how do you imagine Jesus' face?

Tone said:

Not an all out storm, I don't think, but I did grow up in the windy and arid High Desert, so I can understand a bit.

Click to expand...

Well the ones in the Middle-East can be apocalyptic! It's hard to breathe and you have to shut down vehicles and wait it out because you'll plug up your engine filters; and besides the fact you can't see where you're going anyways.

There are these little tornado things to be careful of too; because if you get caught in a strong enough one, they can take you up in the air about 20 feet or so and when they dissipate, they drop you on the ground. It's like jumping off the roof of a two story house.

When I was in the military, we were told to get down next to the trucks, so these types of things don't kill us.

Deserts in Saudi Arabia are like some other planet and the sand gets everywhere.

You ever have to shake sand out of your underwear? LOL It's very fine too. It's not like the sand in Myrtle Beach.

About the Son of Man who walked this earth. But I don't know what he looks like.

He grew up before him like a tender shoot
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him

Randy777 said:

About the Son of Man who walked this earth. But I don't know what he looks like.

He grew up before him like a tender shoot
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him

Click to expand...

That verse you quote isn't actually talking about Jesus's physical appearance; it's actually talking about peoples' perception of Him as King and suffering servant. He had no charisma or any such type attribute that we'd wish to exalt Him for.

This 3-D from the shroud of Turin:


3D Carbon Copy of Jesus

mmksparbud said:

This 3-D from the shroud of Turin:

3D Carbon Copy of Jesus

Click to expand...

Couple of issues with the Shroud of Turin besides the size of the figure, the race of the figure, the length of the hair of the figure (traditional max length of a Jewish man's hair was the width of his hand):

1. A corpse on a flat burial slab would not retain this position.
2. The figure on the Shroud was not arranged in accordance with 1st century Jewish burial customs.
a. the arms would have been crossed over the chest, not the genitals.
b. Scripture says Jesus's burial shroud was in 2 pieces.
c. somewhere in the vicinity of 150lbs of burial spices were used and part of the preparations made the substance within the shroud sticky. Which from a strictly human perspective, would have made it challenging to get out of. (Note Lazarus emerged from the tomb still wrapped in the grave clothes and Jesus told the other's to loose him.)
Yet Jesus's shroud was half on the floor of the tomb and half folded up on the slab. (it was not one piece.)
d. An averagely proportioned human male laying flat on his back; his hands would not cover his genitals. So if Jesus had actually left an "impression" on His shroud; given the way He was buried, His reproductive organs would have been part of that imprint..

Then.... take a body that knew no sin, "re-incarnate" Divinity and humanity back into this body; open the throttle all the way (blood, hormones, enzymes, neurotransmitters etc) hit the "on" button and imagine what happened. To say the least; it would have made a very.... interesting (and probably rather graphic) imprint (had there been an imprint - which I personally don't believe there was).

Which needless to say - interesting to note that there actually was no human witness to the resurrection!

I theorize that the "angels" present were theophanies of the Father and Spirt - but that's my hypothesis. I can't prove that Scripturally; other than it does say "the angel of the LORD descended and rolled away the stone". In other passages; it's quite clear the "angel of the LORD" was a representation of God Himself. Albite "theophanies" were usually of the Son. So my hypothesis comes about from the idea that those most appropriate to be immediately present at the resurrection, would have been the Father and the Spirit.

So... there's my "two cents" on the Shroud of Turin.

Supposedly, multiple people who have seen Him in either visions or near-death experiences claim that the painting below, which was made by a young woman who also claimed to have seen Him in similar circumstances, looks just like Him.

Ajax 777 said:

Supposedly, multiple people who have seen Him in either visions or near-death experiences claim that the painting below, which was made by a young woman who also claimed to seen Him in similar circumstances, looks just like Him.

View attachment 282372

Click to expand...

- Looks awfully European to me - (just saying).

The Righterzpen said:

Couple of issues with the Shroud of Turin besides the size of the figure, the race of the figure, the length of the hair of the figure (traditional max length of a Jewish man's hair was the width of his hand):

1. A corpse on a flat burial slab would not retain this position.
2. The figure on the Shroud was not arranged in accordance with 1st century Jewish burial customs.
a. the arms would have been crossed over the chest, not the genitals.
b. Scripture says Jesus's burial shroud was in 2 pieces.
c. somewhere in the vicinity of 150lbs of burial spices were used and part of the preparations made the substance within the shroud sticky. Which from a strictly human perspective, would have made it challenging to get out of. (Note Lazarus emerged from the tomb still wrapped in the grave clothes and Jesus told the other's to loose him.)
Yet Jesus's shroud was half on the floor of the tomb and half folded up on the slab. (it was not one piece.)
d. An averagely proportioned human male laying flat on his back; his hands would not cover his genitals. So if Jesus had actually left an "impression" on His shroud; given the way He was buried, His reproductive organs would have been part of that imprint..

Then.... take a body that knew no sin, "re-incarnate" Divinity and humanity back into this body; open the throttle all the way (blood, hormones, enzymes, neurotransmitters etc) hit the "on" button and imagine what happened. To say the least; it would have made a very.... interesting (and probably rather graphic) imprint (had there been an imprint - which I personally don't believe there was).

Which needless to say - interesting to note that there actually was no human witness to the resurrection!

I theorize that the "angels" present were theophanies of the Father and Spirt - but that's my hypothesis. I can't prove that Scripturally; other than it does say "the angel of the LORD descended and rolled away the stone". In other passages; it's quite clear the "angel of the LORD" was a representation of God Himself. Albite "theophanies" were usually of the Son. So my hypothesis comes about from the idea that those most appropriate to be immediately present at the resurrection, would have been the Father and the Spirit.

So... there's my "two cents" on the Shroud of Turin.

Click to expand...

I was not saying that this is a true picture of Jesus. I said it is a 3-D statue of the body in the shroud of Turin. I have a few doubts about it myself. Mainly the bible does say this:

Joh 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Joh 19:39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Joh 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

According to what was found in the shroud---there were no such spices and stuff found in it. Some of your objections can be set aside and have been in other threads---such as the len gth of arms,l there are many men today whoi can do so as they do have long arms, the bodxy is also not flat on his back and can tgherefore, reach them easier. Al.so, It doesn't matter if the shroud were sticky, not even cement w0oulod have kept Jesus from arising, certainly nothing as flimsy as a sticky shroud---Jesus arose as God after all. The positio0n of the body could be due to rigor mortise, it does not release until after 3-4 days after death. However, it does seem to be a much more realistic portrait of what Jesus might have looked like. At least better than that Neanderthal looking guy.

mmksparbud said:

Some of your objections can be set aside and have been in other threads---such as the len gth of arms,l there are many men today whoi can do so as they do have long arms, the bodxy is also not flat on his back and can tgherefore, reach them easier. Al.so, It doesn't matter if the shroud were sticky, not even cement w0oulod have kept Jesus from arising, certainly nothing as flimsy as a sticky shroud---Jesus arose as God after all. The positio0n of the body could be due to rigor mortise, it does not release until after 3-4 days after death. However, it does seem to be a much more realistic portrait of what Jesus might have looked like. At least better than that Neanderthal looking guy.

Click to expand...

Rigger is a byproduct of decomposition though; so for a body that "knew no corruption", you actually wouldn't see rigger.

Which means in a relaxed position (arms on the flat surface) your hands would not cover your genitals. (Try it - lay on your living room floor on your back and see where your hands land.) This proportional detail holds true for women too.

Even try tying them together; they will lay across your abdomen based on where the elbows bend. Stand in front of a mirror and bend your arms. Your elbows run perpendicular to your belly button. That's basic general anatomy; people who draw know that. The painter of the shroud was trying to account for modesty as a nude male figure would not have been an acceptable icon in Medieval Europe. (And so thus; the strange position of the hands.)

Keep in mind, we are not talking about someone in the standing position. (This is the other issue with the hair. Laying down, given its length, gravity would pull it toward the back of the head.)

This is also an issue of positioning with the blood stains. In reality, the back of the shroud would have been all bloody; for even in decomposing dead bodies, the blood pools based on body position.

Also if you had a shroud wrapped around a body; you'd see evidence of that reflected in what ever part of the shroud touched the skin. With the Shroud of Turin; it's very clear the image is only on the surface of the fabric as it relates to the presentation of the image. Take a piece of toilet paper and attempt to wrap it around a barbie doll and you'll see what I mean.

The Righterzpen said:

Well, if you want the opinion of a forensic anthropologist; He'd look something like this.

View attachment 282362

This is a conglomeration forensic reconstruction based on the skeletons of 1st century Jewish tombs.

If Jesus fell within the statistical norms of height and weight of first century Jewish men: He would have been between 4ft 11in and 5ft 3in tall and between 110 to 130 lbs.

(The figure on the Shroud of Turin is in excess of 6 ft.)

For comparison; the average Roman soldier was 5ft 6inch and about 160lbs.

Click to expand...

I've seen this one before

The Righterzpen said:

- Looks awfully European to me - (just saying).

Click to expand...

No, I get it. Skin appears fair in the painting, but I think it is just the lighting. He almost certainly had olive skin. And his hair color is also not uncommon for the peoples of that region, especially when you consider that He was descended from David and some accounts have David sporting red hair. But if you look at the shape of His eyes and nose, you can clearly see Middle Eastern characteristics. Here is another picture which would appear to better portray His likeness:

The Righterzpen said:

Well, if you want the opinion of a forensic anthropologist; He'd look something like this.

View attachment 282362

This is a conglomeration forensic reconstruction based on the skeletons of 1st century Jewish tombs.

If Jesus fell within the statistical norms of height and weight of first century Jewish men: He would have been between 4ft 11in and 5ft 3in tall and between 110 to 130 lbs.

(The figure on the Shroud of Turin is in excess of 6 ft.)

For comparison; the average Roman soldier was 5ft 6inch and about 160lbs.

Click to expand...

Honestly I think that image is terrible. It looks like the guy is mentally unstable, someone that has no clue what is going on, don't you think? Some atheists have that picture of Jesus, as someone insane. That's how they try to deal with evidence pointing to Jesus as the Messiah.

I don't picture Jesus's face as being remarkable in the earthly sense but His Heavenly self I believe looks divine beyond description.

albeit i am without doubt with regard to his facial features, it really does not matter at all, however one thing we can all agree on is that he was without blemish and without spot, seeing the natural is but a reflection of the spiritual ....

The Righterzpen said:

- Looks awfully European to me - (just saying).

Click to expand...

Jesus was Semitic/Middle Eastern and of darker complexion. Many tried to depict him as northern European. Israel is close to Egypt. As a carpenter he would have been tanned. Many of the Jews of Europe had mixed with Caucasians.

If they saw him today as he was then, some people would have treated him like a minority. The things Jesus did were beautiful. He is a worker does not suffer shame, even if he appeared different.

The Righterzpen said:

Well, if you want the opinion of a forensic anthropologist; He'd look something like this.

View attachment 282362

This is a conglomeration forensic reconstruction based on the skeletons of 1st century Jewish tombs.

If Jesus fell within the statistical norms of height and weight of first century Jewish men: He would have been between 4ft 11in and 5ft 3in tall and between 110 to 130 lbs.

(The figure on the Shroud of Turin is in excess of 6 ft.)

For comparison; the average Roman soldier was 5ft 6inch and about 160lbs.

Click to expand...

This one appears too fat.

zoidar said:

Honestly I think that image is terrible. It looks like the guy is mentally unstable, someone that has no clue what is going on, don't you think? Some atheists have that picture of Jesus, as someone insane. That's how they try to deal with evidense pointing to Jesus as the Messiah.

Click to expand...

I think what you are perceiving, could be accounted for in the profession of the person who created the model. Forensic anthropologists reconstruct the faces of crime victims for the sake of trying to identify a body.

They aren't painters trying to convey something about the individual's personality. So yes, the models look "soulless" because they are pretty much just the mathematical reconstruction of the face based on shape of the skull and thickness of muscle tissue and skin based on race perimeters of the subject.

From a strictly "medical model", "scientific" presentation; forensic models are usually uncannily accurate as to what the subject actually looked like; but families inquiring on the subject based on the forensic reconstruction, generally say the model "looks dead". (The remains are then further evaluated for identification purposes based on dental records or genetics.) Which it is true, that the forensic anthropologist can't capture the individual's personality; but that's not the goal of the reconstruction.

Now forensic models of people from history do tend to "look different" than modern forensic models and that's because generations do change over time. What constituted a Native American from 2000 years ago, will look different from a person of the same tribe today. And obviously this is true for Semitic people too. (Thus the complaint of the "neanderthal" look of this forensic model.)

Keeping in mind too that a Semitic tribesman from 2000 years ago was indeed very racially mixed; despite the insistence of the average Jew to say he's "full blood Jew". (LOL - it's like the "ethnic identity" "American". That could mean any kindred, tribe, tongue or nation on the planet!)

Ezekiel 16:3 describes "Jerusalem's" father as an Amorite and mother as a Hittite. Ancient Egyptians depicted Amorites as Europeans with light skin and blue eyes and Hittites were probably sub-Saharan African; (at least in skin tone). Uriah was a Hittite and assuming his wife Bathsheba was also a Hittite. Moses's wife was Ethiopian. Rehab would be assumed to have been of what ever race people of Jericho were. So yes, Jesus would have appeared (of some proportion) to have been racially mixed. "African / European".

Personally, I think Adam would have been similar in appearance because as the first human; his genome contained all the genetic material that would come to make up various races. After all, racial variants aren't actually a result of genetic mutations; their manifestation in a population is brought on by environmental adaptation; and it actually only takes like 3 to 4 generations to manifest "ethnic" characteristics of a given race or nationality. But that's my hypothesis / "two cents" on comparing the appearances of the first and last Adams.

Personally I don't think the depiction looks "insane" as much as "soulless" on account of the forensic nature of the profession of the person who created the model.

Now insane people (especially serial killers) can certainly look "soulless"; but so can soldiers in combat. Usually criminally insane people (or sociopathic narcissistic people) have some extent of "conniving" to the impression of their appearance; or they could look like schizophrenics who are "suspicious" of everyone.

Combat soldiers though, more look "lost" or like "lights on but nobody's home". And that's due more to the effect of the stressful environment on the person's emotions. You can't "think" about "feelings" in that level of stress in the environment of combat, or you will go insane. It's the same thing with crime victims, civilians in a war zone, people caught in natural disasters or survivors of serious accidents. Trauma creates a barrier in the brain for the sake of survival. And then trying to reconcile the experience with the emotions is what PTSD is all about.

But if you want a good reference to what "insane" people actually look like; get on Pinterest and look at old photos of patients in asylums. Those people for the most part look frightened or hopeless. And there accounts for the difference between the mentally/emotionally unstable and the criminal. Most "insane" people aren't criminals and most criminals aren't actually "insane" either. Criminals suffer more from moral bankruptcy than insanity.

But yes; I do see what you are saying about the forensic image.

dqhall said:

This one appears too fat.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "fat" as much as "broad faced" as an African would be.

Also, Ashkenazis aren't actually Semitic. They are primarily ethnically European.

The Righterzpen said:

Personally, I think Adam would have been similar in appearance because as the first human; his genome contained all the genetic material that would come to make up various races. After all, racial variants aren't actually a result of genetic mutations; their manifestation in a population is brought on by environmental adaptation; and it actually only takes like 3 to 4 generations to manifest "ethnic" characteristics of a given race or nationality. But that's my hypothesis / "two cents" on comparing the appearances of the first and last Adams.

Click to expand...

I so totally agree! I've been saying this for years and when I do people look at me like I am crazy! But it only makes sense. I am also of the opinion that God is all colors---and we are made in His image and that image is reflected in the different colors. This is one reason I hate racism. Satan is trying so hard to destroy us, he pits us against each other, and no matter what color, people will hate the darker ones every time, blacks have their own prejudices with those of lighter skin being more "acceptable!" I find it appalling. The blackest of the black, are in the image of God. I do not, of course, understand how He is all colors, but I am deeply convicted He is and made us all to reflect different aspects of the Godhead.
I am not black, I look white, have hazel eyes and brown hair, very light skin---but I am a Heinz 57---German, Hispanic, Native Honduran and English. One grandfather was English, whatever that means! My father and eldest brother look very Hispanic. I am a mutt, and I like it.