Um, there was no such thing as a Jew back then. Jesus, if he existed, was a Judean according to the book of Matthew.
There is no specific description of Jesus in the Bible except that he was non-descript from other men in the region. He most certainly wouldn't have looked like a 1960's Caucasian hippy if he existed.
Now, about the Shroud; ANY claims about it being the death coverings of Jesus, may appear to be validated by science, but most people tend to make evidence fit their assumptions rather than assumptions fitting the evidence. There's no definitive evidence suggesting the Shroud was as religious people claim. IOW, it's a big "maybe", just like Jesus' existence in general.
And about science; science generally seeks out the facts regardless of where the facts lead. There are occasional hiccups in science, such as personal or group agendas that may skew issues for a while (for instance, tobacco companies' scientific research saying tobacco makes people healthier) or when honest science makes a blunder (for instance, a few of Darwin's analyses) but they disappear after more research.
Religion, on the other hand tends to limit its range and scope to belief in entirely groundless assumption and extreme improbabilities, or in the very least hope that humans are gullible enough to swallow the dogma and rhetoric.
There is no specific description of Jesus in the Bible except that he was non-descript from other men in the region. He most certainly wouldn't have looked like a 1960's Caucasian hippy if he existed.
Now, about the Shroud; ANY claims about it being the death coverings of Jesus, may appear to be validated by science, but most people tend to make evidence fit their assumptions rather than assumptions fitting the evidence. There's no definitive evidence suggesting the Shroud was as religious people claim. IOW, it's a big "maybe", just like Jesus' existence in general.
And about science; science generally seeks out the facts regardless of where the facts lead. There are occasional hiccups in science, such as personal or group agendas that may skew issues for a while (for instance, tobacco companies' scientific research saying tobacco makes people healthier) or when honest science makes a blunder (for instance, a few of Darwin's analyses) but they disappear after more research.
Religion, on the other hand tends to limit its range and scope to belief in entirely groundless assumption and extreme improbabilities, or in the very least hope that humans are gullible enough to swallow the dogma and rhetoric.