History Channel's The Real Face of Jesus

it’s not historically reliable and the image doesn’t fit with the genealogy from the Bible.

Just wanted to point out that the Bible doesn’t give a geneology for Christ in a biological way like we think of it. Both lines given in the New Testament are the line of St. Joseph, who I think we can all agree was not the biological father of Christ. All of Christ’s DNA would have presumably come through the blessed Virgin.

Also, why couldn’t the man shown in the “recreation” look like someone descended through that geneology?

Just want to add my kudo’s to the program.
It was well done, respectul, thoughtful, and as accurate a program as I have seen on the History Channel in a long time.

I liked that they seemed truly interested in being fair and accurate.
They had people involved who were intimately aquainted with the shroud.
They effortlessly tlet us know that this was a combination of “science” and “best guess” to come up with the actual face.

The one thing I always felt about the “negative” of the shroud, the one that really shows a face well, was that that image always seemed too old to be a 33 year old man. But when the “real” face was extrapolated it fit the age very well.

I didn’t even mind the “gnostic” stuff.

The only thing that I didn’t like was how little time they gave us to really look at the face they produced. I wonder if they are coming out with a book or something.


I was thinking with the amount of time they have spent working on it they might be producing a film or something using that model of Christ as a character.

I also enjoyed the program and thought it was very well presented with fairness to the authenticity of the Shroud. I see no reason why the face they came up with could not be close representation of what Jesus may have really looked like.

Bumping this thread, as I watched this last night and was curious about what you all think.

Anyone else watch?

I wish I had known it was on. Will it be re-run do you know? And, if so, do you know a date and time?

The history channel website just says it will not air again within the next 2 weeks. Sorry.

I saw it once, ages ago. I loved how they handled the whole thing, gave me chills.
Especially, as someone pointed out, how they handled the Shroud.
You see… I’m not Catholic, prot over here. And overall, I’m not sure if the Shroud is real or not. Don’t particularly care, as it doesn’t effect my faith either way. Even if it weren’t real, it would still remain symbolic.
But watching that… It was really something. The examination of the Shroud was fascinating.
Honestly, I have more faith in the Shroud of Turin now. Like… A lot.

Remember Suni belief in the Shroud is something any Catholic may decide upon themselves. No-one must believei in it and at the same time no-one should be mocked for believing in it. It’s a non-essential ultimately. I don’t believe in it myself, others do. For myself how Christ looked physically is not of great importance to me.

The show is really quite excellent. For those who are unsure if they want to buy it, you can see it linked here (4th one from the left depending on how your browser displays): shroudnm.com/library.html

This was a very fascinating program. Was anyone else surprised at how similar the bust ended up looking like Jim Caviezel? The resemblance is uncanny. At least to me it is.

That’s pretty funny. I wonder if Mel Gibson would think it was funny?

The make-up used on Caviezel in The Passion of the Christ may have been based on the Shroud image to some extent. I mean even before he was beaten and battered there were some cosmetic changes, such as a prosthetic nose and the facial hair of course may not have all been natural, I would think.

I think they gave him some teeth to wear as well, to change his bone structure appearance.

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.