• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up

Augustus

Augustus

…
JJ50 said:
Jesus would have been of Middle Eastern appearance of course.
Click to expand...

What is 'Middle Eastern' appearance? It is a very wide spectrum.

We think of modern concepts like 'Europeans' and 'Middle Easterners', but these are very arbitrary constructs. 2000 years ago people in the coastal areas of the Mediterranean were likely pretty similar, there was really a Mediterranean civilisation. Demographics changed to some extent post Arab conquests, but in many places 'Arabisation' was really a cultural process not a genetic one.

A Palestinian Jew from 2000 years ago probably looked pretty similar to a Mediterranean 'Southern European' (Greek, Cypriot, etc) or an Anatolian 'Turk' or a Levantine 'Arab'. Genetically, these populations are still pretty similar today.

So a 'European' Med might be closer to a 'Semitic' Med than they are to a Frankish European or the 'Semitic' Med is to a 'Semitic' Arab.
 
Terese

Terese

Mangalam Pundarikakshah
Staff member
Premium Member
corynski said:
Terese, what you are saying to me is that reality takes second place to what you believe. If reality doesn't fit, or is awkward, substitute that which you can imagine. For example, Christians never seem to confront the reality of why Jesus' divinity went unnoticed for 30 years. Today, the smallest occurrence that could suggest anything supernatural is immediately known locally and quickly becomes known in a wider circle by word of mouth. Or why is there no archeological evidence of the Jews leaving Egypt, something considered 'common knowledge'? I think it centers around what an individual wants to believe, as it has been for thousands and thousands of years as humans evolved........ science, or the establishment of a recorded and corroborated 'reality', is but hundreds of years old, and is coming after humans have used belief as a basis for decisions, and social structure, rather than reality.
Belief is so easy, so accessible, and when one belief doesn't work, there is always another that can be thought up instantly....... Compare that process to science that requires substantiation and corroboration of everything........
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you fully read my post, but i was not talking about whether Jesus is real, or if he is divine or not. My post was about artistic interpretations of Jesus.
 
Windwalker

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Augustus said:
Hold the front page: Artwork reflects cultural environment of artist shocker! :D
Click to expand...
That is exactly the point. What imageries of the divine we create will always reflect the culture that creates them, otherwise how does the culture relate itself to it? I'm not sure why anyone is mystified by this and considers "science" to be the bringing of real truth here. That's kind of absurd. New Flash: Science Replaces Art in New Study of "What is Real"!
o_O
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Nothing like cherry picking some images to make a pre-determined point. It took me only a couple of minutes to find yet another image, this one from 1490.

Vincenzo_Foppa_3.jpg
 
Nakosis

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Skwim said:
38352316042_204ff717f8_b.jpg


"Forensic anthropologists, geneticists, and other scientists have come up with a picture of Jesus much different from the one most of us are familiar with. Using the best techniques available to science, they have come up with a “best guess” image of what a male individual living in that place and at that time would have looked like. Not an image of Jesus, but a general idea of his appearance. The results? Jesus had dark rather than light-colored eyes, he was bearded as was the practice in Jewish tradition of the day, and his hair was probably short with tight curls.

The average height of a Semite male at that time and place was approximately 5’1,” and he would have weighed in at around 110 pounds. Since he was a carpenter until the age of 30, working outdoors much of the time, scientists say he was probably muscular and physically fit. His face may have been weather beaten because of exposure to the elements and he may have appeared to be older than he was. So what emerges is an image of a short, muscular man with short, curly brown hair, a dark and swarthy complexion reflecting his Middle Eastern roots."
source​

38352106172_7773afc539_b.jpg


.​
Click to expand...

People create their own image of God. Once Jesus became a God, reality didn't matter.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
sunrise123 said:
Nothing like cherry picking some images to make a pre-determined point. It took me only a couple of minutes to find yet another image, this one from 1490.
Click to expand...
Not cherry picking at all; I have no horse in the race. I was merely pointing out the range in differences in the portrayal of Jesus. Want to slip in your Renaissance version go right ahead.


.
 
Last edited:
corynski

corynski

Reality First!
Premium Member
Terese said:
I'm not sure if you fully read my post, but i was not talking about whether Jesus is real, or if he is divine or not. My post was about artistic interpretations of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry, I assumed when you said 'his teachings' that you believed him to be a real person. Yes, I agree teachings are teachings from whatever source.......
 
Grandliseur

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
38352316042_204ff717f8_b.jpg


"Forensic anthropologists, geneticists, and other scientists have come up with a picture of Jesus much different from the one most of us are familiar with. Using the best techniques available to science, they have come up with a “best guess” image of what a male individual living in that place and at that time would have looked like. Not an image of Jesus, but a general idea of his appearance. The results? Jesus had dark rather than light-colored eyes, he was bearded as was the practice in Jewish tradition of the day, and his hair was probably short with tight curls.

The average height of a Semite male at that time and place was approximately 5’1,” and he would have weighed in at around 110 pounds. Since he was a carpenter until the age of 30, working outdoors much of the time, scientists say he was probably muscular and physically fit. His face may have been weather beaten because of exposure to the elements and he may have appeared to be older than he was. So what emerges is an image of a short, muscular man with short, curly brown hair, a dark and swarthy complexion reflecting his Middle Eastern roots."
source​

38352106172_7773afc539_b.jpg


.​
Click to expand...
If you google for male Jews, you would find the appearance of your Jewish figure ugly, unpleasant and totally depicted in a poor light.
https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/dis...s-his-acoustic-guitar-and-sings-632439497.jpg

Add a beard here:
http://beauty-around.com/images/sampledata/Jewish_Men/9Noah Wyle.jpg

There is no need to portray our Lord as an ugly person at all. All you need is the ethnicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top