Now I'm confused:

matthew wrote:My conviction that it is [the shroud Jesus was buried in] is based on overwhelming scientific evidence.

matthew wrote:I. . . have. . . found alot [sic] of "we can't explain the shroud" from the scientific community.

Make up your mind!

ETA: In any event, it doesn't matter too much to this thread. Even if the shroud bears an image of Jesus Christ, it has to be distorted: you can't map a three-dimensional face onto a two-dimensional cloth in this way and have it look like a photograph. Also, it tells us nothing about his skin color or hair color. For my part, I can't decide whether I believe in it or not. I can't really bring myself to care. I guess I'm leaning toward a possibility that matthew hasn't appeared to consider: that it is neither Christ nor a hoax. Couldn't it be someone else's shroud?

i will accept jesus was white when it is proved elvis was black.

*robots*
"i am...the original....black elvis"

God is white, so his sacred DNA overruled Mary's human DNA and produced a white baby.

This is what i believe, and it's up to you to provide scientific evidence that i'm wrong.

Latent imaging techniques, which some scholars say didn't exist until the 19th century but others insist appeared as early as the 12th, explain the negative image. And didn't carbon dating put this whole thing to rest? Or at least show that, whatever it may be, it's not the shroud of Jesus?

Here are a few approximations of how Jesus, as a Semitic man in the Ancient Near East, might have looked:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Here are a few approximations of how Jesus, as a Semitic man in the Ancient Near East, might have looked:

Jesus on the thud-staff


What would Jesus do? Jesus would jam econo mofo

Linus Van Pelt wrote:For my part, I can't decide whether I believe in it or not.

Really?

You can't decide if you believe that an image of Jesus Christ was transferred onto cloth 1900 years before photo transfer was even thought about?

Really?

No, this shroud is not bonafide. I think it's been pretty well established that the fabric is from the middle ages.


With respect to the actual topic about white jesus.
Yeah, it's pretty retarded. Not the worst offense that christianity has done. It's easier to find common ground with someone who looks like you.

If I was on the the "How Jesus Looks" Committee, I'd go with bug eyes and green scales. If he's the son of god, he'd better look like it!

Ty Webb wrote:Latent imaging techniques, which some scholars say didn't exist until the 19th century but others insist appeared as early as the 12th, explain the negative image. And didn't carbon dating put this whole thing to rest? Or at least show that, whatever it may be, it's not the shroud of Jesus?

According to "Dr." Kent Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism, carbon dating is a sham. Read all about it here!