>Facial reconstruction is easily the most subjective—as well as one of the most controversial—techniques in the field of forensic anthropology
>When multiple forensic artists produce approximations for the same set of skeletal remains, no two reconstructions are ever the same
>There are multiple outstanding problems associated with forensic facial reconstruction.[16]
>The data available to forensic artists are still very limited in ranges of ages, sexes, and body builds. This disparity greatly affects the accuracy of reconstructions. Until this data is expanded, the likelihood of producing the most accurate reconstruction possible is largely limited
>A second problem is the lack of a methodological standardization in approximating facial features.[5] A single, official method for reconstructing the face has yet to be recognized. This also presents major setback in facial approximation because facial features like the eyes and nose and individuating characteristics like hairstyle lack a standard way of being reconstructed
>Reconstructions only reveal the type of face a person may have exhibited because of artistic subjectivity
You're leaving out that it's based on a random skull they dug up from roughly back then. NO actual certifiable connection to Jesus (who physically left this world).
Connor Miller
He was, a Jew, Roger
Julian Collins
Exactly, you need a skull to make facial reconstructions and Jesus never left a skull
Colton Bell
>British education
Zachary Scott
Jesus was a bloodline descended from Hittites. Hittites were indo european speaking conquerors in the bronze age and originally came from a population of Caucasian looking people near the black sea.
Tacitus was a roman senator and the greatest roman historian, hated jews and just saw christians as a jewish cult. He lived in the decades immediately after Jesus and wrote in detail about Christ and his death.
Asher Thomas
The time has come, we are at the midnight hour
Dylan Flores
This. Reminder. This face you see is 100% fucking fiction promoted by anti-Christian media. If anyone has the pics of how bad the "science" prediction is of facial prediction given skulls, post them. Can't find it.
is the skin color of Jesus really that important to you guys? He was a jew nonetheless.
Tyler Wood
No.
It's his message that matters the most.
Ethan Jenkins
Found one example. Reconstruction vs. Reality. This is with having her skull, which (((they))) do not have of Christ. Even with the skull on hand, they can only get a rough vision.
It wasn't a big deal to me until Zogmedia made it a big deal. You are clueless if you don't understand the differences in "Jews" 2000 years ago. Many different competing groups.
>he thinks the shroud is real bahahaha fucking idiot
Aaron Kelly
but the shroud is a fraud from the 14th century, LITERALLY the first historical mention of it is saying it was a fraud.
William Sanchez
Who cares what Jesus looked like? Who cares that we sometimes portray him as white? The fact of the matter is white people were a huge part of spreading the word of God.
Michael Thomas
This isn't even a reconstruction. What a hell do you think they'd even base it on? Turin's Shroud would be the closest to a clue, but this particular image is just "artistic interpretation of a man living in Palestine".
Jace Gutierrez
They did forensics on part of the burnt cloth which nullifies the data gathered on it. Try to keep up.
Caleb Barnes
I call the area under my bellybutton, under and to the top of my buttcrack the Gaza Strip, because I'm harrier than an Arab down there.
10 4 that picture is horse shit like what most "intellectuals" spew
Benjamin Thompson
>166616182 it was the shroud of Jesus you fucking jackasses
Ethan Williams
They based it on antichrist Zog pseudoscience. It had no scientific basis other then lending credibility to itself by basing it on a composite of predictions of what regional people may have looked like.
Imagine these Zog scientists trying to predict YOUR face out of thin air like that and you'll see how silly it is.
Fake news. Do some more research on it instead of an outdated, flawed study. The shroud and its corresponding piece date back far earlier than the 14th century, have pollen exclusive to Jerusalem and its surrounding area and still to this day has no logical method of creation, especially for the time it was created.
Cooper Brown
This will be ignored by atheists.
Carter Collins
We don't need a reconstruction. We have actual photos.
As quoted by Eisler,[21]:393–394, 414–415 both Hierosolymitanus and John of Damascus claim that "the Jew Josephus" described Christ as having had connate eyebrows with goodly eyes and being long-faced, crooked and well-grown. In a letter of certain bishops to the Emperor Theophilus, Christ's height is described as three cubits (four feet six), which was also the opinion of Ephrem Syrus (320–379 AD), "God took human form and appeared in the form of three human ells (cubits); he came down to us small of stature." Theodore of Mopsuhestia likewise claimed that the appearance of Christ was smaller than that of the children of Jacob (Israel). In the apocryphal Lentulus letter (see below) Christ is described as having had a reddish complexion, matching Muslim traditions in this respect. Christ's prediction that he would be taunted "Physician, heal yourself"[26] may suggest that Christ was indeed physically deformed ('crooked' or hunch-backed) as claimed in the early Christian texts listed above. In fact, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Ambrose actually considered lack of physical attractiveness in Jesus as fulfilling the Messianic prophecy "Suffering Servant" narrative of Isaiah 53.[27]
You find strange that they used israeli archeologist? do you know where Jesus lived?
David Rogers
Only post of value in this thread.
Andrew Barnes
proof?
Jaxon Kelly
No one gives a shit my dude. Jesus historicity is already so flimsy the last thing we care about is a politically driven reconstruction.
Caleb Ross
Jesus never existed in the first place. The earliest extra-biblical source is Josephus who was born in 37AD, clearly after he would've already been dead so he couldn't possibly account for his existence. The romans initially thought christians were just batshit cannibalistic doomsday preachers.
Samuel Rogers
Tacitus was born in 56 and likely used Josephus as a source, and Josephus was 1) born in 37, 2) just repeating what the christians were saying. You clearly haven't actually read what they wrote because nowhere did either of them actually say it was truthful, and you're instead just repeating what the retarded christfags on here tout.
Cooper Morgan
jesus didn't have long hair, thats the thing i hate the most out of the modern depictions of him. makes him look like some pacifist hippie pussy
Luke Flores
>the guy who tells you to bend over and get fucked up the ass and taken for everything you own >not a pacifist hippie pussy regardless of physical depiction
Nicholas Russell
Well, of course this image is "fake news", they don't have a literal portrait of Jesus being used as it's base. Still, it is a depiction of a common man in Galilee at that time and not far-off from what Jesus would look like.
Stop having a meltdown over it, it just shows you're troubled by the though of middle-eastern features.
>it is a depiction of a common man in Galilee at that time
Read the fucking text in the OP. Facial reconstruction is a meme
Brody Brooks
But even if the facial reconstruction is very flawed, these pictures are not far from what the average Gallilean was known to look like - as attested by contemporary sources even
Tyler Davis
What is the significance of this being authentic? Let us say it was Jesus' burial shroud. How does one from there reach that he rose?
