Yes most are falseWith so many different paintings of Jesus christ, is it true to conclude that most are False representations?
They are all the result of ';artistic license'; which gives a artist the license to present the subject (of the work) within the scope of their interpretation and/or imagination.
To say they are false representations is to deny the scope and intent of artist license.
You could conclude such. Yet everything's in argument. Who are we to say that we really know what Jesus Looks like? We're conditioned to believe that Jesus was a tall white man with long curly brown hair. The truth is that none of us truly know what he looked like. We know that he was Jewish, lived in what is now Isreal, or near there and the only thing we can conclude about what he looked like is what people of that area look like now and most of all, our Imagination.
Does Jesus have to be one color in particular. I would like to think the ';Advocate';, The lamb of GOD, The resurrection and the life,the shepard of Souls, The Judge, and many more names is what you see him as. He is GOD by any other name, by the way. The trinity of three can come in any form.
The essential thing is to believe in whom JESUS Christ is, was, and always will be.
If Jesus actually did exist (no physical records of his birth, life, imprisonment, or death but there are of Barabas and John the Baptist out side the Bible) his depiction is more likely like this one.....
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image…
There are so many depictions of what he may of looked like but knowing his origin of birth, ancient skulls with forensic studies, and current humans of his similar ancestory he would have probably looked more like the above picture.
What the other iconic paintings do to help spread the belief was to influence those of other cultures and give them a depiction that they themselves could relate to.......
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image…
The ';romantic'; versions with his facial expressions stern and eyelids half closed and a softness added to his eyes or stature makes him, as a deity, approachable.
Have you ever thought why most icons of ancient deities, mostly of the Gods and Goddesses seem to be expresionless? It is for the follower or believer to decide. It was how they saw their deity at that moment, happy, sad, compassionate, concerned, angered, or uninterested in our lives. Many of the early depictions of Jesus were done in the same form, emotionless. The difference with him was that they painted his eyes differently. Looking directly not lowered or raised and were positioned in such a way they would follow you, but he was in a relaxed and serene state with the lids lowered unlike other paintings of the 3 or 4th centuries.
So, what you invisioned may not have been a ';divine'; being as you would like to believe but maybe a messanger or spirit sent to you to give you strength or a message about your life.
Blessings
Jesus adapts Himself to who we are. And paintings are a way of saying that. You talk like a baby to a baby. You play differently with a cat than a dog, and at different statges in life you want the same person to be different things for you.
It is normal and natural. I used to carry around a younger picture of my mother than her actual age was. Is this 'wrong' ? [ no ]
One can assume that Christ cannot look like EVERY painting - this s only each culture's vision of Him that fits their standards. Actually, most of our assumptions are wrong.
Most archaeologists say that the average Semite man of the time was 5'1';, and weighed 110 lbs. Since He worked as a carpenter, he would have been more muscular than pictures suggest.
Since Judas had to identify Jesus, it's logical to assume that He looked like any other Jew.
And since Paul said that men could have short hair, it's safe to assume that Jesus had short hair.
Well yeah... they hadn't even started painting things like that when Jesus was around, so it had to be something someone made up.
-Edit- Have you SEEN paintings from that time period? I never said they didn't paint, I said they don't paint things ';like that';. Granted, I could have been more specific, but I meant it was pretty primitive... it's not as though you would have been able to recognize anyone in one. They all had the same color skin, very little shading, and almond-shaped eyes. You wouldn't have been able to tell what someone looked like from looking at a painting from that time period.
People who love Jesus have an image of what He may have looked like in their mind and so too had the early artists who depicted Him as mostly caucasian according to their own colour and with long hair and a beard as pertaining to Jewish men of that era.
I seriously doubt if this is a problem whenever it recalls the Lord so much more clearly to mind.
Regarding pictures of Jesus being adolatry I think those who suggest such a stupid thing really need to understand the commandment better instead of a knee jerking self proclaimed puritism, for if they go this far then it would be logical to assume that they do not picture Jesus in their mind either?
I would conclude most are factual; also it is important to remember that Jesus was from Jersualem, so it is unlikely He would be black, Asian or hispanic...you have to think about where He was born and where He lived.
yes that is true if you read isaiah53- 1-12 this describes jesus christ and in one verse it says he didn't have any beauty or majesty that made us notice him there wasn't anything special about the way he looked that drew us to him. men looked down on him he knew all about sorrow and suffering he was like someone people turn their faces away from.although i like the paintings of christ i know that the paintings are not him. because of what isaiah tells me other wise i hope this answers your question
Art is just that, a representation of one person's imagination. Artist's see things in their own way and interpret it.
EDIT just because someone painted Jesus does not mean they have seem Him. I painted pictures of Him before I was a believer. I can assure you of one thing, you are right...my son has seen Jesus and it is nothing like the pictures according to his description. Yet it does fit in with yours.
They all are, no one knows what jesus looked like we have no reliable records of his appearance
edit: If you already knew the answer, why did you ask us?
For those of us who are Not knowledgeable and uninformed please provide a verified representational image from the first century of Jesus or any Jew.
All we know is He was Jewish, and wore a beard which was plucked out when He was tortured before His crucifixion.
I believe God wants us to believe, sight unseen, strictly by faith.
http://www.armageddonangelsufos.com
Well, we can't really say that these are real depictions or not. BUT I can say that the most reliable ones are the earliest depictions of Christ (during or a few years after his life on earth).
Of course not. We created god in our own image. Thus, all the jesus' that look like us
Black jesus looks really hot, by the way.
He probably looks a lot more Jewish then most paintings.
They all spring from the imaginations of men.
Well, no one knows what jesus looked liked. There is or was no recorded paintings that was taken during his life on earth.
who cares? i know who he is and what he stands for and i love him b/c he loves me
All are false representations. No one knows what Jesus looked like.
They are all false.
i beleive Jesus would have looked Middle Eastern..seeing as that is the area where he was from.
All are false images. There were no cameras in the day when Jesus was on earth. He did not pose for an artist.
All.
yes they are because he wasn't even white !
they all are...
We do not know really what Jesus looked like other than he was an olive skinned Jew.
All the paintings of Jesus are making an image or likeness of the things in heaven... It would be considered breaking the 2nd commandment.
well. considering the fact he is imaginary...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
He never existed so they all are.
No comments:
Post a Comment