Differing appearances of Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter richardRC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

richardRC

Guest
Do you find images and icons of Jesus portrayed as being Caucasian a little ridiculous or absurd considering He was a Galilean man/Jew who very unlikely looked anything like this for example

http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/archives/Jesus.jpg

This ~I believe is truly the face of Jesus, it’s from the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin

http://www.shroudforum.com/exhibit/images/face.jpg

Do you think this subject could be of great importance concerning non Christians or Catholics who are disillusioned by what they see specifically when they see the many differing portrayals of Jesus in art?
 
Well I think all races of people have portrayed Jesus to look more like there respective race. I think thats a good thing IMHO because it lets people know that no matter what race you are Jesus is with you…

just my uneducated opinion on the subject.
 
richardRC said:
Do you find images and icons of Jesus portrayed as being Caucasian a little ridiculous or absurd considering He was a Galilean man/Jew who very unlikely looked anything like this for example

http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/archives/Jesus.jpg

This ~I believe is truly the face of Jesus, it’s from the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin

http://www.shroudforum.com/exhibit/images/face.jpg

Do you think this subject could be of great importance concerning non Christians or Catholics who are disillusioned by what they see specifically when they see the many differing portrayals of Jesus in art?
Click to expand...
It is absolutely unimportant and although you are free to believe the Shroud is genuine there is no evidence to support that. The Church has not declared the Shroud to be genuine nor will it.
 
As it happens I do not find it rediculous at all.

Christ is two-fold, he had a historical pressense, in which he very much was a Gallilean. Secondly however, he is a spiritual being in heaven. At this stage he has no longer a fixed figure. Consequently, when an artist portrays Jesus, there is no shame in how he is portrayed. Whether he is portarayed in a more “realistic manner”, or whether he’s portrayed as some sarcasticaly say, “A caucasian hippie Jesus.”
 
thistle said:
It is absolutely unimportant and although you are free to believe the Shroud is genuine there is no evidence to support that. The Church has not declared the Shroud to be genuine nor will it.
Click to expand...
I believe there is a wealth of evidence to prove it is genuinely Christ’s burial cloth.
 
richardRC said:
Do you find images and icons of Jesus portrayed as being Caucasian a little ridiculous or absurd considering He was a Galilean man/Jew who very unlikely looked anything like this for example
Click to expand...
are you saying that Jews aren’t Caucasians? :confused:

I will admit that representations of Blonde Jesus or Black Jesus or Asian Jesus sometime makes me chuckle
After all Christ probably looked like someone we would search extra carefully before we let him on a plane today.

On the other hand, since He chose to come in a time before cameras, it is probably unimportant.
richardRC said:
This ~I believe is truly the face of Jesus, it’s from the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin
Click to expand...
The image on the shroud gives no indication of coloration but the features appear Caucasian to me.
richardRC said:
Do you think this subject could be of great importance concerning non Christians or Catholics who are disillusioned by what they see specifically when they see the many differing portrayals of Jesus in art?
Click to expand...
I never even considered that there would be people who are disillusioned by different portrayals. :confused: Are you? Why so?

I always thought it a strength of Christianity that it has been able to put a local face (no pun intended) on a universal truth.
 
thistle said:
List the wealth of evidence and also tell us why the Church will not declare it to be genuine.
Click to expand...
With respect friend, there is a lot of physical evidence that suggests that the Shroud is connected to Christ’s death. There is so much evidence and the results of the forensics are so mountainous that if you are interested you should read about it yourself and not dismiss the issue out of hand. The bottom line is that it will never be proven one way or the other and the Church wisely stands back from the controversy…as She should.
If the Shroud is a fraud or counterfeit…it is the most cleverly produced in history, using technology that we don’t have even now and that would raise almost as many questions as would be answered. I personally believe the Shroud to be genuine…but I don’t base my faith on it’s authenticity. I feel a sense of connection to it’s holy user but I don’t worship it…if you know what I mean. I again encourage you to read…the story is facinating so you have everything to gain.🙂
 
authenticity of Shroud is not topic of this thread. Depictions of Jesus in art seems to be the topic. In that case, it is a matter of personal opinion and critique of each specific work of each artist, and hence, not relevant for an apologetics discussion. So I still don’t get the point. If you quote a thread that contains an image it is not necessary to keep repeating it, you can delete the image itself. If OP wants to contrast Shroud and Divine Mercy image, why not pose the question in that way. from OP we do not know if you which to criticize the DM image (certainly not the best we have from an artistic standpoint, IMO), do you want to make claims about the shroud, or do you want to discuss what your opening statement says, portrayals of Christ as Caucasian?
 
pismopal said:
With respect friend, there is a lot of physical evidence that suggests that the Shroud is connected to Christ’s death. There is so much evidence and the results of the forensics are so mountainous that if you are interested you should read about it yourself and not dismiss the issue out of hand. The bottom line is that it will never be proven one way or the other and the Church wisely stands back from the controversy…as She should.
If the Shroud is a fraud or counterfeit…it is the most cleverly produced in history, using technology that we don’t have even now and that would raise almost as many questions as would be answered. I personally believe the Shroud to be genuine…but I don’t base my faith on it’s authenticity. I feel a sense of connection to it’s holy user but I don’t worship it…if you know what I mean. I again encourage you to read…the story is facinating so you have everything to gain.🙂
Click to expand...
Puzzleannie is right. The Shroud is off topic in this thread. If you would open another thread on the Shroud I will join in because I notice in your comments you avoided naming any evidence of its authenticity. Then you say it cannot be proved one way or another which obviously means there is no evidence to show it is genuine!!
 
thistle said:
Puzzleannie is right. The Shroud is off topic in this thread. If you would open another thread on the Shroud I will join in because I notice in your comments you avoided naming any evidence of its authenticity. Then you say it cannot be proved one way or another which obviously means there is no evidence to show it is genuine!!
Click to expand...
Another poster asking to be spoon fed. If you have any curiosity go after the evidence yourself…don’t ask to be convinced by others. Lots of trials have evidence for and against and end in hung juries. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Get the books and read them for yourself…you want me to give you book reports:(
 
pismopal said:
Another poster asking to be spoon fed. If you have any curiosity go after the evidence yourself…don’t ask to be convinced by others. Lots of trials have evidence for and against and end in hung juries. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Get the books and read them for yourself…you want me to give you book reports:(
Click to expand...
I have been to the sites, read books and have a dvd on the Shroud and there is no evidence that it it genuine.
The most that can be said so far is that pollen found on the Shroud comes from the Middle East including the Holy Land and the type of cloth/weave is also from there. It cannot be dated earlier than the middle ages (despite alleged contamination of the sample).
Even if it could be proven to be 2000 years old (and that has NOT been proven) that’s the best that could ever be proven. Nobody can ever prove its the actual burial cloth of Christ. That will always simply be down to believing that or not. It is pretty obvious too that the reason the Church has not and will not declare the Shroud to be genuine is that such a thing can never be proven.

Isn’t it also amazing that those who cry out there is plenty of evidence are never prepared to list such evidence. They simply say there is evidence or say look for it yourself. That’s because there is none.
 
please introduce a Shroud thread in the appropriate forum. this one is for apologetics issues, and as yet, none has been introduced.
 
puzzleannie said:
please introduce a Shroud thread in the appropriate forum. this one is for apologetics issues, and as yet, none has been introduced.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the OP introduced the Shroud saying he believed the image of Christ on the Shroud to be his real image so its not totally off topic. For it to be the real image of Christ the Shroud would have to be proven genuine. Probably this entire thread should be moved.
 
OP began with a statement of opinion that is not born out by either of the images he posted, and as yet we still have not heard the apologetics issue he wishes to address, since has has not responded with any other comment about iconography of Jesus in general, so we still don’t know what the beef is. The Shroud images looks no more like a 1st c Galilean Jew (if we even have such reliable images from that time) than does that extremely insipid and uninspiring rendition of the first image.
 
I cannot prove that Christ existed or was crucified or that He was the Son of God. I cannot prove that Napoleon invaded Russia for that matter. Faith is not a matter of proving anything. That said…there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that tends to support the Christian faith and that, along with my belief is good enough for me. How important is it to me to know what Christ looked like?..not very.
 
puzzleannie said:
OP began with a statement of opinion that is not born out by either of the images he posted, and as yet we still have not heard the apologetics issue he wishes to address, since has has not responded with any other comment about iconography of Jesus in general, so we still don’t know what the beef is. The Shroud images looks no more like a 1st c Galilean Jew (if we even have such reliable images from that time) than does that extremely insipid and uninspiring rendition of the first image.
Click to expand...
That I agree with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top