What did Jesus look like?

[Palerider]

This may not be doctrinal but not sure where else to put it and I know we have discussed something similar before but was hoping this might be more to the point.

I've been doing a little thinking and some research about this lately. I know one of the complaints people have about depictions of the Savior is that he almost always is fair skinned with medium brown to reddish-blond hair. The Anglo-Saxon head structure seems to be ubiquitous especially in LDS paintings.

After doing some observation it appears that both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have a range of complexion from fair skin with a variety of hair color to a somewhat "swarthy" skin and darker hair.

Facial features can be diverse as well and although an elongated nose is fairly common, it certainly isn't always typical.

So I'm just wondering what people here would expect to see in a more accurate depiction of Christ. How would it differ from the typical "Mormon Christ" who looks strangely like "Bro. LaVar Thornton" who lives just down the street in Orem.....(no reference to a real person).

What would be a more authentic depiction that would still convey a dignified and acceptable appearance for those of the Christian persuasion?

[RubinHighlander]

I'm glad you posted this because it came up today at lunch with TBM and NOM coworkers. I made the comment that Jesus didn't likely look like the European white guy of the dark and middle ages, nor like the Mormon art depicts. My NOM friend asked if in the past we had heard in church that the mormon art is accurate because the old guys who are PSRs had actually seen his face. I said that I had heard that urban rumor. One of the TBMs said, well, consider who Jesus' father really was. I didn't really have a response to that because it stirred up a bad past memory of an encounter I had with a born again Christian who hammered me with the "You Mormons think that God had sex with Mary." That was a WTF moment.

What a crazy messed up thing this Jesus thing is. The question I have for the greater minds here is, what is the source of the God Mary sex thing? Was that an actual doctrine at one time or just one of those things that was assumed because of the Mormon dogma on the nature of God having a physical body and well, it just makes sense. Oh, but JS never had sex with all those young girls he was sealing himself to...

So assuming God was the biological father with Mary, the assumption is that God is a European white guy with dominant genes. It doesn't really change the problem or the question here.

Getting back to the original question here: I think Jesus was just another regular Jewish guy and I have no assumptions or ideas other than what we see in the Jewish orthodoxy as far as physical traits and those are all over the place. Okay, maybe a bigger nose and probably people were shorter then. Definitely not Bro LaVar Thornton or Bro Mahonri Mordickguy Angstomer!

[wtfluff]

What would be a more authentic depiction that would still convey a dignified and acceptable appearance for those of the Christian persuasion?

What are there, ~10,000 different christian sects?

So there are likely ~9,999 sects who think their depiction of Jesus is "more authentic" than yours.

[DPRoberts]

What a crazy messed up thing this Jesus thing is. The question I have for the greater minds here is, what is the source of the God Mary sex thing? Was that an actual doctrine at one time or just one of those things that was assumed because of the Mormon dogma on the nature of God having a physical body and well, it just makes sense. Oh, but JS never had sex with all those young girls he was sealing himself to...

This page on Mormonthink has several quotes that never say directly that Elohim had sex with Mary. Taken together as a whole they strongly suggest the same. Also they play the polygamy card to keep God moral, and that suggests that some who were quoted thought there were moral implications.

www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm

[Palerider]

What would be a more authentic depiction that would still convey a dignified and acceptable appearance for those of the Christian persuasion?

What are there, ~10,000 different christian sects?

So there are likely ~9,999 sects who think their depiction of Jesus is "more authentic" than yours.

Don't know if there are quite THAT many different iterations of Christianity but I see where you're coming from.

Something I have noticed is that there seems to be some leniency of acceptable imagery from sect to sect.

I think that occurs because most people realize that no one really knows what Christ looked like so live and let live.

But if there were at least a few parameters set forth, what would they be?

As Rubinhighlander implied, does God being the father of Christ automatically give him a phenotypical appearance of being a white, fair skinned Anglo-Saxon?

Or is there a possibility that God the Father (if we could actually gaze upon His countenance) looks quite middle eastern???

And I think regarding "acceptability" would the manner in which he is presented make his appearance less of an issue?

[Palerider]

So assuming God was the biological father with Mary, the assumption is that God is a European white guy with dominant genes. It doesn't really change the problem or the question here.

It does strike one as a little racist that the Father must be white and fair haired in the Mormon paradigm.

Isn't it even possible that it could be otherwise???

Does appearance effect ability?

[wtfluff]

What would be a more authentic depiction that would still convey a dignified and acceptable appearance for those of the Christian persuasion?

What are there, ~10,000 different christian sects?

So there are likely ~9,999 sects who think their depiction of Jesus is "more authentic" than yours.

Don't know if there are quite THAT many different iterations of Christianity but I see where you're coming from.

Actually it looks like I underestimated. Ask google and scan down the page, the links that start posting numbers say 30,000 - 40,000 different Christian organizations.

As far as what Jesus looks like, well I better not give my offensive, apathetic opinion, so as to not offend...

[Palerider]

Actually it looks like I underestimated. Ask google and scan down the page, the links that start posting numbers say 30,000 - 40,000 different Christian organizations.

As far as what Jesus looks like, well I better not give my offensive, apathetic opinion, so as to not offend...

That's o.k.

I'll take your word for it on the number. Actually doesn't surprise me.

[moksha]

One thing we know for certain is that Jesus did not look like frolicking members of the British Aristocracy who could trace their genealogy all the way back to Charlemagne.

[Reuben]

So assuming God was the biological father with Mary, the assumption is that God is a European white guy with dominant genes. It doesn't really change the problem or the question here.

I think the genes for a large head, tiny mouth and bulbous black eyes are probably recessive.

[Hagoth]

I think the genes for a large head, tiny mouth and bulbous black eyes are probably recessive.

Yup:

[felixfabulous]

didn't really have a response to that because it stirred up a bad past memory of an encounter I had with a born again Christian who hammered me with the "You Mormons think that God had sex with Mary." That was a WTF moment.

If you have not seen this, you need to. The Mary part is a gem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuO2Ov_D08c

I remember my sister being super creeped out in high school because her seminary teacher told them that God "wined and dined" Mary and treated her really well before the deed. That is super creepy.

IMO this is a demonstration of our unwillingness to leave anything to mystery and also a relic of the justification of polygamy by incorporating it into our theology. Per the thinking in that era, God the father practiced polygamy with the Mary incident and Jesus did as well by being married to Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene (also an awesome bit in the cartoon referenced above).

I am a big fan of Jesus and think his teachings are incredible, I would say my beliefs are in the liberal Christian camp. I see some huge problems with the nativity narrative and the idea of divine birth. The latest one I encountered while reading Mark was, if Jesus had this miraculous birth, would people in the synagogue in Nazareth dismissed him and asked if this was not the carpenter's son? If the nativity narrative was accurate, people in his home town would have for sure known the story and would have been in awe of him his whole life.

I think all indications are that he was a typical first century Palestine Jew. Anytime a writing says something unflattering, historians think it is probably accurate. So, I think there is good evidence he was unremarkable in physical appearance and probably had a fairly normal upbringing. I think all of these things make it more remarkable that he was able to teach radical new wisdom and threaten the religious and political leaders so much that they had him killed.

[Hagoth]

I think the genes for a large head, tiny mouth and bulbous black eyes are probably recessive.

Although, considering that that vast majority of gods are infants and children (everyone in the universe who died before age 8), it would be hard to determine what an adult Elohim might look like. The personage who paid a nocturnal visit to Mary and who appeared to Joseph in the grove would probably look more like this:

[Palerider]

if Jesus had this miraculous birth, would people in the synagogue in Nazareth dismissed him and asked if this was not the carpenter's son? If the nativity narrative was accurate, people in his home town would have for sure known the story and would have been in awe of him his whole life.

Just something to consider here:

It seems to me that timing and the release of information was pretty important to the Savior and his mission. I think his mother Mary intuitively knew this as well, so broadcasting the events of his birth and true station in life may not have been a desirable approach.

For example:

The news of Christ's birth was broadcast to shepherds near Bethlehem which would have been a limited audience, but the family didn't stay there long enough to gain a reputation in the tiny village. Spending significant time in Egypt and then finally settling in Nazareth, few there would have made a connection as to Jesus' true identity. As for Mary, the following verse indicates her inclination towards guarding the family secret.

Luke 2:19

“But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.”

Again this is repeated when Jesus is found in the temple conversing with the "doctors".

Luke 2:51

“And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.”


Additionally, when Mary comes to Jesus and makes a request of him to supplement the wine at the marriage in Cana he lovingly chides her as knowing that he has the ability but it is not the correct time or place to make his position known.

John 2:4

“Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.”

The interesting thing about this scripture is that it implies that perhaps Christ had performed unnoticed or unseen miracles within a very limited scope at home. Otherwise how would Mary have known he had the ability to make a difference in this case? But my thinking is that in general Jesus' life was intended to be quiet and uneventful until his mission was to begin.

[wtfluff]

if Jesus had this miraculous birth, would people in the synagogue in Nazareth dismissed him and asked if this was not the carpenter's son? If the nativity narrative was accurate, people in his home town would have for sure known the story and would have been in awe of him his whole life.

Just something to consider here:

It seems to me that timing and the release of information was pretty important to the Savior and his mission. I think his mother Mary intuitively knew this as well, so broadcasting the events of his birth and true station in life may not have been a desirable approach.

... [ HUGE {snip} ]

IF all of your references are actually historically accurate. I'm pretty sure would be quite challenging (neigh impossible) to find a quorum of true bible scholars who would agree that those events "recorded" in the bible are actually historically accurate.

[græy]

My NOM friend asked if in the past we had heard in church that the mormon art is accurate because the old guys who are PSRs had actually seen his face. I said that I had heard that urban rumor. One of the TBMs said, well, consider who Jesus' father really was.

Consider this though, if Jesus was a 6 foot tall European with fair skin and straight-ish brown hair, he would have likely stood out like a sore thumb in the Jerusalem of ~0 BCE. There would likely be some note of his appearance somewhere in scripture. But all we really have is Isaiah saying there would be nothing special about him 600 years before he was born. The new testament writers didn't give us ANY physical description of him. If his looks came from Elohim himself and made him look different than every other person around him, someone should have said something about it.

The fact that no one talks about his appearance implies there was nothing to talk about. He was average in skin tone, hair, height, eye color, etc.

[Palerider]

if Jesus had this miraculous birth, would people in the synagogue in Nazareth dismissed him and asked if this was not the carpenter's son? If the nativity narrative was accurate, people in his home town would have for sure known the story and would have been in awe of him his whole life.

Just something to consider here:

It seems to me that timing and the release of information was pretty important to the Savior and his mission. I think his mother Mary intuitively knew this as well, so broadcasting the events of his birth and true station in life may not have been a desirable approach.

... [ HUGE {snip} ]

IF all of your references are actually historically accurate. I'm pretty sure would be quite challenging (neigh impossible) to find a quorum of true bible scholars who would agree that those events "recorded" in the bible are actually historically accurate.

Right.

I've observed quite a while back that a goodly number of contributors here don't see the Bible as being historically accurate and I have no problem with that. We have a tendency to live and let live as I understand it.

I have my own thoughts on the probability of some aspects of scripture and it doesn't bother me at all that others may differ.

The thing I find interesting is that at times a poster might use a portion of scripture to establish a position that either ignores or is unaware of additional information in the text that could have bearing on what they are saying. And I hope that by pointing those possibilities out from time to time does them no harm.

If someone wants to use the scriptures to begin with why would they object to someone else giving added information from those same scriptures?

I'm not being "declarative". I'm not saying, "This is what you have to think!" I'm offering up information for consideration. If the individual finds no value in that I have no problem with that whatsoever. That's what I love about this country. Lots of learning taking place all the time. Theologians finding out new stuff all the time that replaces what they thought in the past. Scientists doing exactly the same thing. What they thought they knew 10 years ago is now inaccurate. Opinions change. I enjoy most aspects of it.

The aggravating part is when they tell me that eating one thing this year is good for me but two years ago we had to avoid the same food like the plague.
Cholesterol used to be BAD. Now there's good cholesterol AND bad cholesterol...

Remember back in the late 70's when peanut butter caused cancer? Anybody seen an update on that lately?

When I was in high school in the early 70's scientists said we were headed for a new ice age. The 2000's it became global warming...which later changed to the neutral "climate change"...

It's entertaining to watch.

For the past 2000 years the 2nd Coming has been just around the corner. I guess the Mayan calendar thing in 2012 didn't work out for a lot of people. The LDS faith has been kind of quiet about the 2nd Coming since the 7th seal failed to open on the year 2000.

But it's still important to be prepared. You never know...

[Palerider]

Consider this though, if Jesus was a 6 foot tall European with fair skin and straight-ish brown hair, he would have likely stood out like a sore thumb in the Jerusalem of ~0 BCE. There would likely be some note of his appearance somewhere in scripture. But all we really have is Isaiah saying there would be nothing special about him 600 years before he was born. The new testament writers didn't give us ANY physical description of him. If his looks came from Elohim himself and made him look different than every other person around him, someone should have said something about it.

The fact that no one talks about his appearance implies there was nothing to talk about. He was average in skin tone, hair, height, eye color, etc.

I have a tendency to agree with this. King David is spoken of as being of a ruddy (red) complexion. Esau had hairy arms. King Saul was a head taller than most men around him.

I don't see the absence of comment as being a reason to think he might have been completely plain or ugly but still he may not have been remarkably different in physicality.

Which also means he could have been anywhere from fair to darker complected. Because we have no idea what the Father looks like.

[wtfluff]

Just something to consider here:

It seems to me that timing and the release of information was pretty important to the Savior and his mission. I think his mother Mary intuitively knew this as well, so broadcasting the events of his birth and true station in life may not have been a desirable approach.

... [ HUGE {snip} ]

IF all of your references are actually historically accurate. I'm pretty sure would be quite challenging (neigh impossible) to find a quorum of true bible scholars who would agree that those events "recorded" in the bible are actually historically accurate.

Right.

I've observed quite a while back that a goodly number of contributors here don't see the Bible as being historically accurate and I have no problem with that. We have a tendency to live and let live as I understand it.

I have my own thoughts on the probability of some aspects of scripture and it doesn't bother me at all that others may differ.

The thing I find interesting is that at times a poster might use a portion of scripture to establish a position that either ignores or is unaware of additional information in the text that could have bearing on what they are saying. And I hope that by pointing those possibilities out from time to time does them no harm.
... [ And, another huge {snip} ]

So again, as others have mentioned: Your biblical sources have no reference that Jesus had any "outstanding recognizable features" that made him stand out from any of the other folks in the region. Same thing as far as Mary is concerned. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be: He basically looked like the majority of other people from "Bethlehem" from that era? (Or Nazareth, depending on where you believe he was actually born?)

[Palerider]

So again, as others have mentioned: Your biblical sources have no reference that Jesus had any "outstanding recognizable features" that made him stand out from any of the other folks in the region. Same thing as far as Mary is concerned. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be: He basically looked like the majority of other people from "Bethlehem" from that era? (Or Nazareth, depending on where you believe he was actually born?)

Yep.

Did you think I was saying something different?