Christ suffered the same torment as any other person that was crucified.. his wounds were the same..
His treatment was not unique, and therefore, the shroud could belong to any number of individuals that were crucified by the romans...
It may be proven as coming from the 1st century, but trying to prove that it was Christ's shroud and not someone else's will be a fruitless quest..
Not true. The spear wound and crown of thorns are unique. If they aren't 100% unique, then they certainly are uncommon and narrow the range of possibilities substantially.
His treatment was not unique, and therefore, the shroud could belong to any number of individuals that were crucified by the romans...
The Romans crucified plenty of people yet we have one shroud that depicts wounds that are, despite your assertion to the contrary, fairly specific, unique, and match the accounts in the Bible.
It may be proven as coming from the 1st century, but trying to prove that it was Christ's shroud and not someone else's will be a fruitless quest..
Oh, it will never be proven 100%. There will always be room for doubters even if all of the physical details of the shroud pan out as authentic. Of course you can never prove 100% that OJ killed two people, either, unless he confesses.
I agree that science probably cannot prove the cloth belonged to Christ. But there is much that can be inferred. Let's say it was a first century cloth of a Roman style crucifixion victim, how then do we account for its existence. Few crucifixion victims and few peasants were buried in tombs for subsequent reburial in ossuaries. There is only one archeological discovery of a crucifixion victim in an ossuary.
Within about three days fluidic decomposition products formed. There would quickly ravage any burial shroud touching a body. By the time family or aquintances returned for reburial of bones in an ossuary, about a year later, all that was left were bones; no flesh and no burial cloths. So how was it, if this was a genuine, bloodstained, somehow imaged, cloth did it surive unless it was separated from the body soon and removed from the tomb soon. That is part of the inference.
Then, too, why, would anyone save a bloody cloth unless it was particularly special?
The evidence is compelling that it is a genuine burial cloth or a first century crucifixion victim who was stabbed in the chest between the fifth and sixth rib.
Dan