Does it matter what Jesus looked like?

[Cmass]

I did a bit of research this evening concerning what Jesus might have looked like if he had existed as a historical figure and it got me to thinking a bit about the depiction of Jesus and the whole scene back then. There is some recent work that has been done in this area that concludes a rather homely savior:
* A bit over 5' tall, 110lbs, very dark sun dried skin, short & dark wiry hair. All in all, a small, scrappy, gnarly dude. I don't want to debate the science that went into reconstructing Jesus. It was extensive and has not been the basis of great challenge by most Christians.
But ultimately, it should not matter should it? It should only be a matter of curiosity but not really make any difference in our faith.....right? Why then do we - especially in the West - make Jesus in our own image?

The Jesus TV channels do this to the extreme. Last Xmas I watched the story of Joseph & Mary on the local Jesus channel and was happily appalled that Mary looked to be about 5' 10", long, slender shaven legs, long blond hair, clean, pearly white teeth, a perfect figure, high cheek bones and beautiful sparkling blue eyes. She was absolutely hot and no amount of sack-cloth garments could hide it. Same with Joseph (Of Malibu?).
But why? Why not make them more realistic? I have yet to see ONE Chrisitian-made film where the main characters have rotten teeth, scraggly hair, flies buzzing around their unclean backsides. And they all speak proper Elizabeathen English - even though rarely quoting the bible (only words from the bible; what a horrible screenplay that would be!) with American accents and communicate with typical modern gestures and expressions.
Why?

[Cmass]

"...I guess I would start by asking why any TV show or movie portrays any folks from that era the way they do? ..."
"...It seems to me that if you can answer these questions, then you probably have the answer to your original question as well..."

My question has not been answered. Instead, it has been answered with a question.

Still, I'll answer yours: Because sex sells and we like looking at handsome people.
But, do we have to use these same criteria for selling Jesus? Wouldn't that turn the whole Jesus concept on it's head?
You equate these other programs with the ones portraying Jesus? Woah! Now there is a big, stinky can of worms!

The Jesus of Mel Gibson's Passion was played by a local boy named James Cavieazel, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001029/ A handsome hunk of a Jesus. Mary was played by Maia Morgenstern, another Hollywood hottie. Why the cover up?

[Easyrider]

The Jesus of Mel Gibson's Passion was played by a local boy named James Cavieazel, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001029/ A handsome hunk of a Jesus. Mary was played by Maia Morgenstern, another Hollywood hottie. Why the cover up?

Why the silly conjecture that no one can possibly answer, since no one living today was there? Do you have a more constructive topic to pursue / debate than what we have seen today?

[Cmass]

Why the silly conjecture that no one can possibly answer, since no one living today was there? Do you have a more constructive topic to pursue / debate than what we have seen today?

Why the anger & hostility? I was hoping you might be able to have fun with this one.

It would be nice to see an attempt to answer the question. Why the sexy Jesus of TODAY? You won't answer the question, not because it is unanswerable. I submit that you won't answer the question because you don't like the answer you would have to give if you were to be honest.

It is interesting that you point out that nobody living today was there. How true.....not there to measure or witness or carefully log, or photograph anything for that matter. We only have some written text and word of mouth from thousands of years ago. That is all.

Unfortunately, no, I don't have any more constructive topics to pursue today. The one I recently started concerning the life forms that were just discovered on the planet orbiting Vega is probably not as good as this - although I submit people could have fun with it if they try. Sorry.

[Cathar1950]

The one I recently started concerning the life forms that were just discovered on the planet orbiting Vega is probably not as good as this - although I submit people could have fun with it if they try. Sorry.

When and where? That sounds interesting.

[AB]

Why the silly conjecture that no one can possibly answer, since no one living today was there? Do you have a more constructive topic to pursue / debate than what we have seen today?

Why the anger & hostility? I was hoping you might be able to have fun with this one.

It would be nice to see an attempt to answer the question. Why the sexy Jesus of TODAY? You won't answer the question, not because it is unanswerable. I submit that you won't answer the question because you don't like the answer you would have to give if you were to be honest.

It is interesting that you point out that nobody living today was there. How true.....not there to measure or witness or carefully log, or photograph anything for that matter. We only have some written text and word of mouth from thousands of years ago. That is all.

Unfortunately, no, I don't have any more constructive topics to pursue today. The one I recently started concerning the life forms that were just discovered on the planet orbiting Vega is probably not as good as this - although I submit people could have fun with it if they try. Sorry.

Actually you make a great point. I love this scripture in reference to the coming messiah:

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 (NIV)

Actually Jesus wasn't unique looking and didn't physically stand out from His disciples(maybe this is why Judas had to kiss him so the soldiers would know which one was Jesus). He was a carpenter and probably spent a lot of the time outdoors laboring. I doubt He is the tall slim elegant figure we often see in pictures.(The Son of Man was working hard in the sizzling sun!) I agree, it is funny how dramas/TV sometime portray Jesus physically. But, that shouldn't steer anyone from the truth about what Jesus was in reality. And that is why the best source is always the bible.

In the same vein (but away from the physical appearance issue), I do find it interesting how there was a movie that did get down to the reality of Jesus and how things more closely played out.. that being "Passion of the Christ"... And there was some backlash and mis-appropriated criticism. Kind of ironic.

[Goat]

Why the silly conjecture that no one can possibly answer, since no one living today was there? Do you have a more constructive topic to pursue / debate than what we have seen today?

Why the anger & hostility? I was hoping you might be able to have fun with this one.

It would be nice to see an attempt to answer the question. Why the sexy Jesus of TODAY? You won't answer the question, not because it is unanswerable. I submit that you won't answer the question because you don't like the answer you would have to give if you were to be honest.

It is interesting that you point out that nobody living today was there. How true.....not there to measure or witness or carefully log, or photograph anything for that matter. We only have some written text and word of mouth from thousands of years ago. That is all.

Unfortunately, no, I don't have any more constructive topics to pursue today. The one I recently started concerning the life forms that were just discovered on the planet orbiting Vega is probably not as good as this - although I submit people could have fun with it if they try. Sorry.

Actually you make a great point. I love this scripture in reference to the coming messiah:

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 (NIV)

Actually Jesus wasn't unique looking and didn't physically stand out from His disciples(maybe this is why Judas had to kiss him so the soldiers would know which one was Jesus). He was a carpenter and probably spent a lot of the time outdoors laboring. I doubt He is the tall slim elegant figure we often see in pictures.(The Son of Man was working hard in the sizzling sun!) I agree, it is funny how dramas/TV sometime portray Jesus physically. But, that shouldn't steer anyone from the truth about what Jesus was in reality. And that is why the best source is always the bible.

In the same vein (but away from the physical appearance issue), I do find it interesting how there was a movie that did get down to the reality of Jesus and how things more closely played out.. that being "Passion of the Christ"... And there was some backlash and mis-appropriated criticism. Kind of ironic.

That phrase is not talking about the messiah you know. That is talking about the nation of Israel.

[micatala]

"...I guess I would start by asking why any TV show or movie portrays any folks from that era the way they do? ..."
"...It seems to me that if you can answer these questions, then you probably have the answer to your original question as well..."

My question has not been answered. Instead, it has been answered with a question.

Still, I'll answer yours: Because sex sells and we like looking at handsome people.
But, do we have to use these same criteria for selling Jesus? Wouldn't that turn the whole Jesus concept on it's head?

Do we have to use the same criteria for selling Jesus?

I would say no. On the other hand, I think you have to consider each case separately. WHo made the movie? What was their goal in making the movie? If they have made a lot of other movies, especially with non-Christian themes, are they simply following their 'usual casting procedures'? In Mel's case, if he is using 'studs and hotties', this might be that, even though he says he was making the movie as a sort of pilgrimmage or act of devotion, he was still following at least some of his usual thinking in picking actors.

Some movies depicting Christ might be made by people who are not necessarily Christian, or are not necessarily 'selling Jesus', but are simply using the Jesus story as the vehicle for what they do want to say, or for making money.

Essentially, you are asking why people who make movies about Jesus don't simply disregard the usual practices and criteria for making movies. I think this is a legitimate question, but if the people see their work as 'movie-making first' and 'selling or accurately depicting Jesus second', then it is not suprising they don't attempt to do 'historically accurate type-casting.'

Personally, to characterize this as some type of 'cover-up' seems to be reading a lot of spin into the motives of the people making the movies. If the underlying point of the question is to suggest that 'Christians are hypocrites because they don't make movies that accurately depict Jesus and his milieu', then I think the suggestion is at least a little bit mis-guided, even somewhat silly.

[AB]

Why the silly conjecture that no one can possibly answer, since no one living today was there? Do you have a more constructive topic to pursue / debate than what we have seen today?

Why the anger & hostility? I was hoping you might be able to have fun with this one.

It would be nice to see an attempt to answer the question. Why the sexy Jesus of TODAY? You won't answer the question, not because it is unanswerable. I submit that you won't answer the question because you don't like the answer you would have to give if you were to be honest.

It is interesting that you point out that nobody living today was there. How true.....not there to measure or witness or carefully log, or photograph anything for that matter. We only have some written text and word of mouth from thousands of years ago. That is all.

Unfortunately, no, I don't have any more constructive topics to pursue today. The one I recently started concerning the life forms that were just discovered on the planet orbiting Vega is probably not as good as this - although I submit people could have fun with it if they try. Sorry.

Actually you make a great point. I love this scripture in reference to the coming messiah:

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 (NIV)

Actually Jesus wasn't unique looking and didn't physically stand out from His disciples(maybe this is why Judas had to kiss him so the soldiers would know which one was Jesus). He was a carpenter and probably spent a lot of the time outdoors laboring. I doubt He is the tall slim elegant figure we often see in pictures.(The Son of Man was working hard in the sizzling sun!) I agree, it is funny how dramas/TV sometime portray Jesus physically. But, that shouldn't steer anyone from the truth about what Jesus was in reality. And that is why the best source is always the bible.

In the same vein (but away from the physical appearance issue), I do find it interesting how there was a movie that did get down to the reality of Jesus and how things more closely played out.. that being "Passion of the Christ"... And there was some backlash and mis-appropriated criticism. Kind of ironic.

That phrase is not talking about the messiah you know. That is talking about the nation of Israel.

Yes it is talking about Jesus.

Another passage from Isaiah:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with the child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (God with us). Isaiah 7:14.

This is talking about Jesus too.

[Goat]

Why the silly conjecture that no one can possibly answer, since no one living today was there? Do you have a more constructive topic to pursue / debate than what we have seen today?

Why the anger & hostility? I was hoping you might be able to have fun with this one.

It would be nice to see an attempt to answer the question. Why the sexy Jesus of TODAY? You won't answer the question, not because it is unanswerable. I submit that you won't answer the question because you don't like the answer you would have to give if you were to be honest.

It is interesting that you point out that nobody living today was there. How true.....not there to measure or witness or carefully log, or photograph anything for that matter. We only have some written text and word of mouth from thousands of years ago. That is all.

Unfortunately, no, I don't have any more constructive topics to pursue today. The one I recently started concerning the life forms that were just discovered on the planet orbiting Vega is probably not as good as this - although I submit people could have fun with it if they try. Sorry.

Actually you make a great point. I love this scripture in reference to the coming messiah:

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 (NIV)

Actually Jesus wasn't unique looking and didn't physically stand out from His disciples(maybe this is why Judas had to kiss him so the soldiers would know which one was Jesus). He was a carpenter and probably spent a lot of the time outdoors laboring. I doubt He is the tall slim elegant figure we often see in pictures.(The Son of Man was working hard in the sizzling sun!) I agree, it is funny how dramas/TV sometime portray Jesus physically. But, that shouldn't steer anyone from the truth about what Jesus was in reality. And that is why the best source is always the bible.

In the same vein (but away from the physical appearance issue), I do find it interesting how there was a movie that did get down to the reality of Jesus and how things more closely played out.. that being "Passion of the Christ"... And there was some backlash and mis-appropriated criticism. Kind of ironic.

That phrase is not talking about the messiah you know. That is talking about the nation of Israel.

Yes it is talking about Jesus.

Another passage from Isaiah:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with the child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (God with us). Isaiah 7:14.

This is talking about Jesus too.

No, it is not. It is talking about the prophetess in Isaiah 8:3-4, and the son is Isaiah's own son.

As far as I can see, Mary, the mother of Jesus, never called him Immanual.

[Cmass]

"...I guess I would start by asking why any TV show or movie portrays any folks from that era the way they do? ..."
"...It seems to me that if you can answer these questions, then you probably have the answer to your original question as well..."

My question has not been answered. Instead, it has been answered with a question.

Still, I'll answer yours: Because sex sells and we like looking at handsome people.
But, do we have to use these same criteria for selling Jesus? Wouldn't that turn the whole Jesus concept on it's head?

Do we have to use the same criteria for selling Jesus?

I would say no. On the other hand, I think you have to consider each case separately. WHo made the movie? What was their goal in making the movie? If they have made a lot of other movies, especially with non-Christian themes, are they simply following their 'usual casting procedures'? In Mel's case, if he is using 'studs and hotties', this might be that, even though he says he was making the movie as a sort of pilgrimmage or act of devotion, he was still following at least some of his usual thinking in picking actors.

Some movies depicting Christ might be made by people who are not necessarily Christian, or are not necessarily 'selling Jesus', but are simply using the Jesus story as the vehicle for what they do want to say, or for making money.

Essentially, you are asking why people who make movies about Jesus don't simply disregard the usual practices and criteria for making movies. I think this is a legitimate question, but if the people see their work as 'movie-making first' and 'selling or accurately depicting Jesus second', then it is not suprising they don't attempt to do 'historically accurate type-casting.'

Personally, to characterize this as some type of 'cover-up' seems to be reading a lot of spin into the motives of the people making the movies. If the underlying point of the question is to suggest that 'Christians are hypocrites because they don't make movies that accurately depict Jesus and his milieu', then I think the suggestion is at least a little bit mis-guided, even somewhat silly.

________________________

Good stuff Micatala. I like your reasoning.
I have, out of curiosity, viewed quite a few films either about Jesus or about various other biblical stories. The vast majority were Christian funded, Christian directed, Christian scripted, Christian produced and shown on Christian broadcasting stations to Chrisitian audiences. So, we certainly can take each one individually but I am reasonably confident we would find the same setup each time.

BTW: What I meant by "cover up" was more literal. Why the "covering" up? Why all the makeup & fakery?

If I were Christian I would feel betrayed, embarrassed and probably angered by these productions because of their obvious Western sexualization of all biblical characters - across the board and in every film & video no matter who paid for or produced it. It is a mockery of Christianity by it's own devoted followers.

OK, so here is what I think is really going on:
What we are seeing with the beautiful biblical characters is an example of biology at work. It is the same reason that the vast majority of Christians have sex before marriage - even with multiple partners before meeting their spouse. Our biological urges and base instincts are far more powerful than our religious beliefs - no matter how much we attempt to beat them into submission.
And it is not just sex. Most of what we do and what we are is unconscious or subconscious. When we look at a film there are many things going on including our tendency to suspend belief place ourselves into the scene - that is how we "get into" watching a film. We would be repulsed by a Jesus with rotten teeth and a Mary with unshaven legs. We would not want to be in that scene and it would "pull us out" of the movie and distract us from the story. We subconsciously WANT to be "attracted" to the characters - physically attracted to them. Sexual power is very important and affects us deeply whether we like to admit it or not. Men are not necessarily sexually attracted to a handsome Jesus but subconsciously they know an attractive Jesus has more power. We like our heroes to have power & be handsome & strong.
The difficulty with Jesus being that way is that Christianity is very anti-sexual and sex is associated with the fall and with evil. It is unclean. Thus, the Jesus character has to be washed clean of any sexuality. This puts Christians in a very tough spot when making these films because to make them and remain true to non-sexualized biblical characters the films would have to portray people we might not really want to look at.

BTW: Here is the link for a picture of the most likely looking Jesus: http://www.wehaitians.com/what%20did%20 ... 0like.html