It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this a Photo of Jesus Christ?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by SkyWay

I do not avoid the material that is presented as evidence. I examine it closely, and find it to not be valid. If someone presents anything as evidence, it needs to meet certains standards which has not been done.

Considering you are the only one of several (dare I say all posting?) that believe these two figures - the one dated, and the one via the nun - definitively are not two renderings of one figure, just what, praytell, are your "certain standards"?

Misfit

Edit: Sentence Structure

[edit on 23/9/06 by Misfit]


My standards are that the evidence presented validate the claims made. So far none of the evidence presented verifies any of the claims made against the authenticity of the photograph of Jesus that was taken by Sister Anna Ali.

Have a nice evening.




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   


It's still amazing how all the similar pictures we came up with from different sources turned out to be on the same web pages classified as miraculous pictures. It shows they do have at least something in common that we can work on.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay

No one has exposed this as anything other than a photograph. You can bet that if this were a drawing many of the scoffers and cynics would have exposed it as such by now. The fact that this photo of Jesus has endured since 1987, with all of the cynics in the world always trying to disprove everything supernatural, testifies to its authenticity.


Wow...
So now there's a time limit after which the matter in question is automatically found to be true?

I know what you are saying, but we can't go around putting time limits on things like this.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
here's a new twist to the miraculous picture of The Virgin that appeared in Mexico many years ago. Twist

Millions believe it is a miracle but now doubts have arisen from within the church.

also there's this below, (and something I couldn't link to about a face of Jesus that turned up in an ultra sound of a baby in a womb. Just type 'face of Jesus appeared" into google and you'll find it.)




Face of The Virgin appears miraculously on pizza slice

[edit on 24-9-2006 by probedbygrays]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
Here is some info on the drawing from the same site I where I found the image.





[edit on 9/23/2006 by Jeddyhi]


Could you provide me with a direct link to that page please.


Here you go. Dude you have to seriously stop thinking that you found a photo of Christ. Evidence has been presented that what you found is a photoshopped version of a drawing that was widely circulated around World War I. It's a hoax, plain and simple. Christ may be real, but the photo is not. The story of the Nun is obviously bogus. This thread is already 7 pages long and you still refuse to believe the obvious truth. But yet you willingly believe you have found a photo of Christ. Sheeeeeeeeesh!!! I'm done here. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!!

[edit on 9/24/2006 by Jeddyhi]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
So far none of the evidence presented verifies any of the claims made against the authenticity of the photograph of Jesus that was taken by Sister Anna Ali.

Your logic is flawed:

You say this is an authentic picture of Jesus taken by a nun.
The case would be to prove this is true.
One can not prove what can only be accepted by means of faith.
One can not prove that a picture of a man is an authentic picture of a man that, in modern times, has only existed ina book, and in faith.


Originally posted by SkyWay
My standards are that the evidence presented validate the claims made.

With that, and this is what the case is, not what you have attempted to reverse it to be: being it is you stating this picture is authentic, it is for you to prove it so.
You will find that quite impossible, when the concept of the man in the picture is a production of faith.

Misfit



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
Here you go. Dude you have to seriously stop thinking that you found a photo of Christ. Evidence has been presented that what you found is a photoshopped version of a drawing that was widely circulated around World War I. It's a hoax, plain and simple. Christ may be real, but the photo is not. The story of the Nun is obviously bogus. This thread is already 7 pages long and you still refuse to believe the obvious truth. But yet you willingly believe you have found a photo of Christ. Sheeeeeeeeesh!!! I'm done here. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!!
[edit on 9/24/2006 by Jeddyhi]


LOL! Jeddyhi...Jeddyhi....Jeddyhi..the very site where you found your picture also confirms that the photo which I presented is miraculous, and states that it was taken by Sister Anna Ali. It supports my position about the photo of Jesus. Thanks!



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
SkyWay,

Did you review the links on the previous page? Particularly, the one marked "Translated". Anna Ali's "photo" is a poor reproduction of a painting by a Hungarian artist, and is known to have been widely circulated during World War I.

Why would she lie? Who knows? Maybe she thinks it's okay to fabricate evidence if it's evidence of the Truth. Or maybe she's a nut. I dunno.

the secret web,

I doubt that Sister Ali was using photoshop in 1987, but your idea is correct. The "photo" is simply an under-exposed photo of the original drawing/painting resulting in harsh contrasts. I've been in the printing biz for 20 years and see plates that look like that all the time.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Tuning Spork]


I am trying to keep up with the posts and just replied to the one you mention. See my reply in my post just before this one.
By the way I couldn't find anything on the alleged artist who allegedly painted the picture that Jeddyhi posted after googling his name. Maybe you guys can find some examples of that painting being used during World War I.

Be back later!



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
lol The owner/ creator of that site is about as gullible as you are. I assume from your response that you do not believe the old art work from World War I is the basis for your "photo" even though the website you mention admits that the drawing and supposed "photo" are extremely similar.

You can see it is the same image, only reworked by human hands, can't you? If you deny this corralation between the two images, you are a lost cause and I recommend you print the "photo", hang it on your wall and tell all your friends you have a photo of Jesus. Gauge their reactions.

You wanted proof that the image I posted pre-dated 1987. I gave you that and still you cling to your "photo" hypothesis. You have been duped. People here have tried to help you but it is a lost cause.

In closing, Jesus needs to go to photography school. His divine ability to perform miracles on camera film is serious lacking. Maybe Heaven is also black and white and gritty.

I have to ask one more time for everyone reading this thread. Can you offer an explanation as to how this image that a Nun supposedly captured on film in 1987 is identical to a work of Art from the early 20th Century? A little contrast and brightness manipulation is all it is. I anxiously await to hear your response.

Here is a guess at your answer. The artist who created the drawing had a divine vision and his drawing is exactly what Jesus looks like. Then, with divine intervention, the Nun captured the same image on film years later. Jesus has a photo album and he considers this to be his best photo of himself and just likes to use it over and over again.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I can't believe this thread is still going.


THis image is obviously not Jesus. The simple fact that this is not a middle eastern face, or even a Roman white face is enough proof to show that it couldn't be jesus. No amount of miracle is going to make Jesus look like the standard western image of Jesus. The entire reason this standard image started anyway was because if Jesus wasn't a handsome white man Europeans wouldn't worship him. A little common sense people, a little common sense.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The entire reason this standard image started anyway was because if Jesus wasn't a handsome white man Europeans wouldn't worship him. A little common sense people, a little common sense.

DING DING DING DING !!! You have made this weeks $1 Million grand prize statement !!!



lol

Even as a kid, growing up extreme Christian, I found this utterly contradictory (at an age I could'nt even say that phrase) that I was taught of Jesus, where he was from, where his parent were from, who the people of those and all the surrounding lands were ............ yet the picture everywhere of this man was -------- a hippy white dude like me !!!

Hey, maybe I'm Jesus? heh

Misfit



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by SkyWay
This nun is telling the truth.
Why would a nun tell the truth?
Because she loves God.

You are making this nun out to be infallable. She's human, she is, by default, faulty.

The priests, before they were caught, you would say "they wouldn't rape, they love God". But they do. Just as this nun, you can not set a human on a pedastal that everything one says, no matter who it is, is true.

Whatever trips yer trigger I guess.

Misfit

[edit on 23/9/06 by Misfit]


Misfit, I don't consider any human being to be infallible. Only God is infallible. But just because human beings are fallible does not mean that people cannot do good things or tell the truth. Just because human beings are fallibible does not prevent them from having holy and mystical experiences, in fact many people have had such experiences throughout history. Some people have even been so godly and holy that they were even willing to sacrifice themselves for their faith. That's why there have been martyrs.

So, I am not unaware of the falliblity of all human beings, and I don't put anyone on a pedestal, but at the same time I have high regard for those whom I consider to be of good character....especially those who are devoted to God such as Sister Anna is. Some people have been blessed by God with certain graces and gifts...Siister Anna isn't the only one. These are blessings which God bestows on us even though we are imperfect and fallible. It is up to us to scrutinize such events so that we can decide whether they are genuine or not. I have decided that the photo of Jesus by Sister Anna is genuine. She is one of those people whom God has favored with special grace by appearing to her and delivering messages to her and allowing her to photograph Him.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
in a perfect existance where there is a god of truth, wouldn't going discovering one's own reason's for their intentions and the truth behind them take them to a place where what is inside is also the god you want to be like?


I do not agree with you here. Your position would result in a form of self-worship if we believe that our inner self is the God we are seeking and wish to be like. I think that the reason some people mistake their inner self for God is because we were made in God's image.

So, we human beings have some wonderful qualities within our selves because the human soul is an exceptionally beautiful and powerful creation. And when people search within themselves they can discover some of these magnificent qualities of the soul. But as great as our soul may be, it must never be mistaken for God. The soul is the creation of God, and demonstrates the greatness of the work of God's hands. But God is infinitely greater than any of His creations such as the soul.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by please_takemyrights

Originally posted by SkyWay

No one has exposed this as anything other than a photograph. You can bet that if this were a drawing many of the scoffers and cynics would have exposed it as such by now. The fact that this photo of Jesus has endured since 1987, with all of the cynics in the world always trying to disprove everything supernatural, testifies to its authenticity.


Wow...
So now there's a time limit after which the matter in question is automatically found to be true?

I know what you are saying, but we can't go around putting time limits on things like this.


I am not saying that there is a time limit....only that the amount of time that the photo has not been disproven is another consideration in favor of the authenticity of the photo. People can knock themselves out trying to disprove it as long as they want. The only limit to such an endeavor will be reached when the Lord Jesus Christ returns.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by probedbygrays
here's a new twist to the miraculous picture of The Virgin that appeared in Mexico many years ago. Twist

Millions believe it is a miracle but now doubts have arisen from within the church.
[edit on 24-9-2006 by probedbygrays]


Notice how the abbot only expressed doubts about Juan Diego and not about the miraculous character of the cloth with Mary's image on it.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by SkyWay
So far none of the evidence presented verifies any of the claims made against the authenticity of the photograph of Jesus that was taken by Sister Anna Ali.

Your logic is flawed:

You say this is an authentic picture of Jesus taken by a nun.
The case would be to prove this is true.
One can not prove what can only be accepted by means of faith.
One can not prove that a picture of a man is an authentic picture of a man that, in modern times, has only existed ina book, and in faith.

I admitted that faith is involved from the begining. I stated clearly that I believe the photo to be genuine. But I also left it up to anyone who sees the photo to excercise their own best judgement to decide for themselves whether they accept the photo as authentic also. I presented the picture and my reasons for accepting it as real. This is in my very first post. The only one's trying to prove anything are the people who disagree with me and keep putting forth material which they think proves the photo is false. Their "evidence" does not prove their claims. So it does not meet the standards for evidence.





Originally posted by SkyWay
My standards are that the evidence presented validate the claims made.

With that, and this is what the case is, not what you have attempted to reverse it to be: being it is you stating this picture is authentic, it is for you to prove it so.
You will find that quite impossible, when the concept of the man in the picture is a production of faith.

Misfit


This is why I titled this thread "Is this a photo of Jesus Christ?" I leave it up to those who look at the photo, and consider how it happened and who produced it, to decide for themselves whether they believe, as I do, that the photo is genuine.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
lol The owner/ creator of that site is about as gullible as you are. I assume from your response that you do not believe the old art work from World War I is the basis for your "photo" even though the website you mention admits that the drawing and supposed "photo" are extremely similar.

You can see it is the same image, only reworked by human hands, can't you? If you deny this corralation between the two images, you are a lost cause and I recommend you print the "photo", hang it on your wall and tell all your friends you have a photo of Jesus. Gauge their reactions.

You wanted proof that the image I posted pre-dated 1987. I gave you that and still you cling to your "photo" hypothesis. You have been duped. People here have tried to help you but it is a lost cause.

In closing, Jesus needs to go to photography school. His divine ability to perform miracles on camera film is serious lacking. Maybe Heaven is also black and white and gritty.

I have to ask one more time for everyone reading this thread. Can you offer an explanation as to how this image that a Nun supposedly captured on film in 1987 is identical to a work of Art from the early 20th Century? A little contrast and brightness manipulation is all it is. I anxiously await to hear your response.

Here is a guess at your answer. The artist who created the drawing had a divine vision and his drawing is exactly what Jesus looks like. Then, with divine intervention, the Nun captured the same image on film years later. Jesus has a photo album and he considers this to be his best photo of himself and just likes to use it over and over again.


Wow! I can't believe the way you contradict yourself Jeddyhi! First you call the creator of the website gullible and then you try to use his material as "proof" that the photo of Jesus is not real. Remember, YOU are the one who referenced his website and posted links to it.

By the way, since you are convinced that the painting you posted was so common during World War I, it should be very easy for you to present some examples of the painting being used during the first World War. Their must be THOUSANDS of photographs of soldiers and others from that era with such a "common" painting showing somewhere in the photo. Could you post a few examples please. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I can't believe this thread is still going.


THis image is obviously not Jesus. The simple fact that this is not a middle eastern face, or even a Roman white face is enough proof to show that it couldn't be jesus. No amount of miracle is going to make Jesus look like the standard western image of Jesus. The entire reason this standard image started anyway was because if Jesus wasn't a handsome white man Europeans wouldn't worship him. A little common sense people, a little common sense.


This is much more Middle Eastern looking than the popular blond-haired blue-eyed versions that Hollywood helped to popularize. Be that as it may, physical appearance will probably be altered after people are resurrected. Since this photo is of Jesus Christ as He appears AFTER He rose from the dead, the features are probably quite different from His appearance before His death and resurrection. As I posted earlier, the image on the photo appears to possess a blend of all races....not just the semitic. I think this resembles what men would look like if all races were combined into one.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The entire reason this standard image started anyway was because if Jesus wasn't a handsome white man Europeans wouldn't worship him. A little common sense people, a little common sense.

DING DING DING DING !!! You have made this weeks $1 Million grand prize statement !!!



lol

Even as a kid, growing up extreme Christian, I found this utterly contradictory (at an age I could'nt even say that phrase) that I was taught of Jesus, where he was from, where his parent were from, who the people of those and all the surrounding lands were ............ yet the picture everywhere of this man was -------- a hippy white dude like me !!!

Hey, maybe I'm Jesus? heh

Misfit


Nah...you can't be Jesus. You aren't Jewish enough. LOL!

Time for some lunch!



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
:bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd:
Okay SkyWay, why would Jesusm just coincidentally, be resurected to look excatly like he did in thousands of pictures painted before the resurection.

Also, I may have missed it in previous posts, but why is it that he all of a sudden contradicts the bible on many points, and only tells this one nun about it?

And isn't he supposed to resurect after revelations comes to pass?


All BS, but I think that's the only way you can fight Christian BS is with other Christian BS.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join