What did Jesus look like ?

[Jerry N.]

Iconography can be useful as a teaching tool. If you go to a Catholic or Orthodox church and look at a picture of a saint, you can learn a lot about him/her if you know what symbols to consider. In this case, it is not idolatry.

 

[CoreyD]

The image that started this thread said that Jesus was wiry and strong. Of course, He was in His prime, but do you think it was because He was an artisan?
Nobody has responded to the Shroud of Turin questions.
If the image on the shroud is real, then everything fits but with shoulder length hair and a longer beard. If a person has shoulder length hair and a beard a few centimeters long, it doesn’t require much grooming and would fit with a lack of vanity.

The Shroud of Turin Is a Fake

The Shroud of Turin is said by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus and by others a medieval forgery. Now, a new study using modern forensic techniques suggests the bloodstains on the shroud are completely unrealistic, supporting arguments that it is a fake.​

​

...researchers strove to use modern forensic techniques on the shroud. They focused on the bloodstains from the supposed crucifixion wounds on the linen, aiming to reconstruct the most likely position of the arms and body within the shroud.​

​

The scientists applied blood — both human and synthetic — onto a live volunteer to see how blood would run in rivulets down his skin as he lay with his arms and body in various positions. Furthermore, Jesus was supposedly stabbed in the side with the Holy Spear as he hung on the cross, according to the Gospel of St. John. As such, to mimic a spear wound, the researchers stuck a sponge on a wooden plank, soaked the sponge with synthetic blood and jabbed this fake spear into the side of a mannequin to see how the blood ran down the body. They finally compared all these bloodstain patterns with ones seen on the shroud.​

​

They found that if one examined all the bloodstains on the shroud together, "you realize these cannot be real bloodstains from a person who was crucified and then put into a grave, but actually handmade by the artist that created the shroud,"study lead author Matteo Borrini, a forensic anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University in England, told Live Science.​

​

For instance, two short rivulets of the blood on the back of the left hand of the shroud are only consistent with a person standing with their arms held at a 45-degree angle. In contrast, the forearm bloodstains found on the shroud match a person standing with their arms held nearly vertically. A person couldn't be in these two positions at once.​

The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin

While science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus but instead a fourteenth-century forgery, shroud devotees continue to claim otherwise.​

​

The following facts have been established by various distinguished experts and scholars:​

​

The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.​

​

No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.​

​

The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.​

Do you have an explanation that would counter the evidence scientists present here?

 

[CoreyD]

My Bible says that God the Eternal Son and Word became human. And that He is the visible Icon of the invisible God.



Icons =/= idols.

Not understanding the difference between icon and idol is not a good thing.

Now, with that said, an icon can become an idol if we aren't careful about our theology. But that's true of anything. We could even turn the Bible into an idol if we aren't careful.

And, for the record, yes I have seen that exact thing happen. There is a fairly notorious IFB pastor named Steven Anderson who has, over the years, been embroiled in a number of scandals, who has had several of his recorded/video sermons become viral because of various reasons. In one such sermon Anderson quite literally applied John 1:1 to the Bible, declaring that the Bible is God. So when I say that "we could even turn the Bible into an idol" I'm not speaking in hyperbole.

-CryptoLutheran

In the Bible everyone reads, it clearly says... you shall not bow down to a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Exodus 20:4, 5
Arguing and reasoning against that will not change what it says.

If a person bows to a piece of wood, or stone, or metal, regardless of what it is carved into, it is idolatry, and the Bible tells us to flee from idolatry. 1 Corinthians 10:14

The persons in those images are not fleeing from idolatry. They are committing idolatry.
You deny this, but it is understandable, as to why you do.

Persons can try to help, but only you can change your mind.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In the Bible everyone reads, it clearly says... you shall not bow down to a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Exodus 20:4, 5
Arguing and reasoning against that will not change what it says.

If a person bows to a piece of wood, or stone, or metal, regardless of what it is carved into, it is idolatry, and the Bible tells us to flee from idolatry. 1 Corinthians 10:14

The persons in those images are not fleeing from idolatry. They are committing idolatry.
You deny this, but it is understandable, as to why you do.

Persons can try to help, but only you can change your mind.

Would it be idolatry when someone from an East Asian culture bows at the grave of a passed on loved one?

Is context irrelevant?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CoreyD]

Would it be idolatry when someone from an East Asian culture bows at the grave of a passed on loved one?

Is context irrelevant?

-CryptoLutheran

Whatever the Bible says do not do, is a sin.

I don't think they are bowing to the grave. I believe they are honoring the dead - the person, or persons in the grave, and while no scripture directly says do not honor the dead, the principle condemns the practice, which is based on the false doctrine of the immortal soul.

Actually, in most East Asian cultures, the dead are not really dead, but living on, and this is why they try to appease them.
You can research it yourself.

The context of Exodus 20:4, 5 is clear, as well as the directly stated command.
No one argues for context on the command to not steal, covet, commit adultery, murder...

The scripture specifically says “You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them."
Trying to get around a command to not commit idolatry, is something one would do, when they want to support doing what God condemns.

This is what Jesus meant by honoring men more than God.
That's billions of people guilty of that.

 

[Jerry N.]

The Shroud of Turin Is a Fake

The Shroud of Turin is said by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus and by others a medieval forgery. Now, a new study using modern forensic techniques suggests the bloodstains on the shroud are completely unrealistic, supporting arguments that it is a fake.​

​

...researchers strove to use modern forensic techniques on the shroud. They focused on the bloodstains from the supposed crucifixion wounds on the linen, aiming to reconstruct the most likely position of the arms and body within the shroud.​

​

The scientists applied blood — both human and synthetic — onto a live volunteer to see how blood would run in rivulets down his skin as he lay with his arms and body in various positions. Furthermore, Jesus was supposedly stabbed in the side with the Holy Spear as he hung on the cross, according to the Gospel of St. John. As such, to mimic a spear wound, the researchers stuck a sponge on a wooden plank, soaked the sponge with synthetic blood and jabbed this fake spear into the side of a mannequin to see how the blood ran down the body. They finally compared all these bloodstain patterns with ones seen on the shroud.​

​

They found that if one examined all the bloodstains on the shroud together, "you realize these cannot be real bloodstains from a person who was crucified and then put into a grave, but actually handmade by the artist that created the shroud,"study lead author Matteo Borrini, a forensic anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University in England, told Live Science.​

​

For instance, two short rivulets of the blood on the back of the left hand of the shroud are only consistent with a person standing with their arms held at a 45-degree angle. In contrast, the forearm bloodstains found on the shroud match a person standing with their arms held nearly vertically. A person couldn't be in these two positions at once.​

The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin

While science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus but instead a fourteenth-century forgery, shroud devotees continue to claim otherwise.​

​

The following facts have been established by various distinguished experts and scholars:​

​

The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.​

​

No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.​

​

The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.​

Do you have an explanation tat would counter the evidence scientists present here?

This is a good start:

I'm not 100% convinced it is true, but I don't think it is a fake. The main reasons I have doubts are not scientific, but the fact that it is not mentioned by the early church writers.

 

[Jonaitis]

What Isaiah says;.

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

What the Media says.

Revealed: What Jesus REALLY looked like, according to experts

He is one of the most instantly recognisable figures in the Western world. But experts say that every image you've seen of Jesus is almost certainly inaccurate.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So what dou think ?

If we were to use the verse provided in Isaiah 53:2b along with the descriptive encounters he had with his opponents, he would have had no particular characteristics that made him stand out in any way. Matter of fact, an ordinary person unaware would have easily passed over him in public.

 

[Aaron112]

Matter of fact, an ordinary person unaware would have easily passed over him in public.

Multitudes of 'ordinary' and of 'extraordinary', religious and unreligious persons do that all the time.
Oblivious to His Life.

 

[Aaron112]

The scripture specifically says “You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them."

Trying to get around a command to not commit idolatry, is something one would do, when they want to support doing what God condemns.

This is what Jesus meant by honoring men more than God.
That's billions of people guilty of that.

True points avoided by religious cults and groups.

 

[Apple Sky]

If we were to use the verse provided in Isaiah 53:2b along with the descriptive encounters he had with his opponents, he would have had no particular characteristics that made him stand out in any way. Matter of fact, an ordinary person unaware would have easily passed over him in public.

Are we not to believe what Isaiah said ?

 

[Aaron112]

Are we not to believe what Isaiah said ?

You do not have to, but likely would find out that denying any part of God's Word is too much the same or the same as denying Jesus!

 

[Apple Sky]

You do not have to

Oh but I do believe what Isaiah said, I think it is @Jonaitis who has doubts.

 

[Jonaitis]

Are we not to believe what Isaiah said ?

Maybe I am missing something in what I said, will you point out why I think you should not believe Isaiah?

 

[Apple Sky]

Maybe I am missing something in what I said, will you point out why I think you should not believe Isaiah?

I took what you said to mean that we shouldn't believe what Isaiah said.

Maybe I was reading it wrong ???

 

[Jonaitis]

I took what you said to mean that we shouldn't believe what Isaiah said.

Maybe I was reading it wrong ???

Can you quote the part?

 

[Aaron112]

Can you quote the part?

fwiw, Right after the exchange, it was clear he misunderstood.

"the part"

 

[Apple Sky]

fwiw, Right after the exchange, it was clear he misunderstood.

"the part"

He is a she ...........

 

[Aaron112]

He is a she ...........

That explains a little.....

 

[CoreyD]

He is a she ...........

I should have known.
I did sense a little delicate and gentle nature evident in... some women.

 

[Aaron112]

Iconography can be useful as a teaching tool. If you go to a Catholic or Orthodox church and look at a picture of a saint, you can learn a lot about him/her if you know what symbols to consider. In this case, it is not idolatry.

I believe just having one of those idolatrous things was considered sin. Mere possession of an idol was forbidden.