What do you think of this article?

Sure, why not?

He was most likely just a normal person like the rest of us
(if he ever existed that is)

i didnt know popular mechanics deviated into that kind of stuff. not a bad theory. interesting that the same computer equiptment which proves the earth is millions of years old is being used for a purpose which insists the earth is 10,000 years old.

2002? Anyhow, page's not loading here (probably because I'm overloading my router at the moment), but how do they justify their decisions on how to model the face?

Forensics is interesting work in its own right. I''m sure the 5election of Jesus as a subject to speculate on worked its only legitimate purpose well in grabbing a lot of peoples'' attention.

Beyond that, it''s useless information regarding religious history or anything to know about Jesus.

I''d rather see the energy spent on more productive means of shedding light on the historicity of Jesus.

That''s what I think.



[Message Edited]

Oh...that is definitely him!...I saw him in my cornflakes this morning!

5 foot 1 eh? Yea, I think I could take him as long as it was a "no powers" fight.

#6

#1 by Lady Snowman - 5/14/2004 4:14:46 PM Sure, why not?He was most likely just a normal person like the rest of us(if he ever existed that is)

I really don''t think there is much doubt that Jesus of Nazareth, the man, existed. There is too much historical evidence from too many varied sources to confirm that he did, in fact, exist. Whether one believes he was the son of God is another story, and I for one am not going to speculate one way or the other.
[Message Edited]

Oh NO! This wrecks my mental image of him... bummer

Probably is more true representation of JC. Look at the people of that area now. JC was Hebrew and not as Nordic or European stock as He is represented by European artists. I''ve always thought that he probably looked alot like Soupy Sales. Hmmmm, no thunder and lightning strikes so far. >
[Message Edited]

everything you thought you knew is bogus, china. time to convert to buddhism.

Soupy Sales

5' 1" is right!
What a babe magnet.

I think Frogboy would win a 'no powers' fight.


Well anyway, I thought the image was stinkingly different then the one in the movies, in church, and other places and times.

I think it doesn''''t take into consideration the "racial drift" that has taken place in the Middle East in the past 2000 years. What we consider to be Arab features have been influenced heavily by invasion and travel during the post Roman era.

Look at the difference in Spanish vs. Mexican racial features, and that is just 500 years of seperation and integration with a pre-columbian indigenous population. Look at the diversity between Northern and Mediteranian Italy. The Ayatollah Khomeini, for instance, never looked all that "Arab" to me, nor do many figures in the Arab world.

I knew a guy in rural TN that looked a *lot* like Saddam Hussein and didn''t have an ounce of Arab blood in him. Not saying the Renaisance view of Jesus is correct, I don''t think anyone can really know, and I get tired of all this racial revisionist stuff, like the tendancy in the early 1990''s to make as many notable figures as possible black.

To me, this rendition of Jesus is a view of what we consider to be "Arab" features now, not what they might have been 2000 years ago. It doesn''t take into consideration "drift", nor does it take into consideration the ideas of racial continuity that the Jews lived under. You couldn''t just decide to be Jewish, and you didn''t really marry outside your race. Who knows what kind of characterics they had before this began to lessen.



[Message Edited]

this is jesus!!


mohaahhahaahhaha

Bakerstreet is right. This is make believe in my opinion. I know of no way facial features and appearance can be drived with out some sort of forensic evidence, such as a skull. Even then it is not an exact science. These guys must have got their degrees in a Cheerios box.

I don't think he looked like that period... you know there are a ton of Jesus this and Jesus that movies and I've watched my share of them and I always think to myself I don't think he looks like that when I see the person that plays Jesus however I seen the movie the "The Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson t'was actually the first movie that when I set my eyes on the guy playing Jesus w/i seconds I felt that, that is what he looks like...

I can grant that you *might* get a general idea about the width of the nose from a skull, maybe from measuring where the connective tissue hooked up to the bone, etc., but it doesn't explain the skin coloration or the texture of the hair, etc. A telling line is:

"...and their knowledge about the Jewish people of the time to determine the shape of the face, and color of eyes and skin."

If they used source material for those detials I would be interested in knowing what it was. Once you take away "the shape of the face, and color of eyes and skin.", there isn't much left.

The bit about the hair is pure speculation. Though I understand Jesus didn't take the Nazerine oath to never cut his hair, he also lived in a time where "long" was waist length and it was shameful to shave your head as pagans often did. Our idea of "short" and "long" hair comes from post-WW2 military anti-hippy rhetoric. Historically shoulder length hair really wasn't often considered "long".

To much diversity at the time, too much racial drift since. This is a educated guess at what Jesus looked like, and I don't hold it to be any more authoritative than Da Vinci. More effort went into the guess, I suppose, but it is still just a guess.

Why the hell did nobody wanted to get a picture of him

Some people believe the Shroud of Turin is a picture of him. I have a family relation that is a senior research fellow with csicop: http://www.csicop.org/ who has done a lot of study on it and I still remain nuetral. It doesn''''t effect me either way.

Regardless, there are artist''''s renderings of Jesus that go back a lot further than the Renaissance. The Mandylion of Edessa is considered to be the oldest: http://vatican.hmns.org/edessa.html At 300-500 AD, it is at least in the same millennium.

Anyway, there shouldn''''t be accurate images, imho. Idolatry has always been a no-no. No doubt if someone had a Poloroid of Jesus, somebody, somewhere would call it a relic and start worshipping it.

Too much diverts from the message as it is, imho.

[Message Edited]

http://originalsongsite.com/index75b.html#picture\
came across the above link looking for this one =====> http://www.free-computer-wallpapers.com/Movie/Passion-of-the-Christ.2.htm but see Baker look at the resemblence... hehe

Who knows I agree about the idolatry so pictures would become that if we had one, however what I think and what I feel are always two diff things (I never trust my thinking as much as my feelings) hehe
I feel he looks more like that guy in that move the passion of the christ as soon as I laid my eyes on him.

And I feel he looked like a leprechaun. What you feel he looke like has little to do with reality.

In the forensics biz, they can come quite close, given a skull. They can rather accurately guess where the muscles were and how the shaped the face. They can, however say little of, for instance, someone's nose. That part is up to the artist.

In this case, they have _nothing_ to work with, meaning the closest they could ever get is modelling the face of a random person in that area in that time.

who says anything about me living in reality? hehe
I bet you can feel what that devil looks like huh you evil daemon bunny you!
/me is playing

of course I'm clueless like everyone else but as for "myself" I've seen pictures, sketches, movies bla bla bla of Jesus and I've never thought or felt they prob looked like him, until I seen that movie the passion of the Christ, the second I laid my eyes on the guy that played him, I thought to myself now this is prob what Jesus looks like! someone finally got it right (according to the mental world of Doreen)

I think the message is more important than the messenger