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

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.

The conclusion I draw from this is that the Book of Enoch, which we have, was considered to be holy Scripture by St. Jude, but that the Church did not ultimately agree that it was divinely inspired.

There was a lot of back and forth in the early Church over what was canonical and what was not. Eventually, the Church came to agreement over this.

So, what I see peeping through in Jude's epistle is the whole uncertain and messy process over the course of some 400 years during which the New Testament canon was worked out by scholars of the Church. What they eventually agreed on became the Canon. The first time we get to a New and Old Testament Canon that is identical to that which still exists today in the Catholic Church was from the Synod of Rome, in 382 AD. The first time we get to a New and Old Testament Canon identical to the current Protestant Canon is in the mid-1500's with Martin Luther.

So, the conclusion I draw from this is that what "Scripture" meant when the apostles and ancient prophets wrote the words was not a fixed and closed thing.
It became fixed and closed hundreds of years after the last piece of what we call scripture was written. And this highlights the truth: the early Christians were not walking around doing what we are doing here: arguing at each other using an agreed-upon Bible. Rather, they were relying upon a mixture of oral and written traditions, of which various and sundry writings were a part.

God eventually guided the Church to select those documents that He wanted in the canon, and that is what we call "The Bible". And in the 1500s, Luther abridged it again, for the same reason that early men of the Church argued over the canon: to get a canon that comported with what they believed.

To circle back to Jude, then. Jude obviously thought that Enoch was holy scripture. The Church disagreed. That Enoch is mentioned in the Bible merely reveals to me the existence of the disputes and the ultimate reliance that we all have that the Church ultimately got it right at the dawn of the 5th Century...about 400 years after the "apostasy" that you believe happened in the "early Church".

"Paul quoted pagan poets, too. Does that make them "holy Scripture" to Paul?"

No.
But then, neither would the Gospel of John, nor John's Revelation, at a minimum, nor probably the Epistle of James have been considered "holy Scripture" by Paul. When Paul wrote Galatians, referring to Holy Scripture, he wasn't referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, or anything else in the New Testament, including the rest of his own letters, because none of it had been written yet. He was referring only to the Septuagint, since that was the only real "Bible", as such, available at that point in history. I very much doubt Paul would have ever referred to his own letters as "Holy Scripture", especially since in his letters he refers to 'the traditions we taught you' when present in a place.
Jude cites to Enoch with spiritual approval, much as the author of the early Jewish Texts refers to lost books such as "The Book of the Wars of the Lord" and such. When Paul refers to pagan traditions, he is reaching outside the faith. But when Jude speaks of Enoch, he is well within it. Before the late 300s/early 400s nobody could have definitively told Jude that he was wrong either. There was no Bible canon yet.

Jesus did not seem to think that a Bible and the written word was terribly important, because quite unlike the prophets before him and the apostles after him, he didn't write a word.
He may have left us the Shroud of Turin and the Oviedum as his only physical traces, assuming they really are his burial cloths, but other than that, Jesus was focused on leaving a Church and inculcating his followers with the beliefs he wanted them to have. They eventually wrote down many things, and some of those things that many, though not all, in later generations believed were apostolic in origin were incorporated into the Bible.
However, not everything that was thought to be apostolic made it into the "final cut", proclaimed by Pope Damascus at the turn of the 5th Century. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (the "Didache") was widely held to have been apostolic in origin, and is quite orthodox in content, but was not accepted into the New Testament, primarily because it apparently refers to the popular election of bishops as opposed to the more appointive process described by Paul in his epistle to Timothy.

The early history and disputes over the canon are interesting. Equally interesting, for the purposes of comparing the later versions of the KJV (the original contained the works) and the Catholic Bible, is the relative lack of disagreement over the Septuagint Old Testament Canon. While it is true that some scholars did not include some of the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, all of the early lists contain at least some of them. It is not until the later printings of the KJV that we finally get to a Christian Bible in English that lacks the Deuterocanonical works.

Why do I think this is all important?
Because it shows the necessary connection of the Church and the Bible, and the natural authority of the Church to decide such things, granted by Jesus to Peter and the Apostles when he gave them the "power of the keys" per the Gospels.

Jude, writing hundreds of years before the closing of the Canon, referred to a work that many Christians considered Holy Scripture. That the Church ultimately decided it wasn't is interesting.

Query: does every word in the Bible have identical strength, or are some words more authoritative than others?

It has nothing to do with how many years we've studied or not studied - I have come to personal conclusions which are just my opinion of my 3 yrs of study.

You may have reached different conclusions. I'm not going to argue with anyone on what they believe they have gleaned from studying the scriptures. I don't see the need for you to try to outweigh what I say - it's just my opinion - if it doesn't agree with you - oh well!!

As for "Nethilim" - I have no idea what you're talking about. Even Websters has no reference for the word.

But I find it interesting that a person who claims to have studied the scriptures for so many years would use a screen name which includes the word "magician".

Query: Where does the Bible call the Scripture "the word of God".

I recall the Scripture calling God "The Word", but I don't recall it calling itself the word of God. Perhaps it does, and I have forgotten the cite.

Jesus said not a jot nor a tittle has passed away from the Law. The Law has various meanings to Jews. In written texts, it means "The Torah". The Pentateuch is The Law. Isaiah is not "The Law".
So, Jesus said that not a jot nor a tittle of the Pentateuch should pass away until all is fulfilled.
Fair enough.
Nothing in the New Testament existed at all when Jesus said that.
And every Jew hearing him, which would have been everyone hearing him, knew then, and would know today, that Jesus' reference to The Law means the first five books of the Bible. Not the Old Testament. Not the New Testament.

Every Jew knows that the Torah is superior in authority to the rest of the Hebrew Canon. Jesus would have assumed that, and didn't make any effort to teach them any different. Of course, a modern Christian might not know that, and might think that "the law" to Jesus meant the whole Bible.
But, as you justly pointed out in the case of point, it's a silly point to argue that Paul was talking about books that weren't written before he was dead. And it's just as silly to assert that Jesus was talking to his Jewish audience about not a jot nor tittle passing away from The Law to include New Testament books not written yet.
The bottom line is that by saying that, Jesus highlights that there is a difference in authority in Scripture: The Law means the Pentateuch. It does not mean, and never did mean, the Old Testament. And it certainly did not mean the as yet unwritten New Testament.

Of course, Jesus said that The Torah would not be changed until all is fulfilled. But Jesus also said that divorce was a Mosaic tradition, an allowance of Moses, and not the law of God. That's in Deuteronomy, which is to say, The Law. And Jesus also said that nothing a man puts in his mouth defiles him. The Law disagrees vehemently. Indeed, of the 613 mitzvohs of The Law, several refer explicitly to the dietary code. All handed down by God, according to the Torah. All rendering a man unclean, according to the Torah. But none rendering a man unclean, according to Jesus.
What the Hell? Jesus says the Law hasn't changed, but then he changes the Law!

No.
He actually makes it all clear.
He TELLS US what The Law really is, and always was: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself, and love God above all. That is the entirety of the Law and the Prophets", Jesus says. Which means that all of the dietary codes, all of the specific 613 mitzvohs, were all traditions. GOD'S point was what Jesus said. That was really The Law, and that never changed. The Jews wrote down their own traditions and understandings as a way of loving God and each other, but all of that was tradition.

By the way, is the 10 Commandments still operant?
If so, why don't you honor the Sabbath Day and keep it holy?

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.