On the Shroud of Turin

The Pope visited the Shroud of Turin, as it is on display for the first time since 2002, so it's been in the news.

The basic evidence that Shroud is real.

1. Biblical account of the crucifixion are verified: There is wounds from the crown of thorns, the spear, and the scourging. There are nail marks in the wrists and feet. The legs are not broken.
2. The cloth is a very expensive cloth for the time. This lines up with the Biblical account of Joseph of Aramathea who purchased an expensive cloth.
3. Pollen fibers in the cloth are local to Israel.
4. There is no paint.
   

I can provide the validity of the shroud by being able to disprove the arguments against it.

The most popular argument against it is that it is a medieval hoax by an accomplished artist. This is the most popular, driven by that records of its existance prior to to the mid 14th century is unclear and a 1988 carbon dating test placed in in the 13th century.

The most compelling argument against the hoax theory is simple logic:

1. I'm supposed to believe a hoaxer in the middle ages created an magnificent fake that wouldn't really be visible for another 500+ years by technology unknown at the time?
2. Im supposed to belive that this hoaxer want to make a very faint image such that it would attract little attention. What kind of hoax is that? Remember the Shroud's prominence only really grew after it was first photographed and revealed to be a negative.
3. I'm also supposed to believe the 13th century hoaxer also used some other method creating a faint image instead of paint because he knew that paint could be identified by scientific testing in 500+ years.

The other theory is that it is another man that was crucified, not Christ. However there are two major arguments against that:

1. The crown of thorns was not a common practice. It was unique to Jesus due to being mocked as a king.
2. While common criminals were crucified, the were not buried in expensive burial cloths.

So if it isn't a fake and it isn't someone else from the time period, who else could it be?

I believe God put evidence out there for people to believe, and I think it is keeping with his style to not make the evidence irrefutable. Jesus certainly provided evidence to His divinity when he was on Earth through discrete miracles, but His works were done in such away that an active unbeliever could convince himself that Jesus was not the Christ.

The evidence in the Shroud is strong enough to help believers solidify their faith yet he leaves out that definitive proof so people who don't want to believe can find an out. He's given everyone evidence just as he presented himself to "Doubting" Thomas.

If you believe that the Shroud is real, then you must believe Christ is real, and everything he said is real too.