I
Ignatius
Guest
Are you equally offended by depiction of Jesus as an Asian or African?
- Status
2
2shelbys
Guest
Al Masetti:
The references to the “facial reconstruction” are pointless because as stated in other earlier posts, it has absolutely no basis in science or relevance to Jesus. To take one skull and assume that all men of that era shared those traits is ludicrous, and the skin color depicted in that reconstruction is nothing more than a guess. You can not determine skin color from a skull.
The best available evidence of the physical appearance of Jesus is the Shroud. If you look at all of the scientific evidence in support of it’s authenticity, and the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes it as a Holy Relic, there just is no better source.
Exactly. As I said in an earlier post, the prevailing theory about the reason for Jesus being protrayed the way he has been essentially since his death, is that all of the depictions from ancient icons to the present have all been based on a single source, the Shroud. I am a little confused by the posts about a “Swedish” or “blond” Jesus because I have never seen anything like that. Every rendering of Jesus that I have seen (especially the ancient ones) other than those portrating him as black are of a fair -skinned man with long dark hair. The claim that there could not have been any fair-skinned people in the middle east is proven wrong by the fact that a large precentage of the Jewish population is and has always been fair-skinned.
The references to the “facial reconstruction” are pointless because as stated in other earlier posts, it has absolutely no basis in science or relevance to Jesus. To take one skull and assume that all men of that era shared those traits is ludicrous, and the skin color depicted in that reconstruction is nothing more than a guess. You can not determine skin color from a skull.
The best available evidence of the physical appearance of Jesus is the Shroud. If you look at all of the scientific evidence in support of it’s authenticity, and the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes it as a Holy Relic, there just is no better source.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I see to recall in one of the histories written by Josephus a very brief description of Jesus.
Now I have to go look it up…
Now I have to go look it up…
C
cardenio
Guest
I’ve heard it said that Jesus probably looked a lot like bin Laden.
You know what, though, Jesus loves bin Laden, too.
Makes you think.
You know what, though, Jesus loves bin Laden, too.
Makes you think.
P
Pentecost2005
Guest
But… does Bin Laden love Jesus?
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
But Josephus was born after Jesus was crucifed. How would Josephus know what Jesus looked like?
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
Only because it would be equally inaccurate as depicting Jesus as a northern European cacausian.
I still think this depiction is a more accurate portrayal of his general physical appearance:
gbgm-umc.org/smumc-ca/Real_Face.htm
Which I do not find offensive at all.
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s OK for artists to portray Jesus according to their own cultural norms. Still, given the multi-ethnic nature of modern Western society, and given the virulent nature of modern Western racism (by “modern” I mean the past 500 years or so), I think the blond Jesus should generally be discouraged in favor of a somewhat more historically accurate portrayal.
Edwin
M
mike182d
Guest
Yes.
P
Pentecost2005
Guest
Because, after all, non-Westerners are incapable of racism…
Anyway, we’ll all find out soon enough what Jesus “really” looks like.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Hello Bobby,
That is the “reconstruction” we have been discussing that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. As has been said, you can not take one skull and assume that all males of the period had the same physical traits. It just makes no sense at all. Also, the skin color is only a guess. You can not discern skin color from a skull. To use that logic you would have to surmise that ALL Northern Europeans were blond with blue eyes, that ALL Africans were identical in facial features and color, etc. It has no basis in science or reality. The Shroud on the other hand, does.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Wow. You need to brush up on your human history a little. What you refer to as “modern Western” racism is nothing compared to the ethnic slaughters of the past. As a matter of fact, it is nothing compared to the persecution and murder that has gone on and continues to go on to this day in Africa, China, and many other non-western places. Do not be so quick to condemn our society just because the leftists in the media love to do so.
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
Hi,
The forensic reconstruction which was shown was done using all the available physical evidence including skeletons and skulls of men from Palistine of the first century. The average height was 5’ 2", the average weight about 110 lbs, and the average lifespan was possibly less than 24 years old. The general phenotype (observable characteristics) of a first century Palistinian Jew was accurately portrayed. The historical Jesus was a first century Palistinian Jew and should have possessed the same ethnic phenotype of that depicted in the rendition provided.
If you passed your Anthropology and Genetic courses in college, then you understand that blond hair, red hair, blue eyes, green eyes or hazel eyes are all recessive characteristics and unique to the northern European cacausian as a result of an isolated gene pool over the ages. If Greece or northern Italy had people with recessive characteristics, then it only meant that they came in contact with people of northern European descent earlier in their history.
I too am offended by the portrayals of Jesus as a 6’ 1" tall northern European caucasian. If I grew a beard and mustache and let my hair grow to shoulder length then I would strongly resemble the face in the Shroud of Turin, and that strikes me as odd.
2
2shelbys
Guest
This is true but when the “best available physical evidence” is only bones anything beyond basic structure is nothing more than conjecture.
Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? As I said in earlier posts I have never seen a blond Jesus. I don’t even know where that assertion comes from. The Shroud certainly does not depict a blond man nor does it indicate any eye color.
In the overwhelming majority of icons and early depictions Jesus is alone so no indication of his height is made. Also, it is not uncommon for revered figures to be depicted as larger-than-life. Do you think the artist that painted the famous picture of John Brown wanted us to believe that Mr. Brown was 12 feet tall and weighed 600 pounds? The fact that Jesus is shown with light skin would not indicate “northern European caucasian” unless there were absolutely no light-skinned people anywhere else. As has been said in several posts, there are and always have been a great number of light-skinned Jewish people that you are ignoring when you assume that anyone with light skin is northern European.
Whether or not that strikes you as odd, the Shroud is the “best available physical evidence” of the physical appearance of Jesus. The fact that you find it odd that your appearance could be altered to resemble it does nothing to refute the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of it’s authenticity.
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
You need to re-read those articles, it isn’t just bones. Hair and skin samples do exist from the tombs of Palistine in the first century.
The Shroud portrays a tall, long faced, long nosed, long haired, fair skinned caucasian. All the art renditions of Jesus through history have shown him as a fair skinned caucasian, and not the short, dark-skinned semite shown in the forensic reproduction.
You also need to review your historical demographics as well as genetics to show the migrations of people in antiquity. Northern Europeans got around and distributed their genes all over the ancient world.
What “overwhelming scientific evidence”? So far science has identified the blood type and DNA of the blood stains, and that is it. Unless we clone the DNA, it is still a matter of religious faith that the man on the Shroud of Turin is actually the Lord himself.
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
Hi,
gbgm-umc.org/smumc-ca/Real_Face.htm
Regarding this forensic reproduction of a first century Palestinian Jew.
gbgm-umc.org/smumc-ca/Real_Face.htm
Regarding this forensic reproduction of a first century Palestinian Jew.
- The forensic reproduction is an accurate portrayal of the ethnic characteristics of a first century Palestinian Jew.
- Jesus was a first century Palestinian Jew.
- Therefore, Jesus should have possessed similar ethnic characteristics as a first century Palestinian Jew.
- The face on the Shroud of Turin does not demonstrate the ethnic characteristics found in a first century Palestinian Jew.
- Jesus was a first century Palestinian Jew.
- Therefore, the face on the Shroud of Turin should not resemble Jesus.
2
2shelbys
Guest
The hair is a non-issue since there is no “blond” Jesus. All sources are in agreement that his hair was dark, and 2000 year-old skin samples never retain their original color or texture.
Again you assume that there are not and never were any light-skinned people outside of Europe. Not correct.
Do you think that maybe the reason why he was never depicted that way at any time or in any place before that particular study a few years ago may be that everyone knew what his physical appearance was from what had been passed down since his time?
And I guess they destroyed all of the “correct” depictions of Jesus and replaced them?
Actually there is so much evidence that it is far to extensive to post in a forum. You can go to any of the sites run by those involved in the research but I will briefly summarize some of the more recent information:
Yes the blood type is known and DNA samples were obtained. It was also determined that the blood contains excessive amounts of bilirubin which indicates severe concussive beating shortly prior to death.
Pollens and grains are present that are native only to the area of Jerusalem. The pollen sample taken from the head area is from a thistle plant (only native to the Jerusalem area) that would make an excellent crown of thorns.
Dirt samples taken from area of the knees, feet, and tip of the nose are an exact match to the calcium carbonate-rich soil of Jerusalem.
The blood type, shape and billirubin content of the stains, and several of the pollens are exact matches for those found on the Sudarium of Oviedo which has always been accepted as that of Jesus and the history of which is traceable to the first century.
This barely scratches the surface of what has been discovered. It is very telling that all of the original researchers (most of whom went there to expose it as a fake) agree that it is not a fake and that it is indeed an actual burial cloth of a man whose appearance and injuries are exactly consistant with what we know of Jesus. Is it is possible that someone else matching the accepted appearance of Jesus was scourged, fitted with a crown of thorns, and jabbed in the side (resulting in the spewing of blood and water) EXACTLY the same way as Jesus and in the exact same area of the Roman empire (Jerusalem)? Maybe. It is likely? Not even close.
2
2shelbys
Guest
%between%
Of ONE Palestinian Jew maybe (again, it is sheer conjecture since nothing is known of the skull donor), not all of them.
The assertion that all of the Jewish males of the era were essentially identical in appearance is not only scientifically unsound in the extreme, but it is a little disturbing (they all look alike to me?). It also ignores the fact that 2000 years ago there was not only one Jewish people that shared the same faith and appearance, but several. Twelve tribes as I remember.
2
2shelbys
Guest
Here, with your own statement you have negated your own assertion that Jesus had to have the dark-skinned appearance of the reconstruction. The spreading of European genes resulted in the falsifying of the image of Jesus but it couldn’t have contributed to his long-accepted light-skinned appearance? You have shown exactly why it is possible that he indeed was light-skinned as has always been believed.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Genetically, Jesus probably had some DNA relationship to Mary… we have one picture of Mary drawn by herself… in Juan Diego’s cloak from Guadaloupe.
- Status