Došla mi pošty otázka od pana Koloseum 1 3 a zněla: A CO TO JE ZA TU POCHYBNOU ŽENSKOU S TÍM ADOPTOVANÝM DĚCKEM V NÁRUČÍ ???

Milý pane Koloseum, budu slušný i když vy jste byl mnohokrát neslušný a měníte své registrace Je to Marie, Kristova máma, maminka, která ho nosila pod srdcem, dala mu svou blízkost, něhu a lásku. Byla jeho první skutečný dotek lidství. A co vy, vypadl jste čápovi ze zobáku a nebo jak? Každý z nás měl mámu, bytost, která se postarala, aby člověk žil a nebyl opuštěn na světě. Bytost, která mu byla nablízku a jejíž život je tak důležitý. Povšimněte si pane Koloseum, jak Ježíš drží ovečku a jak Marie drží Ježíška.... Vnímáte podobnost.... Hledejme paralely....

The Shroud of Turin also has many imitations, very many, even here in Bohemia it was found in Broumov, a monastery in 1999. We must not forget that the Shroud of Turin is also a reconstruction, because the original does not have the image we know intimately. But I have respect for him and we have the picture in a frame on display in the prayer corner at home. (See photo) Whatever the image of Christ was, his message is important, dear friend. Hello.

@Louis IX There is no irrefutable proof, nor will there ever be, that the Shroud of Turin shows the true visage of Our Savior. Thus, we do not know for absolute certain exactly what Christ actually looked like. We can assume or gauge from what we know about human genetics that He bore certain anatomical attributes from His biological lineage, which we have record of in Sacred Scripture. And, there are certain aspects of His physical make up that the Old Testament Prophets referred to that would also be relevant in an accurate analysis of Christ's incarnated form. But that would be all that's verifiably available to us. Our Lord would have looked like, and bore the human form of, most other common males who were genetically native to, and born in, the Holy Land at that time. He was not of "European" ancestry, and therefore would, most likely, not have had blonde hair and blue eye, nor a narrow Nordic nose or other purely Nordic or European features; as is often shown in European artistic representations of Him, and as is seen in several of the images representing Him in this particular posting. That's simply not the way He would have looked while He walked physically upon the earth. Taking all things into account, the Lord Jesus Christ in His earthly manifestation, would have looked more like the picture you want removed from this post, than any other of the representations shown of Him here, regardless of who created it or for what purpose.

With respect SonoftheChurch there is absolutely no evidence that Christ would have looked like what was created by “scientists” to insult Christ. The demographics of the area of his birth were not what they are now, so there is no reason to believe He would have looked like what is depicted by contemporary ‘scientists’ with an axe to grind. The Shroud of Turin is much more likely a depiction of a man both crucified and experiencing a miraculous resurrection than it is not, based on the most recent studies done on the shroud. Hmmmm, I wonder who that could possibly be? Should we as Catholics ignore what is most probably a miracle by both reason and faith and instead put our trust in ‘scientists’ who continuously blaspheme our Lord whenever possible? (PS, no where did I suggest Our Lord was blue eyed, blonde haired with Nordic features, not that those features have always been restricted to Nordic races.)

I respect the Shroud of Turin, otherwise I wouldn't have it on the wall of my house. But why shouldn't we also respect the possibility that Christ had typical Semitic features and was darker than depicted? Even the Virgin Mary should be darker than depicted. People in these latitudes tend to be darker. However, the scientists' study seems inaccurate to me, but it is said to be based on the study of bone remains. He reminds me a bit of a Neanderthal , and I would imagine Christ differently. This is also an unpleasant display for me: Historický Ježíš – Wikipedie