why...

[Jenniferdiana]

why are there no real photos of Jesus... im sure someone could have left something....

 

[Grace2022]

Jesus looked very like any other ordinary man of his day. That was the point. Nobody saw him physically as anything special. It was his words and actions which in hindsight proved amazing. The gospels were written years later. The disciples did not have inspiration until after Jesus death and only when pentecost happened.
We do not know therefore what he looked like. Though of course artists have painted their imagined image of Him.

 

[Emli]

Because I don't think God wanted us to know what He looked like. It doesn't matter.

"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." Isaiah 53:2

He wasn't physically attractive, and to me, that means a lot. Because He wasn't what the world was expecting. He was an outcast, despised by those who were attracted to the lusts of the eye, the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life.

That's who Jesus was, and we don't need to know what He looked like, we only need to know what He taught us.

 

[Dave-W]

why are there no real photos of Jesus... im sure someone could have left something....

No graven images.

 

[Rajni]

why are there no real photos of Jesus... im sure someone could have left something....

There wouldn't be any photos of him because photography hadn't
been developed during his time on earth.


♬

 

[Jenniferdiana]

lol i know..i just felt like posting something

 

[dreadnought]

why are there no real photos of Jesus... im sure someone could have left something....

Are there any paintings in existence dating that far back? I'm not aware of any.

 

[Jenniferdiana]

i know they didnt have cameras back then...and i dont really care how he looks, it doesnt bother me at all because i see what he looks like in his words.. i dont even know why i ask that, im just really curious, but if a photo or a paintiing did exist, that sure would be some photo...

 

[longwait]

Most back then didn't consider Jesus as God. So they didn't bother to draw a picture of Him for future generations.

 

[LoricaLady]

Look at the icon to the left of this post. It comes from the Shroud of Turin. That is a pale linen cloth purported to be the burial cloth of the Messiah. It has a very faint image of a crucified man on it. It has been preserved for many centuries. In 1898 when Secondo Pia was commissioned to take a photograph of it, he almost dropped his image plate when he saw that the negative of the photo was actually a positive image of the man on the Shroud.

Here is more info about the Shroud:
First, if you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample that was taken was invalid due to contamination.

.
The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which reveals bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud.
.
In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals.
.
The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: There is no paint on the Shroud and they have no clue how the image got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology.

 

[RaymondG]

Because God is spirit, and then that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The kingdom will not come in a manner which you can view with the physical eye. Yet many we still look to please and follow after the fleshy eye.

 

[LoricaLady]

Because God is spirit, and then that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The kingdom will not come in a manner which you can view with the physical eye. Yet many we still look to please and follow after the fleshy eye.

The Bible says that when Peter saw Messiah's Shroud that he "believed." The Almighty is free to use whatever sources he wants to help people to believe.

Fyi, as for some saying anything about graven images, that referred to other gods' images. The Ark had images of angles carved on it. Solomon's Temple had things like carved palm trees and lions in it. Images are usually okay. It's when we bow down to images of other gods that they become a source of sin.

 

[RaymondG]

The Bible says that when Peter saw Messiah's Shroud that he "believed." The Almighty is free to use whatever sources he wants to help people to believe.

Fyi, as for some saying anything about graven images, that referred to other gods' images. The Ark had images of angles carved on it. Solomon's Temple had things like carved palm trees and lions in it. Images are usually okay. It's when we bow down to images of other gods that they become a source of sin.

The bible version i read doesnt mention the word "shroud" in the new testament. But If you are referring to the story i think you are referring to, It wasnt Peter who saw and believed...it was "that other disciple" And they specifically stated that is was not the linen that covered the Face of Jesus,,,, but a napkin that was kept separate from the linen.

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing again what you believe and gave no thought to icon or image worship... I would, however, like the opinion of the reader to be swayed by facts only....and not the opinions of man.

 

[LoricaLady]

You are right about it being John, not Peter, who saw and did "believe." However the Bible references two pieces of cloth. One was used to cover the Savior's face. The facial cloth also seems to have been preserved and has markings on it like those on the Shroud. That is all discussed in the video.

The other cloth item as used to wrap His body, per the Bible. The word "shroud" may not be in the Bible you read. Guess what? The word "shroud" isn't in the original documents either because "shroud" is an English word.

The Bible refers to the cloth that covered the dead body. In our language we can call that a shroud, whether your Bible specifically uses that word or a synonym for shroud.

As far as opinions of men and facts, the video shows a plethora of facts. There are over 100 thousand hours of scientific analysis on the Shroud which can be referenced.

 

[All4Christ]

AMBASSADOR HAT



Please review the Christian Advice Statement of Purpose. Remember that Christian Advice is a No Debate forum. Always address your posts to the OP.

“We would ask that members direct their responses to the member who started the thread and refrain from debating one another's theological beliefs and viewpoints. Do not use this forum to debate with other Christians as that is not the purpose of the Christian Advice forum. If members would like to discuss/debate specific Christian theological doctrines, they should do so in one of the Theology forums.”

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread is off topic to Christian Advice​

and will remain closed.​

MOD HAT OFF​