Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Houghton M.

Clearly I was looking for scientific proof. DNA is the best indicator of that. Facial similarity is far from scientific, not to mention that we have no photos of Jesus that I am aware of.

The physical representations of Jesus that we are always presented with have to be inaccurate, anyway. Jesus had to have Semitic features being from that region, yet his likeness is not portrayed that way today, so what exactly are we comparing to the image in the shroud?

This has nothing to do with the validity of Jesus in Christianity. I just think that there is zero scientific evidence that ties Jesus to the shroud, and frankly I don’t understand why anyone cares about whether the shroud is related to Jesus.


45 posted on 03/31/2013 9:48:09 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: sakic
The physical representations of Jesus that we are always presented with have to be inaccurate, anyway. Jesus had to have Semitic features being from that region, yet his likeness is not portrayed that way today, so what exactly are we comparing to the image in the shroud?

Actually, no, he does not have to be "Semitic" as a large portion of the population were in that period what are today referred to as high noble Arabs. Tall, athletic, muscular. Think Omar Sharif. Much like what we see in the man in the Shroud who is variously calculated to be 5' 10" to 5' 10 1/2" tall, hardly out of the normal range. They accounted for approximately 40% of the Jewish population of Israel in the 1st Century.

A census of 1st Century male skeletons in Jerusalem cemeteries found the average male stature was 5' 8 1/8" tall. The average height of men in America today is 5' 8 3/8", a quarter inch taller. Strangely, the average height of the Roman conquerors in the 1st century was only 5' 6".

Remember, we are talking about the single most investigated and studied historical object in history! You really don't think a claim that it can't be real because it doesn't look Semitic would NOT have been investigated by now, do you? Prior to Secondo Pia's first photographs of the Shroud in 1898, the only research being done was essentially historical and iconographic.

48 posted on 04/01/2013 12:19:41 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: sakic
I just think that there is zero scientific evidence that ties Jesus to the shroud, and frankly I don’t understand why anyone cares about whether the shroud is related to Jesus.

Because it's so much fun to drive you trolls up a wall.

Cheers!

57 posted on 04/01/2013 3:06:06 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: sakic

So, you care about this issue. Why?


58 posted on 04/01/2013 3:32:52 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: sakic

There is hugh forensic evidence tying the Shroud to Jesus. You might inform yourself before spouting. The evidence is immense. Go to the websites,study the evidence.


66 posted on 04/01/2013 7:24:22 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: sakic

And the evidence IS scientific. Again, you write from total ignorance if you say zero scientific evidence exists.

And the facial features on the Shroud match up perfectly with the tradition of Jesus Icons in the East. Evidence points to the fact that the original icons were written (icon-speak for painted) with the Shroud image in mind (we have records of it being displayed approximately annually in Constantinople). Icons throughout history and around the world have a good degree of similarity, suggesting that they follow an ancient model and that this model was derived from the Shroud.

Think of it for a minute: there has to be a reason why the face cloth and the shroud are mentioned in John’s Gospel and that care is taken to distinguish the two.

Could it be that when they picked up those gravecloths that day and saw the facial image, they were overwhelmed at the thought that He left behind a facial image for them???? And they preserved that image.

The old saw that no one knows what Jesus looked like may be false. Much evidence (including scientific evidence, but also historical evidence) points to that conclusion.


68 posted on 04/01/2013 7:29:15 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson