Do we know what Jesus actually looks like?

[FrDavid96]

You “already addressed it,” but not adequately. For a faithful first century Jew who could afford a lamb to instead use the poor man’s sacrifice (for his first born son!) would require an explanation! Either he wasn’t pious, or he was poor. To say “there probably was some other reason,” is not convincing. Ockham’s razor—the simplest solution is usually the correct one. The Biblical account indicates that they were poor and that Joseph and Mary were pious, even strict, Jews. Jews were required to sacrifice a lamb. “A lamb was actually not a big expense, and only the poorest of the poor would be unable to afford one.” If they could not afford one, they could substitute. They substituted.

Logical conclusion: they were, in fact, poor but faithful Jews.

Unlikely conclusion: the Biblical account is wrong and they were middle-class, so they could afford a lamb but chose not to, which means they were also unfaithful Jews or there was some unknown reason for them to violate Jewish sacrificial laws even though they could have easily afforded not to.

If you can refute what I have posited above, please do so.

You’re still going in a circle and trying to force something without any evidence.

There was no requirement to sacrifice a lamb. It was a practice, but not a requirement. Some sacrifice had to be made. That was the Law.

The fact that a poor family was permitted to sacrifice a dove and pigeon in no way indicates that poverty was the only reason.

From a Christian perspective, it would make no sense that Joseph would have sacrificed a lamb to God as a substitute for sacrificing The Lamb of God Himself–which was the original meaning of the sacrifice in the first place; that an animal was given as a substitute for the firstborn male.

There is no biblical evidence to support the idea that the Holy Family was poor. It just is not there, no matter how much you try to force it.

 

[Teek]

You say that they “must” have been poor. Therefore they were poor. Therefore the bible must say they were poor. Therefore I’m contradicting the Bible.

No. I am saying that I believe that they were poor because the Bible indicates that they were poor. Not that it must say that they are poor because I believe that they were poor. It literally indicates, to me, quite clearly that they were poor. It does not state that unequivocally, I agree. It does say that they were laborers. And that they were from the poor town of Nazareth. For me, that is evidence enough to believe they did not live like they were middle or upper class. And as I said, I do not believe a pious Jew with the means to provide a lamb for the rituals surrounding the birth of his firstborn son would do any less.

I guess we would probably agree that Jesus could have been, literally, the King of the material world had he desired to be. But he lowered himself and took a position of poverty (or relative poverty) to teach us humility and show us how to love. Which is the most important point of all. What difference is there really between lower class and middle class when compared to the difference between God Almighty and man? The whole argument pales in comparison.

Thanks for hearing me out—I love debates with concrete arguments and proofs and facts. I meant to state my argument succinctly, and I was sincere in asking how you understood the Biblical accounts that indicate poverty. I wasn’t being facetious, though I’m afraid you may have felt that I was. I am sorry for that. I was thinking you might say they are literary devices to make a contrast between an earthly king and our Heavenly King. Powerless, without even material means, unacclaimed except by shepherds—and yet visited by wise men from other lands. I would say they are literal devices. But that wasn’t what you said.

 

[omgriley]

Piety aside, I thought they would have been poor because of their inability to provide a lamb for sacrifice at His presentation.

I know he never lived in abject poverty, but I never figured he would have been middle class.

 

[Teek]

There was no requirement to sacrifice a lamb. It was a practice, but not a requirement. Some sacrifice had to be made. That was the Law.

The fact that a poor family was permitted to sacrifice a dove and pigeon in no way indicates that poverty was the only reason.

From a Christian perspective, it would make no sense that Joseph would have sacrificed a lamb to God as a substitute for sacrificing The Lamb of God Himself–which was the original meaning of the sacrifice in the first place; that an animal was given as a substitute for the firstborn male.

I’m really trying, but I still disagree.

Leviticus was very clear about the requirements. (See below.) It wasn’t just a practice, it was Jewish Law! The only exception made was about whether it could be afforded.

Also, I thought that the animals were sacrificed as atonement for the mother, not as a substitute for the baby. Therefore, I don’t think it would be an awkward case of substituting a lamb for The Lamb.

———————
Leviticus 12:1-8

1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Say to the sons of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean.
3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying; she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed.
5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.
6"And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering,
7 7and he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female.
8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean."
———————
Commentary (Lighthouse Catholic Media Study Bible)

2:22 purification: The birth of a male child disqualifies an Israelite woman from touching any holy object or approaching the Temple for 40 days, after which time she must offer sacrifice in Jerusalem (Lev 12:1-8). Strictly speaking, these offerings cleanse women of legal impurity and have no connection with moral failures or guilt. Mary here gives the sacrifice of the poor: two “turtledoves”, or two “pigeons” (2:24; Lev 12:8). •

(I added the bold.)

 

[Teek]

Here’s an artist’s rendering of Jesus from the Shroud of Turin, painted by the artistic genius, Akiane Kramarick.

I don’t think she used the Shroud of Turin…
but in a different place on the artist’s web page it claims that the two images match up. Check it out if interested!

https://art-soulworks.com/blogs/pos...prince-of-peace-painting-prove-heaven-is-real

 

[FrDavid96]

Also, I thought that the animals were sacrificed as atonement for the mother, not as a substitute for the baby. Therefore, I don’t think it would be an awkward case of substituting a lamb for The Lamb.

Go back and check the texts.

One sacrofice was for the mother.

One sacrifice was for the firstborn male.

Luke combines the two sacrifices into one event. That shows that he is already making some modifications of his own.

I keep editing this because it’s getting confusing. One lamb and one bird OR 2 pairs of 2 birds. etc. etc. It’s making my head swim.

The point is that there were two sacrifices for two different reasons; one for the mother, one for the son. Luke combines them into a single event.

 

[Teek]

Go back and check the texts.

One sacrofice was for the mother.

One sacrifice was for the firstborn male.

Luke combines the two sacrifices into one event. That shows that he is already making some modifications of his own.

I keep editing this because it’s getting confusing. One lamb and one bird OR 2 pairs of 2 birds. etc. etc. It’s making my head swim.

I rechecked. He was presented to the Lord because he was the firstborn male, but there was no animal sacrifice for that. He was consecrated to the Lord.

According to Leviticus, The animals were for the purification rite of the mother. A lamb for a burnt offering and a turdledove or pigeon for a sin offering. If you couldn’t provide the lamb, two turdledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering.

If more was required, teach me! I’d love to know…

You said Luke combined the two. But both rites had to be done at the temple: the presentation of the firstborn and the purification of the woman. It was a long expensive trip, and there wasn’t enough time in between to warrant going back and forth. They combined the two Temple rituals. I don’t think Luke was playing with the facts.

Also, what did you mean by “That shows that he is already making some modifications of his own.”? Did he make other “modifications? I’ve never heard that!

Thanks!

 

[James817]

The veracity of the Shroud is doubtful. And I’m getting this from Scripture.
1 Corinthians 11:14
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?

 

[Teek]

1 Corinthians 11:14

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?

And yet those who take a special vow and consecrate themselves to the Lord would abstain from cutting their hair during their time of special service to the Lord. If they goofed up they had to shave their heads and make sacrifices and start over.

Numbers chapter 6 explains this. There is the obvious and more well known account of Samson and there are several other less well considered references. Acts 21:23-24 give an example of four other men under this vow. Luke 1:15 seems to indicate John the Baptist was under this vow. Acts 18:18 shows that Paul himself did this!

Therefore it is not excluded that perhaps Jesus did this as well. I’m not calling this proof, but Paul said the above but still
practiced this form of self consecration to the Lord. He may not have been categorically excluding it from the possibilities.

 

[James817]

However we know Jesus wasn’t a Nazarite. He drank wine and touched many dead bodies. So that excludes the possibility.

 

[Teek]

However we know Jesus wasn’t a Nazarite. He drank wine and touched many dead bodies. So that excludes the possibility

I’m pretty sure the bodies we know he touched weren’t dead anymore after that! That must have been a tricky one for the Pharisees! Did he need to do purification rituals after touching a dead body that isn’t dead anymore?! That must have tied them in knots!

Well, we can say for certain that he wasn’t under that vow when he was doing those things. I do not believe there is enough evidence to conclude that he was a Nazarite, but it does not mean he wasn’t one during particular times. He went out into the desert—into the wilderness—fasting and praying for an extended period of time. We don’t know much about what he did in between childhood and his public ministry.

So there may have been times in his life with long hair, and times with short hair. And times shaved bald as I believe they did after the Nazarite vow was fulfilled.

People were only Nazarites during their time under that vow, and they designated the length of time for their own vow. So when he was Crucified, just after instituting the Eucharist with bread and wine, I suppose we would expect that, if being a Nazarite was the only reason for men with long hair that wasn’t disgraceful, he would have likely had shorter hair at that time.

My point was that Paul had said that long hair on a man was disgraceful. But Paul did have long hair during his time as a Nazarite. And several other people at the time of Christ, as well! So Paul’s statement does not exclude the possibility of long hair on a Jew at the time of Christ, and long hair that was actually not disgraceful.

I dont think there is enough historical evidence either way, really. However, the image of Divine Mercy has longer hair. I love that image, so I tend to picture Jesus with long hair. I have no idea if I am right.

If he did have long hair, or if he didn’t, short or tall—he will be a sight for sore eyes if, by his grace, I run the race to the finish!

 

[Hope1960]

Maybe compared to other people with long hair, the man on the Shroud’s hair wasn’t that long???

 

[FrDavid96]

It makes no difference.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Go back and check the texts.

One sacrofice was for the mother.

One sacrifice was for the firstborn male.

Luke combines the two sacrifices into one event. That shows that he is already making some modifications of his own.

I keep editing this because it’s getting confusing. One lamb and one bird OR 2 pairs of 2 birds. etc. etc. It’s making my head swim.

I rechecked. He was presented to the Lord because he was the firstborn male, but there was no animal sacrifice for that. He was consecrated to the Lord.
…

As I said, the exact details are getting jumbled in my head as I flip back and forth between the texts. To be clear, I’m fully admitting that I am not paying enough attention to the exact details.

The purification & expiation of the Mother and the presentation of the firstborn son are 2 different things. Luke combines them into one.

The point I’m trying to make here is no so much about the specific details, but that we cannot rely on a single line from the infancy narrative of Luke to “prove” that the Holy Family was poor.

Those 2 or 3 brief lines in Luke (which already combine 2 different events) are simply not enough to prove a point.

The fact that Luke also records them as being frequent travelers indicates that they did have some surplus funds, so they were not poor.

The historic and archeological (non-biblical) evidence indicates that St Joseph’s profession was middle class and possibly upper-middle.

A carpenter’s tools would have been special tools and those were very expensive in the ancient world. When the profession itself is expensive, the worker is paid more for the labor.

The evidence that they were poor is practically non-existent. The evidence that they were middle class far outweighs one single line that doesn’t even directly say they were poor, but only indirectly implies it.

 

[hope]

It was a long expensive trip, and there wasn’t enough time in between to warrant going back and forth.

I don’t understand. They lived in Bethlehem which was about six miles. Wouldn’t that be just a day walk to and from?

 

[FrDavid96]

It was a long expensive trip, and there wasn’t enough time in between to warrant going back and forth.

Not Bethlehem, that’s only where He was born. They lived in Nazareth. That’s about (yes, about) 100 miles from Jerusalem, even by the ancient roads.

 

[hope]

But didn’t they live in Bethlehem according to Luke until after the Presentation. According to Matthew, it was longer.

 

[James817]

From sculptures of people who lived during that time, it would seem the men cut their hair short.

 

[hope]

Wasn’t the short hair soldiers who cut their hair in order for their hair not to get in the way of a fight?

 

[James817]

As I said, the Shroud’s veracity is doubtful.