Post Reply
Page 10 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10
Switch to Forum Live View A Physical Description of Jesus
4 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2011 - 9:37PM #91
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

They're like "The Bohr Model of The Atom" ...


Jun 23, 2011 -- 9:19PM, Blü wrote:


teilhard


You mean all those pictures of the tall handsome bearded Nordic dude with the long wavy beautifully shampoo'd chestnut hair and splendidly clean cotton/polyester robes are fakes?


Say it isn't so!





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2011 - 11:19PM #92
Blü
Posts: 25,621

teilhard


The Bohr model of the atom drives a Volvo?


Very strange.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2011 - 10:07AM #93
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

BACK to The Topic of The Thread ...


Feb 11, 2009 -- 9:17PM, teilhard wrote:

teilhard wrote:

The Greek Testament Writings don't provide a "physical description" of "Pontius Pilate," or of "Herod Antipas," either ...  So what ... ???


The Greek Testament Writings don't provide a "physical description" of "Saul ( Paul ) of Tarsus," either, nor of "Peter" ...  So what ... ???




Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2011 - 10:08PM #94
Blü
Posts: 25,621

teilhard


Well, as I just said in #89 -


It now strikes me that hints of Jesus' disfigurement may derive not  from biographical reports of Jesus but from Isaiah's Suffering Servant  (Israel), particularly at 53 -


2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, / and like a root out of  dry ground; / he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, /  and no beauty that we should desire him.


Hence pointers to a  physically unattractive Jesus may simply arise routinely in the usual  fulfilment-of-prophecy fictions of the gospel writers.


Simply a little tidying up for this thread.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2011 - 11:12AM #95
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

I don't think any serious Biblical Scholars have a Problem in understanding that none of The Canonical Gospels offer a "Physical Description" of The Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 4:24AM #96
Blü
Posts: 25,621

I'm sure they don't - there isn't one.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 weeks ago  ::  Mar 15, 2015 - 5:43PM #97
Brainscramble
Posts: 10,581

Sep 29, 2008 -- 4:54AM, Blü wrote:

. The NT gives no physical description of Jesus at all. That omission rather strongly confirms the idea that none of the authors was an eyewitness - you'll recall that no one claims to be one - and adds further weight to the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all. This link discusses the point. One thing it says is -

It is interesting that most of the earliest depictions of Jesus are of a youthful, Apollo-like deity. But after Christianity is placed under the protection of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, the images of Christ change dramatically and almost exclusively to the bearded Christ.


Assuming that''s a fair summary, it fits well with Paul's sky-god. It also fits well with a gnostic or mystery origin for the Jesus story. The site also says (my ellipses and paragraphing) -

The only physical description of Jesus that does exist is from a copy of a letter from the Roman consul Lentulus to the Roman Emperor Tiberius. ... According to the copy ..., the original ... was dated to the 12 year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius [ie 25-26 CE]. Scholars have historical verification that a certain Roman consul named Lentulus was in Judea at the time of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. [Do they?] His influential family is mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus in his book Antiquities of the Jews. Scholars are divided, however, as to the authenticity of the letter. ... Lentulus describes the condemned man named Jesus of Nazareth as having: a noble and lively face, with fair and slightly wavy hair; black and strongly curving eyebrows, intense penetrating blue eyes and an expression of wondrous grace. His nose is rather long. His beard is almost blonde, although not very long. His hair is quite long, and has never seen a pair of scissors…..His neck is slightly inclined, so that he never appears to be bitter or arrogant. His tanned face is the color of ripe corn and well proportioned. It gives the impression of gravity and wisdom, sweetness and good, and is completely lacking in any sign of anger. (Holy Land Magazine, Franciscan Holy Land Press, Spring 1998).


This site says it's a 13th cent forgery. Certainly it sounds like hooey to me. But it would certainly account for the countless illustrations of a well-shampooed Jesus with wavy chestnut hair who looks far more like a middle-class Swede about to Volvo to a toga party than a Jewish peasant from the eastern Mediterranean in the Roman era. On top of that it seems to be clearly at odds with a few hints in the NT. If you assume an historical Jesus then you can argue that - First, descriptions of him were omitted because he looked terrible. Second, Luke 4: [23] And he [Jesus] said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country.'" Those would be odd lines to place in Arnie's mouth. They suggest some visible physical deficit, or at the least a puny build. Third, John 19: [19] Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." Whether the author's intention is to mock the Jewish leaders or Jesus, again the joke won't work if Arnie's under the sign. Fourth, the tales of the crucifixion are told in terms of Jesus dying on the same day before sunset - that's to say quite quickly relative to the normal time it took. Finally (and irritatingly) I recall reading years ago, in a book (or possibly a magazine) that I now forget, an allegedly historical description of Jesus as having a crooked back and eyebrows that met in the middle. If that story rings a bell with any of you, I'd be grateful for illumination. Have I overlooked anything? Any thoughts?



There is no description at all of Jesus anywhere.  He certainly did not have a crooked back or ugly eyebrows.  He was PERFECT.  He undoubtedly was the example of the perfect, flawless, human body.


Some people look at Isaiah 53:2 and take this to mean that he was ugly.  If that verse is really thought about, I think we can say that it only means that he wasn't a flambouyant, ostentatious, showy person, extravagantly displaying himself to the people....like riding around in flashy clothes on a decked-out steed.  He was modest and blended in with the common people, though I'm sure that if we faced him we would see a very handsome man.



(Though surely not with blue eyes and almost blond hair!  He was a Jew and undoubtedly had the coloring of an ordinary Jew....dark wavy or curly hair, swarthy complexion, brown eyes.)






To our almighty God and Father (of Christ and ourselves):  "Show them you alone are JEHOVAH, the Most High over all the earth."  (Psalm 83:18)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 10 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook