why there aren't any images of the real face of Jesus?

Question

atheist-please don't answer ''because he isn't real''....
i want religious people to answer serius..

and i know i have an awfull spelling..don't bother telling me this-i know it already..

Answer 1

there are indeed hundreds but almost none of them aggree.so, there must be some false witnessess out there

Answer 2

Being Jewish, the second commandment, not to make an graven images, would have prevented anyone from making a statue or painting of Jesus during his lifetime. The Jews were very fanatical about not having a representation of a person. When Pilate attempted to put an image of himself up on the front of his palace, there were riots over it.

Also, as Christianity spent the first 300 years of its existence as a banned religion, punishable by death, anything like a painting of Christ or a statue would have invited execution. Early Christian art had to be "symbolic" such as a lamb with a cross over it, ot a fish, so that no one would realize what it was.

But probably more than that, God did not want the physical form of Jesus to be worshipped. He wanted his spiritual teachings to be what was important. So he preserved the teachings, and not the image of Jesus' face.

Answer 3

There are millions of different renderings of Jesus. They are hardly all the same. Some artists have actually managed to take into account that Jesus was a Jew living in Judea 2,000 years ago, while others have painted him as they perceived him to be--bearded, not bearded, long-haired, well coiffed, short, tall, Caucasian, black, Arab, Hispanic, etc. Since there are no contemporary drawings or detailed descriptions of what Jesus looked like, it is left largely to the imagination. Some artists have sculpted him in their own image, or the image of someone they admired. The image on the so-called Shroud of Turin has greatly influenced Western portraiture of Jesus.

Answer 4

They do have a spell check feature if your spelling is troublesome. It really wasn't bad on that question tho - only one word.

There aren't images of Jesus because he lived allegedly over 2000 years ago. They would make images of the leaders of the time, like Cesaer and Alexander the Great, but without a position of money or power, there would be no reason to record his image.

Answer 5

Well of course there were no cameras then so any representation you see is the sum of the collective recollection (or pure imagination) of the centuries.

The real, historical, Jesus of Nazareth was probably an olive-skinned, bearded semite. He was prone to messianic preaching (obviously), indicating that he was at least associated with the Jewish ascetic cults of the time. Therefore, pictures of him with long hair are probably accurate.

Answer 6

because jesus lived so long ago it wasnt possible to just 'take a picture' but there are some claims that a peice of cloth (the shroud of torrah) was placed over his face and body after he died on the cross and that the image of his face was transferred onto the cloth. lots of testing is still being done to prove whether or not the imprint on the cloth is really Jesus's face, but many believe it is. interesting though..

Answer 7

There were no camera's. His face in paintings is just the artists perception of what they think he looks like (funny how each makes Jesus look similar to their race).

If you believe the Shroud of Turin is authentic, then there is the real face of Jesus.

Perhaps Jesus doesn't want you to see his real face, because people would start worshipping his image and not God.

Answer 8

People prefer to make a familiar image, of a contemporary person, rather than admit there was likely not a European hippie -like guy in the middle east 2000 years ago...

Answer 9

Jesus was born a Jew in a culture that did not make likenesses of people. The Romans made them and the Egyptians, but not the Hebrew people.

This commandment was initially to the Hebrew people:

"Thou shalt not make for thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them."

Answer 10

That's simple, no one knows what he really looked like. He certainly wasn't white with European looks, he had dark brown skin, so was black, but not southern/western or eastern African, more like Egyptian skin tone. However whats most important to remember is that the Bible is not a biography of Jesus, it is the word of God. I myself hate that they distort his looks to make him white, he's a religious figure not a celebrity, why demean him by giving him that "airbrush effect?"

Answer 11

Because it obviously was not important to the people of his time. There is no Gospel account of his appearance. Isaiah 53 says, "there is no form nor comeliness that we should desire him," in other words, it appears there was nothing extraordinary about his appearance.
Today we are fixated on the visual. Things were different then.