For example he asserts that all crucifiction victims suffered the same wounds... not true at all. Most were not scourged, as far as we know none were crowned with a crown of thorns, and few were likely to have been stabbed in the side with a Roman Lancium to insure death... if quicker death were desired, the Romans would break the lower legs (crucifragium) to hasten death. The Romans seldom allowed a crucifixion victim to be buried at all... they were left on their crosses as examples for others of what happens to those who oppose the Empire.
I agree that the tests only confirm the results of that particular test... but it is in the proper interpretation of the tests that give them meaning. Sheer numbers mean nothing without comparison to other exemplars. I agree with Drammach that even proving a First Century provenance would NOT PROVE the shroud is Christ's but it would be one more piece of evidence to be considered in the overall picture the circumstantial evidence is building.
You keep harping on the "fact" that the Church history of the Shroud starts after its appearance in Lirey France... again, untrue. We have earlier Icon's with known provenance that are obviously taken from the Shroud. We have the August 15th 944 sermon of Gregory Referendarius, Archdeacon of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, in which he describes the Shroud and links it to the newly arrived Image of Edessa. You choose to ignore anything that doesn't agree with your prejudged opinions... as you admitted. This is not good scholarship or science.
You would prefer to accept a host of improbable and historically impossible events in the medieval age rather than follow the evidence. You postulate conspiracies involving unnecessary steps, slander the memory of a knight whose contemporary record was considered above reproach, and impute motives to researchers they do not have... all so you can dismiss what is probably the most enigmatic artefact in human history. We continually provide evidence from peer-reviewed sources to you that refutes your assertions... and you continually return to the same refuted claims.
As to Shroud researchers trying to use science to prove the "supernatural" that is also not true. All science can prove is what it is NOT. Science cannot prove what it is. We have been using science to check the various theories of Shroud creation. So far none has been shown to be a complete answer. I think the latest findings of the Chemistry of the image is probably closest to the truth although we cannot find how it worked only vertically collimated. This finding does not require "miraculous" means, but it does completely invalidate any claims for it being a "painted" image.
The circumstantial evidence is growing... but I suspect that if Jesus Christ came back, draped the Shroud over his head and said "Perfect fit, although not in as good a shape as I left it." You would still not accept that evidence.
Yes it is and so is yours. But "Drammach's" is more Socratic.
You like Drammach's reply because it feeds into your beliefs about the shroud even though it is rife with factual errors.
Oh? Do tell! You mean to guarantee that ALL of the "evidence" that you proffer for the shrouds authenticity is factual and completely error free?
...but it is in the proper interpretation of the tests that give them meaning.
Ah yes, I see. The "proper" interpretation is most important. No bias, favoritism, agenda, skepticism, piety, or impiety should be allowed when seeking the confirmation of our previously unconfirmed conclusions. The Wright Bros. would have found you most useful.
You keep harping on the "fact" that the Church history of the Shroud starts after its appearance in Lirey France... again, untrue.
Have mercy, Sir! I yield! One more time, real slow: My....first....introduction....to....the....existence.....of....the ....Shroud....was....during....service college research....regarding....the...military....leadership....during......the Hundred Years War. I was not researching the Shroud. At the time, I thought the Shroud nothing more than a Medieval "Relic", used to sucker poor pilgrims and not worthy of any further regard.
You postulate conspiracies...
I don't postulate any such thing. That the Shroud is a fake, IMHO, is a fact. And that's according to the following scientific "evidence": "According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ's crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356.".. (works for me)
We continually provide evidence from peer-reviewed sources to you that refutes your assertions... and you continually return to the same refuted claims.
YOU haven't provided any evidence beyond your opinion of the affirmative. You have an agenda. I have not provided any scientific "opinions" of the Shroud until the above. The science, both yours and mine , are only opinions.
[You].. slander the memory of a knight whose contemporary record was considered above reproach, [Geoffrey de Charny]
Now this is something I do know about. "de Charny" was an incompetent commander, a man who was not of his word (per Calias), a soldier who's mouth was larger than his sword, and a plagiarist. His book that you claim to be the Standard of Chivalry, is nothing more than a collection of the work of others. The "romantic" notion of chivalry actually comes from some verses in the Koran that the Crusaders were exposed to since the millenium. de Charney was not "Noble" in the chivalric sense of the word. If you want more, I've got more?
....I suspect that if Jesus Christ came back, draped the Shroud over his head and said "Perfect fit, although not in as good a shape as I left it." You would still not accept that evidence.
No, I would say: "Dear Lord, I apologize for the abused condition of your shroud. It would seem that there were those more interested in proving that it belonged to you, than they did in continuing doing your work here on Earth. Please forgive them."