Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No one knows what jesus looked like?

Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 4:20:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

why would anyone today know what jesus really looked like?
even according to the bible officials needed judas to pick jesus out of the crowd
apparently back then people weren't capable of putting up "wanted" posters
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 4:41:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 4:20:28 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

why would anyone today know what jesus really looked like?
even according to the bible officials needed judas to pick jesus out of the crowd
apparently back then people weren't capable of putting up "wanted" posters

I just thought that him being god and all, a little description might feel compulsory for them to write. I guess i could understand them not knowing back then though since not everyone had read the bible
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 5:14:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

http://www.debate.org...
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 5:26:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 5:14:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

http://www.debate.org...

Legit m8
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:32:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

I actually ran into this article too when i was googling around. Defintely interesting, wish they had found something that dated back further that ~200AD tho
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:50:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

This was something new. By the tradition, this shroud was factually wrapped over Jesus's head?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:00:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:50:33 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

This was something new. By the tradition, this shroud was factually wrapped over Jesus's head?

It is a matter of personal belief. Nobody says as a matter of faith it is, however I firmly believe that the evidence strongly supports it.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:23:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

http://web.archive.org...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:41:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."

McCrone was a hack everything he published was in his own journal. He tried to establish himself as a debunker extraordinaire...

It would take me a bit of time to find everything, but it has been postulated that the corner was mended in about the 16th century. Attached are a couple of articles for your viewing.

http://www.shroud.com...
http://www.shroud.it...
Gentorev
Posts: 2,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:48:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:23:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

http://web.archive.org...

One of my great grand sons was scribbling away on a piece of paper and when I asked him what he was drawing, he replied "Jesus Christ" with that, I said, "But no one knows what Jesus looked like," to which he answered, "Nah! But they will when I finish my picture of him."
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 9:36:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:41:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."

McCrone was a hack everything he published was in his own journal. He tried to establish himself as a debunker extraordinaire...

It would take me a bit of time to find everything, but it has been postulated that the corner was mended in about the 16th century.

Yes, the "invisible patch" theory. It is a guess to explain away the Shroud being a fake as supported by actual measurements of different dating methods and labs.

Attached are a couple of articles for your viewing.

http://www.shroud.com...
http://www.shroud.it...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 9:54:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 9:36:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:41:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."

McCrone was a hack everything he published was in his own journal. He tried to establish himself as a debunker extraordinaire...

It would take me a bit of time to find everything, but it has been postulated that the corner was mended in about the 16th century.

Yes, the "invisible patch" theory. It is a guess to explain away the Shroud being a fake as supported by actual measurements of different dating methods and labs.

If you read the article by Rogers you'd find that he did a chemical analysis on fibers adjacent to those tested and found dyes and gum.

http://www.shroud.it...

Now if only somebody could find a way to replicate an image that defies explanation either by physical or chemical means. We cannot even replicate it using any modern technique never mind 12th century techniques.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 10:26:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 9:54:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:36:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:41:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."

McCrone was a hack everything he published was in his own journal. He tried to establish himself as a debunker extraordinaire...

It would take me a bit of time to find everything, but it has been postulated that the corner was mended in about the 16th century.

Yes, the "invisible patch" theory. It is a guess to explain away the Shroud being a fake as supported by actual measurements of different dating methods and labs.

If you read the article by Rogers you'd find that he did a chemical analysis on fibers adjacent to those tested and found dyes and gum.

http://www.shroud.it...

Now if only somebody could find a way to replicate an image that defies explanation either by physical or chemical means. We cannot even replicate it using any modern technique never mind 12th century techniques.

Sorry Geogeer, the bible proves the shroud to be a fake, the cloth that was used to wrap around his head was separate from the linen CLOTHS (Plural) in which his body was wrapped.

John 20:6-7; New International Version (NIV) 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus" head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

No single shroud there matey.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 11:00:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 10:26:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:54:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:36:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:41:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."

McCrone was a hack everything he published was in his own journal. He tried to establish himself as a debunker extraordinaire...

It would take me a bit of time to find everything, but it has been postulated that the corner was mended in about the 16th century.

Yes, the "invisible patch" theory. It is a guess to explain away the Shroud being a fake as supported by actual measurements of different dating methods and labs.

If you read the article by Rogers you'd find that he did a chemical analysis on fibers adjacent to those tested and found dyes and gum.

http://www.shroud.it...

Now if only somebody could find a way to replicate an image that defies explanation either by physical or chemical means. We cannot even replicate it using any modern technique never mind 12th century techniques.

Sorry Geogeer, the bible proves the shroud to be a fake, the cloth that was used to wrap around his head was separate from the linen CLOTHS (Plural) in which his body was wrapped.

John 20:6-7; New International Version (NIV) 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus" head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

No single shroud there matey.

Yup it does doesn't it. Now how about you look at the shroud.

http://www.debate.org...

Now if you look at the top of the photo you can see a piece missing on either side of the top (note you can still see the backing). You can also see a line that runs under the piece in the middle. That is a piece of the shroud that had been cut off, and then re-stitched back on. Additionally the stitching pattern has only ever been found at one other location. 1st Century Massada in Israel.

So we have 2 strips of cloth now joined back together into one that have been fastened in the style of 1st century jewish sewing.

Seems the shroud is in keeping with the Bible. There is a theory that Paul also referred to the shroud, but I'll leave that for another time.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 11:19:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 11:00:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 10:26:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:54:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:36:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:41:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."

McCrone was a hack everything he published was in his own journal. He tried to establish himself as a debunker extraordinaire...

It would take me a bit of time to find everything, but it has been postulated that the corner was mended in about the 16th century.

Yes, the "invisible patch" theory. It is a guess to explain away the Shroud being a fake as supported by actual measurements of different dating methods and labs.

If you read the article by Rogers you'd find that he did a chemical analysis on fibers adjacent to those tested and found dyes and gum.

http://www.shroud.it...

Now if only somebody could find a way to replicate an image that defies explanation either by physical or chemical means. We cannot even replicate it using any modern technique never mind 12th century techniques.

Sorry Geogeer, the bible proves the shroud to be a fake, the cloth that was used to wrap around his head was separate from the linen CLOTHS (Plural) in which his body was wrapped.

John 20:6-7; New International Version (NIV) 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus" head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

No single shroud there matey.

Yup it does doesn't it. Now how about you look at the shroud.

http://www.debate.org...

Now if you look at the top of the photo you can see a piece missing on either side of the top (note you can still see the backing). You can also see a line that runs under the piece in the middle. That is a piece of the shroud that had been cut off, and then re-stitched back on. Additionally the stitching pattern has only ever been found at one other location. 1st Century Massada in Israel.

So we have 2 strips of cloth now joined back together into one that have been fastened in the style of 1st century jewish sewing. : Seems the shroud is in keeping with the Bible. There is a theory that Paul also referred to the shroud, but I'll leave that for another time.

Nope! the fake shroud is not in keeping with the biblical account which reveals that a single cloth was wrapped around his head and the bandages that wrapped his body contained many strips of cloth. And nowhere does Paul make any reference to any shroud that you and the catholic church believe that the body of Jesus had supposedly been wrapped in.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 11:24:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 11:19:59 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/5/2016 11:00:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 10:26:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:54:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:36:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:41:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."

McCrone was a hack everything he published was in his own journal. He tried to establish himself as a debunker extraordinaire...

It would take me a bit of time to find everything, but it has been postulated that the corner was mended in about the 16th century.

Yes, the "invisible patch" theory. It is a guess to explain away the Shroud being a fake as supported by actual measurements of different dating methods and labs.

If you read the article by Rogers you'd find that he did a chemical analysis on fibers adjacent to those tested and found dyes and gum.

http://www.shroud.it...

Now if only somebody could find a way to replicate an image that defies explanation either by physical or chemical means. We cannot even replicate it using any modern technique never mind 12th century techniques.

Sorry Geogeer, the bible proves the shroud to be a fake, the cloth that was used to wrap around his head was separate from the linen CLOTHS (Plural) in which his body was wrapped.

John 20:6-7; New International Version (NIV) 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus" head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

No single shroud there matey.

Yup it does doesn't it. Now how about you look at the shroud.

http://www.debate.org...

Now if you look at the top of the photo you can see a piece missing on either side of the top (note you can still see the backing). You can also see a line that runs under the piece in the middle. That is a piece of the shroud that had been cut off, and then re-stitched back on. Additionally the stitching pattern has only ever been found at one other location. 1st Century Massada in Israel.

So we have 2 strips of cloth now joined back together into one that have been fastened in the style of 1st century jewish sewing. : Seems the shroud is in keeping with the Bible. There is a theory that Paul also referred to the shroud, but I'll leave that for another time.

Nope! the fake shroud is not in keeping with the biblical account which reveals that a single cloth was wrapped around his head and the bandages that wrapped his body contained many strips of cloth. And nowhere does Paul make any reference to any shroud that you and the catholic church believe that the body of Jesus had supposedly been wrapped in.

The head cloth is a different object. That is believed to be the Sudarium of Oviedo. There is no mention of many strips, just strips. 2 strips counts as strips. You are reading what you want into the text rather than accepting the text at face value. They wouldn't have had time to bind the body with many strips. That is why the women were returning after the sabbath, to add to the burial process.

I'll find the Paul quote later.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 12:18:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 11:24:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 11:19:59 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/5/2016 11:00:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 10:26:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:54:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 9:36:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:41:36 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:22:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:13:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:10:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:59:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

According to one test that didn't follow proper scientific procedures. It can be shown that the shroud was copied in art back to the early 6th century.

That is incorrect. Three independent tests all concluded the cloth of the shroud dates to around 1350 AD.

All conducted on one corner chosen at the last moment with no investigation as to whether this material was homogenous with the rest of the shroud. Testing requires selection from different distinct points.

...do you think that corner was younger than the rest of the shroud?

Yup. It was a highly damaged corner of the cloth. There are indications that it was heterogenous to the main body of the shroud.

Are you referring to the fire that the shroud was exposed to in the 1500's?

Dr. Walter McCrone:
"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century."

McCrone was a hack everything he published was in his own journal. He tried to establish himself as a debunker extraordinaire...

It would take me a bit of time to find everything, but it has been postulated that the corner was mended in about the 16th century.

Yes, the "invisible patch" theory. It is a guess to explain away the Shroud being a fake as supported by actual measurements of different dating methods and labs.

If you read the article by Rogers you'd find that he did a chemical analysis on fibers adjacent to those tested and found dyes and gum.

http://www.shroud.it...

Now if only somebody could find a way to replicate an image that defies explanation either by physical or chemical means. We cannot even replicate it using any modern technique never mind 12th century techniques.

Sorry Geogeer, the bible proves the shroud to be a fake, the cloth that was used to wrap around his head was separate from the linen CLOTHS (Plural) in which his body was wrapped.

John 20:6-7; New International Version (NIV) 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus" head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

No single shroud there matey.

Yup it does doesn't it. Now how about you look at the shroud.

http://www.debate.org...

Now if you look at the top of the photo you can see a piece missing on either side of the top (note you can still see the backing). You can also see a line that runs under the piece in the middle. That is a piece of the shroud that had been cut off, and then re-stitched back on. Additionally the stitching pattern has only ever been found at one other location. 1st Century Massada in Israel.

So we have 2 strips of cloth now joined back together into one that have been fastened in the style of 1st century jewish sewing. : Seems the shroud is in keeping with the Bible. There is a theory that Paul also referred to the shroud, but I'll leave that for another time.

Nope! the fake shroud is not in keeping with the biblical account which reveals that a single cloth was wrapped around his head and the bandages that wrapped his body contained many strips of cloth. And nowhere does Paul make any reference to any shroud that you and the catholic church believe that the body of Jesus had supposedly been wrapped in.

The head cloth is a different object. That is believed to be the Sudarium of Oviedo. There is no mention of many strips, just strips. 2 strips counts as strips. You are reading what you want into the text rather than accepting the text at face value. They wouldn't have had time to bind the body with many strips. That is why the women were returning after the sabbath, to add to the burial process.

I'll find the Paul quote later.

You will find no quote from Paul, which refers to your fake shroud.

And what makes you think there were only two pieces of cloth covering the body of Jesus, if there were only two pieces they would have been rather large pieces and would not have been referred as strips.

Joseph the half brother who lived with his father Joseph the son of Jacob, in the town of Arimathea and who buried his half brother Jesus, in his own family tomb which had never been used, with Nicodemus took down the body of Jesus and using a hundred pounds of spices, which was a mixture of Myrrh and aloes, they wound it in with the linen strips they used to wrap the body of Jesus.

Three days later, the women would not have unwrapped what they would have believed was a decomposing body to add more spices, they would have simply placed whatever spices they had, on and around the already prepared body.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
EastwardTraveler
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 3:20:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:54:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:36:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/5/2016 6:19:11 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 4:12:13 PM, Internet wrote:
I read an article about a hypothetical cg recreation of jesus. When i was reading it they mention the bible never described jesus' appearance .iv never read the whole bible, but does anyone recall if he was ever described. Why wouldnt he be?

I can't understand why no one linked this article http://www.bbc.com... and this picture http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk... yet. The study and the picture are guesses made by some British-Israeli university team.

The image of Jesus has conformed to one image. That image follows the path of the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the image of Jesus.

I agree. Most historians believe the shroud of Turin is the one that belonged to Jesus, but the image is more likely the result of one of the many hands it went through and the picture came from a dead man that belonged to one of the groups that possessed it. There is an old way of using chemicals to make a rudimentary picture on cloth that was used during those days and that is the more probable explanation for the image.