3D image of Jesus?

[MorningGlory]

I'm almost convinced it could be a real person....

I'm NOT convinced its Jesus.......nope not one bit...

But, another human being, I think so after watching the show....the way they explained the image was very interesting to say the least....

I'm not convinced the shroud ever covered the body of Jesus either....we just can't know. But it's the image of SOMEONE who was crucified and scourged. The Romans were not doing that in the 12th century when the shroud is believed to have been made. Still a mystery.

[e lansing]

I'm not a huge believer in the shroud. But when the History channel decided to do a special on it I thought it was worth a watch. Surprisingly all were pretty well respectful that I heard. It was interesting to watch.

I'll ask Him someday...

http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus

Did anyone else watch it?

yep! Entertaining! Is it Jesus, I do not believe so.

[winsomebulldog]

The one thing holding up the shroud as being the Messiah's is there seems to be no markings on the face, in the beard. I always thought that He was beaten on the face with rods which fulfilled Isa. 50:6 where it says 'And My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard..' So if this was His shroud wouldn't with all the things they have scanned and clicked wouldn't they be able to see that also? There was one man who kept saying no matter what your belief no ones ever going to prove this is His shroud and I liked that honesty.

How very true. Jesus was unrecognizable after his beatings. His flesh was torn so that His very bowels protruded, and yes, His beard was plucked. Jesus was not buried in a one-piece swath of fabric. He had a head-cloth.

Whoever was wrapped in that cloth is not Jesus and it is just one more distortion about Jesus Christ that the Catholic church has propagated.

I certainly will not be wasting my time watching anything to do with such a farce.

A head cloth that is supposed to be that of Jesus is in a museum in Hungary (?) or maybe Poland. They would have been used together. Why do you say this is a farce? Some pretty sharp people, and some very pious people, entertain the possibllity that it might be, Where in the Bible does it say Jesus' beard was plucked out?

Jesus speaks to Isaiah in the OT and tells us.

Isaiah 50:6

I gave My back to those who struck Me,

And My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard;

I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.

Very studious folks need to really examine the Scriptures and realize that Jesus' wounds are not consistent with what is imprinted on that cloth. His flesh was completely torn, and the shroud does not reveal a completely battered and torn body.

Jesus was not wrapped in a one-piece cloth.

The imprinted image does not conform to a 3 dimensional body. It should be distorted just like a flattened-out image of the spherical planet Earth would look like. Any projected image of a 3-D object onto a flat surface will have conspicuous distortion--and this cloth has none!

It is most definitely not Jesus and it is most definitely man-made by an artist who did not understand this principle, nor had the understanding of scripture to the point of knowing that blood would pool and smear--the shroud is far too neat.

Did you watch the show? They addressed the distortion and tested for ink, dyes or other pigment; there is none. The image that emerged after all of the testing is totally different from what is on the cloth. The only explanation anyone can come up with, as to how the image came to be on the cloth, is radiation exuding from a body that was levitated at the time the image was imprinted. Is it Jesus though? We won't know that until we talk to Him face to face.

You said what I would have!

[winsomebulldog]

One other thing that I don't recall them directly addressing in the show that has been mentioned several times here is the seemingly small amount of blood on the shroud considering the brutal and horrific damage done to Jesus both before and during the Crucifixion. I feel the need to mention first that there is quite a bit of blood on the shroud. Some have argued that it isn't enough. The fact is, Jesus was dead when he was placed in the tomb. The dead do not bleed as their heart has ceased to beat. Assuming that the cloth He was wrapped in would have been completely soaked in blood is an erroneous notion. Not to mention the fact that with the immense damage done to Him, He very likely would have lost a great deal of His blood before His actual death.

I'm not arguing for the validity of the shroud, just pointing out a few things that have so far been unmentioned and/or overlooked. As I've said before, I don't really care if it's the cloth that covered Jesus. I worship the risen Lord, not some piece of fabric!

[nebula]

The biggest mystery for me concerning the interpretation(s) of it being made in the 12th century is that the image is more historically accurate than Medieval representations of Jesus -

Looks mid-eastern not European

Wounds in wrists not palms

Cloth contains pollens from the area of Israel

[MorningGlory]

The biggest mystery for me concerning the interpretation(s) of it being made in the 12th century is that the image is more historically accurate than Medieval representations of Jesus -

Looks mid-eastern not European

Wounds in wrists not palms

Cloth contains pollens from the area of Israel

Right; they also didn't seem to realize that crucixion had been abolished by Rome 900 years before the 12th century.....from Wikipedia:

Crucifixion was in use particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. In the year 337, Emperor Constantine I abolished it in the Roman Empire, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion.^[2][3] It was also used as a form of execution in Japan, of both criminals and Christians.

[Guest shiloh357]

The biggest mystery for me concerning the interpretation(s) of it being made in the 12th century is that the image is more historically accurate than Medieval representations of Jesus -

Looks mid-eastern not European

Wounds in wrists not palms

Cloth contains pollens from the area of Israel

Yes, that is true. The image is anatomically correct and is also correct in terms of the angles of blood flow on the body. Not only that, but the face on the shroud is shows signs of swelling that one would expect from the types of blows Jesus would have taken.

I was reading somewhere that most of the Medieval pictures of Jesus are taken from the shroud. They show several points of similarity between the shroud and some of the most famous Medieval paintings of Jesus face. The thing is that the pictures are not anatomically correct, precluding the shroud from being produced in the Middle Ages.

[Floatingaxe]

One other thing that I don't recall them directly addressing in the show that has been mentioned several times here is the seemingly small amount of blood on the shroud considering the brutal and horrific damage done to Jesus both before and during the Crucifixion. I feel the need to mention first that there is quite a bit of blood on the shroud. Some have argued that it isn't enough. The fact is, Jesus was dead when he was placed in the tomb. The dead do not bleed as their heart has ceased to beat. Assuming that the cloth He was wrapped in would have been completely soaked in blood is an erroneous notion. Not to mention the fact that with the immense damage done to Him, He very likely would have lost a great deal of His blood before His actual death.

I'm not arguing for the validity of the shroud, just pointing out a few things that have so far been unmentioned and/or overlooked. As I've said before, I don't really care if it's the cloth that covered Jesus. I worship the risen Lord, not some piece of fabric!

The dead do not bleed, and neither would someone who has lost the majority of his body fluids already. But Jesus' body would have been covered with blood and even dried, caked blood and lymph fluid would smear all over the shroud as He was buried in a hurry, and probably not washed. But as it shows--there is not much smearing or soaking there. It is far too neat and tidy.

In addition, the actual visible image is seemingly in proportion, and it shouldn't be while laid out flat--which is my point, and making a correct 3D image out of it should not be possible.

[nebula]

. . . as He was buried in a hurry, and probably not washed. . . .

I don't think you can treat an assumption like that as fact.