Thank you for some of your answers.
I will address some of what was said, in order to clarify what this topic is about:
Concerning the Shroud of Turin, I am aware of its existence, and aware that it is genuine, but the topic is NOT whether Jesus Christ existed or not. Tradition doesn’t simply cover whether Jesus Christ existed or not, or whether He was Crucified or not, but it covers all the details, what He said and did, His ressurection and His true nature.
Concerning those who quote our Lord from Scripture, we must remember that it was Tradition which birthed the Scriptures, and we are discussing credibility of Tradition, at least compared to other oral traditions.
Someone brought up how organised the Catholic Church is today, pointing specifically towards the canonisation process. I should point out that the modern means of canonisation did not exist until the 16th century. This is another slight stumbling block which is related to this topic; how much development the Catholic Church had to undergo to get where she is today. I understand that everything has to undergo development overtime, but that’s not what I’m getting at. Just look at the Church of the Early Middle Ages before the Carolingian Renaissance, which was more relaxed, calmly and steadily converting pagans, and was dare I say it, arguably syncretic. Then compare this to the Church of the High Middle Ages, which was more organised, more disciplined, more erudite, and stood distinguishable from the rest of the world. My question is, if this much development could take place, then what of the development that could have taken place among the early generations of Christians, did they really faithfully transmit the Sacred Tradition to one another? I know these are weak speculations, but there are those who believe that the monarchial episcopacy was an innovation, and that bishops and presbyters were originally the same exact roles.