What Did Jesus Really Look Like? Article Provides Some Information

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I never mentioned skin color, read the post again. I can’t explain it to you if you don’t see it. I think you are making that assumption and imposing it upon me. I portray how they see it and the conclusion they draw. For me, beauty is generally anywhere and everywhere and doesn’t follow societal portrayals. For example I don’t believe models are beautiful, although society says so, rather they model because their features are able to emphasize the clothes. But again, I just think you are getting upset just to be upset.
 
My young nephews were discussing why Jesus’s hair and beard look different in different depictions of Him. Most of us would point to those being different artists’ ideas about Him, but my nephew thought -well He probably didn’t keep his hair exactly the same his whole life. We all change it up. My mind is blown. 😆
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
He looked like a 1st Century Hebrew from Palestine. Everything else is speculation, private revelation, etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t since he didn’t have a Hebrew father. Like many children, he might have looked more like his dad than his mom, and his dad wasn’t a Hebrew from Palestine.

What I do know is that in February 1931 Jesus appeared to Saint Faustina looking like this:

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

And asked that a painting be made of His image that then could be venerated around the world. So that tells me that this is how our Lord wants to revel himself to us.

And that’s good enough for me.
 
PeterT said:
And asked that a painting be made of His image that then could be venerated around the world. So that tells me that this is how our Lord wants to revel himself to us.
Click to expand...
And you are, of course, free to believe that. As other Catholics are free not to, since it is a private revelation.
 
As said below, speculation or private revelation (for instance, the Divine Mercy image is completely private revelation). Neither Veil nor Shroud are decreed to be believed by the faithful.
 
Exactly. The Holy Spirit does not have a human body, nor human DNA.
 
This is the same BBC article picture of “what Jesus really looked like” that we’ve already had several past threads about. I note that the original articles posted by the OP are from 2018 and from 2015.
Nothing new to see here.
 
Last edited:
That image of Christ in the BBC article has to be one of the most hideous depictions of Jesus I’ve ever seen in my life!!! Looks like a Neanderthal. But that’s just me.
 
Last edited:
All of these are fun speculation, but we actually have no idea what Jesus looked like. Seems likely he looked like a typical 1st century Galilean.
 
buffalo said:
You are going to have to make a better case than that. Who was the shroud revealed to?
Click to expand...
He really doesn’t have to make a “better case than that.” The shroud is something Catholics are free to believe in or not. The church has not taken a definitive stance on it. If you believe it’s genuine, great. Others don’t, and that’s fine too.
 
Gigantals said:
Given the sheer amount of correlation between the Shroud of Turin, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the Divine Mercy Image and the Veil of Veronica, I’d say we know what he looked like. The only potential difference is that he might’ve been a bit redder in skin tone.
Click to expand...
I don’t put much weight on the Shroud. The weight of the evidence is against its authenticity, in my view, which does not mean it can’t be inspiring or interesting (again, in my view).
 
aroosi said:
King David had red hair. Was he an average looking man of Palestine of his time?
Click to expand...
I think the assumption is that if Jesus has physical characteristics that were very unusual for the time the Gospel writers might have mentioned it. The fact that we hear nothing about His height, for example, suggests that He was neither exceptionally tall or exceptionally short.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
I think the assumption is that if Jesus has physical characteristics that were very unusual for the time the Gospel writers might have mentioned it. The fact that we hear nothing about His height, for example, suggests that He was neither exceptionally tall or exceptionally short.
Click to expand...
I used to believe this, but now I am less sure. For one thing, the Gospel writers don’t describe anyone’s appearance, do they? So maybe they just didn’t find appearance important (or didn’t know, depending on your view of the authors).

On a related point, if Jesus had an unusual appearance it would likely call His parentage into question. But we know that His parentage was called into question. There are hints of this in the Gospels, and we know that the Romans called His parentage into question in the early years of Christianity. So, maybe He did have an unusual appearance.

Just thoughts - at the end of the day I think it most likely He looked like an average guy from Nazareth.
 
TMC said:
I used to believe this, but now I am less sure. For one thing, the Gospel writers don’t describe anyone’s appearance, do they? So maybe they just didn’t find appearance important (or didn’t know, depending on your view of the authors).

On a related point, if Jesus had an unusual appearance it would likely call His parentage into question. But we know that His parentage was called into question. There are hints of this in the Gospels, and we know that the Romans called His parentage into question in the early years of Christianity. So, maybe He did have an unusual appearance.

Just thoughts - at the end of the day I think it most likely He looked like an average guy from Nazareth.
Click to expand...
Fair point. At the end of the day, we just don’t know.
 
Oh, man, I replied. I’m quoting what the work said there, that’s how the author described it. Then I added more detail both in the post and then in your reply. I don’t know why you are bringing up skin color or why you are insistent on it. Can someone else explain?
 
RepetantCatholic said:
The assumption is that Semitic people are all swarthy, ugly people and as Jesus was Semitic he must have looked like a primitive, ugly, swarthy person. Again, they say this but then say that man has not evolved in 10,000 years. So, I have known many Semitic people in my lifetime and most were not the prejudicial image people make of them. Most are quite beautiful people, some tan and some light skinned.
Click to expand...
This is what you said in your post. The italicized words imply that many Semitic people you’ve known are beautiful, “tan and light-skinned” as opposed to the idea that “swarthy, primitive” people are ugly.

If that’s not what you meant, your meaning is unclear.
 
Well, sorry for the offense. As you note I wrote some are tanned and some are light skinned, and, yes, not the prejudicial image people make of them implied is both are beautiful. Swarthy typically connotes not good looking, but swarthy doesn’t imply skin color. Primitive, is for emphasis as implied by the picture, making the point that on their own accord man has not evolved in 10,000 years.

But I see your point, I guess some people in Modern Times look like the image above. Didn’t realize that. Sorry about that, my point only was that it doesn’t matter what the Christ looked like, it’s not emphasized in the Gospels. And that these people are making biased assumptions of what Christ looked like based on stereotypes of Semitic people, which to me does not add up with my experience.

Again, sorry about that but that is my defense. Again, skin color is irrelevant. That’s why I didn’t get your comment. OK, I’ll take a break from CAF, because I’m out of touch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top