Is this a Photo of Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by SkyWay

The picture that probedbygray compared to the photo did have the date when it was made but it does not look like the image of Jesus in the photo. The two are quite different. The picture posted by probed has blue eyes instead of dark eyes such as in the photo that I posted, and the probed's picture has rather light coloring to his hair but the photo of Jesus has very dark hair. The features are also different.

the lightness and darkness of the two pictures meant little to me seeing as we can adjust those things easily and they do adjust themselves whenever a picture is copied. What I found similar is the artists expression of the face of Jesus. It has the same spirit to it. I figured it was the same artist using the same model, except the model was looking away slightly in the picture I found. I didn't think they were the exact same picture, just that they were made by the same artist using the same model.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by probedbygrays]

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
If you look at the drawing I found, regardless of the date of it, it is identical to your "photo". Lay one on top of the other and its a perfect match. If your image was a "photo" of Jesus, why would someone want to make it a drawing? Kind of defeats the purpose of having a miracle photograph doesn't it. I think it is much more plausible and reasonable that someone took the drawing and tried to hoax a photo, and a poor one at that. An early poster in this thread commented on the brush strokes visible in the hair of your image. This would be evidence of image manipulation in a program like photoshop.
Here is what a photo of Jesus would look like, being as a supreme, divine entity like Jesus would have no problems causing the perfect miracle and image to appear on film.
[edit on 9/23/2006 by Jeddyhi]

The date of the drawing you presented is crucial because you claim that one was made from the other. Therefore your entire claim hinges on the prior existence of the picture you present. This should be obvious to you. You are jumping to conclusions. The wrong conclusions.

Originally posted by SkyWay
Misfit, I was addressing my comment to Jeddyhi when I said that the date of the drawing had been neglected.

And I was addressing the resolve of that issue of it being neglected.

Originally posted by SkyWay
The two are quite different...........The features are also different.

To think the two figures in this photo you and I have just referrenced are not one in the same figure in two different renderings is ...... well, jeez, some serious denial.

Misfit

Originally posted by UnrealZA
Skyway,

You chastise others for not believing this to be true, you correct them for being so quick to discount it yet you will avoid all evidence that points to this being nothing more than a artist drawing. You will make up some excuse that the "evidence" against it is tainted, incorrect or that the drawing MUST of come from the real picture.

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.

God gave us His word and in that word God tells mankind very clearly that his morals are always in the toilet. Has mankind listened to those warnings and changed? NO! Yet a poloroid of Jesus will? In this case a picture is NOT worth a thousand words.

Think

I am not, in any way, suggesting that a photo is worth more than the Word of God. In fact, I am not even comparing the two. All I am doing is presenting a photo of the One who gave us His Word. I admire your high regard for the Word of God.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by SkyWay]

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]

Originally posted by Misfit
I can't hold my tongue again. This is the third time, that I've caught, mention of the validity of the nun.

To that, I offer this ...........

Q:

Originally posted by UnrealZA

For why would a nun lie?

A:

Why would a priest rape?




Note: UnrealZA - I do see your stance, just using your referrence as a spring board.

Misfit

Edit: Children, can you say "Vesere Lysdexia"?

[edit on 23/9/06 by Misfit]

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

Be back later.

My version of the 'Jesus photo' using the painting of Jesus



Thanks to Jeddyhi for finding this painting / drawing of Jesus on the web. Although I've done this using only the levels in photoshop in 2 mins, its perfectly possible to replicate the exposure of this image by someone developing a photo of that painting.

I probably could have gotten it bang on the money if I'd spent another couple of mins. Now I realise that people with a lot of faith will say that maybe the original painting was copied form the photo, but I feel it brings enough suspicion of faking to the table to at least seriously doubt it.

Wayne...

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]

Originally posted by elitegamer23
is this a photo of jesus?
NO , jesus died 2000 years ago and the first photograph was made in 180 years ago so you tell me, is this a photo of jesus?

thousands of years ago the strongest army had the most numbers.

a bit later the strongest armies had the most numbers, and the tools.

a bit later the strongest armies had the most numbers, and the tools, and the highground on the hill, with the sun behind them to blind the eyes of their enemies.

a bit later the strongest armies added technologies to their arsenal.

not too long ago the "highest ground" became the air, when flight and safe landing were both found to be true.

but, what will the highest ground be?

what will the highest army at the battle for the highest ground be fought for?

TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and when will it be fought for, when will they fight for control of time?

if it is ever fought, then it has already happened, and it has already been won.

ophiuchus, the silly odd man in the nude with only his truth, your truth, and the words of truth.

silly odd man. i'll name him "som"

what i'm thinkin now that i've seen that translated page describing how the picture i found is also a photo of Jesus created by miracle, is that the older dated identical painting to Anna's photo is also a miracle apparition and that's why it is identical.

Because the picture I thought was made by the same artist was a miracle and Anna Ali claims her's to be a miracle, so it's kind of obvious to me that whatever force is creating these highly similar pictures is moving around from place to place, time to time. That's why the pictures are similar, because they are being created by the same spiritual being or by beings using the same image to project.

There's a lot of people including myself who have seen apparitions of The Holy Mother and they are almost identical too.




[edit on 23-9-2006 by probedbygrays]

Originally posted by probedbygrays
so it's kind of obvious to me that whatever force is creating these highly similar pictures is moving around from place to place, time to time. That's why the pictures are similar, because they are being created by the same spiritual being or by beings using the same image to project.

you were typing these words before you read my post.

do you understand?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by probedbygrays
so it's kind of obvious to me that whatever force is creating these highly similar pictures is moving around from place to place, time to time. That's why the pictures are similar, because they are being created by the same spiritual being or by beings using the same image to project.

you were typing these words before you read my post.

do you understand?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

yeah I thought it brilliant how we were both writing about the use of time at the same time without knowing it. It's the collective mind at work I guess

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]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by SkyWay

I believe the photo actually IS of the Lord.

having not yet known yourself, or your first truth .. ... ..
perhaps you should know yourself first, be your judge before anyone else, and let the soul inside you be that judge. hold yourself to your own accord and be not afraid. then when you know yourself do not look at this photo, but look at a photo of yourself after you know yourself, small one.

It is good to know one's self to find out our imperfections and try to correct them. It is better to know God and try to become like Him.

It is the human face of the resurrected Jesus of Nazereth.

nazereth?

nazereth?

"i am the alpha and omega"

if when you looked in the alpha you found you are in LOVE, then replace the "n" in the alpha of "nazereth" and replace it with the "L" in the alpha of "LOVE".

nazereth?

"no". LAZERETH!!!!!!!

awaken your soul.

"i am the word".

and if the omega spoke, what would it say?

"lazereth, i am here, and i am the omega. since you looked inwards and judged yourself as being in "hell" instead of "heaven", here, hear, here, take my "h" from my alpha of "hell" and replace it with your alpha of "heaven". nothing changes except you awake:

lazereth? your last "h" is no longer "hell's "h", it is "heaven's "H"".

LazeretH [mirror "Of eye you choose, aka, Ophiuchus"] The rez all, the reason all, the resolve all, the resolve for reason is all.

just some thoughts, just some words. if they are not compatible with your truth, then disregard them. but if you find truth in these words, and i have not lied to you, please, i beg you: be not afraid.

Perfect love casts out fear. There is nothing to be afraid of in all of God's creation for those who love God.

Originally posted by probedbygrays
The only way to prove the photo is a copy of the sketch is to find the date of the sketch. It looks like a fairly old work. It just doesn't look like a photo of a person, it looks like a photo of a 2d painting or drawing. However pictures of Jesus are like the Flag and we give them great respect.

There will probably always be SOME resemblance between all paintings and drawings of Jesus. Does that mean that mean that the artist copied from each other? No. Just because more than one image of Jesus look similar does not mean there is any connection at all between them. The same applies to photo of Jesus. Just because there are similarities between the photo and some paintings and drawings of the Lord does not indicate, much less prove, that the photo was produced by photographing the paintings.

That is a very lovely picture of the Blessed Virgin and Christ child. Thanks for posting it.

Originally posted by SkyWay

It is good to know one's self to find out our imperfections and try to correct them. It is better to know God and try to become like Him.

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?

wouldn't they be one in the same, if one was listening truthfully to both inside and out for the answers?

Originally posted by probedbygrays

At 01:35 PM 8/25/96 +6, MR ANTHONY E VALLE wrote:
>I posted a message on APAR-L asking if anyone knew the year in which Sr.
>Anna Ali photographed Christ. I received 2 reponses..both being August of
1987.
>
>The reason I made this query is because my wife, Louise, received in 1973
>from Maryknoll Bishop Lane, an exact duplicate of the photograph shown on
>the Web. The point is that if Sr. Ali took the photograph prior to 1973, it
>could be considered genuine, but if she took it in August of 1987, it has
>to be considered spurious.

Just curious but could he not have appeared twice?

source

I just found the above words after a two minute search.

If this man or his wife have an exact duplicate of the photo of Jesus by Sister Anna then he should produce it so that everyone can see it. Just because he makes the claim doesn't mean it's true especially when he doesn't show it. And even if Mr. Valle showed a photo exactly like Sister Anna's, how are we to know that it isn't the actual picture the nun took and the man is only claiming that he had it before Sister Ali took her photo?

How can we be sure this man is an honest person? I'm not saying Mr. Valle is a liar but maybe he is mistaken about the date when his wife received her picture, or maybe it is just very similar and only APPEARS to be an "exact duplicate" but under closer examination and comparison would be found to have differences. We can't say for certain because he did not produce his picture for us to see.


[edit on 23-9-2006 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.

Originally posted by elitegamer23
is this a photo of jesus?

NO , jesus died 2000 years ago and the first photograph was made in 180 years ago so you tell me, is this a photo of jesus?

i didnt think anyone really knew what jesus absolutely looked like anyways.

Jesus died but then came back to life. He is able to appear to those whom He chooses. In this instance Jesus appeared to Sister Anna Ali and permitted her to photograph Him. Now you know what Jesus looks like.

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by SkyWay
Misfit, I was addressing my comment to Jeddyhi when I said that the date of the drawing had been neglected.

And I was addressing the resolve of that issue of it being neglected.

Originally posted by SkyWay
The two are quite different...........The features are also different.

To think the two figures in this photo you and I have just referrenced are not one in the same figure in two different renderings is ...... well, jeez, some serious denial.

Misfit

I was referring to the picture that was posted by probedbygray. The one you are presenting above is a drawing of the image of Jesus in the photo. This is why I wanted jeddyhi to provide the date when it was produced so that we would know that the drawing was made from the photo rather than the photo being made from the drawing as jeddyhi was claiming. Which would be impossible if the photo existed BEFORE the picture he posted.