Shroud of Turin does not depict Jesus?

[Teritos]

I think I can clearly prove that the Shroud of Turin does not depict Jesus. The Bible says in Isaiah 52 and 53 that Jesus was tortured so hard that he no longer looked like a human being. The Bible even goes so far as to say that no human being has ever been so disfigured. He was so disfigured that people could not even look at him. The Romans used a whip with small pointed bones attached to the ends that pulled out his skin. Jesus said in the OT that he sees his bones because he lost a lot of flesh during the torture and he said that they pulled out his beard. He was completely disfigured. So the man on the Shroud of Turin cannot be Jesus because he looks quite like a human being, he is not disfigured.

Jesus looked at least like this,

 

[Subduction Zone]

The shroud was shown to be phony when it was carbon dated. Christians should not worry since the fact that the Shroud is a fraud does not mean that Christianity is a fraud.

 

[Regiomontanus]

There is no evidence to support the claim (quite the opposite) and, IMHO, Isaiah has nothing to do with this.

 

[Teritos]

Isaiah has nothing to do with this.

Even the first century Jews identified Isaiah 53 with Jesus.(Acts of the Apostles 8:30-35)
They know better.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Even the first century Jews identified Isaiah 53 with Jesus.(Acts of the Apostles 8:30-35)

Yes, that is true.

 

[ChristineM]

The shroud is a 2d image as in an early attempt at photography, not a 3d image as would occur if the cloth was draped over a body.

I can provide examples of 2D vs 3D imager if needed.

That's just my bit on showing the shroud could not actually be a shroud

 

[Teritos]

The shroud is a 2d image as in an early attempt at photography, not a 3d image as would occur if the cloth was draped over a body.

I can provide examples of 2D vs 3D imager if needed.

That's just my bit on showing the shroud could not actually be a shroud

So the pictures of the shroud are fake? Or what are you trying to say?

 

[ChristineM]

So the pictures of the shroud are fake? Or what are you trying to say?

I am saying it is most likely an early (late 1200s, early 1300s) attempt at photography.

If it were a shroud covering a body this is easy to simulate. Take a cloth and marker pen, lie down. Drape the cloth over your face then mark the cloth where the prominent features of your face are. The nose line, edges of eyes and mouth, cheek bones, ears etc. Then take a look.

You end up with something scaled like this

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even the first century Jews identified Isaiah 53 with Jesus.(Acts of the Apostles 8:30-35)

( For all of you so gullible as to believe that the author of Acts was a reliable witness to the thinking of first century Jews. )

 

[Teritos]

I am saying it is most likely an early (late 1200s, early 1300s) attempt at photography.

If it were a shroud covering a body this is easy to simulate. Take a cloth and marker pen, lie down. Drape the cloth over your face then mark the cloth where the prominent features of your face are. The nose line, edges of eyes and mouth, cheek bones, ears etc. Then take a look.

Show me sources, related to the shroud which speak about this topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the pictures of the shroud are fake? Or what are you trying to say?

It was shown to be a fake in 1988:

Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia

In 1988, radiocarbon dating established that the shroud was from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390.[4] All hypotheses put forward to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[5] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[6][7][8] the bio-contamination hypothesis[9] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[10]

 

[metis]

Even the first century Jews identified Isaiah 53 with Jesus.(Acts of the Apostles 8:30-35)

Only a relatively small minority did.

 

[ChristineM]

Show me sources, related to the shroud which speak about this topic.

I showed an image and described how to map a face as a 3D image

There is much on google describing image manipulation and special machinery to force the image into a 3d repression. They all fail topographical analysis.

 

[Harel13]

I think I can clearly prove that the Shroud of Turin does not depict Jesus. The Bible says in Isaiah 52 and 53 that Jesus was tortured so hard that he no longer looked like a human being. The Bible even goes so far as to say that no human being has ever been so disfigured. He was so disfigured that people could not even look at him. The Romans used a whip with small pointed bones attached to the ends that pulled out his skin. Jesus said in the OT that he sees his bones because he lost a lot of flesh during the torture and he said that they pulled out his beard. He was completely disfigured. So the man on the Shroud of Turin cannot be Jesus because he looks quite like a human being, he is not disfigured.

First you'd have to prove that Isaiah is speaking about Jesus. I suspect that would be a difficult task for a number of reasons, one being that the name Jesus isn't ever mentioned in Isaiah, and another being that that would be ignoring the entire context of Isaiah. The other problem I see with this interpretation is that it flies in face of Mark 16:1 which says:

" When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body."
​

Spices were put on pre-buried bodies to cancel out the smell of the rotting corpse. Doing it to an already buried body, three days after the burial, was redundant. More so if Jesus's body had been so terribly disfigured from injuries: it's likely that it would have needed an enormous amount of spices to counter the smell. Remembering to do it three days after burial was pointless. It's also disrespectful to the dead body to manhandle it post-burial, and let's not forget that these women were still Jewish, following Jewish burial customs.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Only a relatively small minority did.

What do you consider "a relatively small minority," what is the evidence of such a minority, and what would it signify? After all, the bell curve is ubiquitous, and one could probably find a "relatively small minority" supporting any number of fringe movements.

 

[metis]

What do you consider "a relatively small minority," what is the evidence of such a minority, and what would it signify? After all, the bell curve is ubiquitous, and one could probably find a "relatively small minority" supporting any number of fringe movements.

Are you sure you read my post #12 correctly?