How did Jesus Christ Look like? shaved face/ clean cut or bearded and Long haired ?

a reply to: Boadicea

Well Dear Boadicea,

Even if we dont show confidence to the letter of Pilates or the description of Publius Lentullus , there is a third description of the aspect of Jesus that seems to be reliable since belong to some kind of civil records of that time, that were archived and kept through centuries in Constantinople ( today Istambul, Turkey) , the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire.

"The Archko Volume"

Another description of Jesus is found in "The Archko Volume" which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus.

This information substantiates that He came from racial lines which had blue eyes and golden hair. In a chapter entitled "Gamaliel's Interview" it states concerning Jesus (Yeshua) appearance:

"I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: 'If you ever meet him [Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man.

He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else.

He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy....

' This Jew [Nazarite] is convinced that he is the Messiah of the world. ...this was the same person that was born of the virgin in Bethlehem some twenty-six years before..."

- The Archko Volume, translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge, Genoa, Italy, from manuscripts in Constantinople and the records of the Senatorial Docket taken from the Vatican of Rome (1896) 92-93

Notice that this description includes the term "Nazarite" what suggest clearly that he had long hair, since all who had vow of Nazarite was forced to don't cut his hair and beard during it.

Please read:

triablogue.blogspot.com...

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness

The 3d image taken from the shroud of Turin

a reply to: FlyersFan

Dear FyersFan,

It is clear that many extreme conservative hard core Christians , in the protestant arena, are trying for decades to discredit all the traditional depictions of Christ since they claim that long hair in men is against the biblical teachings.

I have listened along years the fundamentalist Christian rhetoric opposing in a unreasonable way and even discriminating openly long haired guys, accusing them to introduce pagan customs in our society.

Pls read: www.gotquestions.org...

Since along all the Bible there is just really only one paragraph to use to support such a claim ( 1 Corinthians 11) , they use any kind of non biblical arguments to make their case including very ridiculous and no sense statements of pagan gods that supposedly inspired Traditional Christ depictions

This is people that claim to be seated in the angular corner of the Biblical truth, using a single isolated statement coming from an only one letter of St Paul, 1st of Corinthians, a man that was half Roman citizen and that never met Christ in person.

Please check: bibleq.net...

St Paul even ended that paragraph in that 1st letter to the Corinthians saying that his comment refers exclusively to customs of the Jewish people in exile or Christian Jews in which he grew up in Turkey.

The topic of the letter has nothing to do with haircut and i particular the central message of that paragraph was not the long hair, but to allow the hair to cover entirely the head of the person in the temple, including the face.

That letter is biased interpreted by whom need to support their wish to see a Christianity uniformly looking and dressed in the militant style they adore, symbol of their obsession to try to merge American nationalistic conservative politics with the faith, and that are trying to impose a custom that was really Roman.

triablogue.blogspot.com...

Curiously either the Holy Shroud of Turin, the veil of Manopello, the Holy sudarium of Oviedo and the Pantocrator portrait of the St Catherine Monastery at the mount Sinai show all clearly that Jesus actually used Pony tail hair style as a regular base, precisely to never cover his face with his long hair when he attended synagogues.

Please check www.shroud.com...

Have you ever seen a clean cut guy signing the constitution or the declaration of Independence in any painting of the XVIII century?? That gives you an idea of how American or Christian is that style by the way.

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Boadicea

Just like the one above me....

Pilate would not have considered him "the son of God"... he would have been executed for sedition

That's definitely a reasonable supposition, but I can't be so sure that that would have stopped Pilate. It might depend on when it was supposedly written. If it was written before the crucifixion, I would agree. However, if the Acts of Pontius Pilate (aka Gospel of Nicodemus) is believed, then Pilate may have had greater fears than execution by his earthly ruler when he wrote those words.

And there no legit record of him ever writing to Caesar about Jesus

Maybe... someone better tell the Library of Congress! Honestly, I don't even know anymore what exactly is a "legit" source. Since history is written by the victors, I'm not sure if we would even recognize a legit source if it bit us in the butt.

I've read that Tiberius had requested (ordered?) Jesus to come to Rome in the hopes that Jesus could heal him, but that Jesus had already been crucified by the time the message reached Judea -- at least that's how I remember it, but I could be mis-remembering. If so, though, it might explain why Pilate felt it necessary and/or safe to make such a claim to Tiberius. I'm having trouble finding a source, and I don't recall where I had read it originally. But if I can find a link, I'll post it.

I'm not making any claims to the truth of this... just putting it out there for thought and discussion. I sure don't know the truth of the matter!

a reply to: The angel of light

Thank you for the link. I've only (relatively) recently learned that Nazarites have a specific identity -- beyond simply being from Nazareth, which I've read did not even exist in Jesus' time as a city or town proper. So much still to learn!

a reply to: Akragon


First, comely means pleasant to look at or attractive. Second beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To many, regardless HE is the most beautiful man to have ever walked the earth. To others such as yourself, ugly. I suppose it just depends what eyes you are looking with, in the end.

I am guessing that he looked much like the average Semitic person of that day. Do modern day Arabs of that area have much facial hair? They're likely about as close to Semitic people of those days as any other group. The modern day Israelis are likely interbred with too much European to be reliable.

He probably had brown eyes and dark hair. I'm guessing he didn't keep his hair close cropped although he may have kept it neatly trimmed.

He likely looked a little older than his years due to sun weathering since he is portrayed as constantly out and about, not constantly inside somewhere.

a reply to: The angel of light

I think it was different at different times.

I am not sure i agree with your timeline but i will say it seems to fit the events but my view is that there were two of them. one young and one old. That is why we have the gap in his life. Everything could have taken place in a much smaller time frame. like 10 yrs or so.

a reply to: The angel of light

Interesting...but Im always suspect when one quotes Wiki-as a source for their points. Its no authority on-point.

Credibility of Wikipedia

"Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation"

isites.harvard.edu...

Just sayin....whenever I see a lot of info attributed to as fact....

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Yeah, Wiki is a good place to start when you need to generate some ideas about where and how to dig deeper for better stuff.

a reply to: ketsuko

In my experience, if I check Wikipedia, it inspires me to research the subject even more, sometimes out of curiosity, sometimes out of "That can't be correct, let me check the net out...."

a reply to: ketsuko

Absolutely...its a place to start from...not to quote as FACT...as many do....including the inference in this op thread...thats all.

I know Im not alone when I say as soon as I see one linking a bunch of WIKI links...I'm already suspicious of the whole thing.

And that can hurt the intentions of the thread starter.

a reply to: The angel of light

Hi!

In relation to your thread:

As a Rabbi and Jew Jesus would have wore Payot. These are the side locks of hair according to the Law ("Don't cut the sides of the head and beard").

He was NOT an Nazarene. Nazarenes did not drink alcohol. They made a vow to not drink of the vine. So he would not have had long hair as such other than the side locks. Remember Paul said that it was not fitting for a man to have long hair like women's, which gives us some idea of what was deemed appropriate for men of that period.

As for the Turin Shroud well that disagrees starkly with what John said he witnessed in his gospel:

John 20:7; "and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."

This clearly tell us that the face cloth was separate to the body cloth. The Turin shroud appears to be one single cloth as the image appears. I am going with John on this as he said he saw it with his own eyes.

That's the best I can offer.

Wrong thread.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: The angel of light

I can't seem to recall where I read the description of Jesus from the earliest source... I thought it was Josephus, but I can't seem to find it...

Anyways from what I remember it said "Jesus was not an attractive man, very normal (comely was the word used) but he did have long hair because being a Nazarene it was their tradition I guess... and he had greyish eyes

that's all I remember...

Oh.. and they didn't have flat irons back then.... so the beautiful flowing dirty blond hair is nothing short of ridiculous

Jesus was a Nazarite and Jewish people considered it shameful to have long hair.
A Nazarene is not a Nazarite, what makes you thing Jesus was a Nazarene, that is completely wrong.

The Old Testament describes Jesus as well, sorta ugly. He didnt have a princely appearance
“he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.”

Read more: www.patheos.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

Hi Dear Ketsuko,

I think it is important to don't fall in stereotypes, not all semitic people are dark haired, olive skinned and brown eyes, in the same way that not all have the same height or complexion.

Many so called Arab Jews, in other words, Jewish people of north Africa, like Morroco or Algeria or Tunes have hazel, green or grey eyes , they are fair skinned and their hair is not dark at all, can be any color from red to dark blond.

Now in Hebrew people the texture of the hair is waved or curled, that is a genetic characteristic that is distinctive from Europeans, and the beards are in general extremely curled ones.

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Notice I said likely and probably.

a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

Well, Jesus started his public life as a disciple or follower of John the Baptist, that was indeed a Nazarite, so we can assume that perhaps that was a first stage in his career, and at some point he decided to open his ministry to a more diverse kind of people, what perhaps make him to adopt customs that are definitively not proper of the Nazarite vow.

About the comment of the two clothes in the tomb of Christ, let me say that your comment is interesting and the way this it is explained by the Roman Catholic Church , as well as by the Orthodox ones and the Coptic ones, that all together represent the eldest Christian communities of the world, is that one of the clothe refers to the Holy Shroud that remains now in Turin , Italy, and the other to the Holy Sudarium of Christ that remains in the Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain.

The third piece of cloth that contains the stamped the face of Christ, that can be the Holy Mandylion of Edessa, is what is traditionally known in the west as the veil of Veronica, or Volto Santo, due to the following passage that is contained in the traditions of the Holy land and in one of the so called minor Gospels, in the Acts of Pilate that is part of the Gospel of Nicodemus.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

folk.uio.no...

en.wikisource.org...(1913)/Acta_Pilati

www.newadvent.org...

Pls check:


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

That piece of cloth ,that basically is as big as a napkin or a handkerchief or scarf was lost for centuries, but recently has reappeared in Manopello, Italy. Finally, let me add that the existence of the veil of Veronica is also accepted by the Episcopalian - Anglican churches, that have a holiday celebrating this event.

Pls check : paranormal.about.com...

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: borntowatch

Well, I think it is obvious that the Old Testament can't have any description of Jesus, at least not with his name , only references in the Psalms of David as prophecies of its arrival, visions of the coming of the Messiah that David had 1000 years before him, on them it is described the horrible death it was going to experience and the pain and suffering he will to face, but apart of those elements there is really nothing of his aspect.

Now, in your quote on the Prophet Isaiah, that also fall in the same category than the Psalms of David as prophecies of the Messiah, I think what is portrayed is the aspect of Christ humiliated by the torture he suffered, the physical torment of the passion that of course must erode his appearance in some visible way.

Those physical injuries and the subsequent inflammation of tissues are visible in the Shroud of Turin , that is the ugliness that the Prophet refers to, is not his own natural look as a person, but the way he was damaged by the terrible death he suffered. He does not look as a King in that moment, there is no majesty on him, his look is due to the circumstances expressing the brutal way in which he was executed.

Isaiah described Him in 53: 2b “he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.”

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness