2006-11-28 07:51:52 · 21 answers · asked by The professor 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Pictures are drawn by what man wants to view Him as. No one knows what Jesus actually looks like except for those that saw Him in person. No cameras were avaible and I don't think He had time to sit and allow anyone to paint a portrait of Him. With so many variations of what Jesus looks like ... who knows?
2006-11-28 07:53:20 · answer #1 · answered by CuriousGirl 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Noone who has drawn any of the pictures of Jesus that we have seen, actually met him (to the best of my knowledge) or even met anyone who met him. I doubt that Jesus is white though and i am not sure what a Jewish person looks like since Jewish people come from all over the world.
Even pictures of the prophet Muhammad show him looking radically different from one picture to the next and he was around 1400 years ago instead of 2000. In some pictures Muhammad is anglosaxon looking which is likely absurd. For Moses, he is anglosaxon looking in many pictures, but then again, why not, Charlton Heston played him in the movies.
2006-11-28 08:15:02 · answer #2 · answered by Jeffrey Hay 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right, Jesus was a Jew, but have you seen what Jews look like? Their looks are basically all over the spectrum. Some are as white as an irishman and others are as black as a haitian. Many pics I have seen Jesus typically has olive skin and brown eyes, which would be pretty middle of the ground for a Jewish person.
2006-11-28 07:57:01 · answer #3 · answered by straightup 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a stupid question. First off, noone really knows what Jesus looked like. And what does a Jewish person look like anyways??? All of the pictures of Jesus are the world's interpretation of The Bible, and what we have concluded about people from that particular region.
2006-11-28 07:55:05 · answer #4 · answered by freakykittygoddess 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
certain, Jesus turned right into a Jew because it rather is only a faith and that became what Jesus believed and preached about. Jesus couldn't be Christian because the religion hadn't been created yet. the religion became being created with each and every action and note that he suggested. the real visual charm of Jesus is unknown because they did not have Cameras or something. the image we've in the present day is likely a touch off because the depiction of Jesus must be depending upon the evolution of the first couple paintings of Jesus. So in the experience that they created the first portray presently after his lack of existence, comparable to Jesus ought to have 2000 years to modify rather. As you try to reproduction comparable to Jesus you discover in paintings from the previous you gained't get it one hundred% good so it adjustments rather with the help of the years. yet except that Jesus does not be required to appear like rather anybody else. He did appear like different Hebrews throughout that element in spite of the indisputable fact that it wasn't required because Jesus became not born from yet another guy. He became the son of god.
2016-11-27 19:33:14 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The pictures are drawings by European Gentiles centuries after Jesus lived on earth. They just "naturally" assumed that he was white like them.
A couple of years ago someone constructed a possible image of Jesus based upon the skull of a first-century Israeli. Someone upon looking at this Middle-Eastern image remarked, "He looks like a terrorist!"
Jesus is not a White European Gentile. He was a Middle-Eastern Jew, and probably Brown-skinned.
2006-11-28 12:21:30 · answer #6 · answered by MNL_1221 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some of the artistic renditions of Jesus aren't inspired by the LORD God.
If the artist isn't inspired by God or of Gods angels, then the artist is inspired by a lieing spirit. A false artistic depiction of Jesus.
Two honest Revelations of a vision of Jesus is in Daniel and in Revelation. Though a painting of these weren't made by Daniel or John.
2006-11-28 07:56:02 · answer #7 · answered by t a m i l 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By the same authority source you allude to, there shouldn't be any pictures of him at all. Flagrant disregard of directive. You must also understand this to be a product of Renaissance humanism which tended to be educated beyond it's intelligence. The way in which he is supposedly portrayed ( long haired ) is also a flagrant disregard and departure from explicit directive. It's up to you to find out. Hope this helps.
2006-11-28 07:54:43 · answer #8 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt anyone know what Jesus really look like. If, he a jew he will look like a jew.
2006-11-28 07:54:25 · answer #9 · answered by SUN FLOWER 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seriously??? Or are you kidding?
You do realize that the pictures of Christ are interpretations by the artist.... they aren't actual photographs.
Secondly.... what exactly would an early first century Jew look like?
2006-11-28 07:54:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋