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.

[Kolokotronis]

Kosta, I'm surprised at you! Read Kalomiros! The fire is the same, God's love. The effect is quite dramatically different.

[Ciexyz]

Most interesting speculation.

[kosta50]

I do believe that the first issue is being resolved -- the present pope has emphasised the equality of the patriarchates with the patriarchate in rome -- though this needs to be reflected in the mindsets of all levels of the church!

Cronos, yes all patriarchs are equal, just as all Apostles were equal, but one was singled out, +Peter, so the Church also singled one out -- the successor to Peter, to be the first among them, but not over them. Eastern Fathers recognized that, trusted in the Pope, ran to him (+Maximos the Confessor) and elevated him (+Chrysostom). When the Christian East was knee-deep in heresy, Rome stood firm to hold and defend Orthodoxy.

The Pope was made first among other patriarchs by an Ecumenical Council and confirmed by Emperor Justin' decree. We Orthodox must abide by those decisions of the EC, and have, and we do. Our non-communion with the Pope is deeply theological and not personal or out of ambition.

Right now, a millennium of separation has led to divergent theology and a vestige of pre-Schism disagreement over the Symbol of Faith. As such, and until that time when we can confidently say that we profess the same Faith as we have for the first 1,000 years and until we agree that our differences are those of language, perception and rite, but not of essence, we cannot commune with the Bishop of Rome, although his honor is that of being first among his brothers.

[Ciexyz]

As we all know, there's power, wonder-working power in the blood of Jesus.

[Selkie]

It is widely accepted that the Christ Pantocrator image is that of Christ. >>>

Do you mean specifically the 6th century portrayal of Christ found at St. Catherines Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula ?

The Savior (6th c.) The bust of the Savior is life sized, a common feature of early icons, and shows a traditional monumental image of Christ holding a Gospel book in his left hand while blessing with his right. The icon has been amazingly well preserved in the dry air of the Sinai Peninsula. The Savior presented on the Sinai icon has a very forgiving, tender face. There is a slight asymmetry in the eyes, which draws the viewer's attention to them. One can sense an affinity between the eyes of this Byzantine image and those that would be produced in Russia in the coming centuries, especially Andrei Rublev's.

[Selkie]

"It isn't the face of Jesus, because we're not working with the skull of Jesus, but it is the departure point for considering what Jesus would have looked like," he added>>>>

[mickie]

Thanks for posting that wonderful image.

Is Easter not the most wonderous time on the calendar!

Praise God for my Faith.

[Ciexyz]

Good for another bump.

[monkfan]

There is a slight asymmetry in the eyes, which draws the viewer's attention to them.

Just a quick note for the sake of those not familiar with this icon. The asymmetry is deliberately paradoxical. One side tells us that He is merciful. The other reminds us that He is also our judge. Ingenious or no?

[NYer]

One side tells us that He is merciful. The other reminds us that He is also our judge. Ingenious or no?

Thanks for that information! More than ingenious - brilliant.

[kosta50]

Kosta, I'm surprised at you! Read Kalomiros! The fire is the same, God's love. The effect is quite dramatically different

You are right. I am always mindful of the audience. God's fire has often been used as God's vengeance in the western sense, as a source of intentional punishment originating from God. Kalomiros also says "God is love. If we really believe this truth, we know that God never hates, never punishes, never takes vengeance. As Abba Ammonas says, Love never hates anyone, never reproves anyone, never condemns anyone, never grieves anyone, never abhors anyone..."

The West does not share that view.

God's fire is one and the same, but it is received differently, one being life-giving to those who believe, and the other being received as destructive and damning. Surely, we can understand that -- for there are things that are food for some, and poison for someone else. Although the substance is the same, the effects are as if they were different, opposite, and separate

[kosta50]

Try explaining to a Westerner that God's love kills.

[Kolokotronis]

"I say that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love. ... It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God's love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love's power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it." St. Isaac the Syrian (Homily 84)

[Kolokotronis]

"Try explaining to a Westerner that God's love kills."

LOL! I think that will come much later my friend, unless you're brave enough to give it a try now. As we say in Greek, "sega, sega", slowly, slowly.

[kosta50]

I say that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love

Smothered by love...

[Vicomte13]

OF COURSE God's love kills!

Look through the ages at example after example.
Start with His own Son.
To conquer death you have to die to yourself.

I don't think it's that hard to see, so long as you really believe in life after death. If you doubt that, or really don't believe it, then the fact that God kills everyone appears the most monstrous cruelty.

[Recovering Hermit]

[Vicomte13]

Purgatory.

I won't "tackle" it so much as explain what I believe it is and why I believe that. I will leave it to the properly schooled theologians on the thread to slap me silly afterwards.

Purgatory is not a PLACE, but a state of being.

The problem is Scriptural.
On the one hand, you have James saying 'break one law, however small, and you've broken them all'.
You have people who have already sinned in the Bible consistently praying God to blot out their sins. Obviously they are still living.
You have Biblical statements that those with sin upon them shall not enter the Kingdom of God.
But then you have, especially in the Maccabbees, a specific rite of prayers and atonements and offerings for the dead.

Now, one argument - a Protestant one (they have cut the Maccabbees out of their Bible, partly to get rid of this particular problem) - is that when you die, that's it. Whatever sin you died with is upon you.
And if you take other parts of Scripture literally, if you die with sin, you're damned.
But the Bible says otherwise in Maccabbees. Prayers and atonement for the dead in light of the resurrection are held to be efficacious in the Bible itself.

What does one do with this welter, this spaghetti bowl of authority? Well, what I think what one does NOT do is assert some absolute certitude, like "Die with any sins, and you are damned", because the Bible says that, but doesn't say that.

"Purgatory" is a concept which Maccabbees brings to the fore. Apparently, grace is available for sins post mortem. We should not DEPEND on this and intentionally sin in life...but we should not DENY it either, because it is explicitly in the Bible, in Maccabbees.

So, when I say Purgatory is a state, not a place, I am being as objective as I can be with the confusing evidence. God apparently has provided a mechanism, a safety catch, for souls upon death. How it works certainly cannot be determined by the Scripture, although prayers for the dead clearly are indicated. (And indeed, if there were no such "catchment", then prayers for the dead would be pointless, in vain, and accomplish nothing other than make us feel good - they would be SUPERSTITION. But they aren't superstition, because of Maccabbees.)

Now, when we try to get any more specific than that...other than in imaginative art like Dante's "Purgatorio"...it starts getting ridiculous. An exception would be if a Saint has had revealed by God to him or her some aspects about the state of Purgatory. To my knowledge, that hasn't really happened.

So, given all of that, a STATE of Purgatory is a necessary thing, for the Bible to work, especially given Maccabbees. But a PLACE called Purgatory is not perforce necessary, and it goes to far to assert it absent a revelation of a Saint.

You are now free to fire at will on the big target I have painted on myself.

[SuziQ]

I'd read that the shroud had probably gone through several monasteries in Turkey and other places in the Middle East before ending up in Turin. It could possibly have gone with Mary, after the Resurrection, then taken up by Jesus's apostles, and their apostles as the Faith spread out from Judea. This could explain why iconographers from various places all painted Jesus in a similar fashion, though they likely never saw each other's works. They were working from the same model; the image on the Shroud.

[SuziQ]

Even if the shroud is legitimate, how can anyone wilt credibility claim it was Christ? They can't.

Using forensic techniques, they have studied the various injuries found on the body that is imaged on the shroud. Using the Bible, they compared these images to the wounds described in the account of Jesus's suffering, and crucifixion, and found that they likely matched.

As for 'graven images', what is wrong with looking at a picture or a statue that reminds us of Jesus or his Mother or one of the Saints, if that leads us to a more fruitful life of prayer? Sometimes people need something visual or tactile to focus their prayer; to keep their minds from wandering, which we're all tempted to sometimes while in prayer. The 'graven image' in scriptures is condemned because it took the peoples' focus OFF of God, and His saving graces.