K
klmt123
Guest
Is station # 6 when veronica wipes his face… in reference to the shroud?
Last edited:
- Status
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
No. That has nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin.
B
brian_custer
Guest
in veronica’s “portrait” of Jesus He had long hair
not sure what the issue is here
maybe Jesus didn’t go & see his iron age barber often enough…
not sure what the issue is here
maybe Jesus didn’t go & see his iron age barber often enough…
K
klmt123
Guest
Interesting. I always thought it did.
A
abucs
Guest
My thoughts - what we consider long hair for a man today was considered short in the 1st century Holy Land.
Secondly I have watched documentaries that say the stock picture we know of Jesus today suddenly became standard towards the end of the 6th century and this might be because the Jesus portrait of Edessa was found around that time. It was thought to be a miraculous picture of divine origin that was given to the king of Edessa by Jesus’ disciples after his resurrection.
The picture / portrait apparently was walled up in the city defences until a large flood caused it to be discovered 500 years later.
There are interesting links between this ‘divine’ Jesus picture from Eddessa and that of the Shroud of Turin with the possibility that it is the same cloth.
Interesting.
en.wikipedia.org
Secondly I have watched documentaries that say the stock picture we know of Jesus today suddenly became standard towards the end of the 6th century and this might be because the Jesus portrait of Edessa was found around that time. It was thought to be a miraculous picture of divine origin that was given to the king of Edessa by Jesus’ disciples after his resurrection.
The picture / portrait apparently was walled up in the city defences until a large flood caused it to be discovered 500 years later.
There are interesting links between this ‘divine’ Jesus picture from Eddessa and that of the Shroud of Turin with the possibility that it is the same cloth.
Interesting.
Image of Edessa - Wikipedia
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
Yes. The Veronica or “vera-iconica” (true image) is a replica of the Shroud’s facial image when it was in Constantinople and known there as the Mandylion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
My understanding is that the earliest depictions of Jesus were Greek icons and mosaics, and that the Jesus of those images were of a Greek-appearing man. Greeks did wear long hair. Romans didn’t, usually cutting their hair and beards short, supposedly not to give a hand-hold to enemies in battle.
It was part of Greek culture for men to spend almost all their time outdoors, so they were a fairly well-tanned people, or at least the men were. That’s why, for example, the fighters killed in the Iliad are said to turn yellow.
It was part of Greek culture for men to spend almost all their time outdoors, so they were a fairly well-tanned people, or at least the men were. That’s why, for example, the fighters killed in the Iliad are said to turn yellow.
We should look on history to find the reason of the representation of Jesus.
Thoses representations came from from European people, and reflect european bodies as the representation are of an european man, and not of a Mediteranean Semitic man.
The first occidental representations in the roman Empire, are of a unbeared man, that looks like and dress as a Roman.
Then, in the Middle Age, come the bear.
My presentation is uncompleted and oversimplify, as I lack some sources, but we can conclude that artists represented Jesus a a man who looks like common people for them to identify to the Christ. To create a bond.
In this article you can see a reconstitution of the face of a Jude man who can have been a contemporary of Jesus. And to confirme St Paul, he had short hairs.
www.nationalgeographic.fr
Thoses representations came from from European people, and reflect european bodies as the representation are of an european man, and not of a Mediteranean Semitic man.
The first occidental representations in the roman Empire, are of a unbeared man, that looks like and dress as a Roman.
Then, in the Middle Age, come the bear.
My presentation is uncompleted and oversimplify, as I lack some sources, but we can conclude that artists represented Jesus a a man who looks like common people for them to identify to the Christ. To create a bond.
In this article you can see a reconstitution of the face of a Jude man who can have been a contemporary of Jesus. And to confirme St Paul, he had short hairs.
À quoi ressemblait vraiment Jésus de Nazareth ?
Brun, barbu, traits fins... Pour représenter Jésus de Nazareth, les artistes ont été influencés par les premières icônes byzantines datant du IVe siècle.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Biblical scholar and historian, Joan Taylor, sketched this image of what Jesus most likely would have looked like for his time.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I don’t find the historians’ ideas of Jesus any more credible than anyone else’s. No one was there taking a picture or drawing him from life, so bottom line is we can speculate all day and still not have a clue.
I also don’t think it matters.
I also don’t think it matters.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Of course no one can really ever know, but historians are the ones who could give us the best idea. This is just a sketch, no one is saying he absolutely looked like this, this is just a historians interpretation based on all the evidence we have.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If the historian’s picture is presented with a description that says, “This is what a typical Jewish man of Jesus’ area and social class looked like. Jesus may have looked like this.” Then fine.
If, on the other hand, it is presented as, “Jesus looked like this, and the other images we have of him such as the Shroud of Turin and the Divine Mercy image reflect the Eurocentrist views of their creators,” then not fine.
If, on the other hand, it is presented as, “Jesus looked like this, and the other images we have of him such as the Shroud of Turin and the Divine Mercy image reflect the Eurocentrist views of their creators,” then not fine.
U
undead_rat
Guest
In order to make this representation, Ms Taylor had to dismiss the Image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin. She attempted to accomplish this despicable act by citing the discredited work of the late Dr. Walter McCrone and an atheist’s interpretation of the 1988 carbon dating results.
McCrone was never a member of the STRUP team although he often claimed to be. He based his erroneous conclusions “solely in the examination of [Shroud] tape samples using white light and polarized light microscopy. He failed to do any chemical or spectral analyses like those conducted by the STURP team.”*
Dr. McCrone refused to attend any STURP conferences to defend his so-called “findings.”
The Shroud was proven to be authentic by Pia’s negative photo taken in 1898. This was confirmed by Pope Pius XI who stated that the Image on the Shroud was not the product of a human hand. The C-14 dating results have to be interpreted in that light. The atheist Dr. Edward Hall failed to report that the C-14 dates become younger as the part of the Shroud sample tested becomes closer to the Image or that the raw C-14 dates ran from 1195 to 1448. That means that whatever process formed Jesus’ Image also affected the C-14 content of the Shroud.**
The Image on the Shroud of Turin is that of Jesus, and no Christian should have any doubt about that fact.
*ANSWERING A SKEPTIC, Schwortz, 2014, shroud.com
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
Last edited:
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
I mean… they kind of do but I don’t want to get into an argument. It does not matter what he looks like. I love icons of Christ no matter how he is portrayed, and I love the pantocrator.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
I’m personally 90% sure the Shroud of Turin is not authentic, carbon tests in the 80’s showed that it was most likely from the middle ages. But please, save that for another thread.
Last edited:
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
No Catholic is obligated to believe that the shroud is genuine. The Church doesn’t teach that it is genuine. Catholics and non-Catholics alike are free to dispute it or ignore it.
U
undead_rat
Guest
The 1988 C-14 data did no such thing. Those results were interpreted by the atheist Prof. Edward Hall who had a multi-million dollar grant to his laboratory on the line. A christian’s interpretation of that very same data indicates that Jesus’ corpse vanished into another dimension as is described in the Gospels. In other words the correct interpretion of the carbon dating results is that a miracle did in fact occur.***
***TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Ok. Whatever you say. Anyway…
U
undead_rat
Guest
Based solely on Pia’s astounding negative photograph, Pope Pius XI stated that the Image on the Shroud was not man-made and that the Shroud was the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. No Pope has ever contradicted that statement.
The Church has been prevented from making an official statement by the British Museum’s misinterpretation of the C-14 data.
Last edited:
- Status