Good question: Claims that is is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ are fraudulent.

If its only 'claim to fame' was that it was a very old shroud or painting, then I would not make that claim (and, indeed, I doubt very much I would have heard of it).

> Good question: Claims that is is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ are fraudulent.

Maybe fraudulent is a little bit strong. The different analysis done (not the C14 one, which proved to be unreliable) indeed show it may be around 2000 years old or so. Now, we have no way of proving that the person who was wrapped in the Shroud is actually Jesus or not, while there are some similarities in the injuries described in the Bible and the blood stains locations on the Shroud. I think even the Church itself does not recognize it as being 100% authentic.

So, "we don't know", is probably close to the truth than "fraud".

Radiometric dating is very reliable. I would be interested in seeing this "different analysis". Can you provide a source please?

I saw a scholar conference about the subject a number of years ago, and they demonstrated that if you irradiate a piece of cloth you can completely distort the C14 readings (obviously). We don't know what printed the face on the Shroud of Thurin, but it's not paint because it's far thinner than what humans could even think of applying during the Middle Ages, so the "fake painting" hypothesis was ruled out since then. Furthermore, I think there were fabric analysis done to confirm that it was definitely something from about the Roman era in terms of quality and material.

I'll try to find some sources if you are interested in the subject.