Shroud of Turn
Holy Face of Vienna
Christ Pantocrator
4th century catacomb
Posted on 03/04/2011 6:27:07 AM PST by dangus
It is commonly claimed that we have little idea what Jesus looked like. Some have even gone to such despicable extremes as to describe traditional depictions of Jesus as looking like an "effeminate hippy." The truth is that although some images of Jesus have made him look overly European, we do have a good sense of what he looked like.
Jesus had a beard. To shave off one's beard was a great dishonor (see 1 Sam 21, 2 Sam 10:4, Isaiah 50:6). One particular humiliation the Messiah withstood was that the centurions plucked out his beard (Isaiah 50:6); certainly they were grabbing significant portions, not just a few day's growth.
Jesus probably did have long hair. The Gospel of Matthew states that the birth of Jesus "fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene (2:23)." In context, Matthew is obviously making a play on the fact that Jesus was born in Nazareth, but prophesy isn't dismissed by a pun, and the prophecy plainly referred to the a Nazarite.
Nazarites were people who atoned for the sins of the people by making sacrifices of their bodies. (Sound familiar?) They abstained from strong drink and grape products. Since Jesus didn't do this, one might suppose that he was not a Nazarite. (Actually, as Luke 5:33 records it, his disciples didn't abstain from drink, there's no reason to suppose Jesus drank apart from ritual.) On the other hand, it confounded people that he didn't do this, which suggests he may have been regarded as a Nazarite, or appeared to be one. So how does one appear to be a Nazarite?
Nazarites didn't cut or groom their hair. As such, they were considered offensive and humiliated in Jewish culture, which began to assume that they were atoning for their own sins, even though this was in opposition to scripture! (See Lam. 4:7, Amos 2:11). The fact that long hair was considered shameful (1 Cor 11:14), thus, shouldn't be considered evidence that Jesus didn't have long hair, since Jesus bore our shame (Isaiah 53:4).
Jesus was fairly ordinary looking, for his time and place. Isaiah 52:14 notes that "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him." But this doesn't mean he looked perfectly typical. The Talmud depicts Adam as a majestic and beautiful giant; one might have expected the Messiah to look like a Son of God. (The Sons of God were a race of giants, see Gen. 6:2.) We shouldn't discount the possibility that he was rather tall, or forget that recent growth in mankind's average height is a result of better diet, not genetic change. Contrary to the recent assertions of the History channel, There is no reason to believe Jesus was rather short.
He was, however, gaunt. As a carpenter, he probably had been fairly muscular, since carpentry involved real labor. But the bible tells of frequent fasting, including one fast of forty days with no food at all (Mat 4:2). By the time he was crucified, he was so thin, you could count all his bones (Psalm 22:17).
Lastly, it's not necessarily true that we have no record of his appearance. Eastern Christian tradition, not infallible, but not baseless, either, asserts that the evangelist Luke was a physician and a painter, and that although Luke's images are lost, the iconic images of Christ Pantocrator are based on them. Christ Pantocrator is consistent with scripture: Bearded, slender, long-haired.. and very Jewish looking. It's also consistent with the numerous supposedly miraculous images of Christ, such as Veronica's veil and the Shroud of Turin. Among scripture and these images, we have a very good sense of what Jesus looked like, indeed.
Shroud of Turn
Holy Face of Vienna
Christ Pantocrator
4th century catacomb
Maybe we can split the difference and say that they gave him a Franz Joseph? Or maybe even a Hulihee?
Thanks for sharing the video. Awesome in every way.
No, but of course in this instance (a painting, of Christ), we aren’t worshiping the painting, the artist (and hopefully) many of it’s viewers are worshiping Him!~
Let me ask you something, during prayer with God, do you sometimes have a “picture” of Christ in your mind that you pray/talk to?
>> It says don’t make a graven image. Then it says don’t bow down nor worship/serve graven images. Nowhere does it say, “Don’t make a graven image that you plan to bow down and worship.” <<
Do you know what a “graven image” is? Most dictionary say “graven” is a past participle of “grave.” The problem is that I can’t find “grave” defined as a verb. A past participle is a form of a verb. Actually, the verb “grave” means to “dig.” So we’re not to bow down to dug images?
Turns out that’s King James’ translation of “Pcl,” which means “idol.” The Septuagint simply translated this, “god.” So unless the image is an idol, you can make it, which is why protestants carry photos of their kids in their wallet; build statues of their heroes, even, ironically, their iconoclastic heroes; and why it was perfectly fine for the Israelites to forge images of seraphim.
Well said, dangus. That was a good article, and I agree, we have a good idea what Our Lord looked like.
Yup. I’m arguing that it’s OK to make an image of Christ.
One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people, I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected, so great was the difference between him and those listening to him. His golden-colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between him and his hearers, with their black beards and tawny complexions!
No b/c the second part completes the thought/comment/command. It show’s it is refering to anything you worship above God. IE, material wealth, people, self, and pictures.
If you look up an exact translation you will find it’s refering to a “carved” image, which implies Idol. Which, some translations just say idol. An idol being something you hold higher than God. Which is what he’s commanding. Don’t hold anything higher than me. Which can be anything.
In the first verse it talks about things in heaven above or earth below. So if you just take the first verse without context. Having anything on earth is not good. Which is not true. I’ll refer to Job again. He had multiple flocks, lots of land, and a lot of possessions. But he did not worship them, therefore, he was considered Righteous.
It sure is. That little girl and her parents are so blessed.
So you’re saying I can make a graven image without violating God’s command to not make a graven image? As long as I don’t bow down or worship the graven image He said not to make, it’s okay for me to skip over the part about not making it?
Interesting, but not evidentiary. Pontius Pilate’s letter to Tiberius Caesar is part of a spurious work called “the Acts of Pilate,” which shifted blame entirely away from Romans and squarely onto the Jews alone. But even it doesn’t match what you have written. Any better sourcing?
Let's take Michelangelo's Pieta as an example.
Following your line of reasoning you would have to concur that:
1. God blessed Michelangelo with an incredible gift and talent that has hardly if ever been surpassed, but did not intend him to sculpt the figure of Christ.
2. God provided for Michelangelo's birth in a time and place where those talents could be fostered and funded, yet did not intend for him to use them as they were employed.
3. At some time immemorial, God created a block of pure carrera marble in which Michelangelo saw the figure of Mary cradling the deposed Christ, but did not desire that he sculpt it. Furthermore, God planted that rock in the earth which sat there for millions of years only to be coincidentally quarried at the height of Michelangelo's art, but it was not intended to be sculpted as it was?
4. Michelangelo and countless other artists who has ever rendered Christ are burning in hell for their mortal sin (lest of course, they repented for their artwork.)
That's a pretty tough line of reasoning to follow. How do you know so certainly that any artist who has represented Christ was not Divinely inspired or even commanded?
In fact, in your post, you typed the word "God." In doing so, YOU rendered a graphic representation of the Deity using visual symbols (i.e. the letters G-O-D). Now, I'm pretty certain you don't worship the letters "G-O-D" do you? The issue at hand is that different people communicate in means other than you. Some do it in English, some in Spanish, some in Latin and some in Russian. Some do it visually, some do it through the spoken word, some do it in poetry and some in song, all according to their gifts and blessings. Just because they communicate their thoughts and conceptions of God in different manners does not mean they worship the fruits of their labors, but merely the Deity they refer to as best fits their gifts and talents.
Matthew 28:19-20 commands each and every one of us to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Now in order to "teach all nations" we have to communicate. Suppose you (as many of the early evangelists did) arrive in a nation where the populace was largely illiterate and did not understand a word you were saying. It is incumbent on YOU to communicate those things as best possible. Give them all the English Bibles you own and your work is done, right? Wrong. Certainly you would want to learn their language, but just suppose you found out that the very best way to communicate with them was through visual symbols. Are you going to tell me you would refuse to share God's message with them, or at least refuse to communicate it as effectively as you might, and that God would desire it to be so?
I guess you are looking for online sourcing...I do not...you’ll have to go to the congressional records of 1887.
Seriously? Come on now. What is a "graven image"? An idol. What is an idol? Something you worship above God. Don't do that. It's not talking about JPEGs and BMP, nor paintings. It's talking about Idols. That is why many versions of the Bible have idol instead of graven images. What is your definition of graven images? If I'm understanding correctly it would be any images. And since the first verse says "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below", by what you've been saying, you better not having any picture frames in your house at all, nor basically anything.
“So if the Bible doesn’t explicitly command something it is forbidden?”
When a Commandment starts with “Thou shalt not” and ends with “graven images”, I’m thinkin’ it’s forbidden. But that’s just me; I could be wrong.
So when a commandment begins with "Thou shalt not" and ends with "kill" how do you explain what David did to Goliath. Was he breaking a commandment?
***Read Exodus. God commands all kinds of images to be created in the tabernacle, on vestments on the ark etc.***
God also commanded Moses to make a brazen serpent and put it on a pole. It was not to be venerated but centuries later the king of Judah destroyed it because the people had been burning incense to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.