Forensic Scientists reveal what Jesus may have looked like as a 12-year old

Catholic News Agency ^ | February 12, 2005

[NYer]

Rome, Feb. 11, 2005 (CNA) - Forensic scientists in Italy are working on a different kind of investigation—one that dates back 2000 years.

In an astounding announcement, the scientists think they may have re-created an image of Jesus Christ when He was a 12-year old boy.

Using the Shroud of Turin, a centuries-old linen cloth, which many believe bears the face of the crucified Christ, the investigators first created a computer-modeled, composite picture of the Christ’s face.

Dr. Carlo Bui, one of the scientists said that, “the face of the man on the shroud is the face of a suffering man. He has a deeply ruined nose. It was certainly struck."  

 Then, using techniques usually reserved for investigating missing persons, they back dated the image to create the closest thing many will ever see to a photograph of the young Christ.

“Without a doubt, the eyes... That is, the deepness of the eyes, the central part of the face in its complexity”, said forensic scientist Andrea Amore, one of the chief investigators who made the discovery.

The shroud itself, a 14-foot long by 3.5-foot wide woven cloth believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus, is receiving renewed attention lately.

A Los Alamos, New Mexico scientist has recently cast grave doubt that the carbon dating originally used to date the shroud was valid. This would suggest that the shroud may in fact be 2000 years old after all, placing it precisely in the period of Christ’s crucifixion.

[CyberAnt]

Like I said: a graven image is made from carvings - not an image found on a cloth. I mean - just go to the Webster's Dictionary and look up the word "graven" yourself.

The cloth markings are not "graven" images.

And .. after Jesus was gone from the earth I don't suppose he had much control over what "graven" images people have or don't have.

[Kolokotronis]

Iconoclasm was declared a heresy at the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787 and finally crushed (I love that word in this context) in 843. Though I don't doubt that you believe that the creation and use of icons is extra biblical, I do have to ask you why the very men who decided upon the canon of the New Testament, who decided what was in and what was out by application of "what the Church always and everywhere believed", who determined for you what would be in the Bible you read today, could have been so very wrong in their use of icons? Aside from the 117 year period during which the Iconoclasm heresy raged, the Church, East and West, Roman, Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian, the Churches within the Apostolic Succession and within which the vast majority of Christians worship, for 2000 years has used and venerated icons. Just some Protestants seem loathe to accept what the Church has always believed and done. To the people of the Old Testament it was anathema even to know or pronounce the name of God. But with the Incarnation, God became Man and walked among us. We as a people have seen and touched God. At Vespers of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, we chant the following:

"Inspired by your Spirit, Lord, the prophets foretold your birth as a child incarnate of the Virgin. Nothing can contain or hold you; before the morning star you shone forth eternally from the spiritual womb of the Father. Yet you were to become like us and be seen by those on earth. At the prayers of those your prophets in your mercy reckon us fit to see your light, for we praise your resurrection, holy and beyond speech. Infinite, Lord, as divine, in the last times you willed to become incarnate and so finite; for when you took on flesh you made all its properties your own. So we depict the form of your outward appearance and pay it relative respect, and so are moved to love you; and through it we receive the grace of healing, following the divine traditions of the apostles."

"The grace of truth has shone out, the things once foreshadowed now are revealed in perfection. See, the Church is decked with the embodied image of Christ, as with beauty not of this world, fulfilling the tent of witness, holding fast the Orthodox faith. For if we cling to the icon of him whom we worship, we shall not go astray. May those who do not so believe be covered with shame. For the image of him who became human is our glory: we venerate it, but do not worship it as God. Kissing it, we who believe cry out: O God, save your people, and bless your heritage."

"We have moved forward from unbelief to true faith, and have been enlightened by the light of knowledge. Let us then clap our hands like the psalmist, and offer praise and thanksgiving to God. And let us honor and venerate the holy icons of Christ, of his most pure Mother, and of all the saints, depicted on walls, panels and sacred vessels, setting aside the unbelievers' ungodly teaching. For the veneration given to the icon passes over, as Basil says, to its prototype. At the intercession of your spotless Mother, O Christ, and of all the saints, we pray you to grant us your great mercy. We venerate your icon, good Lord, asking forgiveness of our sins, O Christ our God. For you freely willed in the flesh to ascend the cross, to rescue from slavery to the enemy those whom you had formed. So we cry to you with thanksgiving: You have filled all things with joy, our Savior, by coming to save the world."

It is the Incarnation of Christ, which I trust you do find in the Bible, which allows us the blessing of icons.

[Drew68]

And this is what he'll look like if his corpse is re-animated after 2,000 years.

That was most unexpected and there are a dozen people here in the computer lab looking at me strangely because I am laughing so hard my face has flushed and I have tears rolling down my cheeks.

Oh, and by the way, you're going to hell.

[Thinkin' Gal]

JC !!! I'm not sure I'd get on the same plane with that man!

Exactly. They are confusing the real Jesus with the Islamic Jesus ("Isa"), which sounds more like Esav. About the closest connection would be to say that Jesus was crucified along with two prototype Muslims.

[DocRock]

"You sound like a muxzle.

Care to define muxzle?

(I'm still waiting for definition of "muxzle".)

[NYer]

I want that simplicity and innocence back. Dammit, the left has stolen it from me and I want it back.

It's still there. You just need to look 'East'.

May I make a recommendation? The Catholic Church is both Western and Eastern. As most of us realize, the Church began in the East. Our Lord lived and died and resurrected in the Holy Land. The Church spread from Jerusalem throughout the known world. As the Church spread, it encountered different cultures and adapted, retaining from each culture what was consistent with the Gospel. In the city of Alexandria, the Church became very Egyptian; in Antioch it remained very Jewish; in Rome it took on an Italian appearance and in the Constantinople it took on the trappings of the Roman imperial court. All the churches which developed this way were Eastern, except Rome. Most Catholics in the United States have their roots in Western Europe where the Roman rite predominated. It has been said that the Eastern Catholic Churches are "the best kept secret in the Catholic Church."

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15). Pope John Paul II said that "the Catholic Church is both Eastern and Western."

Check your local community at the following link and look into attending an Eastern Catholic Liturgy (not to be confused with the Orthodox Church).

Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S.

The Eastern Catholic Rites retain the rich heritage of our church, without the "novelties" introduced into the Novus Ordo liturgy. Incense is used throughout.

I attend a Maronite Catholic Church. The Consecration is in Aramaic, using the words and language of our Lord at the Last Supper. Communion is ONLY distributed by the priest. It is by intinction (the priest dips the consecrated host into the Precious Blood) and is ONLY received on the tongue. The priest administers communion with the words: "Receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sin and eternal salvation".

A Roman Catholic may attend the Divine Liturgy at any Eastern Catholic Church. You can learn more about the 22 different liturgies at this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

[Poser]

Ridiculous BS.

[Androcles]

You have to be kidding me. There are comments in the Bible which say Jesus had a commanding posture - which would indicate HE was quite tall and well built. There is no evidence to support their claim.

Nonsense! Having a commanding posture is quite independent from height. Comments like that say nothing one way or the other. It has more to do with bearing and the way one holds oneself. There are plenty of well-muscled near-giants who need not open their mouths before you realise they're not natural leaders, while history records many short individuals who nonetheless radiated commanding authority and power with their every movement. Several of the key nomadic warleaders such as Temuchin or Timurlane, not to mention our own more recent Napoleion would tend to indicate that command is not a function of height.

Otherwise professional basketballers would rule the world.

[crude77]

If the image is that of Jesus (I don't know if it is or is not), I would not consider it an image created by man.

[NYer]

Hardly a justification for icons of saints, made with absolutely no biblical authorization at all.

You seem to have missed the point, my friend. You are thinking '21st century'.

1500 years ago, the average person was not literate. They could not read. Icons (or painted representations) were used to communicate the glorious story of God's salvation to those who could not read.

This image tells a story. What is it?

Odds are that you are working off of a computer that displays icons in place of text. The dreaded C:> prompt has now been replaced with something much friendlier.

Get the picture (no pun intended)?

[lupie]

Not only that, but Isaiah says that the hair from his face was plucked, or beaten off. I believe that is confirmed in the NT somewhere - I would have to check on that.

People are going to believe in the shroud no matter how much it is debunked. And they will defend it until such time that He opens their eyes. It is human nature that people will "worship" a graven image, (whether it is actually carved or not - check out the usages and symbolism of how the word is used) or look for "miracles" instead of just trusting in the Risen Lord and His finished work. He even said so besides all the times that it is taught in the OT by example, etc.

I knew a microscopist who was the very top of his field who was asked to examine it and he found without a doubt that it was a fake - they weren't blood stains, but an iron compound, I think. But he was more or less threatened if he ever published his result. That was about 30 yrs ago.

But the bottom line - who cares? It makes no difference. I did find it a little amusing that the picture they show doesn't look very Jewish. :)

[Kolokotronis]

" You seem to have missed the point, my friend. You are thinking '21st century'.

1500 years ago, the average person was not literate. They could not read. Icons (or painted representations) were used to communicate the glorious story of God's salvation to those who could not read. "

While what you have written is surely true, nevertheless, to this day Orthodoxy believes that icons give us a view into heaven and the existence there of those who have attained complete theosis. They are windows into the divine.

[Kolokotronis]

"... look into attending an Eastern Catholic Liturgy (not to be confused with the Orthodox Church)."

I should say not! Hurumph! :)

[NYer]

From what we know (the Bible), Jesus was a physically plain person.

So you think that the shroud picture is something less than a 'plain' person?

[Zacs Mom]

again a bit off topic - but maybe not too far

When Hurricane Charley slammed into Florida in mid-August 2004, battering the state with up to 100 mph winds that knocked over signs, uprooted trees, and left thousands of homes destroyed or uninhabitable.

One billboard on Sand Lake Road in Orlando survived the onslaught relatively unscathed. The sign stood but the storm had peeled off the most recent advertising message displayed on the board ~



revealing in its place an ad from an earlier campaign.

[k2blader]

First, the shroud is not the Bible. Second, it is impossible to prove this shroud is the one that covered Jesus.

Why are some folks so fixated on what Jesus looked like in human form anyway? That was not why He came.

[lolhelp]

Bunch of Hokum.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. I'm afraid that most shorter "leaders" were close to being tyrants and ruled with an iron thumb - most had an inferiority complex - and tried to compensate by acting superior = Napoleon.

I believe Jesus' appearance was so commanding in stature and attitude that most people were in awe of his presence. Remember .. when Jesus walked on the earth - the blood of GOD was flowing in his veins - and that alone would have made him a standout kind of person.

You can believe He was a little short guy if you want - but you'll never convince me.