[aruanan]

You caught me! I confess, you're right, now I'm in "real trouble." So, are you going to tell us all the difference between a crown of thorns and a phylactery? And by the way, did Jews typically wear their phylacteries while being crucified? Why do none of the contemporary historians mention this?

Again, you don't read well or widely. Did anyone say that a phylactery was worn during crucifixion? No. Did you read previous reports on the physical details of the body revealed on the shroud? Apparently not or you would have read about the imprint of the phylactery. Binding this on every day for two decades leaves a mark. Why should contemporary historians be any more likely to mention any marks from habitual use of a phylactery than they were to mention Jesus's circumcision?

A typical northern European male will grow to around six feet, if he is well fed while raised. In ancient times such was rarely the case, except for a select few who became the warrior knights.

A typical northern European male will grow to around six feet now with a couple of centuries of increasingly better nutrition behind them as well as good in utero nutrition. If you've had inadequate in utero development of organ systems, it doesn't matter how much food you shovel in later; there will limits to growth that will be overcome only over the course of decades and centuries. Of course, an unusually large infant of a very small mother, such as happens after a sudden increase in general nutrition, leads to stillbirths because the baby is too large to be born. Read deeply at the link I provided previously so you can get a better idea of the general state of nutrition in Europe prior to industrialization.

[BroJoeK]

"Again, you don't read well or widely. Did anyone say that a phylactery was worn during crucifixion? No. "

I confess to knowing nothing about phylacteries. Never heard of them before. Never heard a claim that Jesus ever wore phylacteries. Never saw a picture or painting of Jesus showing phylacteries. Never heard of phylacteries leaving long-lasting marks. Never saw a report of phylactery marks on the shroud image.

What seems obviously in the shroud image is a crown of thorns, with blood dripping. This is always referred to in speaking of the shroud. Since phylacteries are not usually mentioned, I'd think someone wishing to make this point would feel some obligation to show what they mean, wouldn't you?

aruanan: "A typical northern European male will grow to around six feet now with a couple of centuries of increasingly better nutrition behind them as well as good in utero nutrition."

Now we see different people making different claims about the average heights of wealthy 12th century northern European knights and poor first century Semitic males. Also, the height of the shroud image is in question -- I think it's six feet, but Swordmaker says shorter.

So, will have to spend some time to see if I can find more authoritative information on these questions.

For the moment, I'll grant you may be right, until or unless I can show otherwise.