Is this a Photo of Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by Flyer
Everyone disagrees with you, that should be an indication that your wrong, a virtually identical image that was around earlier has been posted. All evidence points to you being wrong and not one single shred of evidence points to you being right.

Please don't be so careless in your comments. Everyone does not disagree with me. The people on this thread, or even this entire forum are not EVERYONE!
But even on this thread some poster have not agreed nor disagreed but are undecided whether the photo is genuine or not. But even if everyone disagreed with me it would not affect my decision that the photo is real. I do not base my decisions on popular opinions nor do I blindly follow the crowd.

You say its jesus, its up to you to prove it is. I could say it was myself and Id have exactly the same amount of evidence as you have produced. How can you say its jesus when you don't even know what he looks like. Its laughable.

There is always some element of faith involved in the things of God. Furthermore I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself. There is enough evidence to convince me, and that is all that matters as far as my belief is concerned. Some people interpret the same evidence in different ways. This why even scientists can draw different conclusions from the same evidence/data. If you choose not to believe, that's your choice. When Jesus returns we will see who laughs best!

[edit on 27-9-2006 by SkyWay]

Originally posted by Misfit
Yet, of this whole thread - you are the only one not seeing it .......Misfit

Maybe I am the only one who is right. LOL! In a race there is usually only one winner. Sometimes it takes a little longer for others to catch up.

Jesus and His saints are way ahead of the rest of us! (WINK)

Originally posted by SkyWay
Maybe I am the only one who is right. LOL! In a race there is usually only one winner. Sometimes it takes a little longer for others to catch up.

Jesus and His saints are way ahead of the rest of us! (WINK)

Well, you are true to form of your Christian ways .......... arrogance first.

Misfit

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by SkyWay
Maybe I am the only one who is right. LOL! In a race there is usually only one winner. Sometimes it takes a little longer for others to catch up.

Jesus and His saints are way ahead of the rest of us! (WINK)

Well, you are true to form of your Christian ways .......... arrogance first.

Misfit

Awww......don't go away mad, Misfit.
The truth is always the best course to follow. But it is not always what some people want to hear.

This thread should be renamed to "Is this Gullibility and Denial at its Extremes?"

SkyWay, I respect you for your Christian values and appreciate that you believe in Christ, But, with that said I must confess that I am amazed at how gullible you are concerning religious topics. Maybe you are putting on an act to keep this thread going. I could accept that better than thinking you actually believe you found a photo of Christ. Come on, Man. This would be the classic scene from a movie where somebody smacks you across the face to help you to regain your senses.

Evidence has been presented to you that the picture in question is actually a drawing from around the World War I era that somebody photoshopped and slightly altered to try and make it seem like a B/W photo. You reject this common sense approach and cling to your "this is a picture of Christ" belief. How sad.

You posted in response to my colorized pic of the World War I drawing that you don't believe that your Pic and this drawing are one and the same. Completely different, you said. No corralation between the two. What a blatant denial of the obvious. Your attempts to keep this thread going out of denial are coming to an end as I believe you will be the only poster left after this.

1- A drawing was discovered that appears to be the basis for your supposed photo taken by a nun in 1987

2- You wanted background on this drawing because you stated it probably was based on the photo and therefore had to be created after 1987. This statement alone reveals you do think they are similar, since you wanted info on the drawing.

3- Info was retreived and posted dating the drawing to the early 20th century. You reject this now as not even being the same depiction of Christ. Completely different, you say. An act of denial to keep your thread alive.

4- Here is a comparison of the two works of art. I posted this earlier in the thread and you now state they are not related, no corralation between the two, not the same face, not the same artwork. Well I added some reference lines to more easily demonstrate the similarities. Of course, you will reject this to as nonsense in another lame attempt to keep your thread going but at least all the other readers will realize your game. I can't wait to read how you believe these two images are not one and the same.

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
SkyWay, I respect you for your Christian values and appreciate that you believe in Christ, But, with that said I must confess that I am amazed at how gullible you are concerning religious topics.

Well thank ya for that expression of respect. Respect is special when it is toward someone who disagrees with you. So thank ya...thank ya very much.
I'm not gullible at all, but very discerning toward religious matters which is why I am a Christian and not some other religion.
Thank ya....thank ya.

Maybe you are putting on an act to keep this thread going. I could accept that better than thinking you actually believe you found a photo of Christ. Come on, Man. This would be the classic scene from a movie where somebody smacks you across the face to help you to regain your senses.

No act. I just happen to find my reasons for accepting the photo of Jesus as authentic much more valid than your reasons against it. And please don't slap me I try to keep my beard nicely groomed and a slap would muss it up.

Evidence has been presented to you that the picture in question is actually a drawing from around the World War I era that somebody photoshopped and slightly altered to try and make it seem like a B/W photo. You reject this common sense approach and cling to your "this is a picture of Christ" belief. How sad.

See what I mean by your non-evidence that you try to pawn off as evidence. The photo of Jesus couldn't have been photoshopped because there was no photoshop in 1987 when it was taken! You need a heavy dose of pure oxygen to clear wake you up! LOL!

You posted in response to my colorized pic of the World War I drawing that you don't believe that your Pic and this drawing are one and the same. Completely different, you said. No corralation between the two. What a blatant denial of the obvious. Your attempts to keep this thread going out of denial are coming to an end as I believe you will be the only poster left after this.

Your lines are in the wrong areas of the face. Outline the shadows along the side of the face and around the eyes and you will see how UNLIKE the two pictures are!

If you think those two pictures are alike then you would probably confuse Hilary Clinton for Condoleeza Rice! LOL!

I don't get it. Even anyone can prove beyond any doubt that it is an actual picture of a man, and not a painting, or a "doctored" photograph, what does it mean? It doesn't change anything. There is no way anyone (person) would ever be able to prove that it is Jesus. And what if it is Jesus, what does it mean? Will it change atheists' minds? Will it change anything in the Christian religion? Will it be "nice" to have the face of the God Christians pray to? You still don't pray to the picture. You don't print the picture and hope it will save you from damnation. No. You pray to Jesus - the Holy Son. Not to a picture. A picture shouldn't influence your believe system.

I have yet to bring up this rebuttal during the occasions you brought a supposed fact, I was hoping some common sense would be invoked in you and you would back up your own claims. I guess not.

Originally posted by SkyWay
The photo of Jesus couldn't have been photoshopped because there was no photoshop in 1987 when it was taken! You need a heavy dose of pure oxygen to clear wake you up! LOL!

You are using a finite term of "photoshopping" as an attempt to dubunk the facet of graphic manipulation and/or reproduction.

If you want to get technical, the act of photoshopping was, indeed, already the prime function of a graphical user interface in 1987, except it wasn't Adobe, nor was it, yet, called Photoshop. In 1987, it was called "Display", which then in 1988 the next version became "ImagePro". In 1989 Adobe acquired licensing, and Photoshop, as we now it in 2006, was created.

Ya know, it really does help to find out if something did, in fact, not exist, before adamantly and repeatedly claiming that it did not.

Misfit

Originally posted by SkyWay
See what I mean by your non-evidence that you try to pawn off as evidence. The photo of Jesus couldn't have been photoshopped because there was no photoshop in 1987 when it was taken! You need a heavy dose of pure oxygen to clear wake you up! LOL!

You believe some piece of art from the early 20th century that someone altered is a photo of Christ and I need the oxygen huh? That's funny. There is no proof this alleged photo was taken in 1987, much less that its even a photo. Where is the negative? Some hoaxer doctored up the drawing (pick any year you want ) and made false claims. The Nun in question probably doesn't even exist.

Your lines are in the wrong areas of the face. Outline the shadows along the side of the face and around the eyes and you will see how UNLIKE the two pictures are!

If you think those two pictures are alike then you would probably confuse Hilary Clinton for Condoleeza Rice! LOL!

First of all, the shadows are added and embellished. They cant be used as a reference. That is why I chose physical features and not the material that was added to alter the photo. Man, are you a brick shy of a full load or what?

I'm refraining real hard from blatantly calling you a fool because that would not be helpful to the discussion. The lines I drew show that both images are exactly the same, even down to the edge of the garment. The part in the hair lines up perfectly down to the cup of the upper lip in both images. Anyone and everyone except your poor, confused self can see this. You are either demented, a religious zealout, or are indeed a poor, misguided fool. Your argument that this is indeed a photo of Christ is weak. Where is your evidence? Tons have been laid out for you here to counter such a gibberish idea. But you reject it nonetheless. If I was you, I would be pretty embarrassed. Unless of course you are a troll, posting controversial topics and taking a ludicrous stance just to draw reactions. I refuse to play your sick game anymore. You are alone in your conviction that this is a photo of anybody, much less Christ. Skip church and see your therapist. this thread needs locked if not deleted!

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I don't get it. Even anyone can prove beyond any doubt that it is an actual picture of a man, and not a painting, or a "doctored" photograph, what does it mean? It doesn't change anything. There is no way anyone (person) would ever be able to prove that it is Jesus. And what if it is Jesus, what does it mean? Will it change atheists' minds? Will it change anything in the Christian religion? Will it be "nice" to have the face of the God Christians pray to? You still don't pray to the picture. You don't print the picture and hope it will save you from damnation. No. You pray to Jesus - the Holy Son. Not to a picture. A picture shouldn't influence your believe system.

I have pointed that out a couple of times to some posters who implied that I would worship the photo because I believe it is a photo Jesus. I made it clear in a few of my previous posts that I worship only the One represented in the photo....not the photo itself.

I presented the photo and the circumstances of its production so that the people who view it can decide if they also believe the photo to be of Jesus Christ. But there will always be some people who automatically disbelieve anything involving the supernatural.

Originally posted by Misfit
You are using a finite term of "photoshopping" as an attempt to dubunk the facet of graphic manipulation and/or reproduction.

I'm only using the terminology introduced by others who keep claiming that the photo is a product of photoshop.

If you want to get technical, the act of photoshopping was, indeed, already the prime function of a graphical user interface in 1987, except it wasn't Adobe, nor was it, yet, called Photoshop. In 1987, it was called "Display", which then in 1988 the next version became "ImagePro". In 1989 Adobe acquired licensing, and Photoshop, as we now it in 2006, was created.

Thanks for the history lesson!

Ya know, it really does help to find out if something did, in fact, not exist, before adamantly and repeatedly claiming that it did not.
Misfit

But it was not widely commercially available until 1990...that's 3 years after the photo was taken. I think if the negatives of this photograph of Jesus were available it would settle this matter with finality. Gonna see if I can find out what became of them.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by SkyWay]

jesus was black, so no that doesnt look like jesus

Originally posted by DalairTheGreat
jesus was black, so no that doesnt look like jesus

WOW! You mean He wasn't a blue-eyed blond?!! Hold the presses! We have an exclusive story here!

Seriously though, since Jesus is God, and God created all of the races, then He can present Himself as any of them, or a blend of ALL of them.

Skyway,
By that logic, Jesus could present himself as Robert Goulet. So there you have it....

Jesus is Robert Goulet

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
You believe some piece of art from the early 20th century that someone altered is a photo of Christ and I need the oxygen huh? That's funny. There is no proof this alleged photo was taken in 1987, much less that its even a photo. Where is the negative? Some hoaxer doctored up the drawing (pick any year you want ) and made false claims. The Nun in question probably doesn't even exist.

Your thinking is a bit careless and self-contradictory. You must have difficulty admitting ANYTHING is real. You can't even accept a living person! The nun is quite real and is in a convent in Rome....has been there for many years. You probably have difficulty believing what you see when you look in a mirror. Actually, you ARE unbelievable! LOL!

First of all, the shadows are added and embellished. They cant be used as a reference. That is why I chose physical features and not the material that was added to alter the photo. Man, are you a brick shy of a full load or what?

Man are your critical faculties ever limited. You remind me of a certain politician in Washington.
Read carefully the following words. If material was added to alter the photo in order to hoax people, then certainly the hoaxers could as easily have altered everything else. They would not have thought of altering the shadows and not thought of doing the same to the features. Your head could block X-rays.

I'm refraining real hard from blatantly calling you a fool because that would not be helpful to the discussion. The lines I drew show that both images are exactly the same, even down to the edge of the garment. The part in the hair lines up perfectly down to the cup of the upper lip in both images. Anyone and everyone except your poor, confused self can see this. You are either demented, a religious zealout, or are indeed a poor, misguided fool. Your argument that this is indeed a photo of Christ is weak. Where is your evidence? Tons have been laid out for you here to counter such a gibberish idea. But you reject it nonetheless. If I was you, I would be pretty embarrassed. Unless of course you are a troll, posting controversial topics and taking a ludicrous stance just to draw reactions. I refuse to play your sick game anymore. You are alone in your conviction that this is a photo of anybody, much less Christ. Skip church and see your therapist. this thread needs locked if not deleted!

LOL! You sound sound so desperate! I think the only thing that needs locking up is you in a place where you can't hurt yourself!



[edit on 28-9-2006 by SkyWay]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Skyway,
By that logic, Jesus could present himself as Robert Goulet. So there you have it....

Jesus is Robert Goulet

Of course He could...that doesn't mean that He does. Well, at least you were half right.