What Jesus do you see?

[DamianWarS]

this guy?

maybe this guy?

or is this guy more proper?

perhaps this guy is better?

or do you prefer this guy

does it matter?

 

[Grace2022]

this guy?

maybe this guy?

or is this guy more proper?

perhaps this guy is better?

does it matter?

It doesn't matter. I presume that on earth Jesus looked just like any man of that time and place, which was the idea! After He rose again nobody thought His appearance extraordinary. Makes sense, He blended in.
The Bible doesn't give any description of Him or anyone else, I think?
I just look forward to meeting Jesus after i leave this world. I imagine He is made of pure light, too dazzling for anyone to look upon.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

The Jesus I see in my heart, is the one who held my grandmother's hand. The one who gave my uncle the ability to run and jump and dance and sing and speak, as he was in an accident when he was 8 he never got to live like that. The mighty hand that brought my family back together in a way that hasn't ever happened. The one who speaks to my mom throughout my sister's sufferings. The one who speaks directly to my heart. I cannot see him because I am a sinner and he is too wonderful to look at. But one day..
Job 19:26"Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; 27Whom I myself shall behold, And whom my eyes will see and not another. My heart faints within me!…

 

[Monna]

How about this description.... (do you have a painting of it, maybe?)

"a son of man (a human being), dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. " (Rev. 1:13-16)

Imagine those "blazing fire" eyes that catch your attention, even though they're surrounded by the ultimate brilliance of the sun!

And then imagine the naked, limp, blood dirty and "broken" body taken down from the cross, still with a crown of thorns snagged in his hair .... both are images I have of Jesus.

Of course, there are many more - Jesus as a child fleeing to Egypt, as a 12 year old confounding learned men in the temple, Jesus working beside Joseph in the carpentry shop, Jesus participating in services at the synagogue, Jesus goofing off with little kids whose mothers have brought to him for blessings, Jesus sitting on a rock on the hillside overlooking a lake and talking serious talk with his closest followers, Jesus defending the honour of the woman who washed his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair against the pompous self-righteous Pharasaical host who had not extended the basic courtesy of washing his guest's feet after a long day outside .... and many many other ones.

 

[DamianWarS]

How about this description.... (do you have a painting of it, maybe?)

"a son of man (a human being), dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. " (Rev. 1:13-16)

Imagine those "blazing fire" eyes that catch your attention, even though they're surrounded by the ultimate brilliance of the sun!

And then imagine the naked, limp, blood dirty and "broken" body taken down from the cross, still with a crown of thorns snagged in his hair .... both are images I have of Jesus.

Of course, there are many more - Jesus as a child fleeing to Egypt, as a 12 year old confounding learned men in the temple, Jesus working beside Joseph in the carpentry shop, Jesus participating in services at the synagogue, Jesus goofing off with little kids whose mothers have brought to him for blessings, Jesus sitting on a rock on the hillside overlooking a lake and talking serious talk with his closest followers, Jesus defending the honour of the woman who washed his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair against the pompous self-righteous Pharasaical host who had not extended the basic courtesy of washing his guest's feet after a long day outside .... and many many other ones.

I didn't want to be too exhaustive but Revelation's Jesus is indeed unique so I've added the following image to the op to stimulate more broad discussion

but again I ask... does it matter?

 

[amariselle]

No, it doesn't matter. No matter what image any person creates, it will fall short and be inaccurate.

We walk by faith, and not by sight. And though Jesus' disciples and many others did see Him after He rose again (before He ascended to Heaven) most believers throughout history have not yet seen Him.

I am reminded of the words He spoke to Thomas:

Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed arethose who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29

 

[Monna]

but again I ask... does it matter?

No, it doesn't matter. No matter what image any person creates, it will fall short and be inaccurate.

For the most part, I agree with amariselle.
However, most artists who have had the urge to paint images of Jesus, have wanted to communicate something to the viewers. In several of the examples in the OP the intention was not to paint a realistic portrait (though the second one may have been trying to show what a common Jewish male at that time looked like), but to convey some deeper characteristic of Jesus. Art, especially Icons in eastern branches of Christianity were/are tools for communicating to people who could not read text or have no written material to read. And many Icons had/have deep meaning to those who saw or owned and displayed them, and stimulate deep personal meditations - just like my mental images do for me. So in those contexts, and to that extent, yes it can matter. But this is personal and subjective thing.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Historically, it does matter.

Do you know the source of the third one?

It's called the Pantokrator. (Almighty or All Powerful)

It dates to 525ad and is the figure painted by a nun on Mt. Siania.

It is the first figure of Christ as an adult.
It is a direct representation of what "she" (the nun) saw when looking at the shroud of Edessa.

(The emphasis of the left eye is due to restoration efforts.)

So what does that tell us? Well, this picture when overlaid with the image on the shroud of turin, matches exactly, even down to the flowers above the head left and right.

So the shroud is not from the 1400's as many have believed. It is the shroud of Edessa.

That takes it back to being an ancient artifact in the year 525ad.

We know the history of the the shroud of Edessa. That it was given to the King there by Joseph of Arimathea, and upon siege, the king hid it within the walls of the city over the gate, where it was found in 515ad.

Since that time, the icon of the Almighty has been used on the ceiling of Orthodox Christian Temples.

All Icons before 525ad, portrayed Christ as a Child, with his mother presenting HIM. St. Luke made several.

(The Christmas story; "Theotokos and Child", accompanied the book of Matthew when it was distributed.)

Forgive me...

 

[amariselle]

I understand that there is a long tradition and history of icons/imagery of Christ in history.

But I'm going to stick with Scripture on this one.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I understand that there is a long tradition and history of icons/imagery of Christ in history.

But I'm going to stick with Scripture on this one.

It's not important to salvation. So, not Dogmatic but only doctrine.

Take it or leave it.

May I ask what you intend to do with the icon that was distributed with the book of Matthew in Greek?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No, it doesn't matter. No matter what image any person creates, it will fall short and be inaccurate.

We walk by faith, and not by sight. And though Jesus' disciples and many others did see Him after He rose again (before He ascended to Heaven) most believers throughout history have not yet seen Him.

I am reminded of the words He spoke to Thomas:

Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed arethose who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29

The source of iconography and scripture is one and the same.

Forgive me...

 

[amariselle]

It's not important to salvation. So, not Dogmatic but only doctrine.

Take it or leave it.

May I ask what you intend to do with the icon that was distributed with the book of Matthew in Greek?

Forgive me...

Well, personally don't have a copy of that icon. So, I'm not going to "do" anything with it.

 

[amariselle]

The source of iconography and scripture is one and the same.

Forgive me...

Icons as they exist in many churches came about far later than the written word.

We know Scripture is inspired, but we have no definitive "proof" that icons are.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Icons as they exist in many churches came about far later than the written word.

We know Scripture is inspired, but we have no definitive "proof" that icons are.

Incorrect. You have no 'proof' of either.

Forgive me...

 

[amariselle]

Incorrect.

Forgive me...

So then the inspired Scripture writers are also the ones who created the first icons?

Why don't the Scriptures mention such things in that case?

The written word is always the authority, as Jesus Himself refuted Satan with "it is written".

 

[DamianWarS]

The source of iconography and scripture is one and the same.

Forgive me...

The nimbus wasn't adopted in christianity until until the 4th century... Matthew perhaps painted a madonna and child and distributed it with his gospel but there is a bit of a question if the representations we see today are true to the original.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The nimbus wasn't adopted in christianity until until the 4th century... Matthew perhaps painted a madonna and child and distributed it with his gospel but there is a bit of a question if the representations we see today are true to the original.

Not Matthew. Luke.

It was distributed with (at least) Matthew. As for the 4th century, that was the term 'Theotokos', having nothing to do with Iconography.

Forgive me...

 

[DamianWarS]

Not Matthew. Luke.

It was distributed with (at least) Matthew. As for the 4th century, that was the term Theotokos, having nothing to do with Iconography.

Forgive me...

ok then Luke... the presence of the nimbus however suggest 4th century influence

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So then the inspired Scripture writers are also the ones who created the first icons?

Why don't the Scriptures mention such things in that case?

The written word is always the authority, as Jesus Himself refuted Satan with "it is written".

Why would they mention it? The text of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, translated by The Church at Antioch to Greek and distributed with the icon by St. Luke who lived in Antioch.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

ok then Luke... the presence of the nimbus however suggest 4th century influence

Suggests? Then surely you admit that you are guessing.

Nimbus? I don't know this term. It's not Greek.

Forgive me...