COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

A hypothetical reconstruction of Jesus' face

150px-RFJesus.jpgfollow up from this thread:

A Mama Mary Miracle Experience

http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276050


Recently, a team of forensic scientists from the UK and Israel attempted to construct what Jesus may have looked like. Starting with a skull from that time period, they reconstructed the face. Critics point out that this method only produces an image of a (perhaps typical) Jew from the first century, and does not say anything more about what Jesus looks like than a photo of one modern man tells you what another specific modern man looks like. See:150px-RFJesus.jpg

150px-RFJesus.jpg
«134

Comments

  • images.jpg
    Images of Jesus
    There are no undisputed historical images of Jesus; he sat for no portraits which are preserved and of unquestioned authenticity and undoubted provenance.

    There is however an early tradition, recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea, that says that Jesus once washed his face with water and then dried it with a cloth, leaving an image of his face imprinted on the cloth. This was sent by him to King Abgarus of Edessa, who had sent a messenger asking Jesus to come and heal him of his disease. This image, called the Mandylion, appears in history in around 525. Numerous replicas of this "image not made by human hands" remain in circulation. As recently as the 19th century, it was not uncommon to find prints of this icon in the homes of Anglicans, along with framed copies of the correspondence between Jesus Christ and the King of Edessa. There is also the Shroud of Turin, which appears in history in 1353, which some have speculated is the same image as the Mandylion of Edessa, which disappeared in the wars surrounding the fall of the Byzantine Empire shortly before then. Controversy still surrounds the claims made for the Shroud of Turin. There are also two or three paintings of Jesus and Mary that are ascribed to Luke the Evangelist, at least one of which is still preserved.

    Early Christian art is not universally acknowledged as being helpful in knowing what Jesus actually looked like. No detailed physical description of him is contained in any of the canonical Gospels. During the Roman Empire's persecution of Christians, Christian art was necessarily furtive and ambiguous. There are a number of images from Christian tombs in the catacombs that have been interpreted as portraits of Jesus. Some of these depict the "Good Shepherd" in pastoral scenes collecting sheep; in these images, Jesus is a beardless youth.

    The more familiar, bearded Jesus figure appears later. As a practicing Jew, it is assumed that Jesus had a beard. The source or model for his physical features remains unknown. It is possible that the portrait may have been based on an eyewitness's sketch or reproduced from a tradition of verbal descriptions of Jesus' appearance. But once the bearded, long haired Jesus became the traditional representation of Jesus, his facial features began to take shape and become recognisable.

    http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Images_of_Jesus

    150px-RFJesus.jpg

    Forensic recreation of Jesus
  • from bbc:

    jesus_bbc.jpg
    He is one of the most famous people in history but no-one knows what he looked like - until now perhaps.

    Artists have traditionally represented Jesus Christ as blue-eyed, with long flowing locks, but now a new image is to be revealed.

    The highlight of next season on BBC One is to be a computer-generated image of Jesus included in a new documentary about the life of Christ.

    The image will be part of a new series called Son of God, and is to examine traditional Christian stories.

    Artists have traditionally represented Jesus Christ as blue-eyed, with long flowing locks, but now a new image is to be revealed.

    The highlight of next season on BBC One is to be a computer-generated image of Jesus included in a new documentary about the life of Christ.

    The image will be part of a new series called Son of God, and is to examine traditional Christian stories.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1243339.stm
  • A noted medical and forensic artist, Richard Neave, working from a plaster cast of a first-century skull found in present-day Israel, had already made a reconstruction of Jesus’ face for the BBC. The CNN production engaged Neave to “give the BBC Jesus a makeover, rendering an even more accurate visual of what the owner of this skull looked like—and so, what Jesus might have really looked like too, with the emphasis on the ‘might.’” Neave also had the assistance of a New York artist, Donato Giancola, who “put life and intelligence in the eyes, and made his mouth more sensitive, but also determined to reflect Neave’s scientific vision of just what a ‘tough, rugged kind of fellow’ Jesus was, a man who walked hundreds of miles preaching his message and endured several hours of the brutalities of crucifixion.” “He’s not a wimp,” said Neave. “I mean this is a really hefty, solid, strong working-class man, and that’s how he comes across.”

    This all seems appropriate and realistic enough; the Neave portrait offers us a plausible, scientific reconstruction of a first-century resident of the Holy Land—and that’s the group Jesus belonged to. I am glad to have a Jesus who was a hefty, solid, strong working-class man.

    palmsun2004_jesus-reconstruction.jpg



    http://www.firstpresbucyrus.org/sunday/services/2004-04-04.html
  • Light-brown, shoulder-length hair. A slim, bearded and, above all, white face. Everyone is familiar with the features of Jesus Christ. But a new BBC programme questions this image of the Son of God.
    _1244037_titian.jpg

    Christ's whiteness is now being questioned

    That people in Western Europe were so ready to believe their God was fair-skinned is perhaps of little surprise, especially given the cultural baggage of the Crusades, in which non-whites were seen as non-believers.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1244037.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1243954.stm

    He has been the source of faith for billions of people, the inspiration of great art and music, and an excuse for war.

    thanks guys, good reading..

    why i didn't see this show before??? :mecry:
  • Lucca YamazakiLucca Yamazaki die boy abunda die! PExer
    Wow! He really does look like the type I could sit around with and discuss things while getting loaded up with booze...
  • blue[]ceblue[]ce Member PExer
    TERRORIST!!!

    Jesus is da BOMB!

    :D
  • mac_bolan00mac_bolan00 Banned by Admin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    from bbc:

    jesus_bbc.jpg

    any bmp artists here:

    1. give him shave and beatles hairdo and he'll look like moe of the three stooges.

    2. give him a shave and close crop and he'll look like curly (the third stooge).

    nyuk-nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!
  • tophe_17tophe_17 ΛuЯoR™ PExer
    Ignorance of the past...
    There are no undisputed historical images of Jesus; he sat for no portraits which are preserved and of unquestioned authenticity and undoubted provenance.
    Recently, a team of forensic scientists from the UK and Israel attempted to construct what Jesus may have looked like. [HIGHLIGHT]Starting with a skull from that time period, they reconstructed the face[/HIGHLIGHT].

    and Ignorance of the present...



    all rolled into one thread.
    :lol: :rotflmao: :lol:
  • micketymocmicketymoc Oversized Member PExer
    Methinks a guy who believes that an invisible Daddy in the sky got a teenager in Palestine pregnant has lost all prerogative at laughing at the ignorance of others. :rotflmao:
  • micketymocmicketymoc Oversized Member PExer
    Methinks, too, that tophe_17 needs to look up the dictionary before dismissing the content of an entire thread:

    "hypothetical: conjectural, based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence." (Princeton WordNet)

    Title of thread is "hypothetical reconstruction of Jesus' face", no? :)

    If one were to ask, “what would Jesus have really looked like?”, then conjecturing his appearance based on the forensics of his contemporaries seems like a valid methodology, no?

    Methinks tophe_17 would prefer that nobody even asked that consarn question in the first place? Harder to make a God out of a man if you’re reminded he’s a man, you know, man?

    What’s so “ignorant” about the results of the hypothesis anyway? Nobody says that this is Jesus’ face – only that this face is quite likely to be the average face of the average Galilean of 20 AD (quoted from above, “a plausible, scientific reconstruction of a first-century resident of the Holy Land”) – and Jesus was a Galilean of 20 AD, so his face is quite likely to share some of its characteristics!

    Ignorance? Methinks tophe_17 just needs to sharpen his reading comprehension.
  • st.angerst.anger Domo! PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    where's payter? it's better at this atheist-bashing thingy :glee:
  • kaningbrownkaningbrown Member PExer
    He looks like the type that'd be profiled as a suicide bomber.

    Big J is of semitic origin afterall.
  • micketymocmicketymoc Oversized Member PExer
    How long before other groups ride the bandwagon of hypothetical reconstructions of religious figures' faces?

    Xenu of scientology would probably look like this:

    tom-cruise-at-yahoo.jpg
  • loc0loc0 loc0.deviantart.com PExer
    Cool, Jesus has the "big dumb guy" look down pretty well.
  • tophe_17tophe_17 ΛuЯoR™ PExer
    Affected?
    micketymoc wrote:
    What’s so “ignorant” about the results of the hypothesis anyway? Nobody says that this is Jesus’ face – only that this face is quite likely to be the average face of the average Galilean of 20 AD (quoted from above, “a plausible, scientific reconstruction of a first-century resident of the Holy Land”) – and Jesus was a Galilean of 20 AD, so his face is quite likely to share some of its characteristics!

    Short statement... replied with quite a long one.
    You must be puzzled with my post (as you were on the other thread) that's why you're concluding that I meant that the "results" of such forensic science activity is an "ignorant" one. You've gone far, earthling!
    Recently, a team of forensic scientists from the UK and Israel attempted to construct what Jesus may have looked like.

    ^ Was this not a total ignorance of history, specifically contemporary history? Hasn't it that the face many are looking upon as His face already been proven?
    Oh I forgot... They need a scientific back-up. Fine!

    Ignorance? Methinks tophe_17 just needs to sharpen his reading comprehension.

    You've misinterpreted posts, and here you are telling me to sharpen [HIGHLIGHT]my[/HIGHLIGHT] reading comprehension?
    Thanks anyway, perhaps I need it.

    .... but you need it more than I do. :)

    Enjoy your friday.
  • tophe_17tophe_17 ΛuЯoR™ PExer
    - triple post -
  • tophe_17tophe_17 ΛuЯoR™ PExer
    - triple post -
  • micketymocmicketymoc Oversized Member PExer
    "Puzzled"? No, I merely take you at your word; your vague waffling is typical of most religious droids I've encountered, and thus is no surprise at all. Besides, what do you expect when you throw a loaded word like "ignorant" and don't even bother to specify who you're referring to?

    Are the researchers ignorant? Hell no - if you bothered to read on instead of just judging based on a single cut-and-paste sentence from Wikipedia, you would have discovered that the researchers in question were well aware that they weren't looking upon the actual face of Jesus.
    "There is no way that we are saying this is the skull of Jesus," Popular Mechanic's Mike Fillon told CNN. "Christians believe ... that Jesus' entire body was resurrected, so there would never be any bones or skull or DNA evidence of Jesus. Plus, his ministry was very, very short. So it would be hard to find a lot of evidence."

    Instead the article focuses on describing the painstaking effort of imagining the face and how science and theology both played a part in the process.

    Despite the concerns about accuracy, Alison Galloway, a professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz, told Popular Mechanics that: "This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters."

    -CNN

    So, "Was this not a total ignorance of history, specifically contemporary history?" - NO. They weren't making any claims they couldn't back up with verifiable data.

    Which is more than can be said of you - unless, of course, you are in a privileged position to pass judgment on other people's ignorance? Oooh, I'm impressed.

    As for my reading comprehension, it's still quite sharp, thanks for asking. A word of advice - try writing more clearly, or else people won't think you're just being willfuly vague so you can wriggle out of any rhetorical tight spot. Because you don't bother to define your terms, you leave it up to the likes of me to define what the hell it is you're saying. Which is a privilege I most gratefully accept! :glee:
  • micketymocmicketymoc Oversized Member PExer
    P.S. And even that cut-and-paste sentence from Wikipedia leaves out another sentence that cuts your premise of "ignorance" to shreds:

    "Recently, a team of forensic scientists from the UK and Israel attempted to construct what Jesus may have looked like. Starting with a skull from that time period, they reconstructed the face.

    "Critics point out that this method only produces an image of a (perhaps typical) Jew from the first century, and does not say anything more about what Jesus looks like than a photo of one modern man tells you what another specific modern man looks like.

    "However, the project was never intended to determine exactly what Jesus looked like; it was designed only to provide an image that would be closer to what Jesus looked like than modern European-like depictions are."
  • tophe_17tophe_17 ΛuЯoR™ PExer
    micketymoc wrote:
    Because you don't bother to define your terms, you leave it up to the [HIGHLIGHT]likes of me[/HIGHLIGHT] to define what the hell it is you're saying. Which is a privilege I most gratefully accept!

    ... that you weren't able to understand either - that was evidently shown on the other thread.
    That was clear enough - I even highlighted the sentences you said (for your convenience), right? (Go back on that thread to re-check).

    Is it just because you have a (very) superior mind, earthling? Or is it just because it only shows how you contradict your own philosophy? (You're supposed to be an atheist, right?)

    Good evening.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file