DescentBB

The History Channel released Tuesday night a new 3-D image that many believe to be the face of Christ. The image was pulled from the shroud of Turin which was used to create the 3d image.

Isaiah 52 wrote:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

What does this mean? Dad says that the original language "more than any man", and "more than the sons of men" actually speaks of being 'marred' beyond the point of being recognizable as a man. I believe it was literally something like "and his form from the sons of men", but it's been a little while.

Isaiah 53 wrote:2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

Personally I don't care what he looks like, and I see that as a slippery slope to climb on to.

Another verse to consider...

2 Corinthians 5 wrote:16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

That would explain why Mary did not recognize Jesus in

John 20:14

And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Why would Jesus still be 'marred' after his resurrection?

Didn't say he was Marred I was going along with your post.

2 Corinthians 5
16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

Since we no longer know him why would Mary recognize him as his former flesh?

At least he actually looks Jewish.

The public relations wing of Christianity doesn't push the subject too far because he most likely looked a lot more like Ossama bin Laddin than Brad Pit and that doesn't reconcile too well with the artwork in most churches.

Will Robinson wrote:The public relations wing of Christianity doesn't push the subject too far because he most likely looked a lot more like Ossama bin Laddin than Brad Pit and that doesn't reconcile too well with the artwork in most churches.

True but doesn't the artwork in churches break the second commandment.

Exodus 20:4-6

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think carpenters in those times were actually stonemasons, which would leave Jesus a shredded muscle monster back then. I was also under the impression from the bible that Jesus was one ugly looking guy. WHat a better test of faith than to follow this dude?

cmon Richard Kiel was awesome

Determining what Jesus may have looked like is not important (IMO). If it was, it would have been firmly determined long ago.

As is, Faith is not dependent on what scientists may (or may not) be able to guess/reason ... and Faith is what is truly important when it comes to a belief in Jesus.

You'd be surprised how much someone's personally comes out in their appearance. If that dude in the picture above had a different personality you may hardly recognize him. So even though Jesus was not comely, I think there was still something there you could see. So don't go thinking that he could have looked like some hick just because the Bible says that he wasn't good looking. Hicks look like hicks because they're hicks, not because they're ugly.

I thought he'd have a blue glow and be able to observe tachyons moving backwards through time.

the shorud of turin uses a weave not found in those times.

so it's most likely an imprint of some random guy.


http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SG ... -08-20.mp3

So much for the fibre. Now for the weave. Linen and twill weave were already known in prehistorical times. Satin weave is probably younger; along with brocade and damask it is documented for the high Middle Ages. Herringbone, a variation of twill, is mentioned in conjunction with the Shroud of Turin, which is woven in herringbone: Those who believe in its authenticity say that herringbone weave was known in Christ's time in the Near East, those who doubt it and go by radiocarbon dating date the shroud to the 13th century. Obviously nobody doubts the existence of herringbone weave in the 13th century. For some unknown reason, herringbone seems to have been used rarely in the 18th century although it was often used before and after.

http://www.marquise.de/en/themes/howto/stoffe.shtml

In 2002, renowned textile restorer Mechthild Flury-Lemberg went to Turin to help preserve the shroud. She found a style of stitching she had seen only once before — in the ruins of Masada, a Jewish settlement destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 74.

The cloth's herringbone weave, while common in the first century, was rare in the Middle Ages, she said.

http://www.uccs.edu/~ur/media/mediawatc ... e_id=21180

Seems like the Herringbone weave has been around before the birth of Jesus.

I'm not convinced on the authenticity of the shroud of turin, but I don't see that it matters much either way.
If authentic it would certainly be of incredible historic and archaeological significance, but it would have no theological significance at all.

Didn't even listen to that podcast I posted, did ya insurrectionist?

doesn't surprise me one bit.

I thought Jesus was black.

Ferno wrote:Didn't even listen to that podcast I posted, did ya insurrectionist?

doesn't surprise me one bit.

Funny how you know what I did with my own computer. So who cares about 5 by 5.

Edit And you don't even address the fact that type of weave was used during Jesus's lifetime and neither did they.

Gooberman wrote:I thought Jesus was black.

You're thinking of RA the sun god and Goa'uld. He's also real.

Hmmm...I saw a lot of guys that looked like Christ in Haight Ashbury back in the 60's

If you believe in Christ, all you have to do is look in the mirror to see his face.

Where did you get that?

Insurrectionist wrote:
Funny how you know what I did with my own computer. So who cares about 5 by 5.

Edit And you don't even address the fact that type of weave was used during Jesus's lifetime and neither did they.

How does the opinion of a textile restorer outweigh the combined scientific evidence proving that it was paint and not blood, amongst other things?

you're just mad because you didn't like what 5 by 5 had to say.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Where did you get that?

Paul; in any number of his epistles. John 17 works as well.

Heh

It's a little late for \"April Fool's\"

Ferno wrote:

Insurrectionist wrote:
Funny how you know what I did with my own computer. So who cares about 5 by 5.

Edit And you don't even address the fact that type of weave was used during Jesus's lifetime and neither did they.

How does the opinion of a textile restorer outweigh the combined scientific evidence proving that it was paint and not blood, amongst other things?

you're just mad because you didn't like what 5 by 5 had to say.

There you go again now you are an empath. You have no idea what I feel about things. Where in this post do I say I believe that the shroud is the real deal. Again you don't bring any thing to the table to disprove that weave was used in Jesus's life time.

I have one word for you buddy "TROLL"

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Hicks look like hicks because they're hicks, not because they're ugly.

I'm prone to the idea I'm rather handsome.

Insurrectionist wrote:So who cares about 5 by 5.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people knew what you felt and what your position was when you said this.

Now if you had listened to the mp3 (which now is painfully obvious that you hadn't) you would know it was proven to be a hoax.


You my friend are what's called a "true believer". That is, one person who believes in something DESPITE evidence to the contrary. Not to mention the confirmation bias and shoestring arguments you've shown. that my friend, makes you dangerous. Any credibility you had, has now gone straight out the window.

"Again you don't bring any thing to the table" yes i did, actually. that link which you've vehemently dismissed twice now. It also doesn't matter what the weave was back then if they've concluded that it dates to the mid 14th century, which other lines of research point to (not to mention the three independent labs that carbon dated it). If you really want some meat to sink your teeth into, have a look at what Joe Nickell had to say about the shroud.

Are we having fun yet?

5 divided by 5 is one. I get a cookie.

Gooberman wrote:I thought Jesus was black.

Ferno wrote:It also doesn't matter what the weave was back then...

vision wrote:

Gooberman wrote:I thought Jesus was black.

Ferno wrote:It also doesn't matter what the weave was back then...

There's a Milli Vanilli joke in there somewhere but it's too damn late for my brain to grab it....

Ferno the psychic Troll wrote: that my friend, makes you dangerous.

Watch out I'm dangerous. woooooooooo Yes I am having fun.

Ferno the Moronic wrote:the shorud of turin uses a weave not found in those times.

So I had all day to think why you will not provide proof to this statement then I realized moronic people just will not back down from moronic statements.

I'll put it a way that even a dolt like you can understand. A forgery is based on authenticity. Say a modern forger wants to forge a Monet will he go to his local Mega Lo Mart and buy Mega Lo paint to paint his forgery, NO he would mix his paint the way Claude Monet would. SO a person wanting to produce the Shroud of Turin would use a weave that was common in the age when Christ was alive. Just think about the punishment of the middle ages for forgery which was a capital crime. Capital crimes included murder, highway robbery, theft over a shilling, rioting, and arson. Most convicted felons were hung, with beheading normally reserved for noblemen and women. So the forger of the Middle ages would want his forgery to stand up to very close scrutiny of the people he was trying to fool.

This is why you are a MORONIC TROLL because you would not even discuss the weave but kept pointing out other things the show the shroud to be a fraud.

I feel sorry for a feeble minded person like you.

*SilverFJ wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Hicks look like hicks because they're hicks, not because they're ugly.

I'm prone to the idea I'm rather handsome.

Heh. I've seen a photo of you and you don't look like a hick either.

Insurrectionist wrote:So I had all day to think why you will not provide proof to this statement

"Ferno, I don't like you
But I love you
Seems that I'm always
Thinkin' of you
Oh, ho, ho, you treat me badly
I love you madly"

Isaac wrote:

Insurrectionist wrote:So I had all day to think why you will not provide proof to this statement

"Ferno, I don't like you
But I love you
Seems that I'm always
Thinkin' of you
Oh, ho, ho, you treat me badly
I love you madly"

Mawhahahahahahaaha nice one Issac

Edit Yes it really isn't good to have a dangerous true believer thinking about you all day is it.

Haha. It's not as dangerous as plagiarizing the Beatles.

Insurrectionist wrote:
So I had all day to think why you will not provide proof to this statement then I realized moronic people just will not back down from moronic statements.

I'll put it a way that even a dolt like you can understand. A forgery is based on authenticity. Say a modern forger wants to forge a Monet will he go to his local Mega Lo Mart and buy Mega Lo paint to paint his forgery, NO he would mix his paint the way Claude Monet would. SO a person wanting to produce the Shroud of Turin would use a weave that was common in the age when Christ was alive. Just think about the punishment of the middle ages for forgery which was a capital crime. Capital crimes included murder, highway robbery, theft over a shilling, rioting, and arson. Most convicted felons were hung, with beheading normally reserved for noblemen and women. So the forger of the Middle ages would want his forgery to stand up to very close scrutiny of the people he was trying to fool.

This is why you are a MORONIC TROLL because you would not even discuss the weave but kept pointing out other things the show the shroud to be a fraud.

I feel sorry for a feeble minded person like you.

Translation: "NO IT'S REAL IT'S REAL AND I'LL THROW A TANTRUM IF YOU DON'T AGREE! RABBLE RABBLE!"

and you say I have nothing to bring to the table. LOL. attack, attack, attack. you'll have to do a lot better than that.


The reason I haven't discussed the weave is because it's inconsequential. We're discussing the Turin shroud, are we not? so how does a weave from the same time period have any bearing on this item in particular?

Sargeant Thorne wrote:Heh. I've seen a photo of you and you don't look like a hick either.

I was going off this definition:

hick   /hɪk/
–noun

3. Located in a rural or culturally unsophisticated area: a hick town.

But I guess it's the only one that fits.

As for the shroud of Turin, what's it matter if it's real or not, I thought it was the thought that counts. If it wasn't that, they'd find some other "relic" to smoot over.