The face of Jesus

Zombrex

The discussion about reconstructing the Neanderthal face on the Creationism thread got me thinking about another interesting forensic topic: What did Jesus look like

The classic image of Jesus, most likely modeled after the Greco-Roman god Zeus/Jupiter looks like this



Historically it is very unlikely that Jesus looked anything like that. Even based on Biblical reading he most likely didn't look anything like that.

Modern forensic reconstructed the face of a man found in Palistine from the time of Jesus and produced this image



I always wondered how Christians feel about these images. There is a scene in Spike Lee's Malcolm X where Washington playing Malcolm, argues with a priest in his prison over the ridiculous idea that Jesus was a white western European. Black African and American culture created the idea of the "Black Jesus"



This may seem ridiculous, but is it any more ridiculous than the centuries of viewing images of Jesus as a European?

To Christians today is it important what Jesus looked like? Which one of the images above would you be more comfortable with, or is how he look irrelevant?

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

To Christians today is it important what Jesus looked like? Which one of the images above would you be more comfortable with, or is how he look irrelevant?

Good post. I remember arguing with a Christian once, where she told me some Chinese person was in Jail for a crime they did not commit had a dream of Jesus who said pray to me and you will be free. The Chinese person prayed to Jesus, got free ergo Jesus is the son of God and Christianity is correct.
I wonder did Jesus look Chinese in that person's dream.

philologos

I'd say it's irrelevant what he looked like but I say that the picture of the man from Palestine is the most accurate.

BrianCalgary

Completely agree with Jakkass.

JimiTime

It has no relevence. None whatsoever. What i find ludicrous, is not that some picture him as a blue eyed european, its that they bother to argue over it.

heyjude

Jakkass wrote:

I'd say it's irrelevant what he looked like but I say that the picture of the man from Palestine is the most accurate.

Agreed, but the issue does seem to assume a critical importance with some people. Perhaps this is more understandable today, when people seem to have lost all perspective when judging the importance of image and appearance.

looksee

If God made man in His own image, why should man not see God in his own image?

PDN

I just finished this book:



I found it interesting that the cover shows a Middle Eastern, a Chinese, a European and an African Jesus.

Fallen Seraph

I rarely like portrait art, but I've always been really mesmerised by the reconstruceted palestine face as a portrait; whether it actually looks like jesus is irrelevant, but the fact that, as a portrait, it would be presented as his face combined with that inscrutable look I find really interesting; I can't figure out if it's a look of concern, dismay or hatred. As a picture I think it's great.

DinoBot

Hi,

Although when asked most people say its irrelevant of all the Christians I asked about
changing the traditional image of a European Jesus with one with would be more correct they all
disagreed.

I would be in favor of it. I see allot of racism in this country from people who have pictures
of jesus in their homes and cars. I think it would be less if they appreciated their god was a black man.

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I rarely like portrait art, but I've always been really mesmerised by the reconstruceted palestine face as a portrait; whether it actually looks like jesus is irrelevant, but the fact that, as a portrait, it would be presented as his face combined with that inscrutable look I find really interesting; I can't figure out if it's a look of concern, dismay or hatred. As a picture I think it's great.

I imagine he has that look because he is (afaik) about to be killed ... it is a bit of wtf look

philologos

DinoBot wrote:

Hi,

Although when asked most people say its irrelevant of all the Christians I asked about
changing the traditional image of a European Jesus with one with would be more correct they all
disagreed.

I would be in favor of it. I see allot of racism in this country from people who have pictures
of jesus in their homes and cars. I think it would be less if they appreciated their god was a black man.

I personally think it should be made more accurate. But I suppose it was drawn that way so the people of each area could relate to Jesus as their personal saviour. I really don't agree with it though.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote:

I personally think it should be made more accurate. But I suppose it was drawn that way so the people of each area could relate to Jesus as their personal saviour. I really don't agree with it though.

I personally don't think it should be drawn at all. It is of no relevance. Believers should not care about it and just let non-believers speculate. Unfortunately, catholocism places a huge amount of emphasis on idols and 'holy' pictures, medels and all kinds of trinkets. Actually, do any other churches have this kind of emphasis?

Tzetze

JimiTime wrote:

I personally don't think it should be drawn at all. It is of no relevance. Believers should not care about it and just let non-believers speculate. Unfortunately, catholocism places a huge amount of emphasis on idols and 'holy' pictures, medels and all kinds of trinkets. Actually, do any other churches have this kind of emphasis?

Not only churches have these kinds of emphasis, but all of manners of cultures and traditions around the globe have sacred talismans, trinkets and images.

Bill Hicks captured the nonsense of it all when he said (and I paraphrase), "If Jesus died in the earlier part of the 20th century, there'd be kids walking around with little electric chairs hanging around their necks!"

JimiTime

Tzetze wrote:

Not only churches have these kinds of emphasis, but all of manners of cultures and traditions around the globe have sacred talismans, trinkets and images.

Bill Hicks captured the nonsense of it all when he said (and I paraphrase), "If Jesus died in the earlier part of the 20th century, there'd be kids walking around with little electric chairs hanging around their necks!"

And there in lies a huge issue for me as a Christian. Idols of jesus on a cross etc, are closer to witchcraft IMO.

philologos

JimiTime wrote:

I personally don't think it should be drawn at all. It is of no relevance. Believers should not care about it and just let non-believers speculate. Unfortunately, catholocism places a huge amount of emphasis on idols and 'holy' pictures, medels and all kinds of trinkets. Actually, do any other churches have this kind of emphasis?

There are stained glass windows in a lot of Anglican churches.

hairyheretic

JimiTime wrote:

And there in lies a huge issue for me as a Christian. Idols of jesus on a cross etc, are closer to witchcraft IMO.

What exactly do you mean by that?

I'm not trying to be smart, I just genuinely don't understand what kind of analogy you're going for here, and I think I've seen you say something along those lines a couple of times now.

JimiTime

hairyheretic wrote:

What exactly do you mean by that?

I'm not trying to be smart, I just genuinely don't understand what kind of analogy you're going for here, and I think I've seen you say something along those lines a couple of times now.

Well as far as the trinkets are concerned, it is viewed as a kind of protection. Holy water the same. Hanging a crucifix etc in your house. Seems more like voodoo to me.

biko

Actually it has been imperative throughout the ages that Christ, and therefore his father God, was white. The white Christ has helped emphasise the superiority of the white race in the black colonies.

hairyheretic

JimiTime wrote:

Well as far as the trinkets are concerned, it is viewed as a kind of protection. Holy water the same. Hanging a crucifix etc in your house. Seems more like voodoo to me.

Most beliefs that I'm aware off have paraphernalia used in and around there ceremonies. Would you not see, for example, a cross as being a tangible focus or aid for you when you pray?

JimiTime

hairyheretic wrote:

Most beliefs that I'm aware off have paraphernalia used in and around there ceremonies. Would you not see, for example, a cross as being a tangible focus or aid for you when you pray?

Not at all TBH.

MooseJam

DinoBot wrote:

Hi,
I would be in favor of it. I see allot of racism in this country from people who have pictures
of jesus in their homes and cars. I think it would be less if they appreciated their god was a black man.

Jesus wasn't black, he was a Jew

DinoBot

MooseJam wrote:

Jesus wasn't black, he was a Jew

well I dont think being jew will denote your skin color. It may be true to say most jews are pale skin people like you see in Isreal, but NOT all jews are such.

Jesus came from the area now known as palestine so would have looked like the people from palestine. Okay not black per-se. I was being general

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

This may seem ridiculous, but is it any more ridiculous than the centuries of viewing images of Jesus as a European?

To Christians today is it important what Jesus looked like? Which one of the images above would you be more comfortable with, or is how he look irrelevant?

Why do you regard it as ridiculous for black people to imagine a black Jesus. In Ethiopia Jesus and Mary are always depicted as black. If you are saying that we as Christians might find this ridiculous you are insulting us as Christians.

Christians love Jesus, we see him as a member of our family as someone who is always close to us. As such we experience him as someone who looks like we do.

The human appearance of Jesus in his time on earth is unimportant what matters is the compassion for humanity shown by becoming human living among us and being tortured to death.



MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

Why do you regard it as ridiculous for black people to imagine a black Jesus.

Because Jesus wasn't black

mountainyman wrote:

If you are saying that we as Christians might find this ridiculous you are insulting us as Christians.

I am?

mountainyman wrote:

Christians love Jesus, we see him as a member of our family as someone who is always close to us. As such we experience him as someone who looks like we do.

Fair enough.

Why is it necessary to see him a someone of your own skin colour? Doesn't that just hint at the underlying problem that humans still group people based on skin colour?

mountainyman

It isn't a question of seeing him as someone of our own skin colour, it is a question of seeing him as someone like ourselves. This often includes skin colour, though it needn't and for those of us who know people of different races it may be irrelevant. Most humand still live in single ethnicity communities.

Wicknight wrote:

Because Jesus wasn't black

So what? You don't think he was God either what do you care what he looked like?
The insult comes from the idea that Christians would find something inherently ridiculous about a black saviour. You're projecting your own reductivism onto us.

Just remembered that there were black Jews in Ethiopia, all the Jews they would have known were black so maybe the artists were in fact deliberately portraying Jesus and Mary the way they thought Jews looked.


MM

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

Most beliefs that I'm aware off have paraphernalia used in and around there ceremonies. Would you not see, for example, a cross as being a tangible focus or aid for you when you pray?

Focus: No. The focus of prayer is on Christ.

A cross or crucifix is a constant reminder of what Christ did and that our days have to be focussed on Him.

Once and object becomes the focus of prayer then it becomes the idol.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Why is it necessary to see him a someone of your own skin colour? Doesn't that just hint at the underlying problem that humans still group people based on skin colour?

That is an assumption that we see Jesus as being white. Artists through the ages have portryaed Jesus like themselves.

Christians today don't see Jesus as any skin colour. He was a man when He walked the earth and His skin colour is irrelevant.

Tzetze

BrianCalgary wrote:

A cross or crucifix is a constant reminder of what Christ did and that our days have to be focussed on Him.

It may seem harmless to many Christians, but I find it disturbing that this 'reminder', which is more often an object of reverence and focus, is an item of death and destruction. Replace it with the modern equivalent, would you be so happy to have your kids treat it with the same reverence?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christians today don't see Jesus as any skin colour.

Very general statement, which really can't be taken seriously, unless you can back it up with some sort of survery results.

BrianCalgary

Tzetze wrote:

It may seem harmless to many Christians, but I find it disturbing that this 'reminder', which is more often an object of reverence and focus, is an item of death and destruction. Replace it with the modern equivalent, would you be so happy to have your kids treat it with the same reverence?.

The object, the cross, is not revered nor is it treated with reverence. It is a symbol and a reminder of the sacrififce that Christ made in order that we may be reconciled to God.

Tzetze wrote:

Very general statement, which really can't be taken seriously, unless you can back it up with some sort of survery results.

If Christians though that Jesus was a white man he woul dhave been portrayed as such in recent movies such as The Passion. His family likewise in the Nativity. Also popular Christian media today has Jesus portrayed more as a middle eastern heritage looking person.

Run_to_da_hills

I would agree with Jakkass. His appearance is Irrelevant.
I would not expect him to look like an effeminate long haired guru as portrayed in the movie of the Passion of Christ. Our Lord did hard outside physical labour, with Joseph in Nazareth, Isaiah 53 2 would tell us that there was nothing special about his appearance.

“he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him”. Isaiah 53 2

patrickolee

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

I would agree with Jakkass. His appearance is Irrelevant.
I would not expect him to look like an effeminate long haired guru as portrayed in the movie of the Passion of Christ. Our Lord did hard outside physical labour, with Joseph in Nazareth, Isaiah 53 2 would tell us that there was nothing special about his appearance.

“he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him”. Isaiah 53 2

Would it perhaps make you think that if pictures portraying him reflect the painter of the portrait, that maybe the translators and interpreters of his words may also have written them from their standpoint? Early images are more obviously interpreted with a certain colour, easy to see their inconsistencies, maybe the words would be less so.

philologos

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

I would agree with Jakkass. His appearance is Irrelevant.
I would not expect him to look like an effeminate long haired guru as portrayed in the movie of the Passion of Christ. Our Lord did hard outside physical labour, with Joseph in Nazareth, Isaiah 53 2 would tell us that there was nothing special about his appearance.

“he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him”. Isaiah 53 2

Indeed Isaiah 53 even said he was disfigured. Maybe they are talking at the time of crucifixion, i'm not so sure.

Bottle_of_Smoke

So this is why Muslims don't like images of Mohammed!

Run_to_da_hills

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

So this is why Muslims don't like images of Mohammed!

Many Christians don't like Images of Christ.

lostexpectation

MooseJam wrote:

Jesus wasn't black, he was a Jew

a palestinian jew?

philologos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jew