The trouble with Jesus

W

water

the sea
Registered Senior Member
The trouble with Jesus


If you ask me what I think of Jesus, I first think of William Dafoe and his muscles in The last temptation of Christ, and the romantic eyes, filled with tears in Van Dyck's Jesus bearing the cross -- and many other popular images of Jesus. I think that in most pictures, Jesus is portrayed as a very handsome man, and if not handsome, then at least good-looking. And I think how this is *the* way to get women to worship him -- the same way a woman would love her man.

But never would I think there is a connection between God and Jesus.



I'm not making a real argument here, it's just something I'd like to hear your thoughts on.
 
Funny you should say that and you are right, Jesus is often protrayed as a white long haired blue eyed handsome man. However in Isaiah it does state that the sufferring servant will be a person that would repell people by his looks.

Just the way we are unfortunately. Jesus has grown this handsome image probably because of what he taught and what he stood for. In actual fact this image may be very far from the truth.
 
his real name was jesus Quasimodo christ, he had muscles, and eyes filled with tears.

he always portrayed as a fit handsome man, he's surposed to be perfect like his dad.

if I where around then, I'd would have had more respect for an ugly version, if a man who was deformed was going around teaching, turn the other cheek, etc.
when it would obvious he was mocked and abused.
would get my vote.
 
being Gay, i can empathize ith your exploration here
when i was a little boy, i would sometimes...in the bathroom FLASH 'Jesus'....i was hard, and i would show him my body. how pagan is THAT...!? haha

The most moving film i've ever seen about J was Pasolini's The Gospel of St Matthew which i first say when 12, and it really was a shivering visceral experience. though i wasn't religius. it is just such a powerful film. so different from the Hollywood pap....and the Jesus had dark hair

i would LOVE to see some director have the guts to show 'Jesus' as he would have been, dark skinned, curly haired brunette and Jewish. even that plnker Gibson, despite all his pretentious Aramaics etc, showed him just the same as Cecil B De Mille etc

Of course really i am sick of the propaganda, and would rather see some vital director tackle Dionysos. now THAt would should be Ero..TIC.
Know ANy creative Director(s) i can get in touch with to encourage this idea?
 
water said:
The trouble with Jesus
If you ask me what I think of Jesus, I first think of William Dafoe and his muscles in The last temptation of Christ, and the romantic eyes, filled with tears in Van Dyck's Jesus bearing the cross -- and many other popular images of Jesus. I think that in most pictures, Jesus is portrayed as a very handsome man, and if not handsome, then at least good-looking. And I think how this is *the* way to get women to worship him -- the same way a woman would love her man.

But never would I think there is a connection between God and Jesus.
Click to expand...
I think we just have to admit we can't know what Jesus looked like - he was a man and a human being and that is problematic enough for most people. It's only in our media-driven world where appearance has become iconic... or I take that back. It used to be called idolatry. People who worship the image instead of the creator, hence the prohibition against making images of God.

The problem of appearance was predicted by Isaiah. Not that it means he was particularly ugly, but he was like anybody.
Isaiah 53:1
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.​
 
He was a dirty jew from the middle east. He'd look like dirty jews from the middle east look.
So yes, quite repellent.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
He was a dirty jew from the middle east. He'd look like dirty jews from the middle east look.
So yes, quite repellent.
Click to expand...

are you are neo-nazi D L NAtic?
 
Silvertusk: Funny you should say that and you are right, Jesus is often protrayed as a white long haired blue eyed handsome man. However in Isaiah it does state that the sufferring servant will be a person that would repell people by his looks.

Just the way we are unfortunately. Jesus has grown this handsome image probably because of what he taught and what he stood for. In actual fact this image may be very far from the truth.
*************
M*W: Jesus looked Semitic as he was Semitic. He was probably dark skinned with dark brown eyes and bearded. He probably wore a tunic since most men did in that region in that day. Had he been born with blue eyes and blond hair, or even brown hair, he would be a social outcast, because his tribe would have suspected he was the product of adultery, which they did, in fact.

Unfortunately, there are no accounts in the OT or in Isaiah that refer to Jesus the Nazorite of the NT. With literary license, Paul wrote the books of the NT and fictionally 'fulfilled' the OT prophecies making his stories more 'factual' when they were not the truth.

In Isaiah, the 'prophecies' about Jesus were strictly written about Isaiah's own son who was yet to be born and had nothing to do with the Jesus of the NT.

You will find many web sites confirming this.
 
are you are neo-nazi D L NAtic?
Click to expand...
Last time I checked neo-nazis hadn't put a patent on finding jews repellent, so no.
Are you a faggot? You exhibit similar attributes to the faggot so you must be.

... oh wait, I just remembered you are actually a faggot. Well, you get my point anyway.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Last time I checked neo-nazis hadn't put a patent on finding jews repellent, so no.
Are you a faggot? You exhibit similar attributes to the faggot so you must be.

... oh wait, I just remembered you are actually a faggot. Well, you get my point anyway.
Click to expand...

wait. i'm a bit confused here. are you being serious, or is this some lame attempt to be...err funny?
i am finding what you are saying here utterly offensive!
 
(Q) said:
He does. But Jesus/God isn't "physical".

Yes, imaginary.
Click to expand...

You forget that imaginary doesn't mean non-existent. Thoughts and emotions are real too, not just physical, material, things... actually, it's the material that don't exist, and immaterial, the things in the mind, the nothingness, is the ones that truly exist. Everything is in the mind.
 
Especially in the Catholic environment, the imagery of Jesus is particularly strong.
One can see the crucifix anywhere. I live in the country and here, at roadsides, there are curcifixes and small chapels. One goes for a walk on a macadam country road, and there's a crucifix. Most of the Jesus statues on those crucifixes aren't very appealing, they have the expression of "oh, how life is hard, why don't we just give in" on the face. Or this is at least how I experience them.

But some images are very, very nice. We could argue that the beauty of those images is not the male beauty, the beauty of a man -- but that the artist wanted to express beauty as such, and to think that this is the beauty of a man would be misleading. That in those pictures Jesus is portrayed as a beautiful man because of the message he brings, the meaning he has for Christianity.

Yet images can be so confusing, the idea gets lost, and all one sees is a depicted reality, nominally. If Jesus were portrayed as a shortish, fattish, balding fellow with a crooked nose -- who would want him for his personal saviour?!
 
Dr Lou Natic, why do you write on disucussion boards if you can't make any good points?
People actually want to have intelligent arguments about real issues, but your input is stupid and bigoted. Duendy actually makes good points, but all you do is make ignorant, stereotypical comments that have absolutely no value.

I hate people like you, because I hate hate. Isn't that ironic?

By the way, Duendy may be gay, but he's better than you. And more intelligent. And of more service to the world. Bummer, huh? It's too bad that, compared to the people you hate, you're just narrow-minded loser. And you think you're better than them! Hah. Wake up, you dolt.

By the way, I'm a caucasian, blue-eyed, heterosexual male. How about you get on your knees and worship me?

It'll be amusing to see your worthless replies to this.
 
Jenyar said:
The problem of appearance was predicted by Isaiah. Not that it means he was particularly ugly, but he was like anybody.
Isaiah 53:1
...
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
Click to expand...
though to christians His words, message were beautiful, yet He was an average jew, probably looked like Bob Dylan or Rodney Dangerfield, hey He got no respect too!
 
water said:

Yet images can be so confusing, the idea gets lost, and all one sees is a depicted reality, nominally. If Jesus were portrayed as a shortish, fattish, balding fellow with a crooked nose -- who would want him for his personal saviour?!
Click to expand...
I hope its the ideas, message that would attract people, if it is the truth, as Jesus said, then whether He looked like Einstein or Arafat would make no diff
 
Jenyar said:
I think we just have to admit we can't know what Jesus looked like - he was a man and a human being and that is problematic enough for most people. It's only in our media-driven world where appearance has become iconic... or I take that back. It used to be called idolatry. People who worship the image instead of the creator, hence the prohibition against making images of God.

The problem of appearance was predicted by Isaiah. Not that it means he was particularly ugly, but he was like anybody.
Isaiah 53:1
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.​
Click to expand...

Jenyar, why at all, considering the very context of this passage, do you believe it is referring to Jesus? It seems more than evident to me after taking into consideration the good fact that there were originally no chapter and verse numbers that such an interpretation deliberately ignores the context from which it is culled. Any reason?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top