But then this is from the guys who keep assuring us that flying cars "ARE JUST AROUND THE CORNER!"
bump
Shroud was proven to be a 13th century fake several years ago.
Doesnt mean that Jesus was not the son of God, just that the Shroud was a very nice piece of art that got a reputation as something it was not.
It happens all the time.
There is a nice tagline around here that goes something like "Science answers how, Religion answers why".
The picture is not bad. It is what you would expect a Middle Eastern Jew to look like. But ultimately his physical appearance is irrelavant and bordering on idol worship.
I have seen Him. He doesn't look like that. His face is very angular. His lips are scruffy. His skin is pocked. His hair is dark and He isn't handsome. His nose is classic but large.
Jesus was real, the shroud is fake. We can't learn what Jesus looked like from the Shroud since whoever faked it probably based the image on paintings from the period which always depicted Jesus the way they wanted him to look.
can anyone give me VERY SIMPLE instructions on how to post a picture?
But then this is from the guys who keep assuring us that flying cars "ARE JUST AROUND THE CORNER!"
Interesting to see what forensics makes of the Shroud and Sudarium, and in time we'll have the ability to clone Jesus or whomever those DNA strands belong to. (Not that we should, but in the brave new world, we probably will.) Of course, it's all about faith. God looks like all of us. Or the reverse...each and every one of us was made in the image of God.
From a post by Shroudie earlier this year:
_____________________________________________________
Many believe that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Numerous scholars including scientists, forensic pathologists, image specialists, historians and archeologists believe that is genuine burial cloth of a man crucified by Romans during the first century. Add the conspectus of its history and the biblical accounts of Jesus' scourging and crucifixion, and it is reasonable to infer that the enigmatic images are of Jesus.
The evidence, from science and history, that it is genuine, is quite compelling. The evidence that it is a hoax, a fake or a work of art is almost non-existent. The once much believed carbon 14 dating that found for a medieval provenance was fully discredited when it was realized that what was tested was a medieval repair; a discrete reweaving of new material into the cloth’s edge from which the carbon 14 sample was taken. Other polemic explanations surfaced in recent years. One is that a bioplastic coating evolved on the surface of the fibers thus introducing newer material. Another is that a scorching fire in 1532 might have changed the isotope composition of the cloth. These, though still widely touted in press reports and television documentaries, are doubtful from a scientific standpoint.
The chemical nature of the images is profoundly clear. They are not painted or produced by any form of externally applied pigment, dye or colorant. Nor, are they the product of some form of medieval proto-photographic method as has been widely reported. Numerous chemical examinations make this clear.
Cellulose fibers that make up the threads of the Shroud's cloth are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch fractions, various sugars and other impurities. This chemical layer, which is about as thick as the transparent scratch-resistant coatings used for eye glasses, is essentially colorless. However, in some places, the layer has undergone a chemical change that appears straw-yellow. This chemical change is similar to the change that takes place when sugar is heated to make caramel or when proteins react with sugar giving beer its color.
From a purely chemical point of view, a mechanical application of a protein or reactive amine might have caused the chemical product that forms the image. But to do so would have required extraordinary technology that does not even exist today. That does not mean, however, that the images were formed miraculously.
Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, a chemist who has scientifically examined the Shroud in Turin and studied the object for more than 27 years, summarizes nicely:
"There is absolutely no doubt that the image color exists in a thin layer on the surface of image fibers. The layer is amorphous, and it seems to have an index of refraction relatively close to that of the linen fiber. The layer is quite brittle, and many flakes of the color have flaked off of the fibers. Colorless cellulose can be seen where image color has flaked off. The flakes can be seen and identified on the adhesive of sampling tapes. The flakes have the chemical properties of the intact image color on the fibers.
"Non-image areas show an impurity coating on the surfaces of the linen fibers. It is slightly thicker than the colored image layer, as would be expected. When a material is dehydrated it shrinks. When the impurity layer reacted to produce the color, it got thinner."
Among researchers that believe that the Shroud is real, there are two schools of thought. One is that the images were formed by some perfectly natural phenomenon. The other is that some energetic stimulus, perhaps as a byproduct of a resurrection miracle, catalyzed or otherwise chemically induced the images. Both tentative explanations are still unsatisfying as no testable and reasonable hypothesis has yet been proposed.
The blood on the Shroud is real human blood. There is no question about that. Numerous scientists including Paul Heller, who was Professor of Internal Medicine and Medical Physics at Yale University and the Director of the New England Institute; Alan D. Adler, who was Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University; Victor V. Tyron, Director of the Center for Advanced DNA Technology at the University of Texas Health Science Center and others conducted an entire repertoire of tests. Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens prove it is real human blood beyond any doubt. Raymond Rogers and Anna Arnoldi of the Department of Molecular Sciences at the University of Milan concur.
Highly reputed forensic medicine experts concur. Fred Zugibe, Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology at Columbia University’s College of Physicians & Surgeons and once Chief Medical Examiner, Rockland County, New York; James Malcolm Cameron, Professor of Forensic Medicine at the London Hospital Medical School Professor James Malcolm Cameron and Robert Bucklin, Forensic Pathologist, once Head of the Forensic Medical Division of the Los Angeles Medical Examiner Office and Coroner of Las Vegas support the conclusion. They all conclude that the stains were formed by real human bleeding from real wounds on a real human body, in rigor mortis, that came into direct contact with the cloth. Many of the stains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of the clot and a clear yellowish halo of serum.
There is a preponderance of other scientific evidence. Joseph Kohlbeck, Resident Scientist at the Hercules Aerospace Center in Salt Lake, Utah, and Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago found that dirt particles embedded in the Shroud were a rare form of calcite, travertine aragonite, found only near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem.
Avinoam Danin, a botany professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a leading authority on the flora of Israel, along with Uri Baruch, a pollen specialist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, in a peer reviewed report published by the Missouri Botanical Society in St Louis report that the combination of pollen spores lodged in the Shroud’s surface, as well as floral images mysteriously “imprinted” on the face of the cloth, could only have come from plants growing in a restricted area around Jerusalem. How floral images came to be on the cloth is as big a mystery as are the body images.
Fascinating historical evidence gives credence to the entire picture. There is the peculiar 6th century the illatio (Præfatio) in the Mozarabic Rite from Spain which refers to images on a Jesus’ burial linen. There is further evidence of the idea of an image on the cloth from Pope Stephen III (reigned 752 to 757 CE) who writes “On this cloth, marvelous as it is to see . . . the glorious image of the Lord's face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred.”
In 944, a cloth known as the Image of Edessa, known to have been in that city since 544 CE, is transferred to Constantinople. At that time, Gregory Referendarius, the archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, preached a sermon in which he describes the Edessa cloth with a full length image and bloodstains from a side wound. There is ample evidence that this cloth vanished from Constantinople in 1204 during the sacking of the city by French knights of the Fourth Crusade. What happened between 1204, or 1207 when the cloth was described as being in Athens, and 1356 when the Shroud was displayed in Lirey, France, is a mystery.
Images of Jesus that evolved in the Middle East around the middle of the 6th century, offer significant clues. Defects in the cloth and unique characteristics of the images suddenly became part the iconography of Jesus. The most telling image may be from a 6th century icon at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai that replicates many characteristics of the facial image we see on the Shroud.
Yet, for many reasons, people find it hard to believe that the Shroud is authentic. Among these:
1) History: It is hard to imagine that a relic of Jesus survived for nearly can 2000 years. Furthermore, we are conditioned by the lessons of history to believe that a relic with a footprint in medieval Europe must be fake.
2) Incredulity: We assume, dichotomously, if the Shroud is not fake then the images we see on the cloth must have been miraculously produced as a byproduct of a resurrection event. This overwhelms modern sensibilities. Sensational theories in polemic writings—theories such as dematerialization or radiation coming from the body of Jesus—only magnifies our incredulity.
3) Alternatives: We may be persuaded by alternate presentations: Walter McCrone attempted to show that it was a painting. Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in the 14th century and discovered that an artist had confessed to painting the Shroud? Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud's image (in his own image) despite the fact that he was born a century after its documented appearance in Lirey, France in 1356.
4) Convictions: Firm religious beliefs or our view of history persuades us that the Shroud cannot be real. Biblical literalism, which does not account for the Shroud, is an example. John Dominic Crossan's argument that Jesus was not buried and that his body likely left on the cross to be devoured by crows and dogs or thrown into a charnel pit is also an example.
Crossan, a significant historian and Jesus Seminar Fellow, whose understanding of the 1st century is formidable, wrote of the Shroud:
"My best understanding is that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval relic-forgery. I wonder whether it was done from a crucified dead body or from a crucified living body. That is the rather horrible question once you accept it as a forgery."
Crossan, who is meticulous and organized in his analysis, introduces an interesting paradox. As his comments imply, he is certainly aware of the most undisputed observations about the Shroud.
Others takes a more open-minded approach. Barrie Schwortz, who has been studying the Shroud since 1978 wrote:
"I've been privileged to be involved in this project (studying the Shroud). And it's science that brought me to the understanding. ... I'm Jewish. That makes me a neutral person; I'm not proselytizing. I believe given the facts you should decide this for yourself. ... Many of the scientists studying the Shroud ... are Jewish and leaning, in the end, toward the authenticity of the cloth. We might have an actual artifact of the historical Jesus."
For more information see the material at http://shroudstory.com
Shroudie
1 posted on 04/07/2004 10:52:31 AM PDT by shroudie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]
I think Jesus looked a little like his mother, and a little like his Father, of whose appearance we know little.
ping to swordmaker
The image doesn't look like what a Middle-Eastern Jewish young person would have probably looked like at that time.
He doesn't LOOK Jewish.
Seriously folks, the few people who were portrayed in art works from those days tended to be important leaders, not sons of a carpenter.
The authenticity of the Shroud is in enough doubt to discount this attempt to picture the Lord as a young man, regardless of the motive.
His appearance does not matter; He loves us.
poing
Shroud of Turin PING List PINGEROONIE!!!
If you want to be 0 or 1 on the Digital Shroud list, Freepmail me... for you binary impaired, that's YES (include me) or NO (delete me).
I like the look of this one alot better than the one that Time Magazine created that makes Jesus look almost Neanderthal.
Jesus looked like Matthew McConaughey?
Phptographic Negative of the picture on the shroud.
A 3D projection of the image produced using Bryce Software.
