And his nose got smashed when they turned the cross over to hammer the nails in place.
Posted on 12/14/2015 3:07:42 PM PST by Swordmaker
I always favored the depiction of Christ as it appears on the wall of the Haigha Sophia in Constantinople
This is not intended to be an impertinent or sacrilegious question. Assuming Jesus was the son of God, and conceived without earthly insemination, why would he necessarily be genetically similar or identical to the Jewish population of the area? In other words, he could have looked entirely different from the typical Nazarene.
Yeah, the "bad guy."
How absurd! Without a painting, or at least some reasonable description of Jesus’ physical features, nobody knows. This is nonsense. For all anyone knows, Jesus looked like Jason Alexander.
This is the same kind of mental masturbation as “could G-d make a rock so big and heavy that He couldn’t lift it?”
Why the “deer in headlights” look?
my first thought, too. What’s the with the “duh, I’m clueless” look?
And his nose got smashed when they turned the cross over to hammer the nails in place.
If Superman could lift it, and he could, so could God.
His screen name is “Bud Spencer”.
Actually, no. It's taken from the image on the Shroud of Turin, thought to be the burial Shroud of Jesus, which depicts in reverse sepia tones, the image of a man who was scourged, crucified, pierced in the side with a Roman lancia, and bears the wounds on the head from what appears to have been a crown of thorns. He is approximately 5' 10" tall.
That's well within the height range of semitic people of the Jerusalem area of the 1st Century (a census of the femurs of males from a 1st-2nd Century Jewish cemetery found that the average height of Jewish men was 5' 8.25" inches. Compare that to the average height of modern American males of 5' 8.375". The Roman conquerors of the Israel area averaged only 5' 5.125" tall.
Hair and eye color is certainly an artistic choice. . . but iconography show many points of congruence between the Shroud and art depicting Jesus. . . including those which depict Jesus with black hair or dark brown hair and brown eyes such as the depiction of 13th Century Christ Pantocrator Mosaic from the Hagia Sophia:
Note in the Negative on the Shroud of Turin photo, there is an apparent swelling under the left eye (actually the right eye as it is reversed). Look at the Mosaic and you will see a replication of that swelling on the right eye. Even the swelling of that cheek is replicated and depicted.
This pantokrator is six hundred years older and ALSO shows the same marks of congruences with the Shroud of Turin. Same swellings and eye differences. There are far more points of congruity than just these.
The Bible clearly states that there was nothing physically remarkable about Jesus, so it wouldn't be surprising if he did look like this.
I think that was a deliberate choice of the artist. . . an avowed atheist, I believe.
There is a 2+ hour programs that lends much, much, much more evidence (using the Shroud and years of painstaking research) that is face is much closer to the truth:
Thanks, SkyPilot.
If they are looking for Our Lord’s skull — they are wasting their time.
He was not seemly to look upon. I expect he came without a handsome wrapper so that his words would stand, not his looks or charisma.
Even if he were as ugly as an old boot, he is my Savior and beautiful to me.
Dr. Forensic Anthropologist Richard Neave
***
Wow! His parents named Forensic Anthropologist Richard? I guess they were psychic and, therefore, knew what career path he would follow?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.