Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

There is one very simple reason why the image on the shroud is not that of Jesus. Jesus was a Jew before the diaspora. The face on the shroud is that of a northern European...big difference. The face on the shroud is not the face of a Jew at the time of Jesus unless Jesus came from northern Europe. And if he did, then Mark and Luke are in error in their account of Jesus.
 
Holly cow dung! I don´t see how this is relevant, "If Jesus existed or not". I myself find his sutras as truth, even if they were spoken by somebody else; but what the hell does the existence or non existence of a man that lived 2000 years ago has to do with your life today?
Even if scientists prove that Jesus was an invention, the sutras are so pure an good, that nobody can convince me they are nor true.
 
joepistole said:
There is one very simple reason why the image on the shroud is not that of Jesus. Jesus was a Jew before the diaspora. The face on the shroud is that of a northern European...big difference. The face on the shroud is not the face of a Jew at the time of Jesus unless Jesus came from northern Europe. And if he did, then Mark and Luke are in error in their account of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Joe, you are wrong. There are many in the region with features like that. IOW, not everyone from there looks like the 'cave man' depicted by discovery channel.
 
John, true today there are many in that area with northern Euorpean ansestory and looks. That is why I said before the Diaspora when Rome scattered the Jewish people all over Europe. Before the Diaspora Jews did not look like Northern Europeans. They looked like their Arab brothers. And as for the caveman reference, I am totally clueless. I don't know where that came from. Sounds like someone has been watching too many GEICO commercials. And the Diaspora occured after the reported death of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
John,
Below is also a quote from the Popular Mechanics article with respect to the length of his hair:
"Those who criticize the shroud's legitimacy point to 1 Corinthians, one of the many New Testament books the apostle Paul is credited with writing. In one chapter he mentions having seen Jesus--then later describes long hair on a man as disgraceful. Would Paul have written "If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him" if Jesus Christ had had long hair? For Neave and his team this settled the issue. Jesus, as drawings from the first century depict, would have had short hair, appropriate to men of the time."
So even if you want to cling to the notion that Jesus looked like a Northern European which is not supported by the Bible or the science, you are contradicting a reference to Jesus and hair length in the Bible. Why would the apostle Paul chastise men wearing long hair if Jesus himself had long hair?
The shroud clearly shows a man with long hair.
 
I am not clinging to anything and popular mechanics can have their opinion, i look at facts subjectively. The image below can be anyone, maybe it is a picture of a mechanic. I would like to know how they came to their conclusions and as far as how people from the area looked at the time to say that no one could have looked like the image on the shroud is just not true. I looked for images and other sources of common people from that time period and region but cannot find many, the ones i did see did not look like that stupified image from the article, maybe someone here can say for sure.

For one thing you cannot see the skin tone, the tone could have been accurate (darker than people may percieve) and not light colored Northern European, the features could be accurate for the time also.

I dont think that all the people from the area had to have that kinky hair and i am certain that straight hair on males was possible. As far as your quote about it being a digrace to have long hair, maybe he was too busy to get a haircut or access to a haircutter and again is a generalization, either way i think longer hair was fairly common. Maybe i am wrong and feel free to dispute it.

I am not an expert on the shroud and only recently started looking into it, mainly from another thread here that i will search for. As it stands now i dont see anything that proves the shroud to be a forgery.

You can dispute this and state your reasons all you want, it is mostly an interesting artifact to me.

The link below is interesting, the author seems convinced it is authentic and knows more about it than i do:

http://www.shroud.com/
 
I think you said it all John when you said it was your subjective opinion that the shroud bears the image of Jesus. And there is nothing wrong with that subjective opinion it is perfectly valid. But I personally, think the image is that of Jacques de Molay the last Grand Master of the Poor Knights of Christ otherwise known as the Templars. The image on the shroud strongly resembles the image of Jacques de Molay as his image has been given to us by history.
 
Orleander said:
MW - Do you think this is actually a possible explanation?? I mean, do you accept it?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Yes, I do believe that da Vinci was a creative genius with a sense of humor. To study the great paintings of da Vinci, it becomes obvious to the beholder how da Vinci was silently attacking the core beliefs of the RCC, yet they still hung in its sanctuaries.

There was a recent History Channel docu on da Vinci's life and work. I think it is one theory that da Vinci might have experimented with camera trickery (which was against the RCC). As joepistole said, he believes it to be the image of Jacques de Molay, the same organization that da Vinci himself was a member or maybe even grand master of. I haven't heard this theory before, but I suppose anything is possible, with the exception that it couldn't possibly have been the image of Jesus.
 
joepistole,

This is not just my opnion, my only interest lies in the facts.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_2.htm

no painter has been able to reproduce all the different qualities and characteristics of the Shroud. That is, its negativity, 3D effect, no brush strokes or directionality, perfect anatomical details from blood stains, scourging, etc. and the image is a surface phenomena, that is the image only penetrates about 1/500 of an inch into the cloth. It was shown that the blood went on first and than image. Try doing that and then painting the body image. Thus up to now no one has been able to reproduce the Shroud in all its characteristics. Most scientists reject the painting theory.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what i would have said, they said it better so i pasted it for you JOE.

And M*W you are a poor art critic, that is for sure. Which art galleries have you even been to? Your assessment of Da Vinci gives me chills.

To study the great paintings of da Vinci, it becomes obvious to the beholder how da Vinci was silently attacking the core beliefs of the RCC, yet they still hung in its sanctuaries.
Click to expand...

Give some details, i would like to see the images and hear your interpretation.

In addition to nthat, can you explain how it was done photographically and any re-creations?
 
Last edited:
John I agree, it is still a mystery as to how the image was placed on the shroud. No theory expains all the characteristics of the shroud.
 
Wisdom_Seeker said:
I myself find his sutras as truth, even if they were spoken by somebody else; but what the hell does the existence or non existence of a man that lived 2000 years ago has to do with your life today?
Even if scientists prove that Jesus was an invention, the sutras are so pure an good, that nobody can convince me they are nor true.
Click to expand...

What "sutras" do you think are original to Jesus?

In reality, all of Christian teachings can be found in previous religions and schools.

The only thing original in Christianity is original sin.


Iasion
 
Medicine*Woman said:
.... but I suppose anything is possible, with the exception that it couldn't possibly have been the image of Jesus.
Click to expand...

oh, and don't forget that Jesus was a person who was raised to think he was the son of god by a woman who was trying to cover up premarital sex. That's not possible.
 
Orleander said:
oh, and don't forget that Jesus was a person who was raised to think he was the son of god by a woman who was trying to cover up premarital sex. That's not possible.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Thank you, Orleander, you raise a very good point. I'd like to offer the following website:

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/poseur2.html

And the book, The Templar Revelation, by Lynn Pinknett and Clive Prince.

I know that John 99 won't bother to look-up these references, but they speak for themselves.

Perhaps I will post specifics later own, but he is incredibly stupid, so I won't bother.
 
M*W,

Unlike you this is not personal for me, you are the one injecting emotion into this topic. I have nothing to prove or no axe to grind, just interest in science and history as motivation. Your proclivity towards underestimation may be your biggest error.

________________________________________

STURP: Shroud of Turin Research Project:

A Summary of STURP's Conclusions - (Final Report 1981)
No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood.
Click to expand...

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/Details/STURP2.htm

________________________________________

The excerpt below is from an excellent site, the whole article should be read.

A Startling Revelation

Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ.
Click to expand...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html

I dont know of anything on this planet like this shroud and apparently neither does anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: Thank you, Orleander, you raise a very good point. I'd like to offer the following website:

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/poseur2.html

And the book, The Templar Revelation, by Lynn Pinknett and Clive Prince.

I know that John 99 won't bother to look-up these references, but they speak for themselves.

Perhaps I will post specifics later own, but he is incredibly stupid, so I won't bother.
Click to expand...

DEAD LINK - like dead brain cells...ha ha ha.
 
Iasion said:
What "sutras" do you think are original to Jesus?

In reality, all of Christian teachings can be found in previous religions and schools.

The only thing original in Christianity is original sin.


Iasion
Click to expand...

What Yeshua said has been said before him and after him in countless times; all the Buddhas have spread around the same truth. When a Buddha arises in the world, people start gathering around him, and most of the times a religion is born. But the ironic part of all this is that in order to make it a religion, you have to contradict the very teachings you are following.

As to what sutras are real or not, I can honestly say I can´t even pick one that does not speak about truth. But as I have read many times the words of Yeshua, I have come to some favorites that have caughten my attention, maybe because I understand them better than others.
My favorite gospel, is the one of Thomas, if you read it, you can easily pick up with things that cannot possibly be in the cannon, because most quotes contradict the very foundation of the Christian dogma.

For example:
"Yeshua says to his Disciples: Make a comparison to me, and tell me whom I resemble. || Shimon Kefa says to him: Thou art like a righteous angel. || Matthew says to him: Thou art like a philosopher of the heart. || Thomas says to him: Teacher, my mouth will not at all be capable of saying whom thou art like! || Yeshua says: I'm not thy teacher, now that thou have drunk, thou have become drunk from the bubbling spring which I have measured out." Gospel of Thomas - Vs 13

Notice that Yeshua denies being the teacher of the disciples, and he speaks:
"now that thou have drunk, thou have become drunk from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
From my understanding, Yeshua is talking about the mind, about thinking. Not drunk with wine, but "drunk with thinking" from the "bubbling spring" which is the mind. They are carrying the whole baggage of the past with them, and Yeshua is talking about being in the present moment, that is not possible with the mind, but with the "heart".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top