http://www.revealed.org/likeness.htm
Posted on 03/25/2010 12:58:38 PM PDT by TaraP
The world will have an extraordinary opportunity to look upon an undistorted, never-before-seen, moving 3-D portrait of a man who many think is the crucified Jesus Christ.
In just one week, graphic experts will bring to life an imprint on the holy relic known as the Shroud of Turin, believed by millions to be the burial shroud of Christ.
The Shroud of Turin bears the full-body, back-and-front image of a crucified man that is said to closely resemble the New Testament description of the passion and death of Christ. The 14-foot cloth long has posed mysteries because of its age and its negative image of a bloodstained and battered man who had been crucified. Believers claim it to be the miraculous image of Jesus, formed as he rose from the dead.
The History Channel will air "The Real Face of Jesus?," a special two-hour event that premieres March 30 at 9 p.m. EST. It aims to bring the world as close as it has ever come to seeing what Jesus may have actually looked like.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thanks for the ping. The three-dimensional aspect of the image is very interesting and has never been explained to my satisfaction.
http://www.revealed.org/likeness.htm
Exciting - may I ask what is your orgnaization - do you have links?
Zero Point Field?
|
Pope: Christians Must Reveal the Face of Christ
3/25/2010
' Actually, no, it hasn't. It has now been conclusively been proved that what was tested in 1988 was a medieval patch made of a mixture of more modern cotton material and older original Linen material... The body of the Shroud itself is pure linen. Since the C14 sample was a melange of cotton and linen, the reported dates are also a melange of the ages of the cotton (estimated c.1650) and the linen (unknown origin). However, Harry Gove, the inventor of the technique used in the 1988 C14 testing, when asked what age the linen would have to have been to give the test dates the 1988 C14 test reported in the proportions of cotton to linen observed in the surviving sample, said that give or take 100 years, First century.
No, only one scientist peripherally associated with STURP, Walter C. McCrone, a visual light microscopist, made such a declaration, in a non-peer reviewed self-published vanity magazine, McCrone's own The Microscope. No one has ever been able to duplicate his findings. In fact, his findings have been falsified many times over by far more sophisticated tests than merely looking through a light microscope and saying "Gee, I see paint."
except for eye color - ;o)
The blood is far too old and dehydrated for DNA analysis to be done. However, some of the world's foremost experts on human blood—among them Dr. John Heller, Dr, Alan Adler, and Dr. Bruce Cameron, who holds a double doctorate on haemoglobin and its derivatives—have studied the blood stains and blood residues on the Shroud and have concluded that it is indeed human blood... and blood derivatives, including methaemoglobin, bilirubin, and porphyrins. What was not found was the claimed tempera paints red ochre and vermilion, that Walter McCrone claimed he found made up the blood stains on the image.
Could you send me a link? I would like to see the icons of the Virgin Mary. I have one of the icon of Jesus from St Catherine’s in Sinai.
It can be argued that if the shroud is of a man with a broken nose, then it not an image of Jesus Christ.
He was the Perfect Lamb. I forget the source of the doctrine, but there are studies indicating he didn’t even have a broken finger or toe at the cross.
This is one of those things that everyone knows... that is totally false. It is a canard always pushed by the skeptics based on the outlying figures pushed by "researchers" who have, at times estimated the height of the man on the Shroud as high as 6' 10" tall (Picknett and Price)... and then average that absurd idiocy, with more reasonable research, to come up with the 6'2" average of "researcher's estimates."
Actually, the figure on the Shroud is NOT over six feet tall. The most scientific of the studies done of the figure on the Shroud, the only peer-reviewed, and duplicated study, using actual measurements taken from the Shroud itself rather than from photographs and estimates by non-scientists, is the one done by Prof. Fanti, Marinello, Cagnazzo, et al, at Interdepartmental Center Space Studies and Activities of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Padua, Italy, "Computerized anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud". This work, an exhaustive analysis, using anthropometric standards for the genotypes of peoples of the mediterranean area, applied to the actual measurements of the contact areas of the shroud, concluded that the man depicted by the image was 174±2 cm ( 5 foot 8.5 inches plus or minus about .75 inch).
Another assumption that "everyone knows" that has been falsified by actual hands on research, is the "factoid" that 1st Century jews were of small stature. That falls apart when the real facts are uncovered by real science instead of assumptions based on 19th century anti-semitic claims. Archaeological censuses of male skeletons taken from 1st Century Jewish cemeteries in Jerusalem and surrounds found that the average mature male of the period was five foot 8 3/8 inches tall (Meacham). The man on the Shroud was only slightly taller than the average male Jew of the period. The average Roman of the period was 5 feet, 5" tall. He was well within the first sigma of a normal distribution curve.
Hoax. Sorry if this makes some of you angry.
No (biblical) facecloth, 14th century weave, etc. Yeah, sure, they coulda twill-woven that more-modern shroud cloth in ancient Sandland, but then you’re countering your own point that “that 21st century scientists are unable to reproduce the Shroud’s image using CURRENT technology,” Wagglebee. If you try to claim that someone mighta twill-woven a shroud in the year 0 BC, then you’ve also gotta allow me to posit that someone, given enough time, money and inspiration could duplicate the shroud today.
And the shroud’s been too closely held and controlled and too-little researched for anyone to make any “physics, radiology, botany, anthropology, medicine, forensics, ancient history, textiles, art....you name it” bones, ROL. Let me do my own physiopsychopneumenology on it, will ya? Let me hold it in my basement laboratory for 3 months and I’ll be mass-producing replicas in China @ $34.95 each. STURP called the question of how the image was formed “a mystery”, they say, but mysteries often get solved. I see your point about the water stain, CB, and will admit my error there, but, what with the current Pope just now implicated in deaf-boy-Priest-rape coverups, and with what so many historians tell me about so many popes and churches down thru the centuries, and with my own innate skepticism, and with this particular Jesus shroud (there’ve been many others, I believe) suddenly being “discovered” in teh 1400s. I won’t believe this particular shroud ever touched Jesus until he shows me the mark of the nails in his hands, and puts my hand in his wounded side. So, yeah, ROL, let’s see it. “(P)hysics, radiology, botany, anthropology, medicine, forensics, ancient history, textiles, art... I won’t believe much of it, I’m afraid, but some of it might be interesting to read.
Your claim is false. There is more than adequate space. This has been measured many times. What you seem to think is the top of the back of the head is a water stain.
I see the point about the water stain, sm, and will admit my error there, but, ... Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.
Neat graphic! Thanks.
I haven’t found any links to picture of the icons believed to be originals “written” by St. Luke. The Virgin of Vladimir (style) icon is generally believed to be a fairly faithful copy of one of St. Luke’s—a search turns of lots if pictures—and some claim the oldest extant icon of that style (*The* Virgin of Vladimir) was by St. Luke’s hand.
But the only one I’ve seen attested as being an original by St. Luke’s hand is a small icon done as bas relief in carved mastic that is in the keeping of the Dionysiou Monastery on Mount Athos. My old priest, Archimandrite Daniel Griffith, tells of venerating that icon when he served the Church of Greece for eight years on loan from the Antiochian Archdiocese. But I can’t find any links to online pictures of that icon.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
