• 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

Terese

Terese

Mangalam Pundarikakshah
Staff member
Premium Member
corynski said:
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.......
Click to expand...
I did not say anything about Jesus' teachings in the post you quoted from me, but i forgive you :D

I do believe Jesus was a real person, and not divine, and to me whether he propounded love and mercy is up for debate for the scholars. Since people see Jesus as a beacon of love, it is quite nice to see him as just that, and i do myself.
 
Last edited:
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Grandliseur said:
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.
Click to expand...
Obviously, either you didn't bother to read the text in the OP, or you failed to understand it. :shrug:

/
 
W

whirlingmerc

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...
Probably dark haired and olive skinned. Probably not tall. The Bible doesn't dwell on his looks.... he did have a beard...
 
Grandliseur

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
Obviously, either you didn't bother to read the text in the OP, or you failed to understand it. :shrug:

/
Click to expand...
I saw none of your comments, only the following:
"
"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.


. 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.
"​
In this, there is a comment to his hair length, "and his hair was probably short with tight curls." If you look at some of the descriptions, one perhaps, of David's sons, their hair was not short Roman style that the west adopted from them. Short hair was many times shoulder length. However, nothing is stated in scripture about it so all is speculation. I resent the fact that the Jewish picture they generated is ugly as hell. I have seen Jews, none of them as ugly as this picture.

What in particular did you not like in my post? The one before!

If you have been to European museums depicting clothes from soldiers and noblemen from 1800-1900, you will see people who are very short. In just a hundred years, our diet has caused huge changes in people's sizes. Depending on the diet of ancient Jews, perhaps he was about 5'1" to 5'5" - I am not going to dispute this, but that ugly bugger they drew - its offensive.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
38 There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”
​
Click to expand...
Good evening.



I don't think there is actually any inference, inherently, to the 'king of the jews' label; this was an occupying army, if anything that label simply means that the romans were in control of the area, etc. No inference to anything there, imo, except a general remark.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
But as you say, there are few hints as to Jesus' appearance in the gospels. You've mentioned the inferences from his being of tradesman class socially and being a carpenter.


​
Click to expand...

Hereditary trade, carpenter, fisherman by actual trade, it seems. There are numerous verses referencing Jesus's work as fishing, and verses referring to ideas associated with fishing.​
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
syncretic said:
I don't think there is actually any inference, inherently, to the 'king of the jews' label; this was an occupying army, if anything that label simply means that the romans were in control of the area, etc. No inference to anything there, imo, except a general remark.
Click to expand...
It doesn't mean he was king of the Jews, since he wasn't. It isn't an honorific, since he was a criminal undergoing execution. It has to be a mock, surely.

And it's possible that such a mock wouldn't work for a figure of heroic build.

Or so it seems to me.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
There was no point in mocking inference to be directed at the israelites, as if they were going to side with the romans, on the joke. This is merely either direct mock, or mock/notation, as Jesus had many followers. The romans were pagan, not following Jesus's 'jewish' opponents.


Hence the inference you are theorizing, seems far fetched, imo.


The differing portrayals may be because there were more than one holy man, and therefore more than one person is being portrayed.

I know what your argument is, I'm suggesting you consider alternative ideas as well.




happy holidays
 
Last edited:
Jainarayan

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
JJ50 said:
As nothing was apparently written down when he was alive, it is highly unlikely any so called eye witnesses would have remembered word for word what he had to say.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. His sayings could have been written then hidden from the authorities. Consider the Dead Sea Scrolls hidden in caves. Moreover, and this part could be a stretch: there could have been closeted Roman and Greek sympathizers among his followers. The Romans and Greeks were notorious for writing everything down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top