What did Jesus look like?

Jester Minute

I was talking to a fellow Christian today about this. I always thought of Jesus as being handsome, rugged and so forth. Looking at most Christian art, He is either portrayed as a handsome manly type, muscular (He was a carpenter) or else He is portrayed as quite soft and genteel.

I like to think that the Lord is the perfect man. In my mind, that means He must be handsome, according to my Western imagination, of course.

However, others quote various passages from Isaiah which might indicate that He was not attractive. But I always thought that was because His features had been disfigured by the scourging and so forth.

I find it hard to believe that God would incarnate Himself as anything other than the most perfect specimen of the human race. I think that if we attain heaven, we shall all be perfect, and in my mind, perfection includes physical perfection which to me means physical beauty.

Maybe I've got it quite wrong. Maybe I am thinking not as God thinks, but as man thinks.

So, what do you think?

Onesimus

I think what he means by Jesus not being attractive is that he did not have the appearance of someone who stood out of the crowd. But just looked basically like every other person on the planet. to put it in modern day language. He had no lynx, no gillette and did not shop at top man.

PDN

Perfection and physical beauty tend to be in the eye of the beholder. Physical perfection, in the eyes of someone from Tonga, would be considered grossly fat by many of us.

What is fairly certain is that Jesus, as a First Century Palestinian Jew, was not the blue-eyed blond-haired Barry Gibbs lookalike portrayed in many paintings.

Fanny Cradock

Not unlike this, I'd imagine.



or this (middle picture looks not unlike Lionel Richie)



but most certainly not this



The notion that Jesus looked anything different from your average modern-day Palestinian, Syrian, Israeli or just about anybody from that region doesn't float.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

What is fairly certain is that Jesus, as a First Century Palestinian Jew, was not the blue-eyed blond-haired Barry Gibbs lookalike portrayed in many paintings.

Didn't you post an interesting picture before of a black Jesus? I guess the sub-Saharan equivalent of your Barry Gibb? *


* After checking who he is the comparison makes perfect sense

Jester Minute

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Didn't you post an interesting picture before of a black Jesus? I guess the sub-Saharan equivalent of your Barry Gibb? *


* After checking who he is the comparison makes perfect sense

Lol.

What about this:

That's from the Turin Shroud.

Oh_Noes

Jester Minute wrote: »

Lol.

What about this:

That's from the Turin Shroud.

The Turin Shroud was exposed as a hoax years ago.

Jester Minute

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Jester Minute

Oh_Noes wrote: »

The Turin Shroud was exposed as a hoax years ago.

Hardly. With each passing year the evidence increases. Anyway, let's not get into petty controversies. Let's talk about what Jesus looked like.

Slav

Jester Minute wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that God would incarnate Himself as anything other than the most perfect specimen of the human race.

That does not sound right to me. It even has a slight hint of some sort of monophysitism as far as I can see it. Theologically speaking, the physical appearance of Christ (as everything else we attribute to humanity) if fully determined by the appearance of Theotokos, Joahim, Anna, and so on. I guess we have no reason to suggest that they looked exceptionally differently from other Jews of that time and therefore so did not Christ.

Jester Minute

Slav wrote: »

That does not sound right to me. It even has a slight hint of some sort of monophysitism as far as I can see it. Theologically speaking, the physical appearance of Christ (as everything else we attribute to humanity) if fully determined by the appearance of Theotokos, Joahim, Anna, and so on. I guess we have no reason to suggest that they looked exceptionally differently from other Jews of that time and therefore so did not Christ.

Yeah I agree with you and thank you for your insight.

It wouldn't be the first time I've been affected by heresy. I think most Irish Catholics are infected with Pelagianism. I also suffered with a bout of Deism early in my conversional process.

homer911

Jester Minute wrote: »

Hardly. With each passing year the evidence increases. Anyway, let's not get into petty controversies. Let's talk about what Jesus looked like.

If you, as the original OP, introduce the Turin shroud as an example of what Christ might have looked like, you have to be prepared for people to be completely sceptical of it.

You cant just introduce something and say "Anyway..." If its petty and irrelvant dont introduce it!

It would be like me introducing Romans 14:2 in an attempt to prove that vegetarians make lousy christians...

BigDuffman

Quite jewish I'd imagine..much to the disdain of southern supremacists!

I find it hard to believe that God would incarnate Himself as anything other than the most perfect specimen of the human race. I think that if we attain heaven, we shall all be perfect, and in my mind, perfection includes physical perfection which to me means physical beauty.

I think the whole resurrection business might have been a tad more important than him looking pretty !

edit: I would also find it hard to reconcile someone who didn't show off with the jumping off the temple etc, with someone who showed off via physical perfection

newmug

IIRC what you posted Fanny, was a reconstruction done on a skull found in or around Jerusalem on a show like time-team. I remember watching it at the time. They suspected it was the skull of saint Peter (although I dont see how if he's buried in Rome!)

prinz

A cross between Omid Djalili and Gad Elmaleh.

http://blog.vickiboykis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gad_elmaleh.jpg

http://kazbah.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/omid-djalili.JPG

Which would lead to something like Ashraf Barhom...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2737934637_3b7d758984.jpg?v=0

homer911

My accountancy teacher in school once told the class that Jesus was precisely 6 feet tall!! (and that he was the only person ever precisely 6 feet tall) Where do people get their ideas from???

Assuming he was correct (unlikely) this would probably have made him considerably taller than most people of the time...

This is not a subject any person should get hung up about, or even care about imo

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True, only in terms of averages, ie there are certain traits that on average more people than not find attractive.

As PDN says it is largely in the eye of the beholder, and largely down to genetics. We find people with slightly diverse phenotypes attractive, but go too far removed and it slides off again. Someone from Norway may find Halle Berry attractive but a woman from a mid-African country not so much (although again this could be different for someone else)

So I would imagine it would be difficult for God to make the perfectly handsome Jesus as there is no objective standard.

The OP does though have a point that God though would have had to decide Jesus' genetic material, and thus his phenotype, would God have made him stand out or would he have made him common looking and plain to blend in.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

A cross between Omid Djalili and Gad Elmaleh.

http://blog.vickiboykis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gad_elmaleh.jpg

http://kazbah.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/omid-djalili.JPG

Which would lead to something like Ashraf Barhom...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2737934637_3b7d758984.jpg?v=0

are you just listing the perfect man :P:pac:

Festus

I Imagine Mel Gibsons' guess wasn't far off the mark - a bit like Jim Caviezel only more like Jesus

fontanalis

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not unlike this, I'd imagine.



or this (middle picture looks not unlike Lionel Richie)



but most certainly not this



The notion that Jesus looked anything different from your average modern-day Palestinian, Syrian, Israeli or just about anybody from that region doesn't float.

So when he returns will his first words be "hello, it's me again"?
Sorry.

Jester Minute

Although we can be confident that Jesus does indeed look like the average man from that region, I think there is no harm in portraying Him according to our own cultures and races. It can help people to be devoted to the Lord. Catholics like images of the Lord. We believe that since God has become incarnate and made man, He can now be portrayed. I read something in a book about that recently. I can't remember where though. It might have been in the Pope's new book. *sigh* I hate when that happens. You read something good and then forget where you read it.

Anyway, I quite like some of the ethnic portrayals, such as this one from China:



It is sentimental and devotional. I think it's cute. I don't think there is any harm in that.

fontanalis

BigDuffman wrote: »

Quite jewish I'd imagine..much to the disdain of southern supremacists!

I'd say more Arab, I remember reading an article about jewish ancestry and apparently a lot of Jews (ashekanzi) are decended from people around the italy/mediterranean area who converted to Judaism and moved to central Europe.

Jester Minute

For the cold weather:



And this is nice: Jesus with the children of the whole world:



This is a very interesting article on this very subject:

"It's relevant to every culture and every culture seeks to take it and make it its own, which then means a wide variety of depictions of Jesus," he says.

"Truly, Jesus would have looked like a Jewish person in the Roman territory of Palestine 2000 years ago. But art is a means by which we can take the message flowing from that historical reality and...make it something that others in this particular time and place can draw near to and connect with."

Christians simply relate better to a savior who looks like them. Which is why, centuries ago, Western Europeans painted Jesus with white skin and flowing, golden-brown hair. And why, today, murals in many north Minneapolis churches portray Jesus as an African-American.

Prince of peace in pine needles
But, perhaps more than our skin color, it's our life experience that determines how we choose to view Jesus, says Father Joseph.

"Modern Western culture likes a very antiseptic Jesus, whereas when we see the images that the Hispanic immigrants bring with them, we just kind of go, 'Ooh.' They're very bloody. It's a beaten up Jesus. And in a way it's because we live in a modern industrialized nation that's very neat and tidy and clean. They come from, in many cases, a very poor and oppressed situation and so they really resonate with the suffering Jesus. That's a Jesus that they can relate to."

-- http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/12/23/images_of_jesus/

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

Although we can be confident that Jesus does indeed look like the average man from that region, I think there is no harm in portraying Him according to our own cultures and races.

Time to show the cover of a book by one of my favourite authors:

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

Time to show the cover of a book by one of my favourite authors:

Interesting.

If anyone is interested in a modern take on eastern icons, then this is a lovely website: http://www.monasteryicons.com/

(You know, Mr Jenkins wrote a very good book on anti-Catholicism. I know it's a subject close to your heart!:P)

Jesus Wept

Bet he was mad sexy.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

(You know, Mr Jenkins wrote a very good book on anti-Catholicism. I know it's a subject close to your heart!:P)

I've read it. But it's not a subject I obsess over.

dvae

The Bible dos not say what Jesus looked like other than the prophesy in Isaiah.
I guess you can take from it that he was just an ordinary man to look at.
As well as verse 2 Ive include the hole of chapter 53.
I read it for the first time today, i hope like me you find it quite moving and humbling.

Isaiah 53:2

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppressionURL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-18720a"][COLOR=#0000ff]a[/COLOR][/URL and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-18720b"][COLOR=#0000ff]b[/COLOR][/URL
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makesURL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-18722c"][COLOR=#0000ff]c[/COLOR][/URL his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of lifeURL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-18723d"][COLOR=#0000ff]d[/COLOR][/URL and be satisfiedURL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-18723e"][COLOR=#0000ff]e[/COLOR][/URL;
by his knowledgeURL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-18723f"][COLOR=#0000ff]f[/COLOR][/URL my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-18724g"][COLOR=#0000ff]g[/COLOR][/URL
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-18724h"][COLOR=#0000ff]h[/COLOR][/URL
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors

lifequestions

Looking for some info on the effectiveness of this course. Anyone out there done the course and if so how did u find it? Mary

Fanny Cradock

I think you are in the wrong forum. Maybe psychology would be better suited.

Jester Minute

dvae wrote: »

The Bible dos not say what Jesus looked like other than the prophesy in Isaiah.
I guess you can take from it that he was just an ordinary man to look at.
As well as verse 2 Ive include the hole of chapter 53.
I read it for the first time today, i hope like me you find it quite moving and humbling.

Isaiah 53:2
Isaiah 53

I wonder about that. It sounds like He wasn't what you would call attractive, not even of a common, handsome appearance, but rather that we would rather not look at Him. Now is this before or after His Passion? I always liked to think it was after His Passion when His face was disfigured.

phelixoflaherty

Dunno what he looked like but his hair was 6" longer than Kurt Cobains

Soul Winner

If the Shroud of Turin was the cloth that covered the dead body of Christ (and I believe it was) and if the image that was produced was the result of His resurrection three days hence (and I believe it was), then Jesus would look something like what this clip reports:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhuBGcAzB8

An uncanny resemblance to Jim Caviezel in the Passion of the Christ.

noel farrell

its not important what he looked like its what he done . the bible says it was when he spoke he stood out so he was no different than any man of his time happy new year all

hsi

Oh_Noes wrote: »

The Turin Shroud was exposed as a hoax years ago.

Actually that is not correct, The Carbon test was done on a corner of the shroud, from a part that had been rewoven into the shroud have it was partially burned.

The Main shroud is infact 2000 years old. Problem is that it has pollen and smoke damage that hinders trying to get a carbon date.

Anyway to apply they image to the shroud you would need to be very very technically adapt. Even in the 1500's when it was carbon dated to there was not the technology to apply such an image. (the negative image) I mean photography did not even exist.

Don't get me wrong, the Science behind the Carbon test was 100% correct, the piece was from 1500's but it was not an original piece, Swobs from the centre reveal pollen a lot older.

marty1985

Anyone else think that on some level we attempt to convince ourselves that Jesus was exactly like us, so we don't have to try so hard to be more like him.

Soul Winner

marty1985 wrote: »

Anyone else think that on some level we attempt to convince ourselves that Jesus was exactly like us, so we don't have to try so hard to be more like him.

In every way He was just like us but knew no sin, but we can never be just like Him without the indwelling power of the holy spirit which is gift to us because of our faith in Him. As long as we maintain that faith connection in Him, He will meet all our needs and give strength where it is needed and that includes righteousness apart from works of the law. We don't bring anything else to the party, just faith i.e trust.

lmaopml

The story of the shroud is fascinating, and it's been 'controversial' long before carbon dating, but still holds the imagination and interest as being 'genuine'...a blast from the past in so many ways..

Everything from it being a 'Leonardo De Vinci' prank...to dubunking that too...it seems to elude the professionals or at least has never been 'quashed'...

One of the things I find fascinating is how the shroud depicts Jesus wrists as opposed to his hands having the wounds of nails.....not a 'popular' depiction at the time - and perhaps why 'Leonardo' was earmarked as a 'conspirator' of deception...

One of the scientists who renounced the shroud as a 'fake' in the 70's did an about turn just before he died, a matter of weeks apparently and from what I remember.....he left the case 're-opened' to investigation...apparently the piece they cut off for carbon dating was added back by nuns after fire damage in the middle ages..

This site... http://www.shroud.com/ is pretty good for information...

I guess, when you look at the shroud do you see a person who is 'Eastern' or 'Western'.....It's difficult to know for sure, but the beard is familiar and big eyes....The person could be any race really, but there is a commonality with artistic impressions of old...??

Hmmm...

I'll await......but will probably never know for sure...

It certainly is remarkable though and thought provoking....could it be? Truth is stranger than fiction..lol..

Soul Winner

Well all the evidence points to the cloth being from the near-east in and around the time of Jesus. The only test that it apparently failed was the 1988 carbon dating test and as has already been pointed out the part of the cloth that was tested was subsequently found to have been mixed with thread from other cloth which was sown on in the 1500s in order to repair damage cause by a previous fire. This has been thoroughly documented and reviewed and it is now widely agreed upon as being the case by the experts.

But let us say that this is a fake. Then it would have to have been done no later than the 12th century because there is a famous painting that depicts the shroud that can be dated to this time. So if the painter knew about the shroud in the 12th century then obviously the shroud was around before that. So if the shroud was around before the 12th century then how did the faker know how to produce a negative image?

It wasn't until the 19th century that photography was invented and not long after that it was discovered that the image on the shroud was a negative image because the resulting photographs produced by the then new invention were of a positive image. What genius in the 11th and 12th centuries was able to achieve such a task? And not only that, they achieved it using a mechanism that has still yet to be found. Even with all our modern day technology we still don't know what mechanism caused the image to be produced on the shroud of the Turin. So if it is a fake, my word, what job they did. The question now would be why did they bother? Why go to such trouble and not take any credit for it?

To me, the Shroud of Turin is where Science and Faith meet and shake hands, and at just at the right time too. A time when Science can give veracity to our faith and when our faith can save science from scientism. "How great and marvelous are thy works oh LORD."

Jonny7

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well all the evidence points to the cloth being from the near-east in and around the time of Jesus. The only test that it apparently failed was the 1988 carbon dating test and as has already been pointed out the part of the cloth that was tested was subsequently found to have been mixed with thread from other cloth which was sown on in the 1500s in order to repair damage cause by a previous fire. This has been thoroughly documented and reviewed and it is now widely agreed upon as being the case by the experts.

But let us say that this is a fake. Then it would have to have been done no later than the 12th century because there is a famous painting that depicts the shroud that can be dated to this time. So if the painter knew about the shroud in the 12th century then obviously the shroud was around before that. So if the shroud was around before the 12th century then how did the faker know how to produce a negative image?

It wasn't until the 19th century that photography was invented and not long after that it was discovered that the image on the shroud was a negative image because the resulting photographs produced by the then new invention were of a positive image. What genius in the 11th and 12th centuries was able to achieve such a task? And not only that, they achieved it using a mechanism that has still yet to be found. Even with all our modern day technology we still don't know what mechanism caused the image to be produced on the shroud of the Turin. So if it is a fake, my word, what job they did. The question now would be why did they bother? Why go to such trouble and not take any credit for it?

To me, the Shroud of Turin is where Science and Faith meet and shake hands, and at just at the right time too. A time when Science can give veracity to our faith and when our faith can save science from scientism. "How great and marvelous are thy works oh LORD."

Dude, if you believe in something that is invisible, why would you want "compelling" evidence?

Zombrex

I didn't know this until I read the Wiki article but

In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head. He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".

Is this accurate? Did the apostle describe two sheets covering Jesus?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't know this until I read the Wiki article but

In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head. He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".

Is this accurate? Did the apostle describe two sheets covering Jesus?

Yes, Calvin is spot on this time:

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. (John 20:1-7)

georgieporgy

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't know this until I read the Wiki article but

In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head. He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".

Is this accurate? Did the apostle describe two sheets covering Jesus?

pay no attention to the ravings of a religious fanatic. stick to science!

wolfsbane

The Isaiah 53 portion suggests He was at not remarkable physically.
53:2...He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

Another Messianic psalm suggests He had a beard:
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.

Finally, he did not have long hair, for that was regarded as shameful in those days - except as a Nazirite vow.
1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?


_________________________________________________________________
Who is He in yonder stall
At whose feet the shepherds fall?

'Tis the Lord!
O wondrous story!
'Tis the Lord, the King of glory!
At His feet we humbly fall
Crown Him! Crown Him, Lord of all!

Who is He to whom they bring
All the sick and sorrowing?

Who is He that stands and weeps
At the grave where Lazarus sleeps?

Who is He on yonder tree
Dies in pain and agony?

Who is He who from the grave
Comes to rescue, help, and save?

Who is He who from His throne
Sends the Spirit to His own?

Who is He who comes again
Judge of angels and of men?
Benjamin R. Hanby, 1833-1867

santing

Should we actually try to find out what Jesus looked like? Maybe he was born in a time when there were no camera's because God doesn't want us to focus on his physical image:

Deut 5:8 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

We probaby woudln't even recognise Him:

Luke 24:15, 16 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

Rev 1:12-17 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw ... someone "like a son of man," ... His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. ... His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. ... When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

pay no attention to the ravings of a religious fanatic. stick to science!

The problem is that the 'religious fanatic' has pointed out what John the Evangelist wrote - namely that Christ's head was wrapped in a separate cloth from His body.

So who should we pay attention to? The apostle who wrote the Fourth Gospel, or a piece of cloth of undetermined age with a blurred image of an unnamed person on it?

georgieporgy

PDN wrote: »

The problem is that the 'religious fanatic' has pointed out what John the Evangelist wrote - namely that Christ's head was wrapped in a separate cloth from His body.

So who should we pay attention to? The apostle who wrote the Fourth Gospel, or a piece of cloth of undetermined age with a blurred image of an unnamed person on it?

Let me clarify that my post was meant as a subtle sarcasm directed at Wicknight who is a self described atheist. In this particular instance if he stuck to his chosen religion (science) it would in fact direct him to the truth.

As for Calvin, born Catholic, abandoned that belief in his early twenties and went on to be a forceful protagonist in his view of christianity, so fanatic in this view that he had no difficulty in condeming other heretics (who held a different view to him) to death.

Now PDN, I'm with you insofar as paying attention to the Gospel of John (Luke mentions the buriel clothes too). Read it again and you will see that the word "two" does not appear. Nor does the text say that the head was wrapped separately with one cloth, but rather "the cloth wrapped around the head", ie, the buriel shroud; a long piece (twice length of body) of cloth laid on the ground,place the body on it - heels at one end, then drape the cloth around the head and down the front of the body. A common buriel procedure at the time. Other clothes would then be wrapped about this inner layer.

PS what part of the image is blurred?

Soul Winner

Good documentary about the Shroud of Turin below. It goes into the story about the other cloth (The Sudarium of Oviedo) as well and makes the distinction between the two. One was placed over His face either on the cross of after they took Him down, a practice not uncommon then or even today when the face of people deceased in murder scenes and accidents will all ways be covered. Now from the time they took Him off the cross they buried and used the longer linen cloth (i.e. the shroud) and took the other one away. But He also had yet another cloth which covered His head, as in around His head to keep the mouth closed. This would not impair the image that would subsequently get produced on the shroud.

Anyway watch the documentary and make your own mind up. As for Calvin, everyone has a right to be wrong. But I think his main concern was with people getting carried away with focusing too much on relics and away from their faith, which is understandable at his time, but now we have all the scientific instruments that can scrutinize this particular relic and it has been put through every single scientific test and they still cannot tell how the image was produced. If nothing else it is a really really fascination object, and for me, at least, it is a literal photograph of what I have already accepted is a fact of history - The Resurrection of Christ from the dead.

TeddyTedson

He doesn't look particularly happy in any of those reconstructions...