What did Jesus look like ?

[Ivan Hlavanda]

What Isaiah says;.

King James Bible
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: Isaiah 52:14

What the Media says.

Revealed: What Jesus REALLY looked like, according to experts

He is one of the most instantly recognisable figures in the Western world. But experts say that every image you've seen of Jesus is almost certainly inaccurate.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So what dou think ?

We are commanded not to make images of God.

Even imagining what He might look like is breaking of this commandment.

Only thing that we know from the Bible is the verse you quoted, and that His looks were nothing for us to desire.

Too many Christians are obssesed with His looks

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

This image is so accurate, I'm amazed.
Right down to the eyes. Wow. Jesus would not have blue or green eyes.
Amazing, that secular (worldly) people get this, and Christianity today, does not!

How do you understand the scripture, though?
So many translations make it seem like Jesus was disfigured.

New American Standard Bible - His appearance was marred beyond that of a man
Christian Standard Bible - his form did not resemble a human being
Good News Translation - he was so disfigured that he hardly looked human.
New Living Translation - from his appearance, one would scarcely know he was a man.

Some seem confused.
In Isaiah 53:2 the same Greek expression mareh: Appearance, vision, sight, form is used, but some render that "beauty".

At least 9 translations on github uses the expression no stately form or majesty to attract us, no beauty that we should desire Him.
The texts appear to be showing that Jesus was ordinary and did not stand out, like a person that is decked in royalty, or dressed in such a way to attract.
The attractiveness did not refer to his face.

As a perfect man - with a body from his father, Jesus was handsome.
He did not have to be more handsome than Absolom, since his outward appearance was not the important thing about him.

Jesus was not a king Solomon, not king Sennacherib.
He certainly did not stand out like the Pharisees, and other religious leaders.
Jesus was simple, humble, and lowly.

This matches what the "experts" say.

Not only would Jesus definitely not have had flowing locks, he is also unlikely to have grown a long beard or even worn robes.​

​

Instead, historians believe that Jesus would have looked like any other unremarkable member of Judean society in the first century AD.​

​

One of the few things we know for certain is that Jesus was ethnically Judean and came from the region which is now modern-day Palestine.​

​

This means his hair and beard would have been black and curly rather than brown and straight.​

Yes, Jesus would have kept his beard neatly trimmed. not necessarily because of the Roman, in my opinion, but because Jesus, was not a wild man, and unlike John the Baptist, was frequently in the cities among the people.

I'm still stunned at the accuracy of that image.
I'm also impressed that the "experts" were not swayed by earlier depictions - some of the very first depictions we have of Jesus show him looking distinctly well-groomed.

I'm sorry...but the image that you posted goes against the commandment 'not to make image out of God'. How Christians learned nothing om the golden calf?

 

[Apple Sky]

I'm sorry...but the image that you posted goes against the commandment 'not to make image out of God'. How Christians learned nothing om the golden calf?

@Ivan Hlavanda has posted this image which I presume he copied from the Daily Mail, and besides we are no longer under the law of Moses but under the law of Grace.

King James Bible
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14

 

[Apple Sky]

Jesus looked like the Father.

he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; John 14:9

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

@Ivan Hlavanda has posted this image which I presume he copied from the Daily Mail, and besides we are no longer under the law of Moses but under the law of Grace.

Jesus Christ did not save us so we can do whatever we want, but so that we can obey Him.

It is true that we are not under the Mosaic Law, still, 9 of the 10 commandments are repeated in New Testament. Making pictures of Jesus is a sin.

 

[Apple Sky]

Jesus Christ did not save us so we can do whatever we want, but so that we can obey Him.

It is true that we are not under the Mosaic Law, still, 9 of the 10 commandments are repeated in New Testament. Making pictures of Jesus is a sin.

I haven't made a pictrure of Jesus or has anyone else, the picture was taken from the MSM.

 

[CoreyD]

I'm sorry...but the image that you posted goes against the commandment 'not to make image out of God'. How Christians learned nothing om the golden calf?

Thanks for sharing your opinion.
There is no need to apologize for doing so.
After all, you feel strongly about it, and you are likely trying to help.

May I ask... do you watch Biblical movies?
If you don't want them, is it your opinion that these movies should all be banned, because they are making an image of people, and worshipping them?

If not movies, what about books, that illustrate Bible stories, and the characters and places?
There are millions of these books out there, and especially children's Bible story books.
Would you like to see all these books removed, because they are "making an image out of God"?

There are also illustrated Bibles.
Do you believe these book and movies are doing the same thing as the churches with the many images of Jesus on a cross, or Mary, and bowing to these and kissing them?
Have you let the pope, for example, know what the Bible says about idolatry?
I believe that would take priority to issues such as gay pride and abortion.

The truth is, movies, and books portraying Bible characters, and nowhere near idolatry - making an image, and bowing to them.
They simply reenact or otherwise give a visual of Bible scenes, but no one is making an image and bowing to these... as is done in the churches.

There are many paintings of the Lord's supper.
The artists that paint these pictures, are not sinning.
While a person might hold the view that doing these things makes one guilty of a sin, because they believe this is making an image of God, that is not what the scriptures are saying.

The Bible says...
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known. John 1:18

The son of God - Jesus Christ, was seen on earth for thirty three and a half years, from a baby in a manger, to a man buried in a tomb.
To reenact or illustrate those scenes, is not "making an image out of God".

Illustrations and animated images, bring the bible stories to life, and impact greatly on human hearts.
They are an aid also to the hearing impaired.
Overall, they are a great aid to everyone.

 

[CoreyD]

I haven't made a pictrure of Jesus or has anyone else, the picture was taken from the MSM.

Are you sure you did not make this?

 

[Jerry N.]

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.”

However, there were cherubim above the Ark of the Covenant. I think the Hebrews understood that the problem was not making the image but worshiping it.

 

[CoreyD]

We are commanded not to make images of God.

Where is the command not to make images of God?

Even imagining what He might look like is breaking of this commandment.

Persons are not saying what God might look like, but what the son of God - the man that walked the earth almost 2,000 years ago - might have looked like.
The image of what Jesus looked like, is to give an accurate representation, based on available evidence.

Here is a mural painting from the catacomb of Commodilla. One of the first bearded images of Jesus, late 4th century.

The depiction of Jesus in pictorial form dates back to early Christian art and architecture, as aniconism in Christianity was rejected within the ante-Nicene period. It took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form for his physical appearance, which has subsequently remained largely stable since that time. Most images of Jesus have in common a number of traits which are now almost universally associated with Jesus, although variants are seen.

The conventional image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair emerged around AD 300, but did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West.

Only thing that we know from the Bible is the verse you quoted, and that His looks were nothing for us to desire.

His appearance. Not his looks.
Appearance does not necessarily refer to looks.

Too many Christians are obssesed with His looks

I don't know about that.
Although, wondering what Jesus looked like, or even picturing him in your mind is not an obsession, and it certainly isn't a violation of God's law.
Some people might object to it, but this is due to personal feelings.
They might be sincere, but make the mistake of misapplying scripture.

Where do you find the command not to make images of God though?

 

[CoreyD]

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.”

However, there were cherubim above the Ark of the Covenant. I think the Hebrews understood that the problem was not making the image but worshiping it.

Thank you for posting the scripture.
It definitely does not say not to make an image of God, since God cannot be seen, and would therefore see no need to give that command.

Yes, anything can be an idol. We just have to either bow to it, and or worship it.
Not only were there cherubim above the Ark of the Covenant, as you correctly said, Solomon made images of things on earth - lions, but they certainly did not bow to them, or worship them.

Moses was told by God, to make a copper serpent. Not to bow to, or worship. Numbers 21:8, 9
However, later, that is exactly what some Israelites did. They bowed to it, and worshipped it... making it an idol. 2 Kings 18:4

As you correctly stated, the problem was not making the image but worshiping it... and I need to add, bowing to it.
When one bows to an image, they are venerating it - idolizing it, and this is done in mainstream churches Sunday to Sunday, and lots of people do not complain.

There is no scriptural reason for persons to complain about an image on a page, or on a big screen. So long as that image is not bowed to, or worshipped.
The pictures below, show persons bowing to images made.

Either of these could be a rock, a car, or anything else.
Is this not the idolatry deterred in the scriptures, which is similar to what the Israelites later did with the copper serpent?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Either of these could be a rock, a car, or anything else.
Is this not the idolatry deterred in the scriptures, which is similar to what the Israelites later did with the copper serpent?

No, it's not.

It is not the icon, but Whom the icon is of, that is worshiped.

Iconoclasm is itself idolatry. As it denies the integrity of the Incarnation, and replaces the Incarnate God-Man with something else.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CoreyD]

No, it's not.

It is not the icon, but Whom the icon is of, that is worshiped.

Iconoclasm is itself idolatry. As it denies the integrity of the Incarnation, and replaces the Incarnate God-Man with something else.

-CryptoLutheran

You did not read that in the Bible, and I know you are aware that the copper serpent was not an icon of anyone, nor the poles and pillars that were of stone and wood, that God said has a mouth, but cannot speak.
However, I know how hard some people try to defend idolatry in the church.
I said all I had to say on that. I'm here to discuss the OP.

 

[Aaron112]

I'm sorry...but the image that you posted goes against the commandment 'not to make image out of God'. How Christians learned nothing om the golden calf?

Golden calves/ idols / are more popular today than ever before in history, and more deadly.

 

[Jerry N.]

The image that started this thread said that Jesus was wiry and strong. Of course, He was in His prime, but do you think it was because He was an artisan?
Nobody has responded to the Shroud of Turin questions.
If the image on the shroud is real, then everything fits but with shoulder length hair and a longer beard. If a person has shoulder length hair and a beard a few centimeters long, it doesn’t require much grooming and would fit with a lack of vanity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The image that started this thread said that Jesus was wiry and strong. Of course, He was in His prime, but do you think it was because He was an artisan?
Nobody has responded to the Shroud of Turin questions.
If the image on the shroud is real, then everything fits but with shoulder length hair and a longer beard. If a person has shoulder length hair and a beard a few centimeters long, it doesn’t require much grooming and would fit with a lack of vanity.

It's unlikely that the Shroud is authentic. I'm not going to rule it out entirely, but a healthy dose of skepticism to things like that is good.

I am also, at least in part, influenced by my own Lutheran bias concerning relics. I think the cult of relics (note that "cult" here is not being used in a negative way, but merely descriptively) has a long history of being problematic. Luther once joked that 18 of the 12 apostles were buried in Saxony alone.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jerry N.]

Imaging what Jesus looked like can present some problems. On the one hand, it is part of human nature to be visually biased. On the other hand, visually imaging Jesus in prayer can lead to the imagination producing responses from the imagined Jesus that come from the person praying. It is interesting that Jesus teaches us to pray beginning with “Our Father,” which can’t be visualized by a mature mind. I have heard of Catholics seeing statues crying when they confess their sins.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You did not read that in the Bible, and I know you are aware

My Bible says that God the Eternal Son and Word became human. And that He is the visible Icon of the invisible God.

that the copper serpent was not an icon of anyone, nor the poles and pillars that were of stone and wood, that God said has a mouth, but cannot speak.
However, I know how hard some people try to defend idolatry in the church.
I said all I had to say on that. I'm here to discuss the OP.

Icons =/= idols.

Not understanding the difference between icon and idol is not a good thing.

Now, with that said, an icon can become an idol if we aren't careful about our theology. But that's true of anything. We could even turn the Bible into an idol if we aren't careful.

And, for the record, yes I have seen that exact thing happen. There is a fairly notorious IFB pastor named Steven Anderson who has, over the years, been embroiled in a number of scandals, who has had several of his recorded/video sermons become viral because of various reasons. In one such sermon Anderson quite literally applied John 1:1 to the Bible, declaring that the Bible is God. So when I say that "we could even turn the Bible into an idol" I'm not speaking in hyperbole.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Imaging what Jesus looked like can present some problems. On the one hand, it is part of human nature to be visually biased. On the other hand, visually imaging Jesus in prayer can lead to the imagination producing responses from the imagined Jesus that come from the person praying. It is interesting that Jesus teaches us to pray beginning with “Our Father,” which can’t be visualized by a mature mind. I have heard of Catholics seeing statues crying when they confess their sins.

The Eastern Orthodox have a term, in Russian it is called prelest, in Greek it is called plani, the closest English translation would be "delusion". But it is a very specific kind of delusion, it is spiritual delusion. It is not considered a delusion of the mind, but rather a delusion, and a sickness, of the soul. It is used to describe that sort of delusion whereby a person has been swayed by a false holiness, or a false sprituality. For example, one who thinks they have reached a state of true holiness in this life is someone who suffers prelest. It can also refer to having false visions, false spiritual experiences--experiences which seem to vindicate one's own spiritual life; but the problem is that prelest is a false holiness.

This is a danger that all Christians need to be wary of.

How many Christians, from any number of denominations or traditions, have claimed certain experiences? Or who imagine themselves as having attained a certain level of spiritual maturity? It happens all the time.

I have, in fact, encountered Christians on these forums who have told me that they have literally heard the audible voice of God, and use this to present themselves as having a spiritual authority against others. I have encountered Christians who claim that they don't need to learn good exegetical and hermeneutical skills to properly interpret Scripture, or be under the spiritual care of a pastor, because they claim they just "know" what the Bible means because the Holy Spirit tells them directly.

By comparison, I'd say that thinking a statue of the Blessed Virgin is crying, while strange, is far less concerning than things like this. Having said that, I would also classify that things like statues crying could also most definitely be examples of prelest. Whether or not it is prelest depends more on what it does to a person's relationship with God as reflected in their behavior and the things they say more than the claimed experience itself.

An auditory or visual hallucination is not necessarily prelest, or a work of the devil, or supernatural at all; more often than not it is far more mundane: the brain is weird. And that alone is a reason why I believe, as Christians, we should never rely on "experiences". An experience can be a comforting thing, even something that encourages us in our faith; but it should never be the basis of our faith. We should never build our house on experiences, whether they are visions, dreams, or feelings. For example, we should never conflate or confuse our brain giving us a hit of dopamine as being the work or presence of the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jerry N.]

The Eastern Orthodox have a term, in Russian it is called prelest, in Greek it is called plani, the closest English translation would be "delusion". But it is a very specific kind of delusion, it is spiritual delusion. It is not considered a delusion of the mind, but rather a delusion, and a sickness, of the soul. It is used to describe that sort of delusion whereby a person has been swayed by a false holiness, or a false sprituality. For example, one who thinks they have reached a state of true holiness in this life is someone who suffers prelest. It can also refer to having false visions, false spiritual experiences--experiences which seem to vindicate one's own spiritual life; but the problem is that prelest is a false holiness.

This is a danger that all Christians need to be wary of.

How many Christians, from any number of denominations or traditions, have claimed certain experiences? Or who imagine themselves as having attained a certain level of spiritual maturity? It happens all the time.

I have, in fact, encountered Christians on these forums who have told me that they have literally heard the audible voice of God, and use this to present themselves as having a spiritual authority against others. I have encountered Christians who claim that they don't need to learn good exegetical and hermeneutical skills to properly interpret Scripture, or be under the spiritual care of a pastor, because they claim they just "know" what the Bible means because the Holy Spirit tells them directly.

By comparison, I'd say that thinking a statue of the Blessed Virgin is crying, while strange, is far less concerning than things like this. Having said that, I would also classify that things like statues crying could also most definitely be examples of prelest. Whether or not it is prelest depends more on what it does to a person's relationship with God as reflected in their behavior and the things they say more than the claimed experience itself.

An auditory or visual hallucination is not necessarily prelest, or a work of the devil, or supernatural at all; more often than not it is far more mundane: the brain is weird. And that alone is a reason why I believe, as Christians, we should never rely on "experiences". An experience can be a comforting thing, even something that encourages us in our faith; but it should never be the basis of our faith. We should never build our house on experiences, whether they are visions, dreams, or feelings. For example, we should never conflate or confuse our brain giving us a hit of dopamine as being the work or presence of the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

“Prelest” is a great word, and I will try to remember it. Mysticism comes to mind as closely related. I believe that some people have true experiences, but they have to be filtered through sound Bible study. There is a bit of jeopardy. Saying that something is not of the Holy Spirit is a risky business. People that I have known usually have personal messages that can’t be tested with Scripture. How can one say they are not from God if they have nothing to do with Scripture?