Who's face do you think it is on the Shroud of Turin ?
Could it be Leonardo da Vinci, Jesus or someone else ?

An artist's conception of Christ. Unsurprisingly, an inaccurate portrayal of what Christ would've looked like if he existed.

i cant say if its inaccurate as i have never seen jesus, but i guess it comes down to what your belief is and alot of faith.

Not really. If Christ existed two-thousand years ago in the Middle East region, he wouldn't have come close to what the Shroud of Turin's depiction is. Christ wouldn't have looked anything like a European man with long hair. It's common sense, and not only that, it's evident. The Shroud was just a fake relic passed around Europe to promote and enforce the Christian doctrine.

It is interesting that the Shroud of Turin seems to depict Jesus in the manner he is clasically described. But how many 6"12" fair skinned thin faced long straight haired people from that part of the world have you seen. There are exceptions to the rules of course but isnt it so that most men from that part of the world have darker complexion, perhaps somewhat shorter and often with dark curly hair. I think i far more likely that jesus was 5'10" dark skin with curly black hair. I recon that the shroud of turin is a creation of another artist, perhaps DaVInci. And i think they used the classical image of Jesus to model it off.

:blush2:Oopps sorry Kiku, had it sitting on the screen in the editor for a while and didnt see your post. Bit of an echo happening there :blush2:

Sorry to dig up this old fossil of a thread, but I did a search to avoid double-posting, and this came up, so I'll put it here.

Found an interesting news article recently.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16451...en&psp=news

This physics professor thinks he can prove that the carbon dating was skewed and that the shroud really is ancient. One thing I do know is that a detailed microscopic analysis was done about 15 years ago on the pollens stuck in the weave, and it was determined that those pollens came from the Holy Land. The interesting thing is that it shows that at one time, the Shroud was in the Middle East. Now, how would people 700 years ago have know to stick pollens from the middle east into the weave of their hoax? Or, is it just coincidence that somebody at some time took the hoaxed shroud on a little trip? Or IS it real?

Interesting thing, was that while searching this article, I came across something I'd never read about before:
The sudarium of oviedo (mentioned in the article).

You can read about it here:
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

Apparently the sudarium of oviedo was a cloth put over the face: and they believe it matches the shroud of turin.

Now, the question: Are the shroud and the sudarium REAL, and from the same body (Christ)? Or, are they BOTH hoaxes, and the sudarium a prototype of the photographic process used on the shroud, possibly by Da Vinci?

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Photographic.htm


Thought this was interesting too:
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/somesay.htm

[quote name='12noon' date='Apr 16 2006, 08:41 AM' post='239836']



According to my opinion, the shroud in Turin has been served as Leonardo da Vinci .
If it is true that Leonardo belonged to the Priorate of Sion, he could have knowledges
advances, that you unite to its ingeniousness would have been able to realize the Shroud and so much other.

Shroud of Turin ... just another tool used by an elite group to brainwash the population to give up their free thought to deceive people that they have the authority by a so called god that loves you if you do as you are told and not question them.

people will never wake up to it has it's become totally embeded into the minds of non thinkers and enforced with fear and it works a treat empowering the few to control the many and it comes in many flavors all people have to do is pick the one that fits their life style or even create you're own as some do to empower themselves just has thoughs purple robed pedifiles do in the catholic church

as far as I'm concerned it's all a crock , has it does not make you a good honest and loving to believe such rubbish such traits are already within you don't need someone or something to tell you this.

if you free your mind and look at the world and the way it is you will see that it is full of sociopaths http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Funny, I freed my mind and looked at the world and saw that it was full of beautiful and kind, though often lost and confused, people. It's only the news that makes it seem otherwise.

mmm,I thought like that once,maybe someone should ask a homeless person living in a cardboard box in NewYork in the so called richest country on the planet their thoughts on it

The perpetual optimist sees only one side of the coin

Perhaps they should. All kinds of good could come of it.


True. Read my signature.

I'm not a wise man, but with practice, who knows?

This post has been edited by kirin-rex: Jun 9 2008, 01:27 AM

Interesting statement, would you consider the following people non thinkers?

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
8. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
10. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
11. Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html


This post has been edited by Dundee: Jun 9 2008, 05:43 AM

I am sure that these people were highly regarded in their fields and did a great service to science which I myself have a great interest in
but what I'm saying is that a lot of the things that are brought forward as evidence such as the Shroud of Turin are man made to enforce an idea

I to believe that there is a greater force in this multidimensional universe that holds the secret to creation which is beyond our understanding
what I reject is the man made evidence that as been created to manipulate and maintain a stangle hold on peoples minds in regard to their understanding of reality

here is a link to http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ though I don't agree whole heartedly with this, it is food for thought and worth a look
as a closed mind can be dangerous in the wrong hands

Einstein never admitted to the belief in a creator. He used God as a metaphor. A great synopsis of the beliefs of Einstein can be found in Richard Dawkin's: 'The God Delusion'. He convincingly shows that when Einstein referenced God he was merely describing the beauty he saw in our world. The way it looks and the way it works. There is nothing supernatural about the god Einstein spoke of.

EDIT: And Isaac Newton was also an alchemist. I wouldn't take his word on the existence of a creator if he believed he could turn lead into gold.....

This post has been edited by Ozzmosis: Jun 15 2008, 10:01 AM

Shroud of Turin.

I think it is quite likely the actual impression of a crucified man imprinted by body fluid and embalming chemicals or by natural chemicals from the tomb materials washing onto it.

That it is actually the body of Jesus is highly speculative and cannot be established regardless of date.

If it were an artists creation there would be evidence of pigment. If of an alternative method of image creation then there would be other artistic examples of application. No evidence of either. Further no evidence as to artistic source Leonardo or otherwise.

It is much like any number of anomalous artifacts of mysterious and unknown source. Like the original crystal skulls. A mystery.

Perhaps aliens created it by extraordinary means to prop up our belief systems. Just as valid as any other speculation.

The idea behind the Da Vinci connection wasn't that he painted it: it was that he used a kind of photography, with the 'shroud' as the photograph paper, essentially taking a photograph of a body with his own head superimposed.

The idea behind the Da Vinci connection wasn't that he painted it: it was that he used a kind of photography, with the 'shroud' as the photograph paper, essentially taking a photograph of a body with his own head superimposed.

If he or any other artist had accomplished such a feat they would have continued to experiment with the process. Where are other examples, or even reference to them.

Not necessarily, Bart. Although I do not personally believe in the Da Vinci theory regarding the Shroud (I included it because it's interesting), Da Vinci worked on a lot of things that no one ever developed and that he never went back to.

http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC063363/turin/obscure.htm



http://www.boston.com/business/personaltec...nciGadgets?pg=4

Refutation of Da Vinci theory:
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-wiki12.htm



This will give you an idea of Leonardo's genius:
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/