centuries ago in church counsils there was a debate about Christ human/devine natures...if the Shroud of Turin had been avaible it would have answered that question without debate?
It is highly unlikely the Shroud of Turin would have resolved the early Church's debates about Christ's human/divine natures, because the debates were fundamentally theological and philosophical, not matters of physical evidence
Here's why the shroud wouldn't have definitively answered those questions:
Theological vs. Physical Evidence: The Church Councils (such as Nicaea in 325 AD and Chalcedon in 451 AD) were primarily concerned with defining abstract concepts like the relationship between Jesus and God the Father, and how his human and divine natures could coexist without confusion or separation. These are metaphysical questions about the nature of God, which physical artifacts, no matter how extraordinary, cannot resolve.
Focus of the Debates: The debates centered on scriptural interpretation and precise theological language (e.g., homoousios - "of the same substance") rather than empirical evidence of the crucifixion. The goal was to establish orthodox doctrine to counter teachings considered heretical, such as Arianism (which denied Christ's co-eternality with the Father) or Monophysitism (which claimed Christ had only one, divine, nature).
The debates:
Council of Nicaea I (325 AD): Debated Arianism and the nature of Jesus as the Son of God, resulting in the Nicene Creed which affirmed His divinity as being of the same substance as God the Father.
Council of Ephesus (431 AD): Addressed the nature of Christ, particularly Nestorianism.
Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): Defined the orthodox understanding that Christ has two distinct natures, human and divine, united in one person (hypostasis), without confusion or separation.
Because the shroud was unknown to the Church Fathers and bishops of the first millennium, it could not have been used as evidence in their deliberations.
Theological Interpretation: The Church itself takes no official position on the shroud's authenticity as a relic, instead treating it as an "icon" for devotion and a reminder of Christ's suffering.
The image, even if proven to be from the 1st century, would still require an act of faith to be accepted as a miraculous imprint of the resurrected Christ, rather than simply the image of a crucified man.
