Do we know what Jesus actually looks like?


#62

Radiocarbon Dating says otherwise, and most of the theories trying to say the original dating was some how wrong have been refuted.


#63

15255452-906E-43C0-B281-83A40A4D4BD1

I reject reality and substitute my own!


#64

After he rose from the dead and appeared to Mary and the Apostles they didn’t recognize him. So, I’m thinking our glorified Jesus looked different than He did when he retired from carpentry and began his public ministry.


#65

I’m not sure that’s possible…When I get my glorified body I don’t see how I could become more ruggedly handsome :crazy_face:


#67

Watch this. It’s reallylong but lays to rest the controversy regarding the carbon dating.


#68

In the ultimate sense, we are all going to know soon enough. Right this moment, we are called to see Him in the eyes of everyone we encounter on our earthly pilgrimage.


#69

I’d rather put my trust in the 95% of experts who believe the shroud was forged sometime in the 13th - 14th century and who have little doubt about the carbon dating rather than an hour and 13 minute fringe documentary film. You know there’s 2 hour long documentaries supposedly proving young earth creationism with “new scientific evidence” as well as 2 hour films supposedly proving Jesus was a Roman myth based off of “new historical evidence.” Nah, I’d rather put my trust in the experts.


#70

This WAS investigated by the experts. It was originally found by a woman the scientists also thought was part of the lunatic fringe but the scientists eventually decided to investigate and found that the part of the cloth that was carbon dated was newer than the rest of the cloth.


#71

Read this, then the following q and a from Guilio Fanti


#72

#73

#74

Obviously not by reputable experts who made any impact in the field. Why are most experts still in agreement about the medieval dating of the shroud? If this ground breaking “new forensic evidence” was so compelling, how come most experts still doubt the authenticity?

You know, Ken Ham is supposedly an expert on creation and evolution, and supposedly he has offered up “new and compelling evidence against evolution and for creationism” too; yet no scientist is convinced. Hmmmmmmmm, well, I guess we better just ignore the experts, they hate God anyway laughs.

Listen, the actual true scientific evidence discounts the shroud, and few respected scholars in this field reject it. It is what it is. Just accept it. Don’t latch onto conspiracies or theories that simply can’t be proven. As Professor Christopher Ramsey of Oxford puts it, “There are various hypotheses as to why the dates [of the shroud] might not be correct, but none of them stack up.”


#75

You keep saying most experts think it’s a forgery. Where is your proof to back this up?
STURP has many experts in the scientific field who not only disagree with you but who have dedicated their lives to this.


#76

http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1254/1259

http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

Here’s my proof.


#77

Try for something recent and not outdated.


#78

Maybe create a new topic to debate the Shroud? :blush:


#79

Ok I will do that


#80

That as well.


#81

I did, have you not read all of them?


#82

Wikipedia even says,

“Despite some technical concerns that have been raised about radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, most experts assert that such dating is reliable.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.