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

Catholic News Agency ^ | February 12, 2005

[Drango]

I have a good picture of Jesus in the taco shell I opened last year. How do I know it's Him? Well...It matches the shroud, although his beard is a little shorter, his ears a little flatter, his lips a little more thicker, his eyes a little narrower, his nose a little more sloped and his chin a little stronger. And he has a dimple. Other than that it's a dead ringer.

Should I auction it on ebay?

[Cronos]

Aye, most Protestants seem intent on restoring old heresies -- nearly all the Protestant thought can be linked to heresies in the early church that were shown to be in error. The fault lies with the medieval Catholic church for not having taught these to her followers and prevented the descent of so many believers.

[lupie]

Mcrone = McCrone. I took 2 very intensive classes under him.

[festus]

Now thats funny. I'd never seen that before thanks for posting it.

[Cronos]

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.

What DO you mean by that? Jesus WAS a Middle-Easterner and yes, as per the standard by which Middle-Eastern men are stopped by airport Security, He would be stopped by them if He came by looking the way He did when on earth

And what do you mean by prototype Muslimes? Islam believes that Christ was but a prophet -- one of the greatest prophets, second to Mo -- but a prophet nonetheless. This is derived from Arian belief as Islamm is to a large extent a Christian heresy. The one criminal who believed He was the Son of God was a Christian in the truest sense of the word. The other who doubted that wouldn't even be called a Muslime as a Muslime would believe that Christ could perform miracles as he was a powerful prophet.

[madison10]

I think his features are too refined, too feminine...except for the eyes. They eyes look right somehow, but I don't think Jesus always had sad eyes,especially not as a boy.

[NYer]

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

No one is suggesting that the "Shroud" is the "Bible".

Can you prove that the Shroud is not the one that covered Jesus? There are no other surviving shrouds from that period. The Crucified One whose image appears on this shroud has puncture wounds surrounding His head. As far as we know, Jesus is the only person crucified, wearing a crown of thorns that would have formed these puncture wounds.

This thread is a discussion ... period. No one is suggesting that you MUST believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

[Cronos]

The implication that the Church therefore supercedes scripture is absurd, although perfectly orthodox Catholic teaching.

The Church does NOT supercede scripture. Where did you get that from? The Church is founded by Christs and hte sole decisions made are with the Holy Spirit's guidance. As a secondary point, the entire thing about this being "Catholic" thought is negated by the fact that this was raised by one of our respected Eastern Orthodox members -- Kolokotronis. The Eastern Orthodox Church being an apostolic church that has its own traditions distinct from the Western Church still retains the SAME scripture. That tells you that this was not the decision of one "pope" or "patriarch" or "council", rather that it was the decision of the Holy Spirit guiding God's community of faithful, His church.

[Kolokotronis]

" This is derived from Arian belief as Islamm is to a large extent a Christian heresy."

I do wish more people understood this.

[Cronos]

The problem wasn't just illiteracy. The problem was that the Church punished with death anyone who translated scripture into the common tongue, and at various points also punished with death any laymen who owned a copy of scripture in any tongue.

Where did you get THAT??????? Don't forget that the Scriptures in Latin Vulgate were readily available to all who could read. And Latin was known by all literates in the Western world until well into the late Middle Ages.

[UCANSEE2]

Look at the eyes, and do you not see angelic hosts? and maybe even Lu cifer.

[WVNan]

Swordmaker, here we go again. I never cease to be amazed at how many "experts" there are concerning the Shroud who have never read any of the many scientific & historical studies of the same. And we get the same lines every time. "Don't worship idols, etc." As if anyone would worship the image of the man any more than one would "love" the photograph of a loved one.

[Cronos]

One of those people Luther's boys tried to hook up with until the Patriarch of Constantinople told them to go peddle their wares elsewhere.

That's a very interesting thing -- I need to read more about that. It's a pity that the Patriarch couldn't have convinced them about the errors they made -- it would have been better for them to become Orthodox (and got their political separation from Rome) instead of distorting the Word.

[Cronos]

Ah, yes, but then again, in the East, the people were more literate and cultured than us Franks in the West -- at least until the Turks conquered Constantinople.

[Cronos]

It simply happens that many Catholic churches could trace their history all the way back to when they were Christian is all.

Hmmmm.... Wassat??? The Catholic Church IS part of Christ's church along with our brothers in the Eastern churches and in the Oriental Churches. I dunno about Mormons, Jehovahs witnesses, etc.

[thackney]

and the angels rolled away the stone so he could leave the tomb

Another thought (that I like) is that the stone was rolled away, for us to see inside.

[Cronos]

Kolokotronis: Um, I'm not Roman, I'm Orthodox.

Math: Nary a difference, filioque or no filioque.

Hallellujah! And to think, we Catholic and Orthodox were debating about this for so long. Seems we were wrong all the while -- Math just told us we're really the same, with nary a difference...

[Cronos]

But the fact is, for exactly the reasons you state, that I deny the trinity, do not recite the Creed (though I have no objection to the content of the "Apostles' Creed"), and am not Lutheran.

Huh??? you deny the Trinity? That's the basis of Christian thought. If you do not mind me asking, which church would promote such beliefs?

And again, which church would deny the Nicene Creed in its entirety?

[Cronos]

I do wish more people understood this.

why would that help?? Could you please explain?

[virgil]

The bit about the crucifixion being an elaborate hoax to save Jesus from death is the same stuff being espoused by the crack pots who claim that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdalene ala Da Vinci Code. It's lies. It's the old strategy...keep saying long enough,add some confusion and people will believe it.