Would more detail about Jesus help?

[marco]

How tall was he? We don't know. How did he cope with adolescence? We don't know. What colour of hair did he have? We don't know. Was he bearded? We don't know. What food did he like? We don't know, but he did take a piece of fish so wasn't vegetarian. What illnesses did he have? We don't know. Did he limp, stutter, stammer, cough, have allergies? We don't know.


He came out of the shadows at thirty, never apparently took a wife, and lived rough, it seems, as an itinerant preacher.


Would it help to have a physical description of Christ?

Does the psychological portrait we have make him more of a myth?

[marco]

Its an odd depiction that id like more information about.

Yes, the conflicting accounts raise questions. Perhaps had Mary been literate and interested in writing about her son we could have had a superb account not just of the final three years, but of all the childish illnesses and what help was needed with homework, or how useful Jesus was to Joseph, or perhaps information about sibling rivalry.

Instead we have to make do with: And Jesus grew wiser and stronger as he moved from boyhood to manhood. Which he might have guessed.

[William]

Perhaps imagery attracts believers as an essential aspect of the words which also attract believers?

Certainly there is no sect of Christendom which goes without the device of imagery as necessary to attract converts.

Just as often, the imagery conveys an almost surely false imprint on the minds of the faithful in regard to the background stories. Jesus is portrayed as having nicely combed hair and trimmed beard and clean teeth and immaculate garb.

How this might affect the mind of the believer is, perhaps, anyone's guess, but in examining the history of Christendom one can get a fairly accurate bead on that.

Jesus may have looked more like a homeless person indistinguishable from that of the modern street dweller scuffed and neglected by the predominantly Christian society responsible for constructing the setting these homeless one's occupy, but unnoticed because the imagery Christians are accustomed to do not see any connection therein.

[ttruscott]

Help what I ask....

[marco]

Just as often, the imagery conveys an almost surely false imprint on the minds of the faithful in regard to the background stories. Jesus is portrayed as having nicely combed hair and trimmed beard and clean teeth and immaculate garb.

Being on the dusty road day after day, wearing the same garments, he was perhaps more malodorous than we would want. It seems almost blasphemous to talk of the toiletries of Christ. Seeing him as a real man, not a spectral preacher with eyes raised illuminatingly to heaven, we might drop the deity part that has plagued us with the incomprehensibly silly Trinity. Gandhi's goodness does not suffer from our seeing pictures of him.

[JehovahsWitness]

but my personal hopes for more information would be in the Resurrection and the details. For instance the four Gospels have different depictions of Christ's Resurrection. Where Matt depicts an all authoritative and glorious Resurrection of Christ. Mark seems to descend a little, where Mary didnt even recognize him, and the disciples werent even fully faithful. Luke says that Disciples didnt even recognize Him, and they were mostly fearful. Matt says that Jesus will be with them to the end, and Mark and Luke tell of Jesus being taken away from the Disciples up into heaven. And the John's is even more so troubling, where the Disciples even grieve the presence of Jesus...

Its an odd depiction that id like more information about.

Tart,

Do you find the resurrection acvounts to be "troubling" because despite you efforts you can see no possible way for the various the accounts to be harmonized and are thus forced to see them as contradictory?

• For example the fact that according to [strike]Mark[/strike] John's gospel, Mary didnt even recognize Jesus, yet Luke says that the disciples didn't recognize him, .... and you see this a contradictory (because both cannot be true at the same time)?
  
  Or is it that you can see no way of understanding Jesus promising to be "with" his disciples until the end" yet at the same time leaving them for heaven? Because it is impossible to understand the expression " to be with someone" unless one is physically seen by both parties and literally within their immediate locality?

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of Jesus the Nazarene." - Albert Einstein, German-born scientist

I'm not surprised Einstein was impressed by the "luminous" figure of Christ. Fireflies exhibit bioluminescence, which is equally impressive. And Wordsworth loved a rainbow. Does all this show anything other than man admires what he sees as beautiful or interesting.

I'm confused by your response, do you think that the great Einstein believed Jesus literally glowed in the dark (like a firefly)?

I took his words to mean that the character if Jesus, as described in the gospels, created a strikingly appealing impression on Einstein, of man with admirable qualities. In other words that although the gospels do not include details of Jesus physical appearance, what they do contain is enough details of his words and actions to build a picture of the character of the man; one which Einstein found enlightening (Please note: When I say "enlightening" I don't mean literally that when Einstein read the gospels he lit up like lightening or that there was thunder, but that he found the information positive in some way).

The point is that lack of description leads many to think that he is just a shadow.

Emphasis MINE

Many who? Many readers of the gospels? Many atheists? Many rabid anti-religionists or many Christians? Many men called "Marco" perhaps? Or many Einsteins?

I think it's a fair guess that if we are to generalize (as you seem to be doing) and were to ask a cross section of people who have read the gospels, if the the character of Jesus remained for them " shadowy " and vague figure with "no more life" than Hamlet ... I hazard a guess that the majority would not see that as an accurate description of their conclusions.

But short of conducting a survey, in a controlled environment we will never know. What we *do* know however is that, yes, it is a fact, there is no physical description of the person of Jesus contained in the bible canon. We also know the description of his words and actions has historically not left people indifferent indeed the character and associated description of the man compiled in the bible ( his "biography" we could say) has made him arguably one of the most influential figures in human history.

I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history." "H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

Hamlet anyone?



JW

[Tcg]

Would it help to have a physical description of Christ?

Ignoring the near endless argumentation that exists concerning the Shroud of Turin, there are believers who except it's validity and therefore claim to know some details about Jesus' physical appearance.

They claim to know he had a beard and mustache. Some claim to know his approximate height. He obviously would have been very thin, at least by today's standards. Apparently his arms would have been different lengths, but this is often ignored or denied.

What I've never heard from those who accept the Shroud as genuine, is an explanation as to how these physical details enhance their faith. They may point to the wounds depicted as evidence that it is genuine, but not to how physical details help them understand Jesus better.

[marco]

I'm confused by your response, do you think that the great Einstein believed Jesus literally glowed in the dark (like a firefly)?

Do I really present myself as a simpleton?

I took his words to mean that the character if Jesus, as described in the gospels, created a strikingly appealing impression on Einstein, of man with admirable qualities.

I think the average reader would take this meaning. Disappointing as it may seem, I'm not an exception here. I do read and understand simple texts.

(Please note: When I say "enlightening" I don't mean literally that when Einstein read the gospels he lit up like lightening or that there was thunder, but that he found the information positive in some way).

Since Einstein considered the Bible filled with infantile tales I don't think his countenance would be illuminated when he read them. Do you?

The point is that lack of description leads many to think that he is just a shadow.

yes, it is a fact, there is no physical description of the person of Jesus contained in the bible canon. We also know the description of his words and actions has historically not left people indifferent indeed the character and associated description of the man compiled in the bible ( his "biography" we could say) has made him arguably one of the most influential figures in human history.

So we agree there's no physical description. Ignoring this gap and turning to the effect that his worshippers have had on history, doesn't help much. We know the efforts of the Catholic Church through the centuries have spread Christ's name; where physical description was lacking, they have commisioned paintings. Where people had alternative heroes, they were killed until millions of people were titled "Christian." There is no real biography - just bits of sermons he apparently gave. But he has been built up to be God himself and few men in history have had that honour. As you know, it is false. So my suggestion that he is a shadow, hiding under false titles, is correct.

I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history." "H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

Principally because he's been made into God himself. Millions believe this. Millions are wrong. Wells is correct - out of shadows and mistakes came this personality and he has been made, by the efforts of others, into something divine. Muhamamd now shares the similar popularity; he too is lauded by millions. But the difference is we know a lot about Muhamamd the person where we know next to nothing about Christ. Christ is in many ways an artefact of the Catholic Church.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 2 by StuartJ]

Jewish and Muslim faithful adhere more closely to Divine laws than lax sabbath-breaking Christians who tend to leave out the bits they don't like and make stuff up that isn't really there.

Can you tell us where Christians are commanded to keep the Sabbath?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 19 by Realworldjack]

If you and your wife cycled into town for a cheeseburger on the Sabbath while she was menstruating, you would be breaking several of "God's" laws ...

And if she let it slip that she had slept with other guys before she met you, you would be required to stone her to death.

But I do see lots of couples in McDonald's on the weekend and lots of young people working behind the counter and in the kitchen who may well be professing Christians.

I reject your enquiry about the "commanding" of the breaking of the Sabbath ...

But many Christians do pick and choose which "laws" they adhere to.

Nonetheless:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... n-sabbath/

It seems you don't need to ...