The Virgin Mary may have looked something like this

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gab123 said:
The whole of Christian civilization’s imagery about Jesus with a beard and long hair is based on the Shroud of Turin
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you got this from, but it’s wrong. The first mention of the Shroud is in the 1300s sometime. Christ was being shown with a beard and long hair by the 300s, as shown by #5 on this list. Christ Pantocrator is from the 600s.


By the way, you must be new around here if you think people on this forum haven’t heard of the Shroud. There’s been thread after thread on it.
 
Last edited:
Again, the shroud dates back to the first century, thus it has influenced artists conceptions of Christ’s face, like the image of Christ Pantocrator. The shroud Itself is mentioned in the gospels, as the linen cloth which was used to wrap Christ’s body. Scripture describes how John the apostle saw the linen cloth in the empty tomb. We know the early Christians saved the relics of Christ’s crucifixion, because that tradition was rooted in Jewish tradition. What’s more, the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is a relic of the cloth that covered Christ’s face, matches the shroud stains and has the same blood type. The Sudarium was mentioned as far back as the year 570. Furthermore, studies made of the historical images of Christ concluded that all the historical images were all dependent on a single source, namely, the Shroud of a Turin. All the science points to the shroud, thus it’s save to conclude that Chris had shoulder length hair, a mustache and beard.
 
Awfully weird that no one wrote anything about it for the first 1300 years of Christianity.

I actually don’t care to argue about the Shroud, but you should realize there are people who have doubts about its authenticity for reasons that have nothing to do with disbelief in God. Many are perfectly orthodox Catholics, and their position is squarely within what the Church allows.

If you believe it, awesome. But you should chill on making uncharitable assumptions about those who don’t.
 
Yes, there are also people who believe that Jesus did not exist,< but <I’m talking about the science about the shroud, all of which points to its authenticity. You don’t have to believe it, but the evidence is overwhelming. But again, It’s like trying to convince someone who doesn’t believe in God, that God exists. All the evidence in the world is never enough for those who don’t want to believe for whatever reason in their mind.
 
Gab123 said:
Yes, there are also people who believe that Jesus did not exist
Click to expand...
Sure, but those people are by definition not Christians.

You seem to be insisting that if someone doesn’t believe in the Shroud then also don’t believe in God or the Incarnation or the Resurrection or the rest of Christianity.

The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is not a required belief for Catholics. Period, the end. If you think the evidence suggests that people should believe it, cool. You’re free to try to persuade them. Just don’t imply that if they don’t agree with you they’re not real Christians, because that is flat out false.
 
Nobody is saying one has to believe in the Shroud being authentic to be a good Catholic; what i’m pointing out is that all the evidence is overwhelming of its authenticity. Nobody has to believe in George Washington’s wooden teeth in the museum to be authentic In order to be a good American, but all the evidence points to its authenticity. The good news is that Christ left us an image of a himself, and Christians have kept the relics of His crucifixion for all of us to ponder. The blood stains, the whip marks cat of nine tail whip marks, the marks of the crown of thorns, the wound in the side, the pierced hands and feet— all captured In the shroud, in a way that perplexes science to this day. amazing indeed!
 
We need our favourite couple @undead_rat and @Hugh_Farey (but the first was supended, I see 😔).
 
I’m not sure you do…

However, I’ll throw another idea into the “What did Mary look like debate” if you like. The nearest we have to pictures of first century Jewish women (and men), are the wall paintings of the synagogue of Dura Europos. Its from 500 miles away and 200 years later, so hardly diagnostic, but for those unfamiliar with it, well worth a look.
 
I’ve just searched it. Very interesting. It’s also interesting that in the same city of that Synagogue is also one of the oldest Christian Churches known…
 
Your comment makes me wonder if there could be a correlation - at Pentecost, the people heard the apostles speaking in their own native tongues. It would make sense that Mary’s appearance would match those she is visiting.
 
I agree! I personally don’t like to pluck my eyebrows or do anything to them on a daily basis!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top