Great point, he must have looked common to one of the majorities of people in the area at that time.
Yep, that’s how I would see him realistically.
Are there any artworks that depict him like this?
It says “many doubts have been raised”
Yes, and as demonstrated, they have been refuted or dismissed by scholars.
If you want to be taken seriously, you must realize that most people, especially scientists, take Wikipedia with a grain of salt.
Earlier you said 95% of experts think the Shroud is fake.
Don’t have to…they were outdated.
If you want to be taken seriously, please don’t use fringe documentaries to try and prove something, especially when the vast amount of reputable scholars contradict that documentary.
Special pleading fallacy I see. They’re not “outdated.” All the material I provided you with has been written within the last 8-19 years. That isn’t “outdated.” It simply shows the consensus of experts in this field. All you’re doing is moving the goal post so you don’t have to deal with these things. If these papers are “outdated” then I guess every scientific paper before 2016 is invalid now according to your logic.
Again, where’s the proof that 95% of modern day experts deem the Shroud a forgery?
And the documentary was not something on the fringe. If you’d have watched it, you’d know that. Oh, and it’s recent.
I did start one. I’m just replying to him because he ever went to the new thread.
Can you show me any proof that this documentary has had any significant impact on scholars in this field and has radically changed opinions in every corner about the shroud? This documentary in fact seems to be asserting old theories in slightly new ways which, as shown, have been refuted above.
I showed you the proof, all you are doing is ignoring the proof by shouting, “Outdated!” like it’s a valid argument.
They’re outdated and mean nothing because new information overrules the older. That’s what science does. It’s always changing. Now. I’m going to bed soon so please, if you want to continue this discussion, go to the new thread.
Yet this hasn’t changed, and as show, scholars in the field hold to the same views as they have always had. Now please, can you prove to me that the vast majority of scholars have changed their views? Can you please show me that this documentary has had an real significant impact on scholars/experts everywhere? Can you please prove to me that this documentary radically altered perceptions? Can you show me anywhere where scholars/experts have radically altered their perceptions?
By the way, here’s something “recent”, at least I hope your logic believes this is recent:
The Shroud of Turin Again
[quote=“Cruciferi, post:23, topic:458942, full:true”] I don’t find the BBC’s version realistic. To me, that picture resembles Peter.
I have no idea why, but this was the first thing I thought when I looked at that picture, “That looks like Peter!”
I don’t claim to have knowledge of that. Maybe somewhere in my past—in a picture Bible, or a kid’s story book, or some play, or a movie, or something—that might have been how Peter was depicted and so it formed my subconscious expectation of what Peter looked like.
That is why I love the OP’s question. Everyone, Christian or no, has an idea in their heads of what he must have looked like, shaped in the same way as my expectation of St. Peter’s appearance. Not necessarily based on the historical fact or reality, but looming large in the subconscious mind!
Therefor it is an important question to ask and to contemplate.
I also like what was said above. Artistic representations, cultural expressions, etc-those are important! But we risk losing the real fact of the Incarnation: God Himself entered time and space and took on flesh and dwelt among us! The details of that life, from appearance to every word spoken, are intensely important.
We lose so much when we forget that Jesus was a first century Jew! There are so very many details and major references that no first century Jew would have missed about what our Lord said and did. 2000 years later, separated by cultural context and language barriers, we risk losing the entire point of many of his discourses.
I love science—double major in Biology and Theology at a Catholic university. Science tells us that there is a God and what he is, Theology tells us who he is. I intensely studied all of the Shroud of Turin debates at one time. I find the Shroud to be convincingly and scientifically valid. I like the following summation on the science around the Shroud:
Sorry! Meant to post in Shroud dialogue. Moving it now.