Picture of Jesus - Untruth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reign
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Beryllos. That’s an interesting question. I am reading the Mystical City of God …by Ven. Mary Agreda.
She said in her visions that the soldiers actually tried to strip our Lord at the scourging but whilst He allowed them to cause him terrible pain he would not allow this affront to decency, and their arms were paralysed, temporarily, which they in their malice attributed to demons they said he was possessed by. They could not therefore remove this covering from him during the scourging.
I put two and two together and extrapolated this to the Crucifixion. I have also read that it was the habit to crucify males naked to increase their humiliation but I wonder now, if the paintings and images we see of our Lord covered are far closer to the truth.
 
Those pictures look like Neanderthals!
 
Last edited:
Salibi said:
40.png
porthos11:
Arabs of the Levant are light-skinned, or white.
Click to expand...
With the exception of those who are actually descended from Arabs, most people in the Middle East are not ethnic Arabs.
porthos11 said:
this picture, along with the “Jesus wasn’t white” is political double-garbage.
Click to expand...
Why do you think this is a political issue? 🤔
Click to expand...
Because these days, it’s not popular for great men to be white males.

Anyway, one does not need to limit oneself to Arabs. Lebanon has ethnic Phoenecians who are also of similar stock as Palestinian Jews. These folks are also light-skinned.

The olive-skinned Palestinian is a very possible skin tone Jesus possessed, and his outdoor lifestyle would have undoubtedly tanned him. However, there is more than enough evidence to not exclude Jesus of being light-skinned as per the native stock of the area.

The point I’m trying to drive home is that one cannot say with any certainty that “Jesus wasn’t white.”

And further, without Jesus’ skull, there is no saying whatsoever that “Jesus looked like this.” That’s a Neanderthal, not the Saviour.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Son of God as well as Son of Mary
 
Last edited:
And further, who’s to say Jesus, the sinless, perfect Son of God and of the Immaculate Virgin, was not a handsome fellow? He would likely have had a great masculine beauty about him just due to who and what he was.

The passage of Isaiah 53 is a reference to his Passion, and so the references to ugliness are to what was done to him on Good Friday, not to him as a man in general.
 
It’s a common artistic convention to depict important figures in a way that’s culturally relevant to the people who are perceiving the imagery. Like why the Guadalupe figure is presented as an Aztec princess— it had more meaning in the conversion of Mexico, than if it had been a historically accurate image, because it had hidden meanings that the primary audience could comprehend.

On a less miraculous level----

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Apart from the Shroud, the only image that comes to mind as being a supposedly accurate image was Faustina’s Divine Mercy picture (the one with the purple halo and the hand-not-rising-above-the-shoulder, not the later images that became popular but were unable to refer to the original). And even she cried with disappointment when she saw it. 💙

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Personally, I like this Jesus

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Separated at birth?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The first is my favorite painting of our Lord, done by German master Heinrich Hofmann. The second is, well, you know.

And no, OP, I do not bow or sacrifice to either image.
 
porthos11 said:
40.png
Benjinho:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

For anyone curious, this is a historically accurate version of Jesus and probably closest to his actual appearance

He definitely wasn’t blonde and blue eyed or really European appearing in any way
Click to expand...
I just grate over the “Jesus wasn’t white” claptrap. Look at any typical Arab today, who is from the same stock as Palestinian Jews of the first century. Arabs of the Levant are light-skinned, or white.

And even if one could argue “diaspora!” Jews are also generally white.

and finally, how could anyone say Jesus looked like this picture? No one has his skull to reconstruct his face.

So this picture, along with the “Jesus wasn’t white” is political double-garbage.
Click to expand...
White Jews (Ashkenazi Jews) comprise most modern Jews and are white because they are middle Eastern mixed with Slavic and Germanic peoples. They did not even arise until over a millennium after the time of Jesus.

Physical attractiveness has little to nothing to do with the holiness or heart of Jesus.

I’m actually a bit appalled that anyone would become averse to the idea that Jesus wasn’t white because for someone with the gift of salvation for the world, the color of one’s skin or facial features shouldn’t matter.
I’ve attached a picture of a neanderthal reconstruction from a skull…doesn’t look much like the Jesus I posted.
HtnDf9s29uN4K2JYLopx5K-320-80|320x426
 
Last edited:
No one classifies modern Arabs or Palestinians as “white”. “White”, like all racial categories, is a social construct, not a biological or genetic one. The term “white” is used almost universally to refer to people of European descent.
 
twf said:
No one classifies modern Arabs or Palestinians as “white”. “White”, like all racial categories, is a social construct, not a biological or genetic one. The term “white” is used almost universally to refer to people of European descent.
Click to expand...
I have a strong feeling a Xhosa tribesmen from South Africa or someone from Mongolia or the Pacific Islands just might, if they see a Palestinian next to, say, an olive-skinned dark-haired person from southern Italy, not see the difference as you do. And not automatically classify the Italian as “white” and the Palestinian as “not-white” as you do.
 
Like I said, it’s a social construct so mileage will vary. In North America, at any rate, the term “white” is generally used to refer to people of European descent. It’s arbitrary. As is any other racial category people make up.
 
twf said:
In North America, at any rate, the term “white” is generally used to refer to people of European descent.
Click to expand...
Can somebody be both white and Latino? Or are those terms mutually exclusive?
 
Indeed some Latinos are “white” with heritage that is almost entirely European. Our pope is a great example of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top