What did Jesus really look like? (article)
Why they make Jesus look cro magnon?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I consider this an interesting topic, as Jesus is arguably the most significant figure in history, perhaps even if the biblical and the historical records about him are mostly, if not entirely false. It is also further interesting because many have claimed to have seen Jesus in visions and dreams etc.: typically, this is the bearded, long haired Jesus: not the one seen in the earliest pictorial depictions.
Or, you could what His contemporaries had to say about His aspect: http://www.thenazareneway.com/likene...ur_saviour.htm
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Forgeries, and/or not contemporary.Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
First of all, I don't believe in this Jesus hullaballoo. Call me agnostic if you will, but there are some SERIOUS questions that need answering:
1. The name Jesus itself and whether he actually existed or whether it's somewhat like Jung suspected it was. See, the name...just read for yourself, damn it! http://www.behindthename.com/name/jesus
2. From there we move to his supposed parents. The Ecclesiarchy edited the Bible so heavily that to even suspect that his mother was Mary and his father Joseph would be...foolishness at best. But it is not foolish, let me tell you that. See, as is quite expected, the name Jesus / Joshua / Jeshua / Yeshua(whatever really) was VERY popular because of two reasons which are very easy to deduct: the meaning of the name(Yahveh is salvation) + the mythic figure who wore it(the guy who brought the Jews into the Promised Land / Israel). So, amongst all those Yeshuas...which one was THE JESUS? What if, just what if...there wasn't one who fullfils both requirements(mother Mary + father Joseph)? These are the words people got crucified over in the Middle Ages, but what can you do? I am corrupted by Tzeentch like that
3. How did he look like? (Answer: he must've looked like a typical semite. Small, round head, hooked / aquilline nose, dark tan, black hair, black-ish eyes etc etc-certainly NOTHING AT ALL like the modern interpretation{light brown hair bordering with the blonde??? Do you even anthropology?})
4. Any REAL evidences for his alleged existence?
Also, I hate how the Ecclesiarchy MUTILATED the conception of Jesus. Mary conceived him without a sin(meaning-while making love, not while being fucked, there is a difference and the CC knows it, oh it KNOWS it alright! Hint: Why is it then that in order to become an Orthodox priest you MUST marry, hm?) not being sinless, lol. Every mortal has sins. It is a part of being mortal / human lol. But this is how the CC FORCES its opinions down the people's throats. Instead of teaching "go forth and procreate while loving each other", the Ecclesiarchy teaches divisions, obligations and rules(wtf?). Let me repeat that: Instead of them(I am talking about bishop+ rank now btw, there are a LOT of good priests out there) teaching people to love each other, they teach them to love the Church, that is them. Instead of uniting they divide. Instead of letting a person blossom into whatever that person is meant to be, they forcefully sculpt people. I'll just flatout ignore the Inquisition now.
...yeah right ok!
edit: damn I'm corrupted and I agnostic much!
Last edited by nondescript; 06-08-2016 at 04:53 PM.
science is the great thing
First of all, I don't believe in this Jesus hullaballoo. Call me agnostic if you will, but there are some SERIOUS questions that need answering:
1. The name Jesus itself and whether he actually existed or whether it's somewhat like Jung suspected it was. See, the name...just read for yourself, damn it! http://www.behindthename.com/name/jesus
2. From there we move to his supposed parents. The Ecclesiarchy edited the Bible so heavily that to even suspect that his mother was Mary and his father Joseph would be...foolishness at best. But it is not foolish, let me tell you that. See, as is quite expected, the name Jesus / Joshua / Jeshua / Yeshua(whatever really) was VERY popular because of two reasons which are very easy to deduct: the meaning of the name(Yahveh is salvation) + the mythic figure who wore it(the guy who brought the Jews into the Promised Land / Israel). So, amongst all those Yeshuas...which one was THE JESUS? What if, just what if...there wasn't one who fullfils both requirements(mother Mary + father Joseph)? These are the words people got crucified over in the Middle Ages, but what can you do? I am corrupted by Tzeentch like that
3. How did he look like? (Answer: he must've looked like a typical semite. Small, round head, hooked / aquilline nose, dark tan, black hair, black-ish eyes etc etc-certainly NOTHING AT ALL like the modern interpretation{light brown hair bordering with the blonde??? Do you even anthropology?})
4. Any REAL evidences for his alleged existence?
Also, I hate how the Ecclesiarchy MUTILATED the conception of Jesus. Mary conceived him without a sin(meaning-while making love, not while being fucked, there is a difference and the CC knows it, oh it KNOWS it alright! Hint: Why is it then that in order to become an Orthodox priest you MUST marry, hm?) not being sinless, lol. Every mortal has sins. It is a part of being mortal / human lol. But this is how the CC FORCES its opinions down the people's throats. Instead of teaching "go forth and procreate while loving each other", the Ecclesiarchy teaches divisions, obligations and rules(wtf?). Let me repeat that: Instead of them(I am talking about bishop+ rank now btw, there are a LOT of good priests out there) teaching people to love each other, they teach them to love the Church, that is them. Instead of uniting they divide. Instead of letting a person blossom into whatever that person is meant to be, they forcefully sculpt people. I'll just flatout ignore the Inquisition now.
...yeah right ok!
edit: damn I'm corrupted and I agnostic much!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._as_historicalThere is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[11] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][11][55][56]
According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[55] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."[55] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[72] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[73][74][75] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[73][75][76]
Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[77] There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.[78][79][80]
Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. Some assume that there are eight elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, namely:[9][81]
- Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
- He called disciples.
- He had a controversy at the Temple.
- Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[9][81]
- Jesus was a Galilean.
- His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
- After his death his disciples continued.
- Some of his disciples were persecuted.[9][81]
- Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal.[9][81][82]
The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[83][84][85][86] Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[83][87]
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase.[88][89] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[51][90]
Currently modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible about Jesus.[91][92]
The mainstream profiles in the third quest may be grouped together based on their primary theme as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[94][95][95] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[90][93][96][97] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[94][95][98]
The criterion of embarrassment developed during the second quest was applied to the Baptism of Jesus.
While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus,[51][53] and a basic consensus on the general outline of his life,[77] the portraits of Jesus constructed in the quests have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[90][93] There are overlapping attributes among the portraits, and while pairs of scholars may agree on some attributes, those same scholars may differ on other attributes, and there is no single portrait of the historical Jesus that satisfies most scholars.[94][98][99]
Nearly all modern scholars of antiquity, which is the majority viewpoint, agree that Jesus existed and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[51][53][54][nb 9][100] There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity.[101][102] Geoffrey Blainey notes that "a few scholars argue that Jesus... did not even exist," and that they "rightly point out that contemporary references to him were extremely rare."[103] Bart Ehrman concedes, "Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day", while maintaining that other sources do support his existence[104] whereas Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster assert that there is no independent evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament.[105][106]
I disagree with the view that the two commonly agreed 'facts' about Jesus (his baptism by John the Baptist, and his crucifixion) must be true: many artificial gods and fictional characters have their own 'embarrassing' details. This does not mean that I do not think that there was a Jesus that inspired Christianity: I just have the view that the biblical Jesus definitely did not exist, and that if the historical Jesus did exist, we cannot say anything certain about him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
