Many Faces of Jesus (Photos) and scientifical face of Jesus (Jesus Christ, crucifixion)

[cfmember]

Please take a look at many (historical) faces of Jesus Christ:

http://www.dantol.com/explore/christianity/data/faces_of_jesus.html

The last photo on a page is, what scientists believe to be "real face of Jesus" (using forensic evidence and advances in science). There is also in-depth article explaining how scientists reconstructed Jesus' face. Please take a good look at many faces of Jesus and tell us what's was your first impression of real Jesus' face (last photo in a set)? Do you believe that's really him?

[john313]

everything i have read on the appearance of Jesus was that he had basically shoulder length hair and a mild beard. the last one has the hair too short.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by john313

everything i have read on the appearance of Jesus was that he had basically shoulder length hair and a mild beard. the last one has the hair too short.

Looks somewhat rattled to me.

[kreeden]

And his ears aren't big enough ...

What forensic discovery ? Somene find the body ?

[michel]

Pt1

Originally Posted by cfmember

Please take a look at many (historical) faces of Jesus Christ:

http://www.dantol.com/explore/christianity/data/faces_of_jesus.html

The last photo on a page is, what scientists believe to be "real face of Jesus" (using forensic evidence and advances in science). There is also in-depth article explaining how scientists reconstructed Jesus' face. Please take a good look at many faces of Jesus and tell us what's was your first impression of real Jesus' face (last photo in a set)? Do you believe that's really him?

I looked at the photos; the last one is certainly different from the firt (The normally accepted image). There has always been controversy surrounding the dating of the Turin shroud; it was thought to be a fake through carbon dating, but in January this year, the following was published:-

QUOTE] "Jan. 25, 2005 — The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long believed to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the crucifixion, is much older than the date suggested by radiocarbon tests, according to new microchemical research.

Published in the current issue of Thermochimica Acta, a chemistry peer- reviewed scientific journal, the study dismisses the results of the 1988 carbon-14 dating.

At that time, three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Ariz., concluded that the cloth on which the smudged outline of the body of a man is indelibly impressed, was a medieval fake dating from 1260 to 1390, and not the burial cloth wrapped around the body of Christ.

"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the shroud in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the shroud. Indeed, the patch was very carefully made. The yarn has the same twist as the main part of the cloth, and it was stained to match the color," Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratories and former member of the STURP team of American scientists that examined the Shroud in 1978, told Discovery News.

The presence of a patch on the shroud doesn't come as a surprise. The linen cloth has survived several blazes since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a church fire in 1532.

Badly damaged, it was then restored by nuns who patched burn holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing cloth that is now known as the Holland cloth.

In his study, Rogers analyzed and compared the radiocarbon sample with other samples from the controversial cloth.

"As part of the STURP research project, I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud in 1978, including some patches and the Holland cloth. I also obtained the authentic samples used in the radiocarbon dating," Rogers said.

It emerged that the radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud, Rogers said.

"The radiocarbon sample had been dyed, most likely to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth. The sample was dyed using a technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Mameluke Turks in 1291.

"The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about 1290, agreeing with the age determined by carbon-14 dating in 1988. However, the Shroud itself is actually much older," said Rogers.

Evidence came from microchemical tests that revealed the presence of vanillin in the radiocarbon sample and in the Holland cloth, but not in the rest of the shroud.

Produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a chemical compound of plant material including flax, vanillin decreases and disappears with time. It is easily detected on medieval linens, but cannot be found in the very old ones, such as the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls.

"A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old," Rogers wrote.

According to Tom D'Muhala, the president of the American Shroud of Turin Association for Research, the new chemical tests produced "conclusive evidence."

"They indicate that the linen Shroud is actually very old — much older than the published 1988 radiocarbon date," D'Muhala said.]QUOTE
Source :-(http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...24/shroud.html )

The idea of forensic archeologist's input is a bit 'iffy' - they obviously had nothing of Jesus's own body to work on, and therefore had to rely on bodies found, dating to the time Jesus was alive;
QUOTE] "the Shroud History
Scientific interest in linen cloth began in 1898, when it was photographed by lawyer Secondo Pia. The negatives revealed the image of a bearded man with pierced wrists and feet and a bloodstained head.
In 1988, the Vatican approved carbon-dating tests. Three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Ariz., concluded that the shroud was medieval, dating from 1260 to 1390, and not a burial cloth wrapped around the body of Christ.

But since then a growing sense that the radiocarbon dating might have had substantial flaws emerged among shroud scholars.

The history of the cloth has been steeped in mystery. It has survived several blazes since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a mysterious fire at Turin Cathedral in 1997.

Kept rolled up in a silver casket, it has been on display only five times in the past century. When it last went on display in 2000, more than three million people saw it. The next display will be in 2025. ] QUOTE
The Shroud of Turin images may not the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London: Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua, Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin.

This supports a hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin's images are the result of a very natural, complex chemical reaction between amines (ammonia derivatives) emerging from a body and saccharides within a carbohydrate residue that covers the fibers of the Shroud of Turin. The color producing chemical process is called a Maillard reaction. This is fully discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Melanoidins, a journal of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (EU, Volume 4, 2003).

The proposal, by chemist Raymond E. Rogers, a Science Fellow of the Los Alamos Laboratory, and Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan, is hypothetical. But the chemical and physical nature of the Shroud of Turin's images is pure scientific fact.

Imagine slicing a human hair lengthwise, from end to end, into 100 long thin slices; each slice one-tenth the width of a single red blood cell. The images on the Shroud of Turin, at their thickest, are this thin. In selective places, an otherwise clear layer of starch fractions and saccharides, a mere 200 to 600 nanometers thick, as thin as the wall of a soap bubble, has undergone a chemical change into a caramel colored substance. Spectral and chemical analysis reveal that the chromophores of the Shroud of Turin's images are complex, conjugated carbon bonds. (contd)

[michel]

Pt2


Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin

But what are we to make of the carbon 14 tests, that in 1988, "proved" that the Shroud of Turin is medieval? As reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, now there is proof that the samples used were invalid. The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site. Elsevier is one of the world's largest providers of ethical, peer-reviewed scientific, technical and medical literature. The abstract reads in part:

Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

The problem is called material intrusion. It is an uncommon problem in some carbon 14 dating exercises. For instance, in dating peat bogs, which may be very old, the samples often contain miniscule roots from newer plants that grew in the peat. Sometimes the roots, having decomposed, are indistinguishable from the older peat. What is tested might simply be a mixture of old and new material leading to erroneous results. No one expected that material intrusion might be a problem with the Shroud of Turin. But it was. By some estimates, as much as 60 percent of the Shroud of Turin sample was new thread, the result of mending in the 16th century. This is sufficient to change the date of a 1st century shroud to the medieval date range arrived at by the carbon 14 dating.

It is quite possible that the Shroud of Turin is a genuine first century burial cloth of a crucifixion victim. If so, the cloth, at some time, was separated from the body it wrapped and removed from the tomb.


Chiaroscuro and the Shroud of Turin

The most interesting aspect of the Shroud of Turin, for many, is the visual nature of the image, the illusion of chiaroscuro, the use of light and shade independent of color to give a sense of dimensionality to the picture.

Just beneath the surface of arguments about the Shroud of Turin's authenticity, it is the compelling convincer, for some, that the images are art. As one person said to me, "It's art. I can see that the Shroud of Turin is art. No amount of scientific evidence can convince me otherwise." Such beliefs about the Shroud of Turin are understandable.

Yet for some the Shroud of Turin's chiaroscuro is a powerful indication that the image is miraculous even though science cannot support that idea. The idea is all the more compelling because, in reality, we are very certain that the image is not a true chiaroscuro.

Chiaroscuro in art is an illusion. It is one of many techniques that the artist uses to give a sense of dimensionality and depth to a picture. But computerized image analysis of the images on the Shroud of Turin indicates that what we perceive as the play of light in the images is not and cannot be light. The illusion is an illusion of an illusion. And it does not make sense.

See:A CSI Forensic Science Quest to Explain the Pictures of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin

Whatever the Turin Shroud is, it is not a medieval fake relic.

Just as modern Christianity is a tapestry of diverse traditions stretched taut between the polaritiesof unwavering biblical literalism and unbridled modern revisionism, modern beliefs and arguments about the Shroud of Turin are drawn tight between those who seek from it some proof of the Resurrection and those who are rigidly skeptical. Could it be that the answer is a via media, a middle way, a reasoned embrace of the facts that implies a resurrection but does not prove it or define it. There is just enough confusion to preserve the freedom to believe without certainty.

If the Shroud of Turin is genuine, it presents us with more mystery and paradox than clarity. That, however, is not so perplexing as it is exciting in an age of diverse beliefs and traditions.

I have come to believe that the Shroud of Turin is genuine. To arrive at that belief, I had to choke down some educated-into-me predispositions. One was that relics with a footprint in medieval Europe were certainly fake. Another was that such images, as are seen on the Shroud, are not scientifically possible (I still struggle with this). In the final analysis, as strange as it may sound, modern sensibilities prevailed to convince me that the Shroud of Turin is genuine.

In the 1960s, I had read John A. T. Robinson's famous best seller, Honest to God. His appeal to letting honesty lead where it may has been key in all my thinking. The science and the history of the Shroud of Turin is too compelling to ignore.

My personal faith, rooted in a rich mix of Anglican-style liberal theology and traditional orthodoxy, is unaffected by the Shroud of Turin. However, in the Shroud, I find breathtaking possibilities for advancing the quest for the historical Jesus and for better understanding my faith. Surprisingly, I discovered that the liberal-revisionist Bishop Robinson, convinced that the Shroud of Turin was not a fake, thought so too.



Science and the Shroud of Turin

For those interested in the non-religious science of the Shroud of Turin, I recommend the following 19-question FAQ by Ray Rogers. Rogers, a chemist, is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. In his half-century long career he has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals and U.S. government publications. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Turin. For several days he collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study. He continued to study the Shroud of Turin until his death, March 8, 2005.]
Source:- (http://www.shroudstory.com/)

There has allways also been controversy about the date on which Jesus was born; PART QUOTE]


"Contrary to popular, worldly and "religious" beliefs, September 11th was the birth date of our Lord Jesus Christ, rather than December 25th! Jesus Christ was born on September 11, 3BC, as shown in the linked articles, above and below. Christ's birthdate may be proven, "Biblically, chronologically, historically and astronomically."PART QUOTE]

Source :-http://radio.weblogs.com/0128891/categories/jesusChristSRealBirthdate9113BC/

The above date falls neatly into line with the new dating of the shroud, and therefore seems to indicate a strong likely indication of it's veracity.
The picture of Christ, reconstructed, would 'fit' the 'look of a human' at that time, and therefore credence ought to be given to the projected photo.

[Unedited]

I remember learning in History class, that many Americans used the fact that their slaves did not believe in Jesus Christ as an excuse for slavory. They thought that if their souls were already damned, that it was okay to enslave them. I don't know how truthful that is, but it made me wonder if that excuse would have held up so well were they to recognize that last picture as Christ instead of the first. Or whatever other effects it could have on society.

It also reminds me of other key figures of other religions are portrayed. How Buddha is always very fat, or how Krishna is always blue.

Hmm.

[Halcyon]

I saw the documentary of that last face being made, they based it on what the average person would have looked like, the hair style is that which was most common (and popular) at the time. Obviously jesus wasn't white like in most paintings, the climate of the area would have meant he would have looked like the people of the middle east do today.

I don't know if there is a description of him in the bible, if there is then i'd go with that - if there isn't then most likely he would have looked like that CG image. The oldest picture there was from AD375, but if biblical literature like the Gospels of Thomas and Philip are rejected from that time period, then so must that image.

[CaptainXeroid]

I've never understood why some people seem so concerned with exactly what Jesus looked like. I say read the New Testament and follow his teachings. Chances are, he looked much like the people who live in Nazareth today.