of the body (based on blood plow on arms and
> body) had shown that the person in question had been
> crucified in a doorway-one arm above and one arm to the
> side. it has more chance of being Jaque de Molay that Christ
> based on those items.