By Dr. Theo on
July 31st, 2010
See more of Jon’s work at McNaughtonArt.com
Tags: America, christian nation, Founders, jesus, McNaughton, painting
Maybe it's just me, but I find this offensive… the artist has reinvented the image of Christ to make him look American.
It's fine when they do it to Betty Crocker, but Christ…?!
What do you mean “reinvented” the image of Jesus? What is the image that you're talking about? What do you suppose Jesus looks like? Jesus was born Jewish. Don't you know that most Jewish people look like “Americans?”
No one knows what He looks like. I don't like it that all these artists throughout history have depicted Jesus with long hair like a hippie. Why would they imagine that He has long hair? To me, that is the most “off” thing about depictions of Jesus–the long hair. I doubt He has long hair.
I think everyone reinvent the image of god to give it the shape that fits best one's own view…
Umm… Then why on earth would you be “offended” by any given image?
I was not the one being offended…
Right you are. Sorry about that…
Well to be brutally honest, Jesus was probably very short,darker skinned, had filithy, greasy hair and never wore white flowing gowns, but darker, worn and very dirty clothes as well. He was a poor wanderer and in those days it was common to be dirty and unkept and rarely bathe if in His 'social' class which was that of a near peasant. It would be nice to see him protrayed more like what he probably looked like. Wouldn't change His message.
Jesus was not a “poor wanderer;” He was on a mission, and his “wanderings” were very deliberate and planned. And it's unlikely he was dark-skinned. Look at the Jewish people, Brian! Jesus is Jewish, and most of them are light-skinned. His family was not poor. When He was crucified, the soldiers drew lots for his clothes, because they were expensive clothes. If His clothes were dirty and shabby, no one would have wanted them. There is no reason to believe that the Son of God walked around in filth–that's not like Him.
Jesus was a Galilean Semite born over 2000 years ago before the Jewish people interbred with other lighter skinned people like the Europeans or people more of your or mine skin tone. The people of this region at that time did not have light skin or light hair. It is different today with all the mixture in all of us. We don't know if his family was not poor. The Bible never mentions it and we know essentially nothing about him until age thirty, Nothing in the Bible suggests He had any substantial means at all.
When I said 'wander' I meant He walked wherever He went and it was hot, dusty and dry and for his clothes not to be dirty would mean He would have to have a change of fresh clean clothes every day or so! who supplied these ?These people rarely bathed, which is actually a very recent phenomena.The Roman soldiers were destitute themselves and usually took whatever their victims left behind.
I wonder where all these ' expensive' clothes came from since Jesus had no income . Did those around Him procure these fine, expensive clothes for him to wear? Our perception of Him comes from artists with light skin. Why wouldn't the Son of God walk around in dusty, dirty clothes ? These were the same clothes that the people He was appealing to were wearing, because it was the norm to be dusty and unbathed and poor in those days in the Middle East.
That has no bearing on His message.
The image of Jesus that is so familiar today probably came from the image on the Shroud of Turin. There are some really compelling articles on the subject that can be found easily on the Internet. Here is one: http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-jesus-in-art.htm
Jews of that time bathed at least weekly. This was prescribed by the Pharisees as part of the preparations for the Sabbath. At Qumran, home of a sect called the Essenes and the likely owners of the Dad Sea Scrolls there was a large communal bath and well as smaller ritual baths in most homes. We have no reason to think that Jesus did otherwise.
The genetic ancestry of Jews is probably little changed from the time of Jesus. Until very recent times intermarriage by a Jew was tantamount to death–a person was banned by their families and community and were considered anathema to their heritage and faith. Thus, the Jewish lines of ancestry have been preserved largely intact. Genetic studies have confirmed this.
Jesus' followers saw to his needs. He was fed, housed and clothed by the disciples who believed He was the promised Messiah. Can you imagine them doing otherwise? Would you allow a person that you believed was your promised King of Israel to wander about filthy and in rags? One of the Apostles, Judas, was even given the job of handling and dispersing the money that people gave to Jesus and His Apostles. A treasurer would hardly have been necessary if Jesus was a homeless, impoverished vagabond.
I don't think The Shroud can even be considered in this discussion because there are compelling reasons for it's authencity and compelling reasons for it just being a mistaken identity.
I am not sure about the genetic studies you mentioned. Since the human genome has been decoded, it has been shown that a large majority living in the Middle East where the Jews lived, actually had an extremely high percentage of Asia and African genetic likenesses. There ancestores were Asian-African..I don't think any of us know where our true ancestry comes from, but now with all the genomes being tested around the world, you will soon be able to know where your's came from.
I thought when Jesus was speading the Word that most people didn't accept Him yet as the Messiah. That came after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. I picture Him as on the road, going to place to place to speak. his disciples gave up their lives and earnigs, so all of these people had to be boarded, fed, bathed, clothes given them. How many people in some village were really to do that ? Also I wonder just how clean a communal bath was in these villages and how clean you are if you only dip in the unclean bath once a week. No soap. no dental hygiene.
It was just a fact of life for them , but the imporatant part is that did not think themselves dirty.It was a way of life then and didn't bother them in the least. Heck, just go back to our founders and I bet if you stayed with one for a couple of weeks, you might notice an odor and general uncleanliness.
“This way to the egress!!”
It's amazing to me, Brian, that you seem to have so much superficial knowledge of the Bible and the history of the Jewish people, yet you still won't see the truth.
P.T. Barnum was right. There really is a sucker born every minute.
“I don't think The Shroud can even be considered in this discussion because there are compelling reasons for it's authencity and compelling reasons for it just being a mistaken identity.” Compelling reasons? Please explain.
“I thought when Jesus was speading the Word that most people didn't accept Him yet as the Messiah.” How many were present at the Sermon on the Mount? What about His triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday?
“It was just a fact of life for them.” This is nothing but arrogance. Inform yourself about Jewish custom and you'll find that they were a fastidious people.
The exact whereabouts or mention of this exact Shroud was unknown for at least 1400 years after Christ's death. There were some other clothes like the Codex, but no one knows from where they came. Thousands and thosands of Jews were buried in crypts wrapped in cloth which was a custom of the day and the Shroud could have been from any of these people.The Church just sort of proclaimed it to be the Shroud after 1400 A.D.Prior to that the history is unrecorded.
I would ask you ' How many were at the Sermon on The Mount ' Do we know ? And yes people saw His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, but what about the three years before that when especially the first year or so or early on He didn'tyet have much of a following. I don't think the Bible makes it at all clear how many accepted and followed Him. Could have been a rapid, vocal minority. I thought it took Him time to travel and build His word to the non-believers. But even at His death, we don't have a clue how many followers He had.
When I say it was just a fact of life that they bathed once a week in probably not the most sanitary of water, I don't mean it arroganatly. That was the custom then and indeed it was fastidious by their standards, but today we would not consider it 'clean' or ' fastidious' . Bathe once a week in non-soapy water for a while and see what you think is all I am saying.
Yep. Barnum was a smart man. please read my response to dr theo
Whether we’re talking about the uber-white depictions of Christ, or the “Africanized” images of Jesus, it seems like many folks want to inaccurately imagine him as being of their own race.
And more importantly, can a person who does not “accept” Jesus’s ethnicity truly “accept” Christ at all?
I see all of your responses, Brian, and like I said, you are unable or unwilling to see the forest because of all those trees that are in your way!
I didn't claim that the Shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, only that its image is the likely origin of the conventional image of Christ and there is abundant evidence that that is the case.
An indisputable fact is that the Shroud is a unique artifact. Nothing remotely like it has ever been found despite the hundreds of thousands of similar burials during that era. It is also indisputable that the image was not painted on the Shroud. Extensive, very scientific work has disclosed that the image is formed by a process that most resembles a very faint scorch, but it penetrates only the most superficial fibers of the thread. Scientists are still at a loss to explain how it was made.
Also indisputable is that the image portrays the body of a young Jewish man that had been crucified in exactly the way Jesus' crucifixion and death are described in the Bible. There are still many questions about its provenance, but the Shroud is the most mysterious, most investigated historical artifact of all time. I don't think a serious student of history can flippantly dismiss it with “because there are compelling reasons for it's authencity.”
The ritual bathing by ancient Jews required that it be done only in *living water,* that is flowing water such as a stream or river or the specially designed *Mikvah* that directed flowing water through the bath. Furthermore, they used a soporific mix of ashes and various oils to wash with in their cleansing baths.
There were 5000 men (women and children present weren't reported) at the Sermon on the Mount. There are numerous reports in the Gospels about the large crowds that Jesus attracted wherever He went. Here are a few:“Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake, and a large crowd from Galilee followed.”-Mk 3:7Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.Mark 10:1-3
“As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her.”-Luke 8:42-44
Your concept of Jesus' life and teachings are simplistic and condescending, Brian. If these matters are of importance to you I suggest you go to the source and read for yourself what Jesus' life and ministry were about. It is truly fascinating reading and may even make you re-think some of your deeply held beliefs.
Let me please clear something up, which is that I wsn't flippantly dismissing the Shroud, but merely saying there there are good arguments for it's authenticty and good arguments for it's non-authenticity so that makes it difficult to use in discussions such as ours.. I would also think that since most artists in the 15th, 16th,17th centuries didn't personally see the Shroud that their depiction of Jesus came from their imaginations.
You mentioned that there 5000 people( excluding women and children) at the Sermon on the Mount, but I thought the 5000 people mentioned in the Bible was when He fed the masses, which is different from the Sermon on the Mount.
I will go back as you suggested and re-read the Gospels, but is will take a lot of convincing that Jesus walked around in expensive, fine clothes as Gina and others have suggested. Custom was that Jews didn't reveal themselves in such ways. Many conservative Jews in the Middle East and all around the world still adhere to the non-imporatnace of fine clothes and such things outwardly
Now need to go find my Bible !
I stand corrected, Brian. I confused two separate events, the Sermon on the Mount and the feeding of the multitudes. I have to go back and read Matthew's gospel again.
Although the known history of the Shroud begins early in the thirteenth century, circumstantial evidence as well as pollen samples, contemporary accounts and artists' renderings produce a likely history going back to the city of Edessa where a cloth bearing the faint image of a man was discovered buried in the city's gates in 544 A.D. Here is a short synopsis of the story of Edessa: http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/histor…
Prior to about 600 A.D. images of Christ were generally beardless, with short hair, and even blond in one painting. Then suddenly, with the beginning of the seventh century, the artists' paintings changed, most showing an image clearly based upon the face on the Shroud. That is the same image that persists to today.
That the Shroud first surfaced in history in 1260 does not prove that it hadn't been in existence from much earlier times. Again, there is a tremendous volume of work done on the subject and, ultimately, each of us will come to our own conclusions. My Baptist friends reject the Shroud as a “Catholic thing” and my atheist friends reject it as an obvious forgery, both without giving it a fair hearing.
There is a new book on the subject that I might recommend to those who are interested, by Ian Wilson, “The Shroud : the 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved.” Here is a little information: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2010/02/ia…
Thanks for the references and the info , as this is a fascinating subject. Seems like two things could be learned here. Christians shouldn't ever take the Shrouds authenticity on face value nor if science says it has solved the mystery, should that ever be taken on face value as the truth !
“Can a person who does not 'accept' Jesus's ethnicity truly 'accept' Christ at all?” That's an excellent point, prerad. Jesus' ethnicity is not up for debate if one claims to be a believer in Jesus the Savior. From Genesis through all the prophets and all the gospels Jesus is reported to be a Jew of the House of David. No other ethnicity is possible. Isaiah 53:2 tells us His appearance was not particularly remarkable. He looked like a young Jewish man of His time, which by most accounts is not strikingly different than that of most Jews today–dark eyes and hair with olive skin complexion that darkens easily in the sun.
Once again, Brian, we have stuck with this long enough that we have reached an accord. I don't believe there will ever be absolute, conclusive proof of the authenticity of the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ–I can't imagine what such proof could even be. Likewise, I don't believe secular science will ever be able to adequately account for the Shroud in purely scientific terms no matter how much investigation is done on it.
So, those that believe will have their faith strengthened and those that don't will continue to believe that it is only a matter of more time and study before all is explained–kind of reminds me of the stalemate between believers and non-believers in other areas of scientific inquiry.
With your inquisitiveness, Brian, I think you'd enjoy looking into this more if for no other reason than it is a terrific detective story.
Copyright © 2018 Dakota Voice.