PDA

View Full Version : Earliest Image of the Face of Jesus?



FlaGator
04-03-2011, 08:27 PM
Interesting story. I've been following this for a week or so.


The image is eerily familiar: a bearded young man with flowing curly hair. After lying for nearly 2,000 years hidden in a cave in the Holy Land, the fine detail is difficult to determine. But in a certain light it is not difficult to interpret the marks around the figure’s brow as a crown of thorns.



The extraordinary picture of one of the recently discovered hoard of up to 70 lead codices – booklets – found in a cave in the hills overlooking the Sea of Galilee is one reason Bible historians are clamouring to get their hands on the ancient artefacts.



If genuine, this could be the first-ever portrait of Jesus Christ, possibly even created in the lifetime of those who knew him.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/02/article-1372741-0B6C6F8900000578-841_634x848.jpg

The tiny booklet, a little smaller than a modern credit card, is sealed on all sides and has a three-dimensional representation of a human head on both the front and the back. One appears to have a beard and the other is without. Even the maker’s fingerprint can be seen in the lead impression. Beneath both figures is a line of as-yet undeciphered text in an ancient Hebrew script.



Astonishingly, one of the booklets appears to bear the words ‘Saviour of Israel’ – one of the few phrases so far translated.


Whole story here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372741/Hidden-cave-First-portrait-Jesus-1-70-ancient-books.html)

megimoo
04-03-2011, 08:51 PM
Interesting story. I've been following this for a week or so.



Whole story here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372741/Hidden-cave-First-portrait-Jesus-1-70-ancient-books.html)
We have a far more accurate view of the Christ in Shroud Of Turin .Do you know what the purpose of such a small book was and why was it made ?

Articulate_Ape
04-03-2011, 08:51 PM
Looks just like him. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
04-03-2011, 09:02 PM
Looks just like him. :rolleyes:

He's lost weight. :D

FlaGator
04-03-2011, 09:25 PM
We have a far more accurate view of the Christ in Shroud Of Turin .Do you know what the purpose of such a small book was and why was it made ?

I am not convinced that the shroud is real but I try to keep an open mind about these things.

Since the codices are small, they seem to be related to individual worship and study. That some are completely sealed, however, is perplexing. Being made out of what they are means that they were meant to last a while.

fettpett
04-03-2011, 09:30 PM
I posted on this a couple days ago, I thought it was really cool find

Articulate_Ape
04-03-2011, 10:05 PM
I am not convinced that the shroud is real but I try to keep an open mind about these things.


Not me. I think an open mind on the writings is good. An open mind, as in maybe it's Jesus, is not an open mind at all.

Bubba Dawg
04-03-2011, 10:18 PM
How far back does the Gideons organization go?

To me this is fascinating. Not definitive but fascinating.

Novaheart
04-03-2011, 10:25 PM
Interesting story. I've been following this for a week or so.



Alternatively, it could be the oldest example of a luggage tag.

FlaGator
04-03-2011, 10:54 PM
Not me. I think an open mind on the writings is good. An open mind, as in maybe it's Jesus, is not an open mind at all.

With the Lord all things are possible. That His Son could leave an image in His death shroud at the resurrection I have no doubt. The questions I have is would He and for what purpose. Believers don't need such proof so what was the intention in leaving it behind? Also the Gospels mention finding His death shroud neatly folded in His tomb. I would think that if this detail was worth mentioning then the fact that the linen contained an image would also be noted.

Kay
04-03-2011, 11:56 PM
This new find of little books is fascinating. I'm watching this story too.
Why would the maker have sealed the book on all sides like this. And
then to be the one to open it up so many centuries later. Boy that would
be a dream come true to so many in the archeological and theology fields.

megimoo
04-04-2011, 01:03 AM
With the Lord all things are possible. That His Son could leave an image in His death shroud at the resurrection I have no doubt. The questions I have is would He and for what purpose. Believers don't need such proof so what was the intention in leaving it behind? Also the Gospels mention finding His death shroud neatly folded in His tomb. I would think that if this detail was worth mentioning then the fact that the linen contained an image would also be noted.

A close reading of scripture tells me that the linen wrappings were not unwrapped but were collapsed upon themselves when Jesus rose .Peter entered but John remained outside looking in .He must have seen the shroud on the slab collapsed upon itself and the napkin once placed over his face and sealed within the wrappings off to one side apart from the shroud.

That was enough for John to believe that the lord had risen from the dead.Someone recovered the shroud and napkin from the tomb and preserved it .Scripture doesn't tell us who it was ?

His shroud was as it was,wrapped and sealed with over a hundred pounds of spices between layers of linen effectively sealing the body in a tight cocoon much like an Egyptian Mummy as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus left and rolled the great stone that sealed the tomb.

An image in my mind's eye of the dead Christ,lord of all creation, alone in his dead,dark,silent tomb ...All is lost,all is hopeless,all is done....Nothing but silence and darkness... Suddenly a tiny glow that grows into an blinding white Christ light that fills the tomb and The Christ, Victorious over Death itself, in his Glory,a newly resurrected body standing alive, bursting forth to release Moses,the Prophets and all of the faithful from Hades .

His return in his resurrection body must have been by accomplished through the blinding light of creation itself.

The image of the shroud is an negative that went unnoticed for years until the development of photograph...The image is burned into the linen by the blinding light of Christs resurrection .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diKEZb9_M8Q&feature=player_embedded

http://www.resurrection.azprophecy.com/grave-clothes-evidence.php

FlaGator
04-04-2011, 09:47 AM
A close reading of scripture tells me that the linen wrappings were not unwrapped but were collapsed upon themselves when Jesus rose .Peter entered but John remained outside looking in .He must have seen the shroud on the slab collapsed upon itself and the napkin once placed over his face and sealed within the wrappings off to one side apart from the shroud.

Scripture doesn't tell us that the shroud was saved nor if it was in a collapsed condition. It just states that the shroud did not cover the body and that the face cloth was set aside and folded.


3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.John 20:3-7



That was enough for John to believe that the lord had risen from the dead.Someone recovered the shroud and napkin from the tomb and preserved it .Scripture doesn't tell us who it was ?

His shroud was as it was,wrapped and sealed with over a hundred pounds of spices between layers of linen effectively sealing the body in a tight cocoon much like an Egyptian Mummy as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus left and rolled the great stone that sealed the tomb.

I don't believe that there was enough time to apply the spices as you suggest. He died at 3:00pm and he needed to be in the tomb before the Sabbath which began at night fall. Also scripture tells us that Mary Magdalene and some other women were bringing spices to anoint the body on Sunday morning but found the tomb to be empty (Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:50-56). If the had treated His body as you suggest then what need would there be for Mary and friends to re-anoint the body?



An image in my mind's eye of the dead Christ,lord of all creation, alone in his dead,dark,silent tomb ...All is lost,all is hopeless,all is done....Nothing but silence and darkness... Suddenly a tiny glow that grows into an blinding white Christ light that fills the tomb and The Christ, Victorious over Death itself, in his Glory,a newly resurrected body standing alive, bursting forth to release Moses,the Prophets and all of the faithful from Hades .

His return in his resurrection body must have been by accomplished through the blinding light of creation itself.

The image of the shroud is an negative that went unnoticed for years until the development of photograph...The image is burned into the linen by the blinding light of Christs resurrection .


Since there no description of the resurrection process then you are assuming facts that are not in evidence. Why would there need to be a blinding light? There was no light at the beginning of creation (Genesis 1:1-2). Light was created after the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:3).

I see the resurrection as Christ waking up, removing the robes, folding up his face cloth and setting it aside. Then the stone is rolled way (either earthquake or by angels) and he walks out of them tomb. Even this is simply speculation on my part but I will ask Jesus if he will tell me about it when I see him face to face.

megimoo
04-04-2011, 11:01 PM
Scripture doesn't tell us that the shroud was saved nor if it was in a collapsed condition. It just states that the shroud did not cover the body and that the face cloth was set aside and folded.

John 20:3-7



I don't believe that there was enough time to apply the spices as you suggest. He died at 3:00pm and he needed to be in the tomb before the Sabbath which began at night fall. Also scripture tells us that Mary Magdalene and some other women were bringing spices to anoint the body on Sunday morning but found the tomb to be empty (Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:50-56). If the had treated His body as you suggest then what need would there be for Mary and friends to re-anoint the body?



Since there no description of the resurrection process then you are assuming facts that are not in evidence. Why would there need to be a blinding light? There was no light at the beginning of creation (Genesis 1:1-2). Light was created after the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:3).

I see the resurrection as Christ waking up, removing the robes, folding up his face cloth and setting it aside. Then the stone is rolled way (either earthquake or by angels) and he walks out of them tomb. Even this is simply speculation on my part but I will ask Jesus if he will tell me about it when I see him face to face.

" I don't believe that there was enough time to apply the spices as you suggest. He died at 3:00pm and he needed to be in the tomb before the Sabbath which began at night fall. Also scripture tells us that Mary Magdalene and some other women were bringing spices to anoint the body on Sunday morning but found the tomb to be empty (Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:50-56). If the had treated His body as you suggest then what need would there be for Mary and friends to re-anoint the body?"

Indeed what need did Mary Magdalene have to anoint the head and feet of the Messiah with pure nard and her tears at the feast of Simon the leper and dry them with her hair ? She obviously had a great love of the Lord .

He,Jesus,is back with Lazarus and his sisters in a relatively private setting. There is a party in his honor six days before the Passover (v. 1), probably on Saturday night after the conclusion of sabbath. It is not said where the party takes place, but from the account in Matthew and Mark it would be at the house of Simon the leper (Mt 26:6 par. Mk 14:3). Lazarus is also an honored guest, while Martha helps with the serving (v. 2), true to the picture of her elsewhere (Lk 10:38-42).

The picture of Mary is also true to that in Luke (10:38-42); that is, she is a devoted disciple who ignores the taboos of her society in her commitment to Jesus. Sitting at his feet as a disciple (Lk 10:39) was not the place for a woman, but she is commended by Jesus (Lk 10:42). Now she acts in an even more scandalous manner in anointing Jesus' feet with extremely expensive perfume and then wiping them with her hair (Jn 12:3).

Roughly several hours from 3:00 Pm until sundown would give them enough time to wash, wrap and anoint the body of our lord .

John 19:39 (New International Version, ©2011)
39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.
.............................

New International Version (©1984)
He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.

New Living Translation (©2007)
With him came Nicodemus, the man who had come to Jesus at night. He brought about seventy-five pounds of perfumed ointment made from myrrh and aloes.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Nicodemus, the man who had first come to Jesus at night, also arrived, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about a hundred pounds.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Nicodemus, the one who had first come to Jesus at night, went with Joseph and brought 75 pounds of a myrrh and aloe mixture.

King James Bible
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound [weight].

American King James Version
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

American Standard Version
And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.

Bible in Basic English
And Nicodemus came (he who had first come to Jesus by night) with a roll of myrrh and aloes mixed, about a hundred pounds.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And Nicodemus also came, (he who at the first came to Jesus by night,) bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

Darby Bible Translation
And Nicodemus also, who at first came to Jesus by night, came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.

English Revised Version
And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.

Webster's Bible Translation
And there came also Nicodemus (who at the first came to Jesus by night) and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight.

Weymouth New Testament
Nicodemus too--he who at first had visited Jesus by night--came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, in weight about seventy or eighty pounds.

World English Bible
Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred Roman pounds.

Young's Literal Translation
and Nicodemus also came -- who came unto Jesus by night at the first -- bearing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, as it were, a hundred pounds.
...........................

megimoo
04-05-2011, 12:07 AM
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Nicodemus - See on John 3:1 (note), etc.

Myrrh and aloes - Which drugs were used to preserve bodies from putrefaction. Calmet says that the aloes mentioned here is a liquor which runs from an aromatic tree, and is widely different from that called aloes among us.

Some have objected that a hundred pounds' weight of myrrh and aloes was enough to embalm two hundred dead bodies; and instead of ἑκατον, a hundred, some critics have proposed to read ἑκατερων - a mixture of myrrh and aloes, of about a pound Each. See Bowyer's Conjectures. But it may be observed that great quantities of spices were used for embalming dead bodies, when they intended to show peculiar marks of respect to the deceased. A great quantity was used at the funeral of Aristobulus; and it is said that five hundred servants bearing aromatics attended the funeral of Herod: see Josephus, Ant. b. xv. c. 3, s. 4; and b. xvii. c. 8, s. 3: and fourscore pounds of spices were used at the funeral of R. Gamaliel the elder. See Wetstein in loc.


Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And there came also Nicodemus,.... To the cross, at the same time as Joseph did; who, whether they were brethren, as some conjecture, and met here by consent, since one prepared one thing, and another, for the interment of Christ, is not certain. This Nicodemus is thought to be the same with Nicodemus ben Gorion, the Talmudists speaks of, who, they say (u), was one of the three rich men in Jerusalem; as this appears to be a rich man, from the large quantity of myrrh and aloes he brought with him, and which must be very costly. Moreover, they say (w), that he had another name, which was Boni; and they themselves observe (x), that Boni was one of the disciples of Jesus, as this Nicodemus was, though a secret one, as Joseph: this is he

which at the first came to Jesus by night; who, when Christ first entered on his ministry, or when he first came unto him, came to him by night to discourse with him about his Messiahship, doctrine, and miracles, John 3:1 for being one of the Pharisees, a ruler of the Jews, and a Rabbi or master in Israel, he was ashamed or afraid to converse publicly with him; however, he went away a disciple; and though he did not openly profess him, he loved him, and believed in him, and now being dead showed his respect to him:

and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight: not himself, but by his servants. This mixture of myrrh and aloes together, and which was a very large quantity, and exceeding costly, was not designed the embalming of his body, and preserving it from putrefaction; for he was not embalmed, though myrrh and cassia and other odours were used in embalming (y); but for perfuming it, and in honour and respect unto him: it was sweet smelling myrrh, and an aromatic spice called "aloe" he brought, and not the common aloe. Nonnus calls it the "Indian aloe", which was of a sweet odour; for which reason it was brought. These are both reckoned with the chief spices, Sol 4:14. Myrrh was one of the principal spices in the anointing oil and holy perfume, Exodus 30:23. It is a kind of gum or resin called "stacte", that issues either by incision, or of its own accord, out of the body or branches of a tree of this name, which grows in Arabia and Egypt; and being of an agreeable smell, was used at funerals: hence those words of Martial (z) "---& olentem funera myrrham"; and so Nazianzen, speaking of his brother Caesarius, says (a),

"he lies dead, friendless, desolate, miserable, , "favoured with a little myrrh".''

And so the aloe was used to perfume, and to give a good scent, Proverbs 7:17 and Christ's garments are said to smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia, Psalm 45:8. Some have thought, that this was a mixture of the juice of myrrh, and of the juice of the aloe plant, and was a liquid into which the body of Christ was put: but this will not so well agree with the winding of the body in linen, with these in the next verse, where they are called spices. A Jew (b) objects to this relation of the evangelist as unworthy of belief: he affirms, that this was enough for two hundred dead bodies, and that it could not be carried with less than the strength of a mule, and therefore not by Nicodemus. In answer to which, it is observed by Bishop Kidder (c), that we having nothing but the Jew's own word for it, that this was enough for two hundred bodies, and a load for a mule; and that it should be told what was the weight of the or pound, mentioned by the evangelist, ere the force of the objection can be seen; and that it is a thing well known, that among the Jews the bodies of great men were buried with a great quantity of spices: it is said of Asa, that "they buried him in his own sepulchre which he had made for himself, in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours, and divers kinds of spices", 2 Chronicles 16:14. To which may be added, what is before observed, that this was not brought by Nicodemus himself, but by his servants; and what they did by his orders, and he coming along with them, he may be said to do. Just as Joseph is said to take down the body of Jesus from the cross, wind it in linen, and carry it to his sepulchre, and there bury it; this being done by his servants, at his orders, or they at least assisting in it; and as Pilate is said to put the title he wrote upon the cross, though it was done by others, at his command.
.........................

MrsSmith
04-05-2011, 06:54 AM
Geez, moo, ever overdo something? :rolleyes::rolleyes::D

FlaGator
04-05-2011, 09:55 AM
Geez, moo, ever overdo something? :rolleyes::rolleyes::D

He assumes a lot of things that have no basis in scripture. Quoting speculation as fact does not make it fact. And I'm confused about the tangent he took off on with Mary and Martha that has nothing to do with the topic.

And how we got off on this when the subject was the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin I am not sure. I have trouble believing that if this was a legitimate artifact of the resurrection then why wasn't it mentioned in the bible nor noted in history until around 1357 or so. That is a long time to keep solid evidence of the Resurrection hidden away.

This all started because I stated that I didn't believe it was real, that it is a forgery but I understand that all things were possible for God so it may be real... I just don't think so.

megimoo
04-05-2011, 10:02 AM
Geez, moo, ever overdo something? :rolleyes::rolleyes::D
Do you think that it was overdone ?I do beg your pardon madam .

fettpett
04-05-2011, 10:57 AM
They wouldn't have had "several hours" to get his body down from the cross and take it over to the tomb, they had about 3 max. remember that it was spring time (between March and May) in the middle east were daylight is really close to being equal with night.

Under Jewish law they had to have all work done by the start of Sabbath and they couldn't have the dead out. 3 hours is way not enough time to move the body and get it prepared for a proper burial per Jewish tradition/law. Wrap the body that had been brutally beaten during the day, as well as the thorns and spear piercing that had to be cleaned to get it ready. Thats a LOT do do in a couple hours. On top of that I'm sure that Pilot had Roman soldiers with them the entire time just to make sure that they didn't run off with the body.

I also believe that Christ would have risen as soon as possible on Sunday "morning" (after Sun down on Saturday as a day in Jewish tradition is Sun down to Sun down). Why a "light" would have shined is beyond me, all Christ did for Lazarus was speak, all God did when giving life to man was speak and breath, all Paul did with the little boy was speak, nothing that we visualize now with Hollywood productions with all the bright light shining from someone like in Dr Who.

So that said, I agree with FlaGator, the shroud is most likely a fake, albeit an old one

megimoo
04-05-2011, 11:40 AM
He assumes a lot of things that have no basis in scripture. Quoting speculation as fact does not make it fact. And I'm confused about the tangent he took off on with Mary and Martha that has nothing to do with the topic.

And how we got off on this when the subject was the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin I am not sure. I have trouble believing that if this was a legitimate artifact of the resurrection then why wasn't it mentioned in the bible nor noted in history until around 1357 or so. That is a long time to keep solid evidence of the Resurrection hidden away.

This all started because I stated that I didn't believe it was real, that it is a forgery but I understand that all things were possible for God so it may be real... I just don't think so.
You being a fundamentalist require that everything be in black and white written in scripture before you will open your mind.Do you recall a testament By Josh McDowell called 'Evidence that demands a verdict '? In the case of the shroud there have been many attempts to discredit its authenticity,some totally fraudulent, some due to poor procedure.So far it has remained enigmatic but a body of evidence has emerged to support it as the true burial cloth of the Christ.

As for the shroud of Turin, I've already explained that it was a negative imprint on
the linen that went unnoticed for hundreds of years ... The discovery of the image was made, as I have mentioned several times,when photography was perfected and a negative exposure of the shroud revealed an positive image of a body And so the debate rages on .

To refresh your memory..Your words if you recall ?" If the had treated His body as you suggest then what need would there be for Mary and friends to re-anoint the body?"

My response was that Mary didn't need much in the way of a reason to adore the lord.Thus her washing his feet and perfuming his hair is typical of her adoration of her savior.She would do her own anointing and perfuming of her lord and savior,she owed him so much !

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-05-2011, 08:16 PM
IMO, the shroud isn't the face of Christ as Christ likely DID NOT have long hair, which the figure in the Shroud is portrayed as having. Long hair, according to the existing sources of the period, was not common to the people of Israel in Jesus' period. Much like their Roman overlords, the Jews of that era had short, close cropped hair.

Also, the laws of the Jews forbid long hair or men except for those who enter a Nazarite vow, and Jesus was not under such a vow. He was a Nazarene, but not a Nazarite--two different things. He definitely had a beard given Jewish law, but who knows whether it ws a close cropped beard or long.

He was likely also not the European featured and fair skinned man of popular imagery, given that he lived in the Middle East and spent a lot of time in sun, working as a carpenter first and later preaching. He was probably a tan or olive skinned man, not black, perhaps with coarse features and a strong, thin, toned body given he worked as a carpenter, and given the general heights of men at the time, he was probably short compared to our modern standard, 5'5'' or the like.

Also, another thing which points to Jesus not having long hair is Paul (I believe) writing that a man wearing long hair went against nature itself and was a shameful thing. Would Christ go against nature and do something his own follower(s) would feel was shameful? Doubtful.

1 Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

I believe that if Jesus did exist, and I do believe he did, many wouldn't recognize him and would be shocked at his appearance, given we are so accustomed to the image of the Nordic looking, long haired Jesus.

MrsSmith
04-05-2011, 08:42 PM
IMO, the shroud isn't the face of Christ as Christ likely DID NOT have long hair, which the figure in the Shroud is portrayed as having. Long hair, according to the existing sources of the period, was not common to the people of Israel in Jesus' period. Much like their Roman overlords, the Jews of that era had short, close cropped hair.

Also, the laws of the Jews forbid long hair or men except for those who enter a Nazarite vow, and Jesus was not under such a vow. He was a Nazarene, but not a Nazarite--two different things. He definitely had a beard given Jewish law, but who knows whether it ws a close cropped beard or long.

He was likely also not the European featured and fair skinned man of popular imagery, given that he lived in the Middle East and spent a lot of time in sun, working as a carpenter first and later preaching. He was probably a tan or olive skinned man, not black, perhaps with coarse features and a strong, thin, toned body given he worked as a carpenter, and given the general heights of men at the time, he was probably short compared to our modern standard, 5'5'' or the like.

Also, another thing which points to Jesus not having long hair is Paul (I believe) writing that a man wearing long hair went against nature itself and was a shameful thing. Would Christ go against nature and do something his own follower(s) would feel was shameful? Doubtful.

1 Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

I believe that if Jesus did exist, and I do believe he did, many wouldn't recognize him and would be shocked at his appearance, given we are so accustomed to the image of the Nordic looking, long haired Jesus.
How long would hair have to be to be considered "long" in biblical days? Women that don't cut their hair can have to their hips, or even their knees. Orthodox Jews wear front curls past their jaws, or at about the length Jesus' hair is usually depicted. I really think Jesus probably "looked like a Jew."

Articulate_Ape
04-05-2011, 08:48 PM
IMO, the shroud isn't the face of Christ as Christ likely DID NOT have long hair, which the figure in the Shroud is portrayed as having. Long hair, according to the existing sources of the period, was not common to the people of Israel in Jesus' period. Much like their Roman overlords, the Jews of that era had short, close cropped hair.

Also, the laws of the Jews forbid long hair or men except for those who enter a Nazarite vow, and Jesus was not under such a vow. He was a Nazarene, but not a Nazarite--two different things. He definitely had a beard given Jewish law, but who knows whether it ws a close cropped beard or long.

He was likely also not the European featured and fair skinned man of popular imagery, given that he lived in the Middle East and spent a lot of time in sun, working as a carpenter first and later preaching. He was probably a tan or olive skinned man, not black, perhaps with coarse features and a strong, thin, toned body given he worked as a carpenter, and given the general heights of men at the time, he was probably short compared to our modern standard, 5'5'' or the like.

Also, another thing which points to Jesus not having long hair is Paul (I believe) writing that a man wearing long hair went against nature itself and was a shameful thing. Would Christ go against nature and do something his own follower(s) would feel was shameful? Doubtful.

1 Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

I believe that if Jesus did exist, and I do believe he did, many wouldn't recognize him and would be shocked at his appearance, given we are so accustomed to the image of the Nordic looking, long haired Jesus.


Pray tell where did you come up with all of that? PLEASE tell me you can cite some source that is not Wikipedia. Wow.

PS>
1 Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Do you know when that was written?

fettpett
04-05-2011, 09:26 PM
Pray tell where did you come up with all of that? PLEASE tell me you can cite some source that is not Wikipedia. Wow.

PS> Do you know when that was written?

Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin before his conversion. I'm pretty sure he knew what he was talking about

however, this particular text is talking about people judging others based on their hair being covered or uncovered while they are praying...

Madisonian
04-05-2011, 10:15 PM
Alternatively, it could be the oldest example of a luggage tag.

Having been lost for a thousand years or so, I wouldn't doubt that a bit.:p

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-05-2011, 11:39 PM
Pray tell where did you come up with all of that? PLEASE tell me you can cite some source that is not Wikipedia. Wow.

PS> Do you know when that was written?

1) I read a whole article about what Jesus likely looked like. I also have books on Roman history and the like, as well as a book (which cost a pretty penny) titled, "Fashions in Hair: The First Five Thousand Years"--which tells in great detail using primary sources the various trends in hair, male and female, from Ancient Egyptian times to the 1990s. Very, very thorough, a few thousand pages in length. The Romans had short hair for most their history and were cleanshaven until around the era of Hadrian. They offered up their first adolescent beard hairs to their Gods. The Israelites, as in essence citizens of the Roman Empire, followed the custom of the Emperor, as most Roman citizens did, in terms of hair, and as such wore short, cropped hair--Think like the haircut in the depictions of Julius Caesar.

2) Depends on what dates you accept for the NT. Different scholars differ on when the various books were written.

wilbur
04-07-2011, 10:59 PM
Didnt give this story much thought, but ran across a story in my blogs - these things appear to have been proved hoaxes over a year ago. Way to go media!



This is a stone tombstone from Madaba in Jordan, precisely dated to AD 108/9, on display in the Archaeological Museum in Amman.

The text on your bronze tablet, therefore, makes no sense in its own right, but has been extracted unintelligently from another longer text (as if it were inscribed with the words: ‘t to be that is the question wheth’). The longer text from which it derives is a perfectly ordinary tombstone from Madaba in Jordan which happens to have been on display in the Amman museum for the past fifty years or so. The text on your bronze tablet is repeated, in part, in three different places, meaningless in each case.


http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/peter-thonemann-on-the-lead-codices/

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2011, 11:10 PM
Didnt give this story much thought, but ran across a story in my blogs - these things appear to have been proved hoaxes over a year ago. Way to go media!



http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/peter-thonemann-on-the-lead-codices/

Don't see why you care. You have the whole nihilist, everything is meaningless philosophy of life.

Gingersnap
04-07-2011, 11:14 PM
Don't see why you care. You have the whole nihilist, everything is meaningless philosophy of life.

I was just thinking the exact same thing! It's not like Taoists aren't riddled with contradictions, pious frauds, and mythology themselves.

Amazingly, I literally don't care enough to comment on them.

Articulate_Ape
04-08-2011, 12:26 AM
Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin before his conversion. I'm pretty sure he knew what he was talking about

however, this particular text is talking about people judging others based on their hair being covered or uncovered while they are praying...

Written by whom, supposedly?

Articulate_Ape
04-08-2011, 12:27 AM
Different scholars differ on when the various books were written.


Enlighten me.

fettpett
04-08-2011, 12:46 AM
Written by whom, supposedly?

what do you mean? I was referring to the Scripture CTM was quoting. Paul wrote it in his letter to the Corinthians

fettpett
04-08-2011, 12:54 AM
Enlighten me.

the only ones that have any debate on when they where written and by whom are Old Testament books. All New Testament books were written within 70 years of Christ birth (roughly about 40 years after his death and resurrection), with the last being Revelations while John was at Patmos. The only New Testament Gospel not written by a disciple was Luke, who probably complied his version from the testimonials of the remaining disciples and other eyewitnesses, what is interesting is that some think that Luke was in the process of writing a third book as Act's ends kinda abruptly with Paul's trip to Rome.

Rockntractor
04-08-2011, 01:06 AM
I don't think any actual pictures of Jesus were left behind, I don't think God wanted any idols.

fettpett
04-08-2011, 01:10 AM
I don't think any actual pictures of Jesus were left behind, I don't think God wanted any idols.

nope, seeing as it's what? the second commandment? It's bad enough that the Orthodox and Catholic church's have their icons and what not.