Spiritual image, not physical image.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
physical appearance of jesus
- Thread starter satyaroop
- Start date
Spiritual image, not physical image.
Her mother wasn’t a virgin. Mary’s soul was preserved by God from the stain of Original Sin because only such a pure being would be fit to bear God. God made an exception. That’s Catholic doctrine.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
There is such a thing in Catholicism?
Doctrine? Certainly.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Noa Tishby is an Israeli actress.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
No more than he has been 'hijacked' by other people...
Ethiopian Jesus
Chinese Jesus
By what metric was he not 'white'? Remember, Arabs were foreign invaders of a Mediterranean civilisation during their conquests in the 7th C.
Looking at genetic profiles of the region, he was probably as 'white' as a Southern European (as are local Jews, many Turks, Levantine 'Arabs', etc.)
Modern political boundaries that separate "white" Europe from "brown" Middle East don't match traditional population origins and ignore the fact that Mediterranean Southern Europeans are closer to Mediterranean peoples in the ME than they are to Northern Europeans. Also that Mediterranean 'Middle Easterners' are closer to Southern Europeans than they are to ethnic Arabs, even though culturally, they are seen as Arabs.
Defining populations in terms of 'whiteness' and arbitrarily defining genetically similar populations as white/non-white is akin to racist notions of racial purity.
This is not to say Jesus should be claimed as 'white', just that the classification is stupid and relates to modern sensibilities and prejudices rather than anything remotely scientific.
Copy pasted from this thread which also includes scientific info regarding genetics in the region.
that kid is already bald? Damn I hope he is praying for a renewed hairline
No we don't.....but he looked enough like his countrymen to be indistinguishable from them to the Roman soldiers who were sent to arrest him. That was the point.
If Jesus had been among men dressed like this,
how would you have picked him out? The guy in the black suit, white shirt, with a beard and a black hat?
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
His appearance and exact skin shade is not significant
Isaiah said he did not have an appearance that we would be attracted to
We do know He had a beard.
Considering that Jesus was the product of that conception, it surely must refer to Jesus.
Axe Elf
Prophet
No, @RabbiO and @Jainarayan are correct; the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception refers to Mary being without sin.
This caused some consternation for Jesus later, when he was trying to make a point about not judging other people because you could be judged too. The crowd was trying to stone an adulteress, and Jesus said, "Whoever is without sin may cast the first stone." From the back of the crowd, a rock flew and hit the adulteress in the forehead, causing a deep gash. Jesus peered through the crowd to see who it was, and then threw up His arms, saying, "I didn't mean YOU, mom!"
Okay, but the bottom line is that (according to Church doctrine) she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus and therefore Jesus' outward appearance would not have resembled Joseph. It's unclear whether he would have had any of Mary's genetic material either. According to Church doctrine as I remember it, it was through the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus was conceived. So (assuming this is true), Jesus' outward appearance would have been whatever God deemed fitting.
Axe Elf
Prophet
Correct, although I think it's safe to assume that if Jesus looked significantly different from the indigenous peoples--like if he was Ted Neely in a nation of Danny DeVitos--there might have been a stoning.
Perhaps. But they had already been occupied by the Roman Empire, so they would have been used to people from other lands; wouldn't be that much of a shock as to trigger a stoning.
On the other hand, it could have had the opposite effect. If he did look like Ted Neely in a nation of Danny DeVitos, that could have boosted his popularity.
Axe Elf
Prophet
Not a stoning of Jesus, but of Mary--if Joseph's wife gave birth to a son that was obviously fathered by someone of a different race, she would have been subject to the laws governing adulteresses--i.e., she would have been stoned.
That's about like saying that my father "looked enough like his countrymen to be indistinguishable from them" to the Canadian Mounties, i.e., the comment is simply silly.
You do understand the context of my comment was against the background of the OP....what Jesus looked like? If he had looked like the man portrayed in Hollywood movies, he'd have stood out like a sore thumb to the Romans.
Judas would never have needed to give him a kiss. All the women would have lined up.
You continue to pretend to know what you don't know. If Jesus, he looked like a Jew in precisely the same way that I look like an American.
Wasn't she facing that possibility anyway?
Axe Elf
Prophet
If people knew that she got pregnant without having sex with Joseph, then yeah, probably. But I doubt if anyone asked. But to quote the character Hud from the musical HAIR, "If the baby comes out all white and squishy-like," then suspicion would be aroused.
That was the point. He looked like any other member of his nation. His physical appearance is not even mentioned in the NT.
He was dressed like all other Jews, according to God's instructions. He would have had a beard and a fringe on his outer garment with a blue thread. Jews stood out from Romans by their appearance, but nothing stood out about Jesus' appearance among other Jews.
Are you misunderstanding what I am saying in response to the OP?