C
Cristian_B
Guest
Isn’t he supposed to?
After all, we are made in His image.
- Status
After all, we are made in His image.
M
Mailman
Guest
The only logical reason why Judas had to point Him out was because Jesus looked like any ordinary male Jew of his day. There was nothing distinguishing about Him. He did not have long hair and He did not have feminine features. In short, as Super Grover said, Jesus did not look like a bearded lady.
If Jesus had looked anything like the depictions we see of Him today, it certainly would not have been necessary to point Him out. He would stand out among the crowd. But the Bible – from the OT to the NT – pictures a Jesus that looks no different from the average Jew of His day. For example, the Gospels tell us that on at least two occasions Jesus slipped away into the crowds when people were trying to kill Him (Luke 4:30; John 8:59). He could not have done this if He looked different.
An AP article (Feb. 24, 2004) reports: “’Jesus didn’t have long hair,’ said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem. ‘Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair.’ ‘The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek,’ said New York University’s Lawrence Schiffman” (“Jesus Scholars Find Fault in Gibson’s ‘Passion’”).
It further states: “Along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on Rome’s Arch of Titus, erected after Jerusalem was captured in AD 70 to celebrate the victory, which shows Jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.”
When we look at the biblical record, Paul’s inspired statement, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (1 Cor. 11:14), proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus did not wear His hair long.
And since Jesus was a carpenter/builder – a man who knew the construction trade – He must have been into cutting trees and making wooden beams, hauling rocks to build walls, constructing buildings from stone and timber. He must have spent a lot of time outdoors, in the scorching heat of the Middle East sun working His trade. So, Jesus could not also have been the tender and effeminate man as commonly depicted in paintings.
D
Della
Guest
I don’t understand your need, Mailman, to write several paragraphs to defend a position no one is arguing against. 
I never said Jesus was any different from any other Jewish man of his time, only that he may have been. No one can know for certain. And anyone can get lost in a crowd, even if he’s dressed in a clown suit. I’ve personally seen this kind of thing happen at large outside venues. I don’t know why you are so insistent. It hardly matters one way or the other. Sure, Jesus wasn’t effeminate. No one here is saying he was.
We’re only saying that such art depictions, contrary to how we moderns see them, were meant to convey Jesus’ meekness and humility. We’re talking about art interpretation not what Jesus actually looked like. Like Picasso’s painting of a woman with both eyes on the same side of her face. It’s not how his model actually looked, of course, it’s a depiction of woman’s personality, her essence, as Picasso saw it (madman that he was). Art is not real life. It doesn’t depict life as seen by the human eye, rather it is an interpretation denoting anything from mere feelings to the highest form of spiritual icon. It’s just art, like it or loathe it, that’s all it is.
I never said Jesus was any different from any other Jewish man of his time, only that he may have been. No one can know for certain. And anyone can get lost in a crowd, even if he’s dressed in a clown suit. I’ve personally seen this kind of thing happen at large outside venues. I don’t know why you are so insistent. It hardly matters one way or the other. Sure, Jesus wasn’t effeminate. No one here is saying he was.We’re only saying that such art depictions, contrary to how we moderns see them, were meant to convey Jesus’ meekness and humility. We’re talking about art interpretation not what Jesus actually looked like. Like Picasso’s painting of a woman with both eyes on the same side of her face. It’s not how his model actually looked, of course, it’s a depiction of woman’s personality, her essence, as Picasso saw it (madman that he was). Art is not real life. It doesn’t depict life as seen by the human eye, rather it is an interpretation denoting anything from mere feelings to the highest form of spiritual icon. It’s just art, like it or loathe it, that’s all it is.
C
Contarini
Guest
D
Della
Guest
Exactly. Denying the God works through nature is anti-incarnational. :yup:
Z
Zooey
Guest
Victorian Romanticism.
The Victorian Romanticists used to depict virtue in feminine form, so, for example, they depicted Faith, Hope, and Charity as three young women in white.
This naturally led to them depicting virtuous men (especially Jesus) as being somewhat effeminate. They meant it as a compliment; they considered womanhood to be the height of moral perfection, and manhood as being the opposite.
It’s baffling to us today, because we no longer think like that. Our own popular culture will be baffling to future generations, when they see so many women being portrayed as “sex-less” or looking like young men.
Yes! I remember some years ago, someone at my church was asking “why St John always looks like a girl”, and a friend who is a retired doctor (& a keen–and talented–amateur artist) explained that there was a convention in art at one time, that the youngest person in a painting should be painted that way…as very feminine.
Who knew?I’m glad to read this thread; I always feel funny being the one who loooks at a picture of Our Lord, & wonders how the artist thinks He managed to make a living as a carpenter & never get a callous, or develop any muscles at all. (Let’s not get into the whole
“blond curly hair” thing).
P
patrick457
Guest
And here I was thinking that Robert Powell was Jesus!I thought he looked remarkably like Jim Caviezel!
P
patrick457
Guest
A word of caution. As another poster already stated, the work was probably likely a later forgery. So I would take that work as I do that supposed description attributed to Josephus that Jesus looked like Quasimodo (which is apparently another fake BTW).
M
Mailman
Guest
The point I was trying to make is that, contrary to what you, and many here believe, we can be certain of two things.I don’t understand your need, Mailman, to write several paragraphs to defend a position no one is arguing against.
We’re only saying that such art depictions, contrary to how we moderns see them, were meant to convey Jesus’ meekness and humility. We’re talking about art interpretation not what Jesus actually looked like. Like Picasso’s painting of a woman with both eyes on the same side of her face. It’s not how his model actually looked, of course, it’s a depiction of woman’s personality, her essence, as Picasso saw it (madman that he was). Art is not real life. It doesn’t depict life as seen by the human eye, rather it is an interpretation denoting anything from mere feelings to the highest form of spiritual icon. It’s just art, like it or loathe it, that’s all it is.
- Jesus did not have long hair, and
- Jesus looked just like any other male Jew of His day (nothing distinguishing about Him).
The depictions of Jesus looking like a bearded lady are not only limited to paintings and works of art. They also appear in children’s books. And these are not art or comic books, either. These are serious religious books intended to teach our young about the Christian religion and about its founder [who, the authors want to picture to those young minds as looking like a bearded lady].
These false depictions also appear in supposed images of Christ displayed in churches. And they’re not there for the sake of art, too. They’re there for devotees to gaze upon with awe as being the image of the real Jesus. Why do you suppose people genuflect and pray to these images?
M
Mailman
Guest
How so?
S
Super_Grover
Guest
You make some good points but, again, you must be corrected on the notion that Catholics pray to pieces of metal, or dried colored oil on canvas, or to plaster. We do not. You must know by now that we do not. To persist in such claims is to libel Catholics and evidences a disingenuous polemic that calls into question everything you post.
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, as St. John of Damascus (who made the very same point against the Iconoclasts of his day) put it, it is because the invisible God took on a tangible form. When God became incarnate, He placed Himself in the order of signs. Through this act God has blessed material things and made them good again, one of His acts in reversing the evil that had emitted at Eden. By rising physically from the dead, ascending bodily into Heaven and promising Christians a physical resurrection, God thus indicates that it is not wrong to be “attached” to physical things, and that matter is not inherently evil, unlike the ancient teachings of Gnosticism, which put an emphasis on all things spiritual at the detriment of the physical, attacked as the product of lesser gods who made them as a distorted shadow of the spiritual reality.
The whole heart of the iconography of Western and Eastern Christendom, which seeks to reveal the divine through visible means, is the Incarnation of Christ, when God became human, and thus visible, sharing in our flesh and blood. In this idea, the biblical commandment forbidding images was because no-one had seen God: now that we have seen the Son, we have thus seen (in one sense) God, because Christ is the image of the invisible God as St. Paul says it. In this reasoning, it is thus okay the likeness of something seen.
Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, (Bar. 3.38) I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God’s body is God by union (kaq upostasin), it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by a logical and reasoning soul. I honour all matter besides, and venerate it.
Through it, filled, as it were, with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to me. Was not the thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life? Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Do not despise matter, for it is not despicable. Nothing is that which God has made. This is the Manichean heresy. That alone is despicable which does not come from God, but is our own invention, the spontaneous choice of will to disregard the natural law,–that is to say, sin. If, therefore, you dishonour and give up images, because they are produced by matter, consider what the Scripture says: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Behold I have called by name Beseleel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Juda. And I have filled him with the spirit of God, with wisdom and understanding, and knowledge in all manner of work. To devise whatsoever may be artificially made of gold, and silver, and brass, of marble and precious stones, and variety of wood. And I have given him for his companion, Ooliab, the son of Achisamech, of the tribe of Dan. And I have put wisdom in the heart of every skilful man, that they may make all things which I have commanded thee.’” (Ex. 31.1-6) [18]
And again: “Moses said to all the assembly of the children of Israel: ‘This is the word the Lord hath commanded, saying: Set aside with you first fruits to the Lord. Let every one that is willing and hath a ready heart, offer them to the Lord, gold, and silver, and brass, violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine linen, goat’s hair, and ram’s skins died red and violet, coloured skins, selim-wood, and oil to maintain lights and to make ointment, and most sweet incense, onyx stones, and precious stones for the adorning of the ephod and the rational. Whosoever of you is wise, let him come, and make that which the Lord hath commanded.’” (Ex. 35.4-10)
See you here the glorification of matter which you make inglorious. What is more insignificant than goat’s hair or colours? Are not scarlet and purple and hyacinth colours? Now, consider the handiwork of man becoming the likeness of the cherubim. How, then, can you make the law a pretence for giving up what it orders? If you invoke it against images, you should keep the Sabbath, and practise circumcision. It is certain that “if you observe the law, Christ will not profit you. You who are justified in the law, you are fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5.2-4) Israel of old did not see God, but “we see the Lord’s glory face to face.” (IICor. 3.18)
BTW, St. Thomas Aquinas once argued that “reverence is not due save to a rational creature”, thus we would all agree with you that to pay reverence to the paints or the materials is foolish, because they are irrational matter.
D
Della
Guest
No, we can’t be certain of either one. There’s no way to prove either claim.
Nope. Scripture tells us nothing at all about Jesus’ appearance. You are making connections from various verses to make your case. That’s not Scripture telling us anything–it’s you telling us your interpretation of Scripture. We are not bound by what you think you know from your reading of Scripture. Catholics go by the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture (which is a part of Sacred Tradition). And the Magisterium has made no statement as to Jesus’ appearance, so we free to see him as we please. That’s not to say he looked like anything we can imagine, but it does no harm to picture according to what helps us relate to him, either.
According to your evaluation. Not everyone sees such depictions as you do. Art is in the eye of the beholder. What you find objectionable, others find lovely, inspiring. Who are any of us to tell people what kind of depictions they ought to like/not like? How about we leave that up to the Church?
There are no “false depictions” of the kind you are asserting. We are free to see Jesus as tender and loving as well as strong and decidedly masculine. You can’t say otherwise since you don’t have the authority to tell Catholics how they should and shouldn’t depict images of Christ or any of the saints. I’ve seen plenty of paintings, statues, etc. that were not to my personal taste, but that’s all it is–my personal taste. And that’s all you really have to go on, as well.
People gaze on and use artwork as aids to faith. We don’t “pray to” images. As a Catholic you should know that.
M
Mailman
Guest
Ok, I get it. Saying that Satan is behind all these false depictions of Christ to get us to pray to images and so break God’s commandment, is like saying the incarnation made God break His own commandment because He has shown His face for us to copy and make images of.
I don’t see the connection. Christ never said we can make images of Him. It is we who have SUPPOSED that because God showed us a human face that we should now do that which He condemns. He is clear on why he became man and this has absolutely nothing to do with making images of Him. The incarnated God walked this earth preaching the keeping of ALL HIS COMMANDMENTS. He said: “If thou wilt enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS” (Mat. 19:17). And one of those commandments say, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above (that includes the incarnated God because He is from and is now, in heaven above)… thou shalt not bow down thyself to them…” (Exo. 20:4-5).
IF Jesus wanted His human face remembered, wouldn’t you think He would have made sure that His disciples make a portrait of Him while He was still with them so that this could be preserved by the Church? If He got the sacred writings preserved intact, why not His image? But He NEVER did. And proof to that is the primitive Church never kept an image of Christ – not a single one.
IF Christ wanted His followers to venerate/worship His image, surely, He would want them to venerate an image that looks like Him, not one conjured up by the imagination of some uninspired medieval artist. The supposed images of Jesus people venerate/ worship today come in different shapes, sizes, and colors. Could even one of these depictions look like the incarnated God?
There is no comparison between the false depictions and the incarnation. The false depictions were made for the purpose of getting us to break God’s law and are Satan-inspired. The incarnation, on the other hand, is not a work of Satan and was not meant to let us make images of God so we break His commandment. Saying that God became man so we can now make images of Him is like saying that because Christ died for the forgiveness of sin, we are now free to sin.
We are trying to find a sensible explanation as to why we have all these false depictions of Jesus and why people have accepted them. Knowing how Satan works to further his cause [and that is, by lies and deception] it would not be hard to point the finger at him as the force behind all these false depictions. Satan, according to God, “is more subtle [cunning] than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made…” (Gen. 3:1). He is the father of lies (John 8:44) and the one who has deceived the whole world (Rev. 12:9). It could only be him who is behind all these false depictions. It’s either him or God. And it couldn’t be the work of God because God “cannot lie” (Tit. 1:2).
If you will notice, this “St. John of Damascus” is using human reason to arrive at his conclusions. He must be steeped in Greek thought and philosophy just like the early Catholic fathers. But spiritual truth is not known through philosophical reasoning. It is given by divine revelation.
We have been forewarned by Christ’s apostle to, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).
And why should we be weary of philosophical reasoning in our search for truth? Because, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man” – it seemeth right when we think about it – “but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12; 16:25).
So, you DO admit that Catholics WORSHIP images?
M
Mailman
Guest
Maybe you do not, but there are many Catholics – and I believe they comprise the vast majority – who do pray to graven images. I know that for a fact because I was once a Catholic. I was raised a Catholic and studied in Catholic schools. My friends are mostly Catholics and they all pray to images. And – yes, I used to do that, too, because everyone else was doing it.
I’m not here to malign anyone. I just tell it as I see it.
M
Mailman
Guest
Yes, we can be certain IF – and that’s a big IF – we accept the biblical revelation. The proof is right there in the Bible for all to see.
What about this: Can you be certain that Christ is not black [not a Negro]?
I agree with you that the Catholic Magisterium has made no statement regarding Jesus’ appearance and so its faithful are free to picture Him as they please. In fact, the Magisterium has said very little about the truthfulness of most of what is written in the Bible. But that is not good; because what it tells you is that your church does not have the truth.
But your church, as you have just said, leaves you free to picture Christ as you please; it has left you to decide how Christ looks. So why should you now say we leave that up to the church?
As a FORMER Catholic I KNOW that Catholics pray to images. We were taught in school that Catholics don’t pray to images – but that’s just in school. In actual practice, Catholics do pray to images. I did. My wife does and still do today. And I don’t know of any Catholic (in my circle of friends and family) who does not pray to images.People gaze on and use artwork as aids to faith. We don’t “pray to” images. As a Catholic you should know that.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Except for Veronica’s veil, and the Shroud of Turin - which are images that Christ made of Himself, for us.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
With all due respect, what are you talking about? The Church teaches that the Bible is 100% inerrant and has made dogmatic declarations on everything that she considers necessary for all Catholics to believe to attain salvation. Also, even if she didn’t make statements about the Bible (and she did) that does not necessarily mean she doesn’t teach the truth and it has nothing at all to do with Christ’s appearance, which the Bible doesn’t even describe. And who cares if Christ was black?
You actually have a good point here; since the Magisterium makes no ruling on how he looks, then any way anybody portrays Jesus that is not blatantly disrespectful is perfectly fine.
It’s called veneration of sacred icons. It’s not prayer to images, it’s using the icons (or images, if you prefer) to visually symbolize whatever Holy figure they’re actually praying to. I only do this rarely.
L
LilyM
Guest
You mean you actually addressed your prayers to the image itself (which would be idolatrous worship of the image), and NOT to Jesus or whichever saint was represented (which is, d’uh, simply and correctly prayer)?
You actually said (or thought) words to the effect of ‘O PICTURE of Jesus help me/save me/forgive me’ or ‘O STATUE of Mary pray for me’??? (which is idolatry) And didn’t instead, while viewing the image, simply think or say ‘O JESUS help me/save me/forgive me’ or ‘O MARY pray for me’ (which is correct prayer to the person and not the image)???
And if what you prayed for was granted you said, or thought, ‘O thank you STATUE/PICTURE of Jesus/Mary/St Joseph/whoever for your help or intercession’? Or believed that it was the image itself, the inanimate object, and NOT the person portrayed, that answered your prayers (which is idolatrous)?
And you did not simply think or say ‘O thank you Jesus/Mary/St Joseph/whoever for your help or intercession’? (which is correct prayer and correct attribution of the favour and the thanks).
T
Thing
Guest
Mailman, the world we were created in is a visual world. Every tree, sky, animal, we see is an image, a visual image of creation. Creation is essentially a very visual thing.
We, as humans, though, were created to know and love our creator, freely.
He did not reveal *Himself *to His humans visually until 2000 years ago. Until that time He would not allow any visual representation of Himself, He did not even tell Moses His name. The creator wished to remain hidden and secret until He became man.
As He said Himself, no-one has seen the Father except the Son; If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.
So, 2000 years ago, humans have not just known God the creator but have also seen Him too, finally. Before this time He remained hidden to people.
When a visual representation of Jesus Christ is drawn or painted it is restating this idea in effect, that God the creator became man and dwelt among us in a highly visual way. We could see Him walk, speak, eat, die. And we are now free to represent these things visually in art as we would have seen them then.
If, however, regarding the Ten Commandments, you think that a painting is a real god, a graven image worshipped as a god because people believe it is a god or God, then I’m afraid that it is your own understanding which is mistaken. A painting is not a god. We do not hammer a pin into the wall and hang an actual real, live, god on the wall and worship him.
We paint the visual scene of God as man as you yourself would have seen the visual image of God as man had you lived 2000 years ago.
- Status