Are you okay with worshipping the image of some violent Italian?
Catholics love to demonize the Borgias because it lets them deflect mentions of a less illustrious period in the history of the Mother Church. Just those filthy Spaniards defiling their fair institution, you see.
Cesare wasn't particularly violent by the standards of his age. He was admired by his contemporaries for his intelligence, good looks and princely demeanor. Machiavelli regarded him highly and it wasn't just because he had a crush on him.
>all these buttmad chriskeks facing identity crisis in every thread about religion
I didn't know Borgia was alive in 500 AD
He was a Jew. And a Jew at a time before the Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim and so on became seperated entities.
To a Christian, his skin tone is irrelevant.
>Romans weren't white
White isn't something that is defined very well. Marcus Antonius would certainly pass for white in New York City though judging from busts.
Jesus probably looked like pic related desu
I would like to interject (as a christian, though not a catholic) that the auto-da-fe(s, technically) didn't happen until the church let the local monarchs name their own inquisitors. The Spanish for example made their own courts and bureaucracies. They, the Spanish government, started an inquisitorial court in Barcelona, when there was still discontent and people where committing crimes against the crown; notice that of the 1000 or so charged, only 25 where absolved.
Jesus wasn't even depicted with a beard before the 3rd century IIRC
also fun fact: some early frescoes depicted him as dark-skinned
Some art historians think that the stylization of the face of Jesus is from the Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin is a product of the medieval period, and the face on it is entirely consistent with depiction of Jesus from the time.
It's not the other way around. The earliest depictions of Jesus were much different than the ones of the medieval period.
This is from the 6th Century.
The Cesare Borgia meme started with Alexander Dumas.
Ya nobody takes the 1979 carbon dating as accurate anymore. The sample was taken from a rewoven corner of the linen.
Might well be a medieval forgery but nobody has any idea how the image was formed.
Don't be so focused on what mountain we should worship OP.
No one has offered a criticism of the radicarbon dates that has been universally accepted. At least not that I've seen.The first mention of the Shroud is in a letter from the bishop stating that it's a fake and the artist who did it is know. And this letter matches the carbon dating range (which is also the height of the medieval relic craze). Yes, the date could be wrong, but that's an interesting coincidence.
As far as how the image was produced, a few people have produced pretty good replicas. And in different ways, too, so it's not like it's a mysterious supernatural technique would be needed. Surprisingly, wikipedia actually gives a pretty good summary.
In general, it's pretty hard to find reliable information about the shroud, because the vast majority of information sources are Christian-based. When you get beyond them, things like the provenience of the shroud and artistic problems (wrong fabric, wrong image, several anatomical issues) make it a pretty obvious forgery.