This is pretty interesting. Apparently the Italian police have been investigating Our Lord. HERE
Police Create Image of Jesus as a Child Using Shroud of Turin, coolComputer Forensics
The National Police in Italy have reportedly created a digital image of what they believe Jesus Christ looked like as a young child.
Detectives used the Shroud of Turin — a famous relic believed by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus — to generate a photo of Jesus’ face, The Independent reported. The Shroud of Turin has a faint image of a face, which some believe to be Jesus’ face imprinted on the cloth after his crucifixion.
Police then put the generated image through a computer forensics reverse-aging process to see what Jesus may have looked like as a young boy, according to The Independent.
The image generation technique is reportedly the same method Italian police use to generate photos of wanted criminals.
The digitally created image coincides with the current public display of the Shroud of Turin, which Pope Francis is scheduled to visit and pray before this coming June 21.
Loading ...
He looks like his mother. Which makes sense.
I remember some people did the same thing about 10 years ago and came up with the same results. I still have that picture from that time.
If you haven’t been to see the Shroud of Turin, it is worth the cost of a plane ticket and accommodations. It’s on display until June 24, 2015. You can make a free reservation here
http://www.piemonteitalia.eu/prenotazione/frontoffice/calendario.do
Turin is a wonderful little city, very safe, with great food (and Lemoncelli (sp?). Reading all the books, and watching every documentary on the topic, even visiting when it’s not exposed, can’t inform you about the veracity of the shroud’s history like being in the presence of this holy relic. For an adoration going, Eucharist receiving (C)atholic, even a split second, makes it clear. It’s a first class relic of Jesus’ death and resurrection! This Shroud contains the Precious Blood from Our Lord’s corporeal body while on Earth.
I know the consecration at Mass turns the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity and He is fully present in every last Bit of It, but there is something extraordinary about the Shroud of Turin. I can’t really put my finger on it. It’s the same Presence, but it ‘feels’ more powerful? Which doesn’t make any sense to me, logically. Shouldn’t His Presence ‘feel’ the same?
The Shroud can also be viewed, albeit from a distance, during the Mass….followed by a procession to a nearby Adoration Chapel. That, to me, was much more profound. Again, I don’t understand why, but it was.
I think I just talked myself into going again….darn it!
What about creating a digital image of Mary using the image of the Holy Shroud? Jesus did not have a biological father who transmitted him his physical features so by “feminizing” Our Lord’s features, we should find Mary’s features. Does someone know whether this has ever been done?
While this person, Julien Lableiz, isn’t what you might consider a notable artist of religious images, I like this one. He PhotoShopped an image of Mary, using the Shroud of Turin as a model for bone structure. It only makes sense that Jesus would have inherited a lot of Mary’s physical features. I downloaded it and use this image as the wallpaper on my phone.
http://julienlasbleiz.deviantart.com/art/Maria-accurate-face-matching-the-Shroud-of-Turin-262151746
Caution, as his other works seem to be in a more sci-fi, fantasy kind of vein that I have no interest in. But I thought he did a nice job here.
I agree, Kate. We just came back from there a few days ago and I think you might have talked me into returning before the exposition is over. We went first to the Shroud Museum, even though I have watched every program and read every article I could lay my hands on, these last forty years. Still, I was unprepared for the experience of seeing the Shroud itself. I cannot say that it had an immediate impact. To me, it was like entering a tomb and for most of the several minutes they allowed, I felt confused, almost but not really as if an anti-climax, but then came the realisation. First, I was filled with profound sorrow, then gratitude, and then it was if the Lord said “why are you seeking the living among the dead” and I wanted to fall to my knees. We went straight from the ticketed area into the cathedral and just sat and knelt. Then we went back again.
It’s a first class relic of Jesus’ death and resurrection! This Shroud contains the Precious Blood from Our Lord’s corporeal body while on Earth.
I had been fairly certain it was authentic, but now I am as sure as a human being can be that it is indeed a first class relic. We could barely speak when we emerged from the cathedral and for some hours afterwards, but when we did start to speak, neither of us could shut up.
I wonder if one could superimpose the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe onto the shroud. It is Mary’s image and I am not so sure that it’s Indian in nature. She does have a Middle Eastern look about her.
San Antonio currently has an exhibit on the Shroud. For those of us who may not have the financial means to go to Turin, this might be the next best thing. I am trying to get my father to go with me.
He looks like paintings of His mother, no surprise there.
Wonder how much they corrected for the broken nose.
Jean-Luc says: What about creating a digital image of Mary using the image of the Holy Shroud?
The problem is, we have no experience on how to do it for two reasons. Firstly we have no experience with incarnational births that have only one parent. The closest we have is cloning, but even if, God forbid, it becomes common, we would still have to convert one of the clone’s X chromosome into a Y chromosome…something beyond our abilities. Both of these practices are immoral, unethical, and hopefully will never come to pass. But even if this did happen, we still wouldn’t know since God could and would likely make suitable changes.
Although we won’t know exactly how she looked like, we should have a close idea. If you look at the early icons of Jesus, he looked remarkably like the Shroud of Turin, so you can trust in early icons to give you an idea how Jesus looked like. If Jesus, why not Mary? With this in mind, you might want to look at some of the earliest Icons of Mary:
http://www.churchpop.com/2015/03/13/8-of-the-oldest-images-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary/
You might be disappointed with how crude and late they were, but you shouldn’t be. Read the scriptures. Mary’s words and role is quite veiled. It’s easy for Catholics to see since we know what to look for and we have Tradition to help us fill in the gaps, but Protestants and non-Christians wouldn’t be able to perceive who Mary is and how important she was and is from the scriptures alone. I believe it was God’s intent. If God wanted Mary to be front and center and have something equivalent to the Shroud of Turin, he could have arranged it. But then, we’d likely reject the images of Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady Guadalupe, Our Lady of China, etc. Ironically, Our Lady’s hiddeness allows her to be more visible across cultures than Jesus.
With thanks to LarryW2LJ for the link to what will now be my preferred image of Our Lady, I’ll also report on my focus at the 2010 showing of the Shroud. It wasn’t the face or the frontal image that caught my gaze and held it. It was the shoulders on the dorsal image, those shoulders so clearly bruised as well as wounded by the scourge. The image of that bruising from carrying the cross will remain with me all my days.
“Wonder how much they corrected for the broken nose.”
The face was horribly swollen as well. The VP-8 image analyzer used on the Shroud shows just how swollen. The painting that is shown at the beginning of the video was done around 1931. I haven’t seen an image of Jesus that I like better. I would like to see an age regression done using the painting!
Blessed Anne-Catherine Emmerich claimed that there was an image…a fresco? that remains on the wall under the Cathedral in Perugia that is the perfect likeness of the Blessed Virgin Mary during her earthly life. She states that Our Lady was blond, with a Roman nose (like Uma Thurman?). I read that passage while staying outside of Florence, and jumped in the car and drove down to Perugia to see if I could find it….and look at the wedding ring of Mary….but , it was holy week and everything was veiled…..But there was a museum adjacent to the church that went underground and had several frescos….I was never sure I found the correct image and have not been able to locate that text again in re-reading Emmerich’s books. Does anyone know the image? The artist? I would love to know what she looked like during her life. Another gal I know says Mary’s hair naturally falls in a few long ringlets down her back, which sounds reminiscent of what Emmerich said of Eve.
The meditations of Bl Anne-Catherine Emmerich, written actually by poet Clemens Brentano based on his notes from interviewing her, should not be taken as literally accurate data.
“The closest we have is cloning, but even if, God forbid, it becomes common, we would still have to convert one of the clone’s X chromosome into a Y chromosome…something beyond our abilities. Both of these practices are immoral, unethical, and hopefully will never come to pass. But even if this did happen, we still wouldn’t know since God could and would likely make suitable changes.”
It is unethical and immoral to clone; it is not unethical and immoral to substitute one gene for another, or at least you better hope it isn’t, because it is a promising treatment for certain cancers. In fact, one does not have to substitute a Y chromosome for an X. It is necessary to add the SRY gene for maleness to occur (it is this gene on the Y chromosome that initiates the maleness process). Also, XX males (with the SRY gene) are known (although it is a disorder).
Suppose, hypothetically, one had an actual picture of Mary and could use image processing to remove those attributes from the reconstructed face of Jesus. What would one see?
The Chicken
Dear Chicken,
according to our religion class, it is allowed to substitute genes in an adult person with their consent (I don’t recall whether anything was said about parents deciding for their children), but immoral in any case whatsoever to tamper with the germline.
Also, assuming it is moral (in a given situation) to disable a gene or insert a gene when that action heals, or hinders, or substantially reduces the likelihood of an illness, it would not be moral to do so for the mere reason of determining the sex.
“Also, assuming it is moral (in a given situation) to disable a gene or insert a gene when that action heals, or hinders, or substantially reduces the likelihood of an illness, it would not be moral to do so for the mere reason of determining the sex.”
This is a complicated problem, because some problems have to be corrected in utero, such as Tay-Sachs disease, which is caused by a single gene mutation and cannot be corrected after birth, since the destruction has already begun. We are not, yet, able to replace genes in utero (thankfully – no designer babies, for now), but we will be able to within a hundred years. I did a call-in segment with Jimmy Akin, a few years, ago, on Catholic Answers, Live about this and the Transhumanism movement.
The Chicken
It goes without saying that one should not accept the accounts of mystics as gospel. Anne-Catherine Emmerich’s mystical experiences were undeniably authentic, however.
Regarding transcription (literary) by a wordsmith, if we pooh-pooh everything that went through an amanuensis, we’d find ourselves with little to read.