It`s The Real-Life Face Of Jesus

Submitted by: cobrakiller 7 years ago in

Thanks to new technology, a 3D model was made from the Shroud of Turin. This is what he used to look like--so they say.
There are 202 comments:
Male 24
Fairytale
0
Reply
Male 4,593
What a crock of sh*t.
0
Reply
Male 49
The `Shroud of Turin` was scientifically disproved as Jesus` garb. It`s all over the everywhere, and I thought someone here would have a glimmer of IQ left after browsing hundreds of "10 more of Fancy`s random images he ripped by hitting random picture on Photobucket", or wherever he gets them from...
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]how do they know that that shroud actually covered Jesus at one time?[/quote]

They don`t know. They have faith instead.

There`s no way of knowing short of time travel. Even if the shroud is ~2000 years old and it is an image from a corpse, that still only narrows it down to one of a very large number of people.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Really all this proves is that the shroud of Turin could not be Jesus. The facial structure of that man doesn`t look Semetic in any way, looks more European, probably Greek or Anatolian. [/quote]

Do you know what Judeans of 2000 years ago looked like? If so, how? You can`t simply assume a lack of change over that period of time and be sure of being right.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You do know the shroud of Turin is a hoax from the Middle Ages, right?[/quote]

Are you basing that statement on the carbon dating of the sample that was later found to probably be a patch and not the original material?

If so, your knowledge is out of date.

If not, what evidence do you have?
0
Reply
Male 936
no no no, im not talking about the real saint nick, im talking about the coke-a-cola drinking, red suit wearing, reindeer riding fat guy who slides down chimneys on x-mas eve and delivers presents to all the good little boys and girls. There is more proof that THIS guy is real, than there is for Jesus
0
Reply
Male 122
@skullgrin, who wrote:

"There is actually more proof that santa clause is real today in 2010 than there is that Jesus was."

Do yourself a favour and google for Nikolaus of Myra, aka Nikolaus the Saint, who in the 4th century was bishop in a region which today belongs to Turkey. He spawned many legends, and he certainly was different from what these legends (and an Atlanta based soft drink company) made of him.

Which means that your example perfectly supports what you are denying, i.e. that there is proof that a man did exist in historic Palestine whose myths outlived him by millenia - and that he was certainly different from what the legends want to make us believe.

0
Reply
Male 936
"i hate to be a pedant, but it`s widely accepted that Jesus DID exist. i think the debate lies in whether or not he was the son of a god. there are simply too many independent historical references to him for him to have been entirely fictional."

there are zero independent historical refrences of jesus existing. ZERO, zip, zilch, nada, none. Jesus existing is not widely accepted by anyone but christians and catholics - which doesnt mean anything.

0
Reply
Male 936
**someone who we know that does not exist actually has MORE proof of existing than jesus.
0
Reply
Male 936
"@skullgrin & angilion:
How about the following conclusion?

There is no proof or disproove of the biblical jesus ever existed. The character could have been entirely made up. He could have been several people whos stories got mixed together or he could have been close to what is described in the bible (with some exagaration and the usual loss between retelling and translation).

Fact is, that some decades after the alleged preachings of that jesus there were christian communities all over the then-knowen world and some centuries later christianity was the established church of the roman empire.
Quit of a success story for a fictional character. "

reminds me of someone similar. This person actually has a lot more documentation but is still known to not be real..this person, of course, is santa clause. There is actually more proof that santa clause is real today in 2010 than there is that Jesus was. Think about that for a second. someo
0
Reply
Male 193
i hate to be a pedant, but it`s widely accepted that Jesus DID exist. i think the debate lies in whether or not he was the son of a god. there are simply too many independent historical references to him for him to have been entirely fictional.

so he was real, but probably just a forward thinking bloke who a lot of people liked. time distorts the truth.
0
Reply
Male 5,189
I think there should be something out there. It`d suck to just die and never knew you lived. That would be lame. The Christian Bible though I do not believe in.

Maybe when I die Ill appear on a planet full of pot. I`d be a good boy for that :P.
0
Reply
Male 205
Fact is also that we are still stuck with people who believe in this character. (which is no big deal in itself) Some of those also believe (and make it a point that the believe in christ is connect with the other believes) that creationism has to be taught at school, gay people shouldn`t be allowed to marry and condoms don`t help to fight aids.
Those people are the real pain in the back.
0
Reply
Male 205
@skullgrin & angilion:
How about the following conclusion?

There is no proof or disproove of the biblical jesus ever existed. The character could have been entirely made up. He could have been several people whos stories got mixed together or he could have been close to what is described in the bible (with some exagaration and the usual loss between retelling and translation).

Fact is, that some decades after the alleged preachings of that jesus there were christian communities all over the then-knowen world and some centuries later christianity was the established church of the roman empire.
Quit of a success story for a fictional character.
0
Reply
Female 117
Wow what a surprise, he looks like a slightly tanned white male. Considering where he was from, shouldn`t his skin be a lot darker? The representation looks exactly like every other picture, painting or statue of Christ around.
0
Reply
Male 394
You do know the shroud of Turin is a hoax from the Middle Ages, right?
0
Reply
Male 172
i thought the science of it was pretty cool.
0
Reply
Male 496
"power out of his fingertips" HAHA!!
0
Reply
Male 1,548
Really all this proves is that the shroud of Turin could not be Jesus. The facial structure of that man doesn`t look Semetic in any way, looks more European, probably Greek or Anatolian.
0
Reply
Female 247
how do they know that that shroud actually covered Jesus at one time?
0
Reply
Male 1,190
Too white, anyone from that region, especially someone walking around alot in the sun would be much much darker.
0
Reply
Male 936
of course i do, but that is irrelevant in this discussion seeing as were discussing the jesus from the bible*
0
Reply
Male 936
"The reasons Ive given so far. You dont care, so why are you asking? Just assume I`ve wasted my time writing several posts explaining them and you`ve ignored them. That saves us both time."

but none of your reasons are valid...


"We hold very different positions. You`re adamant about denying even the possibility of the existence of an entirely mortal man preaching reform of an existing religion. I`m not."

um...no im not. All i said was there was no proof. Untill there is proof i will continue to deny that he existed though as there is no reason to assume he did.

"Poor use of English is a better sign."

lol, another grasp of the straws - that wont win any debates my friend.

Are you aware of the possibility of any position other than the two most extreme (absolute faith that he is God the Son and absolute faith that he never existed at all, in any form)?

Serious question.

of course
0
Reply
Male 936

"I can say it with a straight face because I have some understanding of the situation."

if you believe what you just said then you obviously dont...

"The Roman empire was a very literate and organised society, even more so than the Roman republic that preceeded it. We know that they kept extensive records of official business. Hardly any of those records still exist, which is hardly surprising after 2000 years."

and i`ll repeat:

there was still no record of him...the most important/influential person to have ever walked the earth...and yet somehow hundreds of years later people were able to retell his story?


"There are Roman records from the mid to late 1st century. Decades later, not centuries."

and they knew his story how? If the original writers were lost how did they write about him? word of mouth? well thats not proof of anything
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Damn, I missed one of your ad hoc changes of terms.

[quote]so then what are you basing your logic that jesus existed on?[/quote]

I have not stated that Jesus existed.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]so then what are you basing your logic that jesus existed on?[/quote]

The reasons I`ve given so far. You don`t care, so why are you asking? Just assume I`ve wasted my time writing several posts explaining them and you`ve ignored them. That saves us both time.

[quote]so what is your argument against me about?[/quote]

We hold very different positions. You`re adamant about denying even the possibility of the existence of an entirely mortal man preaching reform of an existing religion. I`m not.

[quote]Picking out typos is a sure sign you have no argument though.[/quote]

Poor use of English is a better sign.

[quote]however there is no records of this other than the bible...which means....no proof[/quote]

Are you aware of the possibility of any position other than the two most extreme (absolute faith that he is God the Son and absolute faith that he never existed at all, in any form)?

Serious question.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]how can you say this with a straight face? how can we know a lot of information was lost if it was lost? there would be no way to tell since it never would have existed. This is a common misconception [/quote]

I can say it with a straight face because I have some understanding of the situation.

The Roman empire was a very literate and organised society, even more so than the Roman republic that preceeded it. We know that they kept extensive records of official business. Hardly any of those records still exist, which is hardly surprising after 2000 years.

[quote]and there was still no record of him...the most important/influential person to have ever walked the earth...and yet somehow hundreds of years later people were able to retell his story?[/quote]

There are Roman records from the mid to late 1st century. Decades later, not centuries.
0
Reply
Male 936

"i) The great majority of the documentation was lost between then and now. Very few written records last 2000 years."

how can you say this with a straight face? how can we know a lot of information was lost if it was lost? there would be no way to tell since it never would have existed. This is a common misconception

"ii) It was very well documented from a purely Roman perspective. Rome did not care about localised barbarian (i.e. non-Roman) religions or preachers. Christianity only became well documented when it became an issue in the empire."

and there was still no record of him...the most important/influential person to have ever walked the earth...and yet somehow hundreds of years later people were able to retell his story?
0
Reply
Male 936
"If I made that assumption, it might have been a big flaw in my argument. But I didn`t, so it isn`t."

so then what are you basing your logic that jesus existed on?

"Wrong again. I don`t assume the stories are true. Also, `infact` isnotaword."

so what is your argument against me about? Picking out typos is a sure sign you have no argument though.

"I`ve looked into it and I think there is sufficient evidence to say that it is probably true that a person existed ~2000 years ago who preached a reform to Judaism radical enough to split the religion, with the reformed Judaism becoming Christianity"

however there is no records of this other than the bible...which means....no proof
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Jesus is the Greek translation of Jeshua, which is Hebrew for Joshua... so really you should call him Josh[/quote]

Not quite. Jesus is a somewhat mangled version of Iesu, which is a transliteration of a Greek name which might or might not have been a transliteration or translation of his name.

Joshua might be a reasonable Anglicised transliteration of his name, or it might not. We don`t really know.

In case anyone is wondering, the Greek connection comes from the fact that Greek was the lingua franca of the region back then.
0
Reply
Female 85
I think the lady @ the end of the clip had it right.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]For those who believe, no proof is necessary.[/quote]

True

[quote]For those who don`t believe, no proof is possible.[/quote]

False.

The whole reason why I don`t believe is that the evidence is woefully inadequate. I don`t believe in things - I go on the evidence or lack thereof. Evidence would cause me to change my opinion about the probability of it being true. Proof would cause me to be sure it was true. That is the nature of proof.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Regarding appearance...

It would be a mistake to assume that people in that area 2000 years ago look the same as people in that area today. 2000 years is time enough for populations to move and change. Maybe they did, maybe they didn`t.

So...are there any extant Roman descriptions of Judeans?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]But they already pretty much proved that the shroud of turin is from the middle ages...[/quote]

...and then some other scientists made a solid challenge to those findings. Proper scientists, proper science, proper peer review.

From a scientific point of view, the age of the shroud is uncertain.

Of course even if it was proved to be ~2000 years old, that wouldn`t prove who was buried in it. If anyone was - it could be a fake even if it is 2000 years old.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]that time period was VERY well documented actually - which is all the more damning.[/quote]

i) The great majority of the documentation was lost between then and now. Very few written records last 2000 years.

ii) It was very well documented from a purely Roman perspective. Rome did not care about localised barbarian (i.e. non-Roman) religions or preachers. Christianity only became well documented when it became an issue in the empire.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]you`re assumption that the story based on his lifetime is real and not a made up story is your big flaw.[/quote]

If I made that assumption, it might have been a big flaw in my argument. But I didn`t, so it isn`t.

[quote]You do not have any proof that the stories about jesus are infact real. You just assume they are because that is what you are told.[/quote]

Wrong again. I don`t assume the stories are true. Also, `infact` isnotaword.

[quote]No proof of jesus existing outside of the bible = no reason to believe he was a real person.[/quote]

I`ve looked into it and I think there is sufficient evidence to say that it is probably true that a person existed ~2000 years ago who preached a reform to Judaism radical enough to split the religion, with the reformed Judaism becoming Christianity.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Yeaaah, isn`t the turin shroud fake? I`m not going to bother watching.[/quote]

On the off-chance that you`ll bother to look at an answer to your question, I`ll answer it. Answer it again, actually, but of course you haven`t bothered to look for an answer even in this thread.

Quick answer:

It`s still unknown whether or not the shroud is a fake. Good evidence has been presented supporting the idea that the sample that was dated was taken from a medieval patching of the shroud and not from the original material. Further testing has not been allowed.
0
Reply
Male 936
"@skullgrin: absence of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence!"

ok, how does this change "there is no proof jesus existed?"
0
Reply
Male 936
"You really can`t use that as proof he didn`t exist. Just because it is only in one book doesn`t make it false. The "origin of the species" was probably the only book of its time to speak about evolution, yet does that make it false?"

----

No, but the lack of mention anywhere else does. As for your apples to orange example of "the origin of species" though, evolution has been scientifically proven since and at the time of that book they were proposing evolution as a theory. The bible does not treat itself as theory.
----
That period in time wasn`t well documented. I mean, I don`t believe in the bible myself, but I can`t use the fact that it isn`t backed up by other books as evidence against it. That just doesn`t work.
---

that time period was VERY well documented actually - which is all the more damning.
0
Reply
Female 54
But they already pretty much proved that the shroud of turin is from the middle ages... So what they`ve created is a 3D image of the poor guy that died and was wrapped up in order to create a piece of religious propaganda...
0
Reply
Male 38
Man, im gonna become a televangelist, If christians are this stupid imma be a millionaire!
0
Reply
Female 452
"Wow, for a guy supposedly born in the middle-east, he looks a heck of a lot like a white European!"

So does the president of Syria. That doesn`t mean he`s European, though.
0
Reply
Male 32
This post requires the creation of a new IAB category, "Stupid of the day". It`s stupid.
0
Reply
Female 536
I`m sure Jesus didn`t have pretty eyebrows.
0
Reply
Male 864
Uhh... Jesus was from Jerusalem... He didn`t look European...
0
Reply
Male 516
Jesus is the Greek translation of Jeshua, which is Hebrew for Joshua... so really you should call him Josh
0
Reply
Male 205
@skullgrin: absence of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence!
Grmbl, why am I (forced to) defending views or arguments of believers (again)?
There are enough holes in the fabric of any believe system, especialy in the christian. There is no need to hit any straw man or to misregarde logic.
If you`r criticising religion, go on I`m on your side. But do it right.
0
Reply
Male 9,305
2-1 they use this model for a new Jesus 3-D cartoon show. :P
0
Reply
Male 131
Religion fascinates me even though I`m a non-believer. How can people be so eaten up with a fable/myth/possible reality that is over 2,000 years old, was re-written and translated by theocratic rulers to push political agendas, killed millions of innocent people, broke into hundreds of sects, bastardized by zealots, amalgamated into local traditions, damns non-believers to eternal hell for not believing a story, and argues merits on circular logic. Will God ever be as dead and ancient as Amun Ra? Those religions lasted a lot longer than 2K years and we scoff at their cherished beliefs. Funny how Christian "science" always seems to obtain the results for which they are searching. Find a plank of wood on a mountain- OH LOOK! It`s Noah`s ark! Smudge on a rock- It`s Jesus!
0
Reply
Female 437
But the Shroud of Turin wasn`t actually Jesus...
0
Reply
Male 1,399
Historical Jesus is Hearsay Only

"All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings."
0
Reply
Male 9
FEIKU:

"They proved it`s fake..." is a bit of an overstatement. First of all, who are "they" - the article suggests that it was one scientist who did some personal "homework" in an attempt to disprove the "convential wisdom" that the shroud is actually the burial cloth of Jesus...

...that said...

There is ample evidence to strongly suggest that the shroud - or perhaps the markings on the shroud - are of a different era than that of Jesus. But even so I`m fairly certain that there hasn`t been any definitive statment by the scientific community at large disavowing the shroud as the burial cloth.

I think it is not a stretch to say that a majority of people who aren`t jaded by religious devotion are in agreement that it is not a "holy" artifact (read: not Jesus). But while there is even a glimmer of hope that it MIGHT be the real thing the "devoted" will continue to believe.

Damn you c
0
Reply
Male 1,195
"Wow, for a guy supposedly born in the middle-east, he looks a heck of a lot like a white European!"

Christ is a Greek name... Do you know his entire heritage? If I was born in Europe, would I have to be white?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Nope not him Jesus had a chainsaw arm and fought the undead for our sins.....
0
Reply
Female 31
"you say the bible only says a few people followed him...what else besides the bible said this? oh? nothing? case closed."

You really can`t use that as proof he didn`t exist. Just because it is only in one book doesn`t make it false. The "origin of the species" was probably the only book of its time to speak about evolution, yet does that make it false?
That period in time wasn`t well documented. I mean, I don`t believe in the bible myself, but I can`t use the fact that it isn`t backed up by other books as evidence against it. That just doesn`t work.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don`t believe, no proof is possible.[/quote]

Actually, Crakr, if you provide good enough evidence, I`ll believe anything. Produce said magical Jesus right now and that would be pretty damning.
0
Reply
Male 8,302
NotAllowed wins.
0
Reply
Male 936
"The big flaw in your argument is the assumption that he was influential and well known *in his lifetime*.

He wasn`t. "

you`re assumption that the story based on his lifetime is real and not a made up story is your big flaw. You do not have any proof that the stories about jesus are infact real. You just assume they are because that is what you are told. This is most people in heres logic. They assume that he is real because a book says so. No proof of jesus existing outside of the bible = no reason to believe he was a real person.
0
Reply
Male 936
"For those who don`t believe, no proof is possible"

this is not true
0
Reply
Male 936
airborn, you say the bible only says a few people followed him...what else besides the bible said this? oh? nothing? case closed. you can not use the bible to prove the bible. dont try and say i have flaws in my logic when your ONLY source of information is coming from the ONLY book that mentions him.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
they just spilled some ale on the effing tarp.
Then, someone said," Hey! That looks like that one guy, whatshisname? Oh Yeah, Jesus!"
There you go.
0
Reply
Male 357
haha...hey ppl at the vatican...look at 3d jesus on my tiny blackberry screen...that look like jesus to you...no?
0
Reply
Female 914
"PRAISE WHITE JESUS!"
0
Reply
Male 649
You see this is why I`m a pastafarian, we don`t have foolishness like this with the FSM
0
Reply
Female 525
Oh and one more:More linkies!
0
Reply
Female 525
They proved the shroud was fake awhile back. They were even able to sucessfully replicate it using methods that would have been available during the time of it`s creation.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/07/italy.turin.shroud/index.html
0
Reply
Male 119
actually tenty, the corner they took the sample from for carbon dating was the corner that analysis of ended up showing that it was repaired at one point. I`m not one to say the shroud is real or anything, but the results of that carbon dating test were definitely off, they need to test from the other section of it to find the true age.
0
Reply
Male 1,596
jesus actually had a rag face, the shroud was pretty spot on in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
Hehe April fools. Wonderful.
0
Reply
Male 500
More fuel for the lost and the credulous.
0
Reply
Male 425
They did one of those carbondating or somehing tests on the shroud, is about 600 years old, that is impressive in itself to be honest....
0
Reply
Female 3,828
real or not, it IS interesting..
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don`t believe, no proof is possible.[/quote]
Not true. There are plenty of things that would convince me of the existence of a god or gods.
Whether I would then worship that deity is a different matter.
0
Reply
Male 71
"I don`t think he should have any one face." Yeah, what the drat? Why should people have just one face if you believe they actually existed as flesh and blood. After all, Hitler had a face to match every race and age...mean person.
0
Reply
Male 680
It`s a bit dodge that they created the image from the `proof` and yet the picture has terrible lighting. I bet the left-side of his face looks terrible or something so they hid it
0
Reply
Male 1,929
Yeaaah, isn`t the turin shroud fake? I`m not going to bother watching.
0
Reply
Female 526
don`t people have anything better to do with their talent? like solving crimes or something?

besides, jesus could not have looked like that!
he was a jew remember??



now that`s jesus.
0
Reply
Male 372
Thank you for the shroud reference, thats quite interesting. (especially the part about the firemen breaking through the bullet proof glass to get it to safety ha-ha, dedication!)
0
Reply
Male 372
You`re point is interesting, but there is really no evidence for it besides the lack of evidence that exists. Yeah, its true that his followers would want to make him seem like a big deal, but alternatively it is also possible that they could entirely make up a character to be the hero of their religious order and glorify him to promote their views. If you allow exaggerations into the narrative than where do you stop.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I can find no records of anyone else having claimed to see it. If you can find more on this i`d be really interested.[/quote]

It was on display in the church he built in Lirey. So a fair few people would have seen it. That`s one reason why some people think it`s fake - a relic was just the job to attract money to a church, so it would be just the job to establish a new church and make it powerful.

It was condemned as a fake by the Bishop of Troyes in 1389. Apparently, the letter he wrote to the Pope condemning the shroud as a fake still exists.

http://www.shroudstory.com/later.htm

The condemnation is known as the d’Arcis Memorandum. There are also documents challenging it, at least in part on the basis that the bishop of Troyes had a very strong motive to discredit the shroud - it was drawing people (and thus money and power) to the church at Lirey and away
0
Reply
Male 943
Who would have thought there would be this white guy walking around in the Middle East thousands of years ago
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Matt: 4:25 "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan." [/quote]

So one of his closest followers said he was a big deal. Unsurprising. How many people made up this "great multitudes"? What was the original phrase, anyway? So much of the English translations of the bible are very wrong.

[quote]There are also references (as i understand it) to his fame being known by the great priests of the age, as well as the roman governor pilate.[/quote]

Are there? Written by whom? People with a vested interest in making him out to be a big deal? Why would a Roman governer risk executing a major religious leader for nothing much? That would be asking for trouble. Most importantly from the point of view of Rome, it would cause disruption in the smooth running of the empire.
0
Reply
Male 372
ang: Yeah you`re right, 1500`s my bad. For some reason i was thinking 16th CENTURY and wrote 1600`s haha. Durp. But the only record i can find of anyone acknowledging the shroud in the 1350`s is a guy named Geoffroi de Charny who claimed ownership. I can find no records of anyone else having claimed to see it. If you can find more on this i`d be really interested.
0
Reply
Male 372
Ang: Matt: 4:25 "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan."
There are also references (as i understand it) to his fame being known by the great priests of the age, as well as the roman governor pilate.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Ang: From what i read an individual claimed ownership of it in 1350, but there are no documents of it ever having been shown to anyone. Meerly someone saying on record "I have this thing". It wasnt until the 1600`s when it was claimed by a church in Turin who than showed it to the public.[/quote]

It was moved to Turin a little earlier than that (1578) and there are earlier records of it being moved. Some people saw it earlier than 1578. I think the 1350 date is the most likely.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`m looking for proof of his existence - which does not exist. You would think that if someone as influential as jesus, as supernatural as jesus, and as known as jeuss was there would be mention of him all over the place - yet there is not.[/quote]

The big flaw in your argument is the assumption that he was influential and well known *in his lifetime*.

He wasn`t.

The major power (and major source of literacy) in that area at that time was the Roman empire. Why would they care about the life and death of a minor trouble-maker in a minor province noted for trouble? That`s all he was to the empire at the time. A religious figure in one of many little local religions within the empire...whoopie-do. The empire didn`t care about that either - they tolerated almost any religion as long as it didn`t disrupt the empire. Why care who or what barbarians worship?

The scarcity of the evidence means very little either way.
0
Reply
Male 372
Ang: From what i read an individual claimed ownership of it in 1350, but there are no documents of it ever having been shown to anyone. Meerly someone saying on record "I have this thing". It wasnt until the 1600`s when it was claimed by a church in Turin who than showed it to the public.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Well....that chances of it being created 2000 years ago, and not being used for another 1600 are slightly unlikely.[/quote]

True, but it is possible that it was kept in secrecy (for security) in the middle east as an extremely holy relic, then looted during the crusades and revealed by the son (maybe grandson) of the looter after his death.

The dates match well enough - the shroud was first revealed in 1350.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]But it was in the 1600`s when it was first revealed to the public, before that no church claimed to be in possession of it (to my understanding)[/quote]

It was first shown in 1350. Which is why the carbon dating tests looked so damning - they dated it to 1260-1350. 1350 (and a lot of time before and after) was a very good time for faking Christian relics. There was a lot of money and power to be had from them. The better the relic, the more money and power. So it`s definitely plausible that someone faked it. What better relic than the shroud?
0
Reply
Male 230
yeah what ever blah blah blah. Jesus is made up.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]we NEED TO KNOW IF ITS JESUS.[/quote]

i) Why?
ii) You can`t.

The best you could possibly get is a fairly accurate date. It might be a shroud about 2000 years old, but even if it is that doesn`t prove it was Jesus. Plenty of people died over a period of decades about 2000 years ago. So you`d have to take it on faith anyway...which leads me back to my first point. Why does anyone need evidence if they have faith?

Even if, somehow, it was possible to prove it was Jesus (who wasn`t called Jesus), what difference would it make? It would just prove that he really existed, nothing more. It wouldn`t prove Christianity.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don`t believe, no proof is possible.
0
Reply
Female 535
um, wasn`t the turin shroud proven to be fake? =s
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]vilem, a study done by oxford on the relic showed it was from the middle ages....with that said a few weeks later they said they screwed up the process and it might actually be a lot older than that.[/quote]

It`s more complicated than that.

The Vatican supplied a small sample from the cloth.

Scientists tested it and got a date of about 1300. They did not screw up the tests. The sample was divided and tested seperately in different labs by different teams, with the same results.

A few years later, a couple of other scientists challenged the *sampling*, not the *dating*. It was a proper peer-reviewed scientific challenge. They put forward and supported the idea that the sample was taken from a skillfully done medieval repair, not from the original cloth. Skillful enough to match, but not original.

[quote]So its debatable[/quote]

Yes. The Vatican has chosen to not allow further sampling, so a definitive test is impossible.
0
Reply
Female 117
I like the Patrick from spongebbob`s in real life picture better.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv I doubt very much if the church would ever let that happen.
0
Reply
Male 10
Only if they drating do another test. Thats not on the corner. Mother draters it will make the world roar if they come with decisive answers.
Who the drat cares if you damage a little bit of the cloth, we NEED TO KNOW IF ITS JESUS.
0
Reply
Male 145
Skullgrin, there are two flaws in your logic about the lack of records of him. The first is that the bible has many bad translations. While the bible may say something along the lines of "The masses gathered around Jesus", it is now known that "The masses" was nothing more than a small group of people. It`s a mistranslation.

On top of this, I assume that you may not have a firm grasp on life before the internet... Even 20 years ago, people of the world were very disconnected from each other.

So, in conclusion- someone with a following of 12 people could very easily be overlooked by historians who were more concerned with recording recognized religious leaders of the time. The Christian religion was founded decades after his death.

If you are looking for proof of his existence, then maybe you should do some objective research and do your homework. Personally, I don`t believe in Christianity, but I have done enough research on the subject to
0
Reply
Male 505
ARYAN JESUS FTW
0
Reply
Male 3,301
Right, because Jesus was a pale-skinned european.

*facepalm*
0
Reply
Male 372
Prime: agreed, this is by no means definitive proof of it being a fake, just slightly suspicious is all.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
Well....that chances of it being created 2000 years ago, and not being used for another 1600 are slightly unlikely. Truth is, no one has any definitive evidence about that shroud
0
Reply
Male 372
Prime: you`re talking about when it may have been created, which i admit could being at any point in time. But it was in the 1600`s when it was first revealed to the public, before that no church claimed to be in possession of it (to my understanding)
0
Reply
Male 372
Pui i think what he is trying to convey is that all of those sources are secondary, therefore here-say. There is no primary first hand evidence of Christ`s existence, including a lack of execution record for anyone named "jesus" in the roman records.
NOT trying to deny that it is possible he existed, just trying to possibly clarify thoughts.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
vilem, a study done by oxford on the relic showed it was from the middle ages....with that said a few weeks later they said they screwed up the process and it might actually be a lot older than that. So its debatable
0
Reply
Male 372
Pretty sure the shroud appeared in the 1600`s when there was a massive insurgence of "relics of christ", a time when having some such religious artifact meant pilgrimage and donation. In fact there were so many pieces in existence that it was said they could fill a ship (Sorry that last bit is from wiki :(, but i`ve heard it many times before, mainly during tours through cathedrals) Just makes me really doubt the validity of this object.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
skullgrin, most scholars have discredited the view the jesus never existed."There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge 2004, p. 34
^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Van Voorst 2000, p. 1

The only thing up for debate is whether or not certain portions of Jesus` life were enhanced for emphasis
0
Reply
Female 3,574
LOL omg the whole Horus thing? Okay I`m not trying to debate whether or not the Bible is true here, just that a guy named Jesus existed and caused a stir. However, I took lots of art history, myths and legends and ancient history classes, and I can tell you right now that you need to do more research into that yourself.

Anyway, I`m done with this for real this time.
0
Reply
Female 3,574
How exactly are they "inconclusive"? These historians` writings are considered trusted by many as being accurate by today`s standards.

Why exactly would someone living just 20 years after Jesus died not have any valid information about him? This is someone who has witnessed the early church growing in person and quite probably spoken to people who *were* there when Jesus was around and could testify to his existence.

Also, there are many, many more writings referring to him than the ones I cited here.

Anyway, I`m going to bed, but I seriously think you should *actually* research it. It`s interesting. My motto is "question everything" and I really think more people should live by that :)
0
Reply
Male 936
look up horus...this is where the story of jesus and the entire catholic religion came from. Its just a retelling of an ancient story
0
Reply
Male 7,933
I don`t know what to think.... about the Shroud of Turin that is. History channel I do not trust at all.
0
Reply
Male 936
"You are full of crap, skullgrin. If you had researched it 1) you would know those quotes do refer to someone that fits the description of Jesus Christ and 2) That most of the quotes I posted are written by scholars and historians who existed within the first century after Jesus died. "

1) that is inconclusive and therefore worthless
2) after he died means nothing since there is no way of telling if the mention is based on anything of factual value or just hearsay.

I`m looking for proof of his existence - which does not exist. You would think that if someone as influential as jesus, as supernatural as jesus, and as known as jeuss was there would be mention of him all over the place - yet there is not. There are only vague mentions of people that *might* have been him, or stories about him that were written after his story was conceived. Like i said; worthless.
0
Reply
Female 3,574
You are full of crap, skullgrin. If you had researched it 1) you would know those quotes do refer to someone that fits the description of Jesus Christ and 2) That most of the quotes I posted are written by scholars and historians who existed within the first century after Jesus died.

If you have researched this, I`d expect a better argument.
0
Reply
Male 126
LOL @ lionhart
0
Reply
Male 8,302
@Maelstrom_x

The Shroud of Turin was shopped, I can tell from the angels and having seen a lot of Jesus`s in my time.
0
Reply
Male 936
"Nice Skull grin just deny. You may not know what you are talking about so just deny. Where is Angillion when you need him. He is smart enough and he is agnostic."

i actually DO know what im talking about though. i`ve ALREADY done the research on this...extensively. I`ve been researching this topic for just about 10 years now, how about you?

Exactly.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Oh. a guitar hero 3d shroud Jesus would be epic too
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Debating Jesus on IAB is fruitless. Anyone with a brain knows they put a religion themed link up, on a regular basis, just to get the hits up and to get a nice high comment count to boot.
Take a look back and you`ll see IAB does this and the comments go through the roof.
0
Reply
Male 1,882
The Shroud of Turin was shopped, I can tell from parts of the cloth and having seen a lot of shops in my time.
0
Reply
Female 3,574
LOL omg I wish they would do that! Or make him a character in Guitar Hero or something XD
0
Reply
Male 9,305
Now make him say "I am Robo Jesus! I have come for your souls!"
0
Reply
Male 256
www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.htm
0
Reply
Female 3,574
Lol, this is why I don`t bother doing this on IAB. You clearly didn`t look them all up and study them in like, the 2 minutes it`s been since I posted my last comment. Nevermind, this is pointless.
0
Reply
Male 256
Nice Skull grin just deny. You may not know what you are talking about so just deny. Where is Angillion when you need him. He is smart enough and he is agnostic.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
I think the real question here is... if you wear the Shroud of Turin as a cape, does it grant one superpowers? `Cause that would be nifty. :)
0
Reply
Male 936
and what i mean by that is, nothing mentions jesus at the time of his supposed life. Everything is "after he died" which would be ater the bible/story was already told/written
0
Reply
Male 601
A 2-dimensional representation of someone`s face doesn`t look like that. I wish I knew how to link images to show what I mean. A 3D face/body/object translated to a 2D surface is stretched-out and very distorted.
0
Reply
Male 936
none of those refrences you posted mention anything about jesus, what are you talking about?
0
Reply
Female 3,574
skullgrin,

Roman Tacitus, Annals 15.44
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 18:3
Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, 18
Pliny the Younger, Letters 10:96
The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a

There are more but I don`t feel like finding them all for you. There are many secular references to the existence of Christ. Infact, we can reconstruct the Biblical story through secular writings: Jesus was called "the Christ", performed "magic", led people with new teachings, and was killed on passover. At the very least, he existed.
0
Reply
Male 936
unthinking faith would be an excellent question to ask the creator of the human mind
0
Reply
Male 256
I have an uncanny ability to start a flame war so sorry. The Bible says Jesus was beaten so bad that he didn`t even look like himself or even look like a man. The bible says you couldn`t tell what he looked like. Plus it says his beard was ripped out of his face. So why does the shroud have a beard on it. So if the shroud was put on a beaten swollen and damaged face so badly that you couldn`t even tell if it was a man the shroud would only be a big red stain not an imprint of a face. Praise Jesus for his sacrifice I hope you never have to say to God, "Sorry I didnt believe."
0
Reply
Male 936
"skullgrin you`re just a religion troller"

do you want to show me where jesus was mentioned outside of the bible? the bible cant prove the bible. I`m sorry. Jesus never existed. If you want to try and talk about what someone looked like, lets first prove he was even a real person. No one, and i truley mean NO ONE, has been able to do this. Why? Because you cant prove something that does not exist. Jesus is a retelling of the story of Horus. Look it up if you do not believe me. If anyone is doing any trolling its the catholic church on all of you...
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Well,pui, the important thing is we get a long weekend out of it. J/K ;)
0
Reply
Male 715
Oh nice edit ABC. I watched this last night. He says, "does the shroud and my depiction look the same? no. It wouldn`t because the shroud is a 2d representation of a 3d shape." They edited it so he says "yeah" nice going, hacks!
0
Reply
Male 208
skullgrin you`re just a religion troller.
0
Reply
Female 1,682
Thats pretty cool o.o Jesus is looking nice ;D
0
Reply
Female 239
Jesus is hot lol
0
Reply
Female 3,574
The Bible says he was taken up into Heaven in bodily form (Acts 1:9), soo not really? lol
0
Reply
Male 936
the shroud definetly ISNT jesus, since jesus never existed. the ONLY mention of jesus in history is the bible...thats it. If you want to believe in jesus then i guess you must also believe in the x-men, harry potter, and edward cullen..since they all have books too.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
Is there nothing more important for a news station to report in the world than about a guy who did a 3D representation of Jesus` face and then running around asking people what they think of it?
0
Reply
Female 1,677
...and then died again?
0
Reply
Female 3,574
He died and then came back to life.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
ElSombrero>>"And by the way, they really can`t tell skin color. So don`t assume it`s fake because of that (and he probably paled in death). "

Don`t forget.... he "didn`t die", or so they say

Happy Easter all.
0
Reply
Male 1,793
hahahahahahahhahahahaha....Religion is funny..
0
Reply
Male 10,440
HE`S A PIRATE!!

[quote] YAARRR!![/quote]
0
Reply
Male 378
"I don`t think this should be anyone face."

WHAT?!!?
0
Reply
Male 716
However, that`s not to say that the Shroud isn`t Jesus` or isn`t fake.

It proves, by carbon-dating, that the cloth is from Jesus` time.

It could very well be another guy. Or it could have been added on later.

The mystery is how it got there. Some of the top experts studied this thing from top to bottom... no idea how it got there.

And by the way, they really can`t tell skin color. So don`t assume it`s fake because of that (and he probably paled in death).

And the not-curly hair may be simply the fact that they soaked him in oils and the like.

All I`m saying is that we can`t disprove the Shroud. I`m not saying it`s real.
0
Reply
Male 716
Glendower:

Actually, the same scientist who declared it to be a fake later revised his hypothesis.

He believes it to be from Jesus` time.

The first carbon dating of the Shroud dated it to the 13th century.

However, later investigation revealed that the piece of the Shroud the sample was taken from was French woven (old and new threads woven together) with thread from the 16th century while undergoing repairs.

The wool thread from that time period combined with thread from Jesus` time would give a date of 13th century.

So, in fact, they believe the actual shroud to be from Jesus` time.

However, due to the conditions in which the Shroud is kept in, almost any carbon dating would be inaccurate.

Only one carbon dating of the Shroud stands the chance to be accurate. It would have to be from a piece of the Shroud that was burnt in an accident.

They are currently in the process of obtaining a piece of burnt shrou
0
Reply
Male 79
For those saying that the Shroud was "proven" to be fake, think again. The scientists that did their little experiments with carbon dating and such admitted they made mistakes in the process.

Not saying this means that it isn`t a fake though, just pointing out it has yet to be conclusively proven.
0
Reply
Female 452
To me, the Jesus in that video looks like he could have been Middle Eastern. If he existed, he wouldn`t have been very dark; he would have looked like modern people from Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan or Syria (Israel not so much, because a lot of the Jews living there probaly have European blood). The Middle East is so close to Europe that I`m sure quite a few Middle Easterners could pass for European and vice versa.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Thanks for the link Davy.. I`ve seen it before a while ago but its good to read it again.
0
Reply
Male 154
umm, first jesus was a middle eastern jew. that guy is pretty european looking. also, the common image of christ is really just a roman man named cesaer who an artist used to try to depict jesus`s image, a hundred years or so after christ died. cesear was anglo saxan, so the common image was used in europe throughout its conversion. so, this whole thing is sorta bullpoo. there is more of a chance he was balck than white. just sayin. an im white, so its not a racial bias.
0
Reply
Male 8,302
Haha Davy, so you DO read my blog then!!!

(Well... back when I could be bothered updating it that is).
0
Reply
Male 336
The Shroud of Turin has been proven to be a fake. So they created an image of the guy who made a fake artifact sometime around the 13th century (give or take a hundred years. I dont remember exactly)

And I`m supposed to care, why?
0
Reply
Male 877
this drivel is horrible to watch...nursery rhymes to keep the masses in the dark...why do the faithful always look for proofs?...because they really have no faith...
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Hey we found another way to make Jesus look white!
0
Reply
Male 4,807
yea Fleh. There was a dozen guys claiming that at the time but what set this man "Jesus" apart was he was WAY more influential and charismatic than the rest. The guy told a great story and was very convincing.
I think if he could see into the future and saw all the misery his words would create, then he wouldn`t have said a gawl dang thing.
0
Reply
Male 845
im gonna say this once. not to troll, but cus its the truth. Jesus was black.
0
Reply
Female 385
In conclusion to davy`s link, Jebus was totes really uggles
0
Reply
Female 3,574
davymid, cool link! I actually like that appearance better.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
davy... thats a picture of you, for the sake of Christ, take it down!!!
0
Reply
Female 385
they did carbon dating on the cloth and found out it was made of cloth from i think the 1600s, so ya, defs not jesus
0
Reply
Male 1,931
How can you get a representation of a face that never existed?

Also, got to love that their Jesus is white.
0
Reply
Female 35
@ajmullan: you`re right. it was di vinci.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
A well-known scientific study found that he likely looked something like this:



Full story here
0
Reply
Male 2,034
As others have stated, Jesus was Middle-Eastern and therefore would have had brown skin and curly hair.

BUT HERE`S AN INTERESTING FACT!

The common depiction of Jesus (white guy, flowing brown hair, RIDICULOUS abs) was actually based on a man called Charlemagne.

Seriously, Google Image search Charlemagne and tell me he doesn`t look like Jesus. (Or should it be vice versa?)
0
Reply
Male 231
Jesus probably looked more like Osama than anyone else man, come on
0
Reply
Male 231
There were actually tons and tons of people claiming to be the son of god at the time. Jesus probably did exist, but he wasn`t the only "Saviour"...there were tons of others saying the same thing at the time of his existence....or at least that is what the history channel told me tonight. Either way, why do they always make him look white? HE WAS AN ARAB!!!!
0
Reply
Male 1,505
This is the religious equivalent of rubbernecking at a car accident. People are curious but nobody really cares.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
He was probably ( like pui said ) just some plain old ordinary looking guy that we would never give a second glance at.
The thing is, he had mega charisma, obviously, or we wouldn`t even know about the "man". I`m sure there was alot of guys claiming to be the son of god at that time. He just pulled it of better than the rest.
0
Reply
Male 105
im catholic and still convinced that the shroud of Turin was faked by di Vinci or someone bad ass like tht. Yea, i mean i believe in jesus, and im sure he looked something remotely like that, but still. i think the shroud of Turin is faked.
0
Reply
Female 695
"ok so here`s something i think everyone can agree on, first of all everyone`s image of jesus is automatically wrong, why? because they assume he is white.
this is impossible for the location and time from which jesus lived in, he would have been a very dark tan to brown."

People have a history depicting Jesus`s race based on their own because it makes him more relatable and personal to them. Though I`m pretty certain most people in this day and age recognize his true race and can connect that with how someone of that part of the world would have looked, though he doesn`t have to be THAT dark. Realistically he could have been any olive based shade as Isrealies tend to be.

Growing up I imagined him a glowing wheat color. Lol.
0
Reply
Female 3,574
Isaiah 53:2b says "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." Describes someone pretty average looking in appearance who does not stand out, or possibly someone even a little bad looking. Definitely not some beautiful, blue-eyed hunk of a man anyway. a1butcher`s depiction might not be far off :P
0
Reply
Male 12,138
The Shroud of frikkin` Turin? Seriously?
0
Reply
Male 4,807
If Jesus actually looked like that guy, we would think he was a nut case.
Well I wouldn`t... but I`d give him all my change, thats for sure!
0
Reply
Male 87
[email protected] the Virgin Mary candle app for the iPhone on the side.
0
Reply
Male 734
@a1butcher Actually, that`s probably more accurate. Certainly better than extrapolating from a know con. Also, I always knew Jesus had a huge fat nose.
0
Reply
Male 418
Anything....ANYTHING from that long ago is subject to speculation. Especially the details. I do believe a man, led a religious rebellion against the roman government. From the time and location, it is VERY improbable he was a Caucasian.
0
Reply
Male 214
how could they get a skin tone/color from under a towel?

[email protected] pui and yes obbycomma the blink is very creepy and i totally agree with you umm WTF.
0
Reply
Male 1,164
I still think they should put Jesus on currency somewhere. If anything it would make paying your local whore all the more uncomfortable.
0
Reply
Male 2,576
"Took it to the public"
Yeeeaaaahhhh because the Public really knows.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
What if Jesus actually looked like this guy?


0
Reply
Female 3,574
lol, why do you assume *everyone* thinks Jesus was white? :P
0
Reply
Male 33
Say hello to Leonardo da Vinci.
0
Reply
Male 31
ok so here`s something i think everyone can agree on, first of all everyone`s image of jesus is automatically wrong, why? because they assume he is white.
this is impossible for the location and time from which jesus lived in, he would have been a very dark tan to brown.
0
Reply
Female 315
Hokay. So, without wanting to start a flame war or anything like it, lemme just say I watched the whole program last night and it was fantastic. The digital rendering techniques and cg utilization are incredible. The evidence brought forth is also very interesting. I wish they hadn`t made him blink though. Creepy.
0
Reply
Female 3,574
Lionhart2, I`d totally try that, except I don`t want a bunch of pilgrims at my house :(
0
Reply
Male 8,302
Jeepers, are people STILL insisting the Shroud of Turin is ANY face, let alone Jesus`? Apart from it having been disproved countless times, fold any cloth in half, put it in the bottom of your shed floor and make sure it gets damp, and voila, your very own Shroud!
0
Reply
Male 4,004
Not loading for me.
0
Reply
Female 570
@madhattervtr, jesus is black??? *runs and downloads dogma*
0
Reply
Male 591
Looks a lot like Rasputin, actually.
0
Reply
Female 570
jeez when will people get over worshipping some dude who claimed to be the son of god, and a virgin, and probably suffered from a mental disease like his parents.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
who?
0
Reply
Female 3,574
Eh, I don`t buy it.

However, I agree, the 3D render is pretty hawt. I`d assume the son of God would be a fine specimen of a man anyway :P
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Hey, I just noticed at 1:42 they show his nut sack!
0
Reply
Male 25,417
Wow thats crazy!
0
Reply
Male 198
jesus is black... duh watch dogma...
0
Reply
Male 45
Ignorant people.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Bring on yet another flame war. God smite me now!!
0
Reply
Female 92
the shroud is wrapped in controversy

Punny!
0
Reply
Male 7,808
Link: It`s The Real-Life Face Of Jesus [Rate Link] - Thanks to new technology, a 3D model was made from the Shroud of Turin. This is what he used to look like--so they say.
0
Reply