Why Not Use The REAL Picture Of Jesus?!?

[DaDad]

To All,
First of all, when was a "negative" discovered? In the 12th century? -- NO.
Secondly, when was a "hologram" invented? In the 12th century? -- NO

Of course the list goes on, and some of those that have skeptically examined the Shroud of Turin have become convinced of it's authenticity (and ~thereby the Sudarium of Ovedio ~).

For what artist "painted" a "negative" image on the Shroud, before a "negative" was invented.
And what artist was able to paint a "hologram", EVEN TODAY KNOWING the holographic principles.

The point being, -- the Shroud conveys the TRUE image of Jesus. But if you like parlor games, then please feel free to continue ...

​

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[morse86]

Nobody knows what Jesus looked like but we have some characteristics from the bible. Short hair and wore pants.


All the hippie drawings of Jesus with long hair is from Hollywood garbage.

The reason we probably don't have a picture of him is that most people would idolize and worship the picture/image/statue instead of the WORD of God.

 

[Dave-W]

All the hippie drawings of Jesus with long hair is from Hollywood garbage.

Most of the long hair paintings of Him are from the 1800s, before either hippies or Hollyweird.

 

[Dave-W]

The point being, -- the Shroud conveys the TRUE image of Jesus.

The "shroud" is a fake.

It does not fit the biblical description. The "face cloth" was separate.

John 20:6-8 (NASB)
6 And so Simon Peter also *came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he *saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Making the shroud image an article of faith seems like a pretty bad idea.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DaDad]

Nobody knows what Jesus looked like ...

Ummmmmm, speak for yourself. It's clear to me. Did you miss the evidence from the Shroud, or did you discount that evidence because of some bias?

Perhaps some would like Jesus to look like Eric Estrada. But then again, why have evidence if people have different agendas?

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[DaDad]

The "shroud" is a fake. ...

I've looked at commercial aircraft and THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY "FLY". It's all a fraud, a hoax, a deception perpetrated by the government on a guilable public. And DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ME WITH YOUR "TRUTH".

As may favorite Aunt used to tease: My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts!

Thanks,
DaDad


PS It may not be advisable to trust what the "translators" depicted in the tomb.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure even the RCC doesn't do that, and they are as far as I can tell the biggest proponents of it being miraculous or whatever.

There are even earlier traditions than this in Eastern Christianity, going back to traditions surrounding The Image of Edessa, first found in the written record in the late 6th century. It's so famous, you can even find it on money.

Pictured: Reverse side of the 100,000 Armenian Dram bank note (2009 issue), depicting St. Thaddeus (the apostle to Armenia, along with St. Bartholomew) delivering the image of Christ (i.e., the image of Edessa) to King Abgar V.

If we're going to talk about 'original images', why not use this instead of the shroud, as the shroud is demonstrably much newer? (Note: I'm not actually in favor of making the Image of Edessa some kind of article of faith, either, and I'm unaware of any in my communion that do, even if the legend surrounding it is obviously recognized, as above.)

 

[DaDad]

Making the shroud image an article of faith seems like a pretty bad idea.
-CryptoLutheran

I don't think I said I worshiped the Shroud, and I don't worship the handiwork of GOD's creation, but I see GOD in BOTH. It's called S C I E N C E . We do this.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[DaDad]

... why not use this instead of the shroud, as the shroud is demonstrably much newer? ...

1. You presume more than you know.
2. The Shroud has been scientifically studied, and some of the scientists which were skeptical came back convinced.
3. I had a potato chip which had a more accurate depiction than any other source, but I ate it.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't think I said I worshiped the Shroud, and I don't worship the handiwork of GOD's creation, but I see GOD in BOTH. It's called S C I E N C E . We do this.

Thanks,
DaDad

Didn't accuse you of worshiping the shroud. I said taking the image on the shroud as an article of faith is problematic.

The science is non-conclusive, but dogmatically holding that the shroud is authentic is something Christians should absolutely avoid.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DaDad]

The science is non-conclusive, ..

No. It's conclusive. Are you unaware of the evidence?

I actually discussed the "Shroud" with one of the investigators. He went as a skeptic, and returned convinced. The problem is like everything else in society. We get so much contradictory information that we PRESUME that the issue is in doubt, when it's simply an agenda to CONFUSE the general public, whether it's "big foot", or the "moon landings", or "Sandy Hook", or the "twin towers".

The information is there, but ignorance prevails.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[Radagast]

To All,
First of all, when was a "negative" discovered? In the 12th century? -- NO.
Secondly, when was a "hologram" invented? In the 12th century? -- NO

Of course the list goes on, and some of those that have skeptically examined the Shroud of Turin have become convinced of it's authenticity (and ~thereby the Sudarium of Ovedio ~).

1. The Shroud is a fake (carbon dating shows this, as does the way that the paint has faded in the last few hundred years, as does the letter from the local bishop at the time of its painting).

2. It is not a hologram

3. It shows a different face from the Sudarium of Oviedo

 

[Goonie]

No. It's conclusive. Are you unaware of the evidence?

I actually discussed the "Shroud" with one of the investigators. He went as a skeptic, and returned convinced. The problem is like everything else in society. We get so much contradictory information that we PRESUME that the issue is in doubt, when it's simply an agenda to CONFUSE the general public, whether it's "big foot", or the "moon landings", or "Sandy Hook", or the "twin towers".

The information is there, but ignorance prevails.

Thanks,
DaDad

When the co2 dating says it’s 14th century and the first definitive historical mention declares it a forgery from around that period, describing the science as non conclusive is very generous.

 

[Lost4words]

1. The Shroud is a fake (carbon dating shows this, as does the way that the paint has faded in the last few hundred years, as does the letter from the local bishop at the time of its painting).

2. It is not a hologram

3. It shows a different face from the Sudarium of Oviedo

The carbon dating, from when it was extensively examined, proved to have been sampled from a medievel 'repair' done to the shroud!

Scientific evidence proved that no known 'paint' was used on the shroud

I believe it is the face of Jesus. Those that dont just need to look at 'real' information about the shroud and its make up.

 

[morse86]

Jesus doesn't need to give us a stupid shroud...

He gave us the word! It's everlasting.

 

[Radagast]

The carbon dating, from when it was extensively examined, proved to have been sampled from a medievel 'repair' done to the shroud!

Not true.

Scientific evidence proved that no known 'paint' was used on the shroud

Not true.

I believe it is the face of Jesus.

Believe what you like.

 

[Lost4words]

Jesus doesn't need to give us a stupid shroud...

He gave us the word!

Not nice to call it stupid my friend.

 

[Lost4words]

Not true.



Not true.



Believe what you like.

VERY TRUE. Try researching it first. I have, quite a lot as it happens.

Turin Shroud 'could be genuine as carbon-dating was flawed'

 

[JackRT]

To All,
First of all, when was a "negative" discovered? In the 12th century? -- NO.
Secondly, when was a "hologram" invented? In the 12th century? -- NO

Of course the list goes on, and some of those that have skeptically examined the Shroud of Turin have become convinced of it's authenticity (and ~thereby the Sudarium of Ovedio ~).

For what artist "painted" a "negative" image on the Shroud, before a "negative" was invented.
And what artist was able to paint a "hologram", EVEN TODAY KNOWING the holographic principles.

The point being, -- the Shroud conveys the TRUE image of Jesus. But if you like parlor games, then please feel free to continue ...

​

View attachment 248570​

Thanks,
DaDad

Or is this the image of Jaques DeMolay the last leader of the Knights Templar?