• 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!

Question about jesus.

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why keep harping to obsession? Most people are not obsessed but keep themselves clean
That is what started this thread, assuming Jesus would be seen as a dirty smelling bum today, since we care about "personal hygiene" today, as back then where he must have smelled like a pig, or something or other. See post #5:

Be that as it may, I think that if Jesus were to return to Earth whilst maintaining his old standards of personal hygiene then he would probably reek of body odour and filth

I hope that he takes a shower and has a change of clothes before his second coming

Edit: and perhaps apply some deodorant or antiperspirant?

But as far as obsession with bathing and soaps, that is something here in America that the rest of the world recognizes. Americans think the French are awful smelling, because they don't bathe every single day and constantly apply deodorants. I've even heard from Americans here that since Covid and work from home practices, they have discovered they don't need to shampoo everyday, or even at all.

What I said about overproduction of oils to compensate for all that bathing and soaps and shampoos is true. If you let the body just do it's own thing, you smell normal, not stinky. If you stop with all those soaps and just let the body get back to normal, we smell just fine. So I would assume Jesus did as well, not having access to all the products we consume because Marketing tells us we smell bad if we don't buy their junk. We shampoo and take all the natural moisturizing elements of the oils out of our hair, then we buy conditioners to put it back in! It's a racket. We're being hoodwinked. :)
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
That is what started this thread, assuming Jesus would be seen as a dirty smelling bum today, since we care about "personal hygiene" today, as back then where he must have smelled like a pig, or something or other. See post #5:


But as far as obsession with bathing and soaps, that is something here in America that the rest of the world recognizes. Americans think the French are awful smelling, because they don't bathe every single day and constantly apply deodorants. I've even heard from Americans here that since Covid and work from home practices, they have discovered they don't need to shampoo everyday, or even at all.

What I said about overproduction of oils to compensate for all that bathing and soaps and shampoos is true. If you let the body just do it's own thing, you smell normal, not stinky. If you stop with all those soaps and just let the body get back to normal, we smell just fine. So I would assume Jesus did as well, not having access to all the products we consume because Marketing tells us we smell bad if we don't buy their junk. We shampoo and take all the natural moisturizing elements of the oils out of our hair, then we buy conditioners to put it back in! It's a racket. We're being hoodwinked. :)


I've lived in England, ive visited America several times, i now live in france. I can honestly say ive encountered far more body odor in America and England than in France.

No, one needs to remove the stale sweat and bacteria that cause of body odor.

There is nothing wrong with staying clean, the problems lie in uncleanliness and fanaticism
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I understand that, as an itinerate minister, he was a minimalist... but minimalist doesn't translate into poverty.
IMO, it's more of a self-imposed poverty, possibly much like Gandhi as a more recent example. The latter lived on donations at his ashrams but lived very simply.

Jesus, at least for at least a short while, lived in Peter's house, which I saw in Capernaum, btw. There's no mention in the Gospel of him having a home anywhere once he started his preaching roughly at age 30, and there's no mention of him having a wife and kids. If he had a home somewhere as a adult, it would seem that would have been mentioned.

Also, twice in Acts it's mentioned that the Twelve shared their resources with each other, and we know a lot of that must went to help the poor and the widows. Thus, they must have gotten that idea from somewhere.

It would suggest that Joseph and Mary would have had a home... as a Jew that you are, who does the home go to when the father passes away?
See above.

Mary would have likely either went with relatives in her family or with one or more of the Apostle's family. It is highly unlikely she would have lived alone because of cultural issues.

But his message was about true riches that exceed the material riches, yet, he lived off the donations of those who had. So, he wasn't poor IMV.
Again, "poor" is relative.

In my case, my poverty is because of my wife, but PLEASE don't tell her I said that!
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I've lived in England, ive visited America several times, i now live in france. I can honestly say ive encountered far more body odor in America and England than in France.

No, one needs to remove the stale sweat and bacteria that cause of body odor.

There is nothing wrong with staying clean, the problems lie in uncleanliness and fanaticism

Why Do Americans Cherish Cleanliess? Look to War and Advertising - NYTimes.com

Those ideas drew 19th-century Americans to cleanliness, but it was advertising that kept them interested. Body soap first became widely available in the late 19th-century, around the birth of modern advertising. Since there was little to distinguish one soap from another, advertising and soap grew up together. All the gambits later used for a variety of products – celebrity testimonials, prizes, slogans and jingles – made their first appearances in ads for soap. By the end of the 19th-century, advertising’s biggest customers were patent medicines and soaps.

The great successes of the first generation of soap advertising, such as "It floats" and "99 and 44/100% pure" for Ivory soap, were at least guilt-free. But by the 1920s, as men and women worked closely together in crowded offices and factories, personal fastidiousness became an American obsession – and a way to win friends, influence people and find a man.

Advertising created a morbid worry about "offending," and more soaps, deodorants and mouthwashes (use Listerine and you would avoid the fate of being "often a bridesmaid but never a bride") rushed in to assuage that anxiety. In the 1970s, it was advertising that created the short-lived but strikingly successful campaign for feminine hygiene sprays.

In the 21st-century, although evidence mounts that Americans are washing themselves to an unhealthy extent and Europeans continue to smile at our compulsive over-cleanliness, little has changed. Soaps proliferate, the "intimate hygiene" products multiply and our goal seems to be to eradicate every natural smell from our bodies and then apply tropical aromas like vanilla and melon. In the 1948, film "A Foreign Affair," Marlene Dietrich bade a scornful farewell to an American lover, saying, "So you fly off back home. Wash your hands. Why, surely. You’ve got so much soap in the United States."

Still true, and still an advertising triumph.
The 'Dirt on Clean' in an Oversanitized World

Americans are obsessed with odor and washing, Ashenburg writes. Magazine ads from the 1930s warned women that they could be spinsters forever if they had body odor. The market is full of products to keep Americans germ-free, including padded covers designed to keep babies' hands off germ-laden supermarket carts. Modern irrigation and rainfall have allowed Americans to enjoy showers once a day, but climate change could alter bathing habits, Ashenburg warns.

Chapter 1

For the modern, middle-class North American, "clean" means that you shower and apply deodorant each and every day without fail. For the aristocratic seventeenth-century Frenchman, it meant that he changed his linen shirt daily and dabbled his hands in water but never touched the rest of his body with water or soap. For the Roman in the first century, it involved two or more hours of splashing, soaking and steaming the body in water of various temperatures, raking off sweat and oil with a metal scraper, and giving himself a final oiling — all done daily, in company and without soap.

America's Hygiene Obsession Is Expensive and Unhealthy

The problem is that many Americans have become hyper-obsessed with cleanliness and germs, without totally understanding the implications. Taking your hygiene a little too seriously can actually be harmful, not to mention expensive -- these "necessities" pad Americans' toiletry bills each month, even though they're more of a (potentially) harmful luxury than a necessity.​

... and so forth. This is not just me recognizing this...
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The 'Dirt on Clean' in an Oversanitized World

Americans are obsessed with odor and washing, Ashenburg writes. Magazine ads from the 1930s warned women that they could be spinsters forever if they had body odor. The market is full of products to keep Americans germ-free, including padded covers designed to keep babies' hands off germ-laden supermarket carts. Modern irrigation and rainfall have allowed Americans to enjoy showers once a day, but climate change could alter bathing habits, Ashenburg warns.

Chapter 1

For the modern, middle-class North American, "clean" means that you shower and apply deodorant each and every day without fail. For the aristocratic seventeenth-century Frenchman, it meant that he changed his linen shirt daily and dabbled his hands in water but never touched the rest of his body with water or soap. For the Roman in the first century, it involved two or more hours of splashing, soaking and steaming the body in water of various temperatures, raking off sweat and oil with a metal scraper, and giving himself a final oiling — all done daily, in company and without soap.
Why Do Americans Cherish Cleanliess? Look to War and Advertising - NYTimes.com

Those ideas drew 19th-century Americans to cleanliness, but it was advertising that kept them interested. Body soap first became widely available in the late 19th-century, around the birth of modern advertising. Since there was little to distinguish one soap from another, advertising and soap grew up together. All the gambits later used for a variety of products – celebrity testimonials, prizes, slogans and jingles – made their first appearances in ads for soap. By the end of the 19th-century, advertising’s biggest customers were patent medicines and soaps.

The great successes of the first generation of soap advertising, such as "It floats" and "99 and 44/100% pure" for Ivory soap, were at least guilt-free. But by the 1920s, as men and women worked closely together in crowded offices and factories, personal fastidiousness became an American obsession – and a way to win friends, influence people and find a man.

Advertising created a morbid worry about "offending," and more soaps, deodorants and mouthwashes (use Listerine and you would avoid the fate of being "often a bridesmaid but never a bride") rushed in to assuage that anxiety. In the 1970s, it was advertising that created the short-lived but strikingly successful campaign for feminine hygiene sprays.

In the 21st-century, although evidence mounts that Americans are washing themselves to an unhealthy extent and Europeans continue to smile at our compulsive over-cleanliness, little has changed. Soaps proliferate, the "intimate hygiene" products multiply and our goal seems to be to eradicate every natural smell from our bodies and then apply tropical aromas like vanilla and melon. In the 1948, film "A Foreign Affair," Marlene Dietrich bade a scornful farewell to an American lover, saying, "So you fly off back home. Wash your hands. Why, surely. You’ve got so much soap in the United States."​

America's Hygiene Obsession Is Expensive and Unhealthy

The problem is that many Americans have become hyper-obsessed with cleanliness and germs, without totally understanding the implications. Taking your hygiene a little too seriously can actually be harmful, not to mention expensive -- these "necessities" pad Americans' toiletry bills each month, even though they're more of a (potentially) harmful luxury than a necessity.​

... and so forth. This is not just me recognizing this...

As i said near the beginning of this, America represents just 5% of the world population so hardly worth worrying about.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As i said near the beginning of this, America represents just 5% of the world population so hardly worth worrying about.
We were talking about Americans' obsession with cleanliness. Hence, the absurd question about would Jesus need to take a bath! :)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
IMO, it's more of a self-imposed poverty, possibly much like Gandhi as a more recent example. The latter lived on donations at his ashrams but lived very simply.

Jesus, at least for at least a short while, lived in Peter's house, which I saw in Capernaum, btw. There's no mention in the Gospel of him having a home anywhere once he started his preaching roughly at age 30, and there's no mention of him having a wife and kids. If he had a home somewhere as a adult, it would seem that would have been mentioned.

Also, twice in Acts it's mentioned that the Twelve shared their resources with each other, and we know a lot of that must went to help the poor and the widows. Thus, they must have gotten that idea from somewhere.

minimalist
mĭn′ə-mə-lĭst
noun
  1. One who advocates a moderate or conservative approach, action, or policy, as in a political or governmental organization.
  2. A practitioner of minimalism.
  3. One who believes in or seeks a minimal state; one who seeks to minimize or reduceto a minimum.
poverty
pŏv′ər-tē
noun
  1. The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.
  2. Deficiency in amount; scantiness.

I think we have to understand terms. Someone who is poor cannot provide for the poor and the widows. I think your first statement of "minimalist" would be more appropriate.

They reduced expenses to a minimum but were never poor as they supplied the needs of many.

Mary would have likely either went with relatives in her family or with one or more of the Apostle's family. It is highly unlikely she would have lived alone because of cultural issues.

That is a possibility... BUT :) we have no record whether that happened or not. We know the family had a home when the Maggi came to worship - what happened to the home... no record.

Again, "poor" is relative.

In my case, my poverty is because of my wife, but PLEASE don't tell her I said that!

ROFL! You MUST be richer than me. I have to include my children and 11 grandchildren! :D
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think we have to understand terms. Someone who is poor cannot provide for the poor and the widows. I think your first statement of "minimalist" would be more appropriate.
Ya, which is why I said self-imposed.

I get 0 impression that he was materialistic himself. It is at least hypothetically possible he might have been a nazir, which lived generally at the least a temporary life of austerity and heavy-duty contemplative-meditation, possibly like John the Baptist may have been.
ROFL! You MUST be richer than me. I have to include my children and 11 grandchildren! :D
Good job!

Now in order to keep up, I have to tell our "kids" to get working again and produce us at least three more grandchildren. :tired:
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Luke 9:58

I’d call homelessness evidence of material poverty, wouldn’t you?
No. :) That's plucking one scripture out at the expense of all others. But if you want to believe that, go for it.

Mark 2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

The same house he was in before... doesn't sound homeless to me.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Ya, which is why I said self-imposed.

I get 0 impression that he was materialistic himself. It is at least hypothetically possible he might have been a nazir, which lived generally at the least a temporary life of austerity and heavy-duty contemplative-meditation, possibly like John the Baptist may have been.

I agree that he wasn't materialistic. True that hypothetically he might have been a nazir as well as John the Baptist.

You can be poor and materialistic too.

But I will fight tooth and nail to defend you then you said hat he was a minimalist. :) - I won't let you take that back. :D
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Wrong, it was the british army that introduces separation between toilet and food in the 18th century

And prior to that many people did not live long enough to reproduce
In India? People used their left hand for toilet functions and their right for eating. It was separation of a kind.
 

DNB

Christian
If Jesus lived in poverty.How did he wash his clothes?Or take baths or showers?:confused:
It would depend on the material of his clothing. In certain cases like pure wool, he clearly would've gone to a dry cleaner.
 
Last edited:

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
No. :) That's plucking one scripture out at the expense of all others. But if you want to believe that, go for it.

Mark 2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

The same house he was in before... doesn't sound homeless to me.


You’re still homeless if you are a temporary guest in someone else’s house, but that’s beside the point. Christ’s attitude to material wealth was unequivocal, would you like me to quote half a dozen Gospel verses to that effect? Why do you think so many monastic orders take vows of poverty, if not to live as near as possible to the way Christ lived?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Be that as it may, I think that if Jesus were to return to Earth whilst maintaining his old standards of personal hygiene then he would probably reek of body odour and filth

I hope that he takes a shower and has a change of clothes before his second coming

Edit: and perhaps apply some deodorant or antiperspirant?

Your post needs some hygiene, deodorant and strong perfume.
 

Oberon12

Member
Why did you hold the position that he lived in poverty?

Given the directives for churches to provide for widows and orphans, and that workmen are worthy of their hire, etc., etc., it's clear none of that is possible if Christians are supposed to live by dumpster diving, as many of the Jesus haters run around claiming, usually by the usual fallacies of quoting individual verses out of the context of the narratives they're in, as if the bible is just a big collection of unrelated verses or something. It was the highly successful practice of taking care of their own that first attracted Constantine enough to put them in charge of the Empire's charities and social programs, while the attempts to emulate the Christians' successful programs by the pagans under the orders of a couple of the other co-Emperors of the Tetrarchy failed miserably.
 
Top