Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What did Jesus look like?

24

Comments

  • #32
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I think you are in the wrong forum. Maybe psychology would be better suited.


  • #33
    Jester Minute
    Closed Accounts Posts: 302 ✭✭Jester Minute


    dvae wrote: »
    The Bible dos not say what Jesus looked like other than the prophesy in Isaiah.
    I guess you can take from it that he was just an ordinary man to look at.
    As well as verse 2 Ive include the hole of chapter 53.
    I read it for the first time today, i hope like me you find it quite moving and humbling.

    Isaiah 53:2
    Isaiah 53

    I wonder about that. It sounds like He wasn't what you would call attractive, not even of a common, handsome appearance, but rather that we would rather not look at Him. Now is this before or after His Passion? I always liked to think it was after His Passion when His face was disfigured.


  • #34
    phelixoflaherty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,522 ✭✭✭phelixoflaherty


    Dunno what he looked like but his hair was 6" longer than Kurt Cobains


  • #35
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    If the Shroud of Turin was the cloth that covered the dead body of Christ (and I believe it was) and if the image that was produced was the result of His resurrection three days hence (and I believe it was), then Jesus would look something like what this clip reports:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhuBGcAzB8


    IMG_4068.jpg

    An uncanny resemblance to Jim Caviezel in the Passion of the Christ.

    127213040_efbd368cf5.jpg


  • #36
    noel farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 289 ✭✭noel farrell


    its not important what he looked like its what he done . the bible says it was when he spoke he stood out so he was no different than any man of his time happy new year all


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    hsi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 131 ✭✭hsi


    Oh_Noes wrote: »
    The Turin Shroud was exposed as a hoax years ago.


    Actually that is not correct, The Carbon test was done on a corner of the shroud, from a part that had been rewoven into the shroud have it was partially burned.

    The Main shroud is infact 2000 years old. Problem is that it has pollen and smoke damage that hinders trying to get a carbon date.

    Anyway to apply they image to the shroud you would need to be very very technically adapt. Even in the 1500's when it was carbon dated to there was not the technology to apply such an image. (the negative image) I mean photography did not even exist.

    Don't get me wrong, the Science behind the Carbon test was 100% correct, the piece was from 1500's but it was not an original piece, Swobs from the centre reveal pollen a lot older.


  • #38
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Anyone else think that on some level we attempt to convince ourselves that Jesus was exactly like us, so we don't have to try so hard to be more like him.


  • #39
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    marty1985 wrote: »
    Anyone else think that on some level we attempt to convince ourselves that Jesus was exactly like us, so we don't have to try so hard to be more like him.

    In every way He was just like us but knew no sin, but we can never be just like Him without the indwelling power of the holy spirit which is gift to us because of our faith in Him. As long as we maintain that faith connection in Him, He will meet all our needs and give strength where it is needed and that includes righteousness apart from works of the law. We don't bring anything else to the party, just faith i.e trust.


  • #40
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    The story of the shroud is fascinating, and it's been 'controversial' long before carbon dating, but still holds the imagination and interest as being 'genuine'...a blast from the past in so many ways..

    Everything from it being a 'Leonardo De Vinci' prank...to dubunking that too...it seems to elude the professionals or at least has never been 'quashed'...

    One of the things I find fascinating is how the shroud depicts Jesus wrists as opposed to his hands having the wounds of nails.....not a 'popular' depiction at the time - and perhaps why 'Leonardo' was earmarked as a 'conspirator' of deception...

    One of the scientists who renounced the shroud as a 'fake' in the 70's did an about turn just before he died, a matter of weeks apparently and from what I remember.....he left the case 're-opened' to investigation...apparently the piece they cut off for carbon dating was added back by nuns after fire damage in the middle ages..

    This site... http://www.shroud.com/ is pretty good for information...

    I guess, when you look at the shroud do you see a person who is 'Eastern' or 'Western'.....It's difficult to know for sure, but the beard is familiar and big eyes....The person could be any race really, but there is a commonality with artistic impressions of old...??

    Hmmm...

    I'll await......but will probably never know for sure...

    It certainly is remarkable though and thought provoking....could it be? Truth is stranger than fiction..lol..


  • #41
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Well all the evidence points to the cloth being from the near-east in and around the time of Jesus. The only test that it apparently failed was the 1988 carbon dating test and as has already been pointed out the part of the cloth that was tested was subsequently found to have been mixed with thread from other cloth which was sown on in the 1500s in order to repair damage cause by a previous fire. This has been thoroughly documented and reviewed and it is now widely agreed upon as being the case by the experts.

    But let us say that this is a fake. Then it would have to have been done no later than the 12th century because there is a famous painting that depicts the shroud that can be dated to this time. So if the painter knew about the shroud in the 12th century then obviously the shroud was around before that. So if the shroud was around before the 12th century then how did the faker know how to produce a negative image?

    It wasn't until the 19th century that photography was invented and not long after that it was discovered that the image on the shroud was a negative image because the resulting photographs produced by the then new invention were of a positive image. What genius in the 11th and 12th centuries was able to achieve such a task? And not only that, they achieved it using a mechanism that has still yet to be found. Even with all our modern day technology we still don't know what mechanism caused the image to be produced on the shroud of the Turin. So if it is a fake, my word, what job they did. The question now would be why did they bother? Why go to such trouble and not take any credit for it?

    To me, the Shroud of Turin is where Science and Faith meet and shake hands, and at just at the right time too. A time when Science can give veracity to our faith and when our faith can save science from scientism. "How great and marvelous are thy works oh LORD."


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Well all the evidence points to the cloth being from the near-east in and around the time of Jesus. The only test that it apparently failed was the 1988 carbon dating test and as has already been pointed out the part of the cloth that was tested was subsequently found to have been mixed with thread from other cloth which was sown on in the 1500s in order to repair damage cause by a previous fire. This has been thoroughly documented and reviewed and it is now widely agreed upon as being the case by the experts.

    But let us say that this is a fake. Then it would have to have been done no later than the 12th century because there is a famous painting that depicts the shroud that can be dated to this time. So if the painter knew about the shroud in the 12th century then obviously the shroud was around before that. So if the shroud was around before the 12th century then how did the faker know how to produce a negative image?

    It wasn't until the 19th century that photography was invented and not long after that it was discovered that the image on the shroud was a negative image because the resulting photographs produced by the then new invention were of a positive image. What genius in the 11th and 12th centuries was able to achieve such a task? And not only that, they achieved it using a mechanism that has still yet to be found. Even with all our modern day technology we still don't know what mechanism caused the image to be produced on the shroud of the Turin. So if it is a fake, my word, what job they did. The question now would be why did they bother? Why go to such trouble and not take any credit for it?

    To me, the Shroud of Turin is where Science and Faith meet and shake hands, and at just at the right time too. A time when Science can give veracity to our faith and when our faith can save science from scientism. "How great and marvelous are thy works oh LORD."

    Dude, if you believe in something that is invisible, why would you want "compelling" evidence?


  • #43
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I didn't know this until I read the Wiki article but

    In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head. He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".

    Is this accurate? Did the apostle describe two sheets covering Jesus?


  • #44
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I didn't know this until I read the Wiki article but

    In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head. He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".

    Is this accurate? Did the apostle describe two sheets covering Jesus?

    Yes, Calvin is spot on this time:
    Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

    So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. (John 20:1-7)


  • #45
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I didn't know this until I read the Wiki article but

    In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head. He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".

    Is this accurate? Did the apostle describe two sheets covering Jesus?
    pay no attention to the ravings of a religious fanatic. stick to science!


  • #46
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    The Isaiah 53 portion suggests He was at not remarkable physically.
    53:2...He has no form or comeliness;
    And when we see Him,
    There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

    Another Messianic psalm suggests He had a beard:
    Isaiah 50:6 I gave My back to those who struck Me,
    And My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard;
    I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.

    Finally, he did not have long hair, for that was regarded as shameful in those days - except as a Nazirite vow.
    1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?


    _________________________________________________________________
    Who is He in yonder stall
    At whose feet the shepherds fall?

    'Tis the Lord!
    O wondrous story!
    'Tis the Lord, the King of glory!
    At His feet we humbly fall
    Crown Him! Crown Him, Lord of all!

    Who is He to whom they bring
    All the sick and sorrowing?

    Who is He that stands and weeps
    At the grave where Lazarus sleeps?

    Who is He on yonder tree
    Dies in pain and agony?

    Who is He who from the grave
    Comes to rescue, help, and save?

    Who is He who from His throne
    Sends the Spirit to His own?

    Who is He who comes again
    Judge of angels and of men?
    Benjamin R. Hanby, 1833-1867


  • #47
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    Should we actually try to find out what Jesus looked like? Maybe he was born in a time when there were no camera's because God doesn't want us to focus on his physical image:
    Deut 5:8 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

    We probaby woudln't even recognise Him:
    Luke 24:15, 16 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.
    Rev 1:12-17 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw ... someone "like a son of man," ... His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. ... His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. ... When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.


  • #48
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    pay no attention to the ravings of a religious fanatic. stick to science!

    The problem is that the 'religious fanatic' has pointed out what John the Evangelist wrote - namely that Christ's head was wrapped in a separate cloth from His body.

    So who should we pay attention to? The apostle who wrote the Fourth Gospel, or a piece of cloth of undetermined age with a blurred image of an unnamed person on it?


  • #49
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    PDN wrote: »
    The problem is that the 'religious fanatic' has pointed out what John the Evangelist wrote - namely that Christ's head was wrapped in a separate cloth from His body.

    So who should we pay attention to? The apostle who wrote the Fourth Gospel, or a piece of cloth of undetermined age with a blurred image of an unnamed person on it?

    Let me clarify that my post was meant as a subtle sarcasm directed at Wicknight who is a self described atheist. In this particular instance if he stuck to his chosen religion (science) it would in fact direct him to the truth.

    As for Calvin, born Catholic, abandoned that belief in his early twenties and went on to be a forceful protagonist in his view of christianity, so fanatic in this view that he had no difficulty in condeming other heretics (who held a different view to him) to death.

    Now PDN, I'm with you insofar as paying attention to the Gospel of John (Luke mentions the buriel clothes too). Read it again and you will see that the word "two" does not appear. Nor does the text say that the head was wrapped separately with one cloth, but rather "the cloth wrapped around the head", ie, the buriel shroud; a long piece (twice length of body) of cloth laid on the ground,place the body on it - heels at one end, then drape the cloth around the head and down the front of the body. A common buriel procedure at the time. Other clothes would then be wrapped about this inner layer.

    PS what part of the image is blurred?


  • #50
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Good documentary about the Shroud of Turin below. It goes into the story about the other cloth (The Sudarium of Oviedo) as well and makes the distinction between the two. One was placed over His face either on the cross of after they took Him down, a practice not uncommon then or even today when the face of people deceased in murder scenes and accidents will all ways be covered. Now from the time they took Him off the cross they buried and used the longer linen cloth (i.e. the shroud) and took the other one away. But He also had yet another cloth which covered His head, as in around His head to keep the mouth closed. This would not impair the image that would subsequently get produced on the shroud.

    Anyway watch the documentary and make your own mind up. As for Calvin, everyone has a right to be wrong. But I think his main concern was with people getting carried away with focusing too much on relics and away from their faith, which is understandable at his time, but now we have all the scientific instruments that can scrutinize this particular relic and it has been put through every single scientific test and they still cannot tell how the image was produced. If nothing else it is a really really fascination object, and for me, at least, it is a literal photograph of what I have already accepted is a fact of history - The Resurrection of Christ from the dead.



  • #51
    TeddyTedson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


    He doesn't look particularly happy in any of those reconstructions...


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Dude, if you believe in something that is invisible, why would you want "compelling" evidence?

    I don't need the Shroud of Turin in order to be convinced that Christ rose from the dead as reported in the Gospels. I'm convinced of that already wholly separate from what the shroud brings to the table. What the shroud does for me is provide tangible evidence for what I already believe in as a fact. I say that because they cannot prove that it is a fake for one, and they cannot explain how the image got their into the bargain. Plus if the resurrection did happen as reported in the Gospels then it would have had to have happened whilst He was still wrapped in His burial cloth and with that being the case then a supernatural infusion of life into His dead body on the third day could conceivably produce an image like this - a radiation burst if you like. So until they can explain how somebody can fake such a thing then I am entitled to believe it to be the genuine burial cloth of Christ and let it have the boosting effect on my faith that I'm happy and free to enjoy.


  • #53
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    PDN wrote: »
    The problem is that the 'religious fanatic' has pointed out what John the Evangelist wrote - namely that Christ's head was wrapped in a separate cloth from His body.

    So who should we pay attention to? The apostle who wrote the Fourth Gospel, or a piece of cloth of undetermined age with a blurred image of an unnamed person on it?

    Strange... the Calvin quote in #44 states:
    Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. (John 20:1-7)
    So, if the cloth was still lying in its place the implication is that it was still in the place it was put before the tomb was sealed.

    Oops.

    What was the dear Calvin thinking of? No version of the Bible contains this line that I can find.

    KJV
    And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself .


    DR
    And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place.

    Check any other version and the word "still" does not appear. Nor does any version imply that the head or face was covered.

    Now, look at the Turin Shroud images. About the head in the vertical plane there is an image that comes down the both sides of the head and under the chin. This appears to be from a cloth that was holding the jaw shut, preventing the mouth from falling open and remaining so when rigor mortis sets in. As it can take 72 hours - 3 days - for this to pass off, and the intention was to return to the tomb on Sunday, before rigor had passed off, it would not make sense to leave the body with a gaping mouth so a cloth band was passed around the head to keep the mouth closed. There is only one way to achieve this and it does not involve covering the face.

    This is the cloth that was about the head and folded and placed separate from the cloth that wrapped the body. It did not "cover" the face or the head but was set "about" the head.

    I would suggest two things - 1, pay attention to the writings of St. John.
    2. pay attention to those who are capable of attention to detail.

    It would appear that neither Calvin, nor some other so called scientists are capable of attention to detail.

    Regardless of ones opinion on the Shroud of Turin one cannot but wonder at the attention to detail it contains.


  • #54
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Festus wrote: »
    Strange... the Calvin quote in #44 states:


    Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. (John 20:1-7)

    Not quite sure what you're on about here. That isn't a quote from Calvin, it's a quote from the New International Version of the Bible, John 20:6-7.
    Oops.

    What was the dear Calvin thinking of? No version of the Bible contains this line that I can find.
    Calvin wasn't thinking of anything. It was me that quoted from the NIV.

    As for the fact that you can't find the NIV - I couldn't possibly comment.


  • #55
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    PDN wrote: »
    Calvin wasn't thinking of anything. It was me that quoted from the NIV.

    As for the fact that you can't find the NIV - I couldn't possibly comment.


    THis is what I found in the NIV

    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.

    Still can't find "still" in the quotation from this source http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/john/passage.aspx?q=john+20:1-7

    but I can if I use this source

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:1-7&version=NIV

    maybe you should check your sources before posting something incorrect.


  • #56
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Festus wrote: »
    THis is what I found in the NIV

    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.

    Still can't find "still" in the quotation from this source http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/john/passage.aspx?q=john+20:1-7

    but I can if I use this source

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:1-7&version=NIV

    maybe you should check your sources before posting something incorrect.

    And, before you accuse anyone else of posting something that is incorrect, maybe you should check your sources.

    You are quoting from the 1984 edition of the NIV. I was quoting from the 2010 version. If you had bothered to look more carefully at biblegateway.com you would have seen that it includes both editions.


  • #57
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    What is the significance of the word "still"? I can't see it altering the intended meaning.


  • #58
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    What is the significance of the word "still"? I can't see it altering the intended meaning.

    Neither can I.


  • #59
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see

    Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)

    18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


    Revelation 22:18-19 (New International Version, ©2010)

    18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.


    DR


    18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.




    NIV 2010 :confused: Why oh why another version if only to change the words and lead people astray


  • #60
    Bernice101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭Bernice101


    ... if the modern day Palastinians and Isralies are anything to go by ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    TeddyTedson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


    Bernice101 wrote: »
    ... if the modern day Palastinians and Isralies are anything to go by ;)
    He looks REALLY angry, but I guess everyone did back then...


Advertisement