|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:04 pm
 |
|
|
|
There aren't any Scriptures that describe details of Jesus' physical appearance. We don't know his height, weight, hair color, eye color, skin color, or anything like that. We do know that he was of Middle Eastern Jewish descent, so he probably just had typical features for that ethnicity. We also know that he wasn't particularly attractive: "He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." - Isaiah 53, a prophecy about Christ.
The Bible never goes into detail about his appearance because it isn't really important; what is important is who he was and what he did.
So the common image of him that appears in Western society today, with light hair and white skin, is probably inaccurate. But there's nothing terribly wrong with that; people in any culture tend to imagine him appearing like themselves. As long as we understand that it's only a portrayal, and that appearance isn't what's important.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:53 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:01 am
|
|
|
|
| -xXLady RaiXx- Wrote: |
I think the Bible does give a description of what Jesus looked like. You just don't know where to look Crimson. Looking at where he lived, chances are he didn't have white skin. His skin would be a more olive color or a tan color. He would be more Middle Eastern, because Jerusalem was located in a desert. It's quite impossible to have a pale white man living in the desert without getting a tan. Try living in Yuma or even Death Valley. You would tan within a few days of being out in the sun.
The image we see in paintings and what not, was the image the Church wanted to convey. If the image of a Middle Eastern man were to appear in paintings, people would have a fit. |
As usual, -xXLady RaiXx-, you respond to me without even reading what I wrote. Most of what you just said is a repeat of what I already said in my post. So you've really not brought up anything new, but you thought you were arguing with me. I guess you only read the first sentence or two of my post before deciding to reply. If you had just managed to get to the third sentence, you would have read, "We do know that he was of Middle Eastern Jewish descent, so he probably just had typical features for that ethnicity." But I guess anything more I write here now is pointless: you've already given up reading this I'm sure. But in case anyone else can muster up the stamina to read two paragraphs, I'll continue. =P
The Bible does tell us the location in which he lived, but that doesn't count as a "description of what he looked like." It's one fact about him, from which we can make broad assumptions about what his appearance might have been like. That's not a description; and besides, all I said was that "there aren't any Scriptures that describe details." Also, your claim that people would have a fit if the image of a Middle Eastern man was used for Jesus, is totally baseless and ridiculous. The appearance of Jesus has never been a doctrine of any mainstream denomination. Most people don't really care about his appearance anyway. A play at my college had the part of Jesus played by a black guy. Nobody cared. As I said in my last post, it's never been what is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:04 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:01 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
