Nigel, everyone used beards back then, not just greek mythological deities. The fact that practicing jews and rabis used beards at the 1st century likely palyed a key factor.

As for the Shroud, the Catholic Church has never made an official statement as about its legitimacy.

One or two other odds and ends…

The Roman Empire was pagan up until some time in the third century, I believe. Certainly, emperors of the fourth century were Christian, and it seems that the earliest churches date from around that time. St. Patrick, who took Christianity to Ireland, was probably a Romano-British official (calling himself Patricus) fleeing from the collapse of Roman law in England (4th century). Christian symbolism is rife with pagan imagery (e.g. the holly and ivy for the midwinter festival, the hare which was the emblem of the goddess Eastre) so it is not too surprising to learn that the most popular image of Jesus derives from pre-existing images of Zues / Jupiter.

Just in case you were interested.

Zamboni, I have not heard of this connection to Leonardo da Vinci before. What is your evidence for that? I am aware that the shroud has no provenance before the 14th century, a time that was rife with fake religious icons. I am aware that the Catholic Church investigated it at the time and concluded it was a forgery, and even identified the artist and obtained his statement of authorship. I don’t recall it being Leonardo da Vinci, and I’m sure that would have stood out if I’d heard it.

At least, this manifestation is *big*: 70 trillion kilometers, and light coming to us from 500 years before He was incarnated! Truly wondrous, though I suppose it is all just made just to *look* that old to confuse us.

Scott, this information is not accurate. For example, take this 6th Century Icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PantocratorSinai.jpeg

Unless one is differentiating between icons and images, this would put the date earlier than the renaissance. It was assumed that Jesus had a beard due to the fact He was a practicing Jew.

Anyway, it looks like his likelness was not recorded until at least 400 years after he died. So, obviously, that’s no problem to anyone wanting to depict him in art …

Thanks, Irishman, for the link. It was a 3.4 hour exposure.

CR, I’ll put you out of your misery – it comes from the short film “Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave” by Aardman Animations (directed by Nick Park, I believe). The sheep has just emerged from the fiendish machinery minus his fleece, and Wallace decides to name him Shaun (shorn). Believe me, it works in the film, folks!

Delance, is Scientific Positivism akin to Logical Positivism? And isn’t that the one where you start from the premise that you know nothing, and can only know something to be so if you have seen direct evidence (or maybe I just got confused)?

Jesus doesn’t appear on any second-century Roman coins (as the Empire was pagan and Christianity an officially disapproved religion). Jesus first appears on Byzantine gold coins of the sixth century.

It is correct that earlier depictions of Jesus show him as a clean-shaven, curly-haired youth. The bearded Jesus isn’t as late as the Renaissance, however; there is a good example from the fifth-century apse mosaic of Santa Pudenziana in Rome.

I recommend the book Clash of Gods by Thomas Mathews that discusses representations of Jesus. His conclusion that the bearded Christ is modeled after pagan depictions of Jupiter/Zeus is, I think, mostly correct.

The ‘modern jesus image’ has been pretty much traced back to the 15th century, when the shroud of turin first became known to the world at large. However, current archaeological evidence shows that the shroud (which has no conclusive record prior to the italian renaissance) was created by an italian artist of the period known as Leonardo Da Vinci (this has nothing to do with ‘the da vinci code. I’ve never even read that book.). Modern scientists experimenting with linen cloths and photochemicals which were available (for other purposes) in those days, created a similar ‘burned’ image on a cloth that is very consistent with the face on the shroud. Essentially, by the best we can tell, is that the shroud is the first photograph ever taken. The face matches decriptions and portraits of Leonardo. If it was created by him, it is likely a self portrait.

In other words, the modern iconographic representation of Jesus may very well be a portrait of Leonardo Da Vinci.

Nothing conclusive (or even directly related), just food for thought. Thought you guys might find it interesting.

Ironically, if it were possible to view the Cone Nebula from close up (say, less than 5 parsecs), you probably wouldn’t see it at all (not with the human eye). I’d guess the image we see is the result of a CCD collecting light for minutes or hours continuously. Does anyone happen to know how long Hubble was collecting photons for this one?

CJSF

As for the ads here, I have no idea what they are. I use Firefox, with the Adblock extension, and wouldn’t even know there were any ads at all if you hadn’t mentioned them. Adblock is simply excellent.

I suspect that if you surveyed the opinions of all the faculty of the top 25 theological schools in the US, all of the respondants would say that the photoshoped image (and the crazyness that inspires it) is total crap.

Fair enough, and it’s worth pointing out, but I also doubt that the opinions of the faculty of the top 25 theological schools has much to do with the religious attitudes of average people. Trained and educated theologians are, by and large, not the cause for concern. It would make no sense to determine a scientific result by polling people about it, but religion in practice does consist of what people believe.

Guess I’m not much for religious revelations.

jbs

I’m the kind of person that actually likes to IMAGINE things. Afterall, my basic function is “artist”, which is to imagine. But that’s just plain retarded. How can you see Jesus’s face in THAT? Other than when you cheaply paste a face like that? (A 4 years old could do a better job. If they did that on Photoshop, they might like to learn how to use the thing. )

When they enhance the brightness to show us the “basic” of the face (before they awfully paste the said “Jesus” face), my imagination didn’t connect to Jesus. In fact, it didn’t connect to anything. I always imagined that it was someone from back, with some cloth on the head, watching some bright star above.

But I’m not going to sell it saying it’s one of the three kings that found the track to baby Jesus thanks to a bright star, thus the guy from back with a towel on his head and the bright star, blah blah…