Why are Christians ashamed of Jesus?

[Avoice]

It is sad that Christians are ashamed of Jesus.

For centuries they have been drawing him like a European. With blue eyes and sandy blond (light brown) hair.

He was from the Middle East. They know what men from the Middle East look like. Black hair and brown eyes. And darker skin.

If they must have an image why don't they draw him in truth? They don't.
Christians find their false image of Jesus comforting. Looking at it with such admiration. What if he looked like Sadaam Hussein? And wore jeans and a tshirt?

How will Christians recognize Jesus? By wearing a white robe with arms outstretched? Looking like the guy in the Last Supper painting?

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #17]

They likely look the same, because you said: "the insular nature of their religion would have kept them from intermarrying to a great degree, so their features wouldn't have changed that much".

Right----in the time of Jesus. So he would have looked like a first-century Jew, not like a twenty-first century Jew.

So, you think they don't look the same today as 2000 years ago? If you think so, why did you say "the insular nature of their religion would have kept them from intermarrying to a great degree, so their features wouldn't have changed that much"? Is that not true after all?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #21]

So, you think they don't look the same today as 2000 years ago? If you think so, why did you say "the insular nature of their religion would have kept them from intermarrying to a great degree, so their features wouldn't have changed that much"? Is that not true after all?

I was addressing your assertion that there might have been something about Jesus's appearance which would seem extraordinary to those around him:

I believe he is a man, as the Bible tells. However, he was not born the same way as normal men. Therefore it is possible he didn't look exactly the same as his parents.

What exactly do you think would have made him stand out? The halo which appears around his head in Renaissance paintings? The blue eyes he was given in Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth"?

If Jesus was supposed to stand out as something special, why do Christians ascribe Isaiah 53:2 to Jesus?:

"He hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #21]

So, you think they don't look the same today as 2000 years ago? If you think so, why did you say "the insular nature of their religion would have kept them from intermarrying to a great degree, so their features wouldn't have changed that much"? Is that not true after all?

I was addressing your assertion that there might have been something about Jesus's appearance which would seem extraordinary to those around him:

Ok. If we make guesses about his looks, what do you think, would Jesus have looked more like a Jew or more like non Jew?

What exactly do you think would have made him stand out? The halo which appears around his head in Renaissance paintings? The blue eyes he was given in Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth"?

If Jesus was supposed to stand out as something special, why do Christians ascribe Isaiah 53:2 to Jesus?:

"He hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."

That shows the person looked like something different. And in a way different is special always. If we would assume the people at that time looked like dark skinned brown haired, and Jesus would have been white, with blue eyes, it is possible that he would have been too different looking and people would have thought he doesn't look nice.

But, I don't know what Jesus looked like back then. And I don't think it matters. More important is what he said.

However, it is interesting, does the typical image of Jesus come from the shroud of Turin. I think it could be the closest to the truth.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #23]

However, it is interesting, does the typical image of Jesus come from the shroud of Turin. I think it could be the closest to the truth.

Since the Turin cloth has been dated to the Middle Ages, it seems likely that the image thereon comes from images of Jesus typical at the time. It doesn't seem likely that Paul of Tarsus would have accepted the long-haired figure on the cloth as that of the actual Jesus----

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
(1 Corinthians 11:14)

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #23]

However, it is interesting, does the typical image of Jesus come from the shroud of Turin. I think it could be the closest to the truth.

Since the Turin cloth has been dated to the Middle Ages,...

And that is questionable. It may be wrongly dated.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #25]

Since the Turin cloth has been dated to the Middle Ages,...

And that is questionable. It may be wrongly dated.

Just because it's questioned by some doesn't mean that it's "questionable".

[Clownboat]

[Replying to 1213 in post #23]

However, it is interesting, does the typical image of Jesus come from the shroud of Turin. I think it could be the closest to the truth.

Since the Turin cloth has been dated to the Middle Ages,...

And that is questionable. It may be wrongly dated.

I was hoping you would address this instead of ignoring it:
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
(1 Corinthians 11:14)

The figure in the shroud has long hair. Why are you willing to dishonor your Jesus by claiming he had long hair?

[servant1]

[Replying to Avoice in post #1]

All the religions with pics of Jesus with long hair is the darkness. No Israelite male had long hair,( 1Cor 11:14)-- except God made a special covenant with ones called Nazirite like Samson( Jesus was Nazarene)-- Thus they portray Jesus bringing dishonor to his Fathers name. So its reasonable to believe they do not portray him correctly in any way in their pics. Run from those religions.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #23]

However, it is interesting, does the typical image of Jesus come from the shroud of Turin. I think it could be the closest to the truth.

Since the Turin cloth has been dated to the Middle Ages,...

And that is questionable. It may be wrongly dated.

I was hoping you would address this instead of ignoring it:
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
(1 Corinthians 11:14)

The figure in the shroud has long hair. Why are you willing to dishonor your Jesus by claiming he had long hair?

Sorry, I didn't notice it before.

Firstly, do you think nature should be the teacher for a Christian (a disciple of Jesus), or God and Jesus?

Secondly, it may be true that long hair was a dishonor in Paul's time and culture. But, people can't always cut it. Maybe Jesus had in the end long hair, because he spent most of his time in desert and had no way to cut it.

Thirdly, the matter that looks like hair, could actually be some cloth covering his head.

I don't think it dishonors Jesus, if one thinks he had long hair when he died. However, it is very possible he didn't have.

[1213]

...Just because it's questioned by some doesn't mean that it's "questionable".

Yes it is.

But, obviously more important is, why it is questioned. I question it, because it is possible that the part dated had just some dust from middle ages, which made it look younger than it is.

However, in the end this is pointless, because even if it could be proven to be right age, it could be some other person than Jesus. In the end it is not useful anyway. Still, I think it has been the inspiration for many images of Jesus, even if it is not actually Jesus in the image.