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
Monty Python has alrady addressed this issue.
Brian: “I’m not a roman mum, I’m a kike, a yid, a heebie, a hook-nose, I’m kosher mum, I’m a Red Sea pedestrian, and proud of it!”
>> You seem quite knowledgeable, so let me pose the question to you: Do you know of any command of God to Christians to draw/paint/sculpt/display images of Jesus? <<
Know any command of God to Freep?
YES, already. I have "such" a command. The matter at hand is how we choose to interpret it based on which translation we read. You can continue to be pious and holier than thou if you so choose. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion. For example, contingent on the translation one uses, one can say that there is a commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Some people interpret this rigidly and suggest that even self defense and just war are in violation of the commandment. Others look to interpretations that suggest that one shall not commit murder. This has been the topic of much worthy debate which I think brings about a greater understanding on both parts.
Now, you can sit there and hold that your interpretation of the commandments is the definitive, end-all, uncontested interpretation, but in doing so, I would suggest that you are violating the very first of them.
If you wish to continue to pose as God and tell me that I should have no other interpretation of the commandments apart from yours, then you should just render your judgment and damn me because I disagree with you. If on the other hand you're man enough to admit that, well...you're man, and like any other man, may have an imperfect or skewed interpretation of God's word, then we can continue to discuss this...as two men who both believe firmly in God, and may disagree on how He works in our lives.
Your call.
I alway picture Jesus as looking like a tell Robert Reich.
Since you refuse to produce any indication that God wishes us to draw/paint/sculpt/display images of Jesus, would we be correct in assuming you have no authority for it?
If you have no authority for it, how would you suggest we proceed?
tell=tall
Well, whether you personally choose to "buy" it or not is irrelevant.
Jesus was not a Nazarite. He drank products of the vine - and the passover ritual is not the ritual that allowed him to do so, per Numbers 6. Instead, for Jesus to have been a Nazarite, and then have finished his vow, and thus be able to partake of wine, He would need to have shaved his head. He would also have needed to bring a lamb, a ram, and a basket of unleavened bread to the priests at the temple as an offering, and then had the priest make a wave offering of the shoulder of the ram and some of the unleavened bread before Him. Then, he could have drank fruit of the vine. Obviously, we see nothing of the kind happening, so the blithe assumption that "Jesus was a Nazarite, except He drank wine ritually" is simply an unsupported assumption.
Also, if Jesus were a Nazarite, he would not have raised Lazarus or the widow of Nain's son from the dead, because one of the laws of the Nazarite was that they could not "come at" a dead body - which basically means to be in the presence of or in the same place as a dead body - not just that He couldn't *touch* one. I suppose that the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead could have been accomplished on a technicality.
We can be pretty sure in saying that Matthew is making the "netser" play on words because that is wholly in line with the Messianic emphasis of Matthew's whole passage, and indeed Matthew's whole gospel, which highlight's the "kingly" aspects of Christ. He cites several OT prophecies about the Messiah, right in a row, and the "Nazarene" one is right in the middle. Context says Matthew is making a play on words involving Isaiah 11:1. The purpose and thrust of the gospel says he is doing so. So, there's no reason to try to read in some unsubstantiated and acontextual stuff about Jesus being a Nazarite.
While the root verb "natsar" does have a meaning associated with "watchers," I don't think it's in the Book of Enoch sense of the term (which, in the Scripture, would correspond more closely to the Aramaic term 'iyr that appears in Daniel twice). Natsar, when translated as "keeper, watchmen" etc. always has the meaning of a purely human person who is guarding something (i.e. a city wall, etc.)
While watching and guarding may be an overtone of Messiah's role (especially in the sense of Messiah as a teacher of the nation, in which case He is watching and guarding the Word of God), the particular form "netser" as it appears in Isaiah 11:1 and three other places - in messianic prophecies - refers to a branch or green shoot. This etymology for this noun probably comes from the secondary sense of the root natsar, which involved one sense of guarding as "guarding vineyards" (itself having interesting messianic applications), hence comes the reference to the green shoots associated with sprouting vines - this is something suggested by the Arabic cognate to this verb, at least.
Another problem, this one involving the shroud of Turin - If Jesus’ beard had been plucked out, as we know it was and as you yourself agreed to, then if the shroud of Turin shows the image of Christ, then why does it have a beard?
I think a lot of it has to do with whether you intend to worship the image or use it as a "worship aid," or not.
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic here. There are lots of things that aren't "commanded" that we do that are perfectly fine. I just don't understand how this is hard. It says do not create a image and worship it. Verse 5 says "You shall not bow down to THEM or worship THEM"<-------. What is THEM? The false Images and Idols. It's the same basic thing when God allowed his followers to own anything. Job owned a ton of stuff that the Bible does not command you to have and yet he was Righteous. Because he DID NOT WORSHIP THEM (not yelling, just want to emphasize).
>> Jesus was not a Nazarite. [10,000 words of well-written, but irrelevant proofs that he was not a Nazarite.] <<
Once again, I didn’t say Jesus was a Nazarite. I said he was taken for one.
The same thing applies. Nobody would have *thought* he was one, either. In fact, if it were thought He were a Nazarite, then why would they have said he was "a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners..."?
Being a Nazarite would have been a pretty obvious thing - yet I don't see anything in what you've presented that would suggest people thought He was one.
*** 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. ***
You are quite wrong here, and it falsifies your whole “Nazarite” concoction. There are no Nazarites mentioned in the New Testament. In the Old Trestament we have only Samson mentioned, and he was from the Danite city of Zorah, about half the way direct westerly from Jericho to the Mediterranean coast. The term “Nazarite” has absolutely no connection with any geographical location. And Jesus was a
_Nazarene_ (which means “from Nazareth”), from the Nazareth of Galilee. That is where he was raised, not where he was born. Furthermore, you need to be notified that this Jesus was born at Bethlehem, not Nazareth.
The “obviousness” of a “pun” by Matthew is your fabrication out of the whole cloth. The Bible is not a jokebook. Have you discussed this supposition with Matthew? or with the Holy Ghost guiding him?
Also the Holy Scriptures in 1 Cor. 11:14 says “Doth not even nature itself tell you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Regarding priests under the Law, “Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.” In addition, “Neither shall they drink wine, when they enter into the inner court.” (Ezekiel 44:20,21). You do wrest the Scripture
here, claiming authority to negate it (2 Peter 3:15-17).
Finally, there are 10 absolute reasons from the Scripture why, in fulfilling the law, Christ was not to, and did never make, drink, or give others, or urge any fermented wine (esp. nor did he use it in ordaining the remembrance supper). To think so illustrates complete ignorance of his character and his holiness.
Likewise, yes, he may have had a beard (every adult man does), but of its length of any particular day we do not know. It might have been longer after the forty day testing, eh? But immediately after, the angels ministered unto him. Did they perhaps not only prepare a meal, but also clean his clothes, trim his beard, and cut his hair? Hmmmm. He certainly usually had well-trimmed (not effeminate) hair, neither habitually shaven nor habitually overlong for the custom of decent appearance. I doubt that he looked or acted like a bum in the normal course of his ministry.
Am I mistaken in my Gospel writers here? Did St. Luke also paint?
Did he ever paint a picture of Christ?
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.