British and Israeli archeologists have used "forensic anthropology" to determine with fair reliability that Jesus was not the tall, heavenly-appearing, fair-skinned, smooth-complexioned man with long, wavy hair and light eyes that we have been presented with for centuries, but instead was a 5' tall, broad-shouldered, swarthy man with dark eyes and short hair, with mustache and beard. In Christ's time of 2000 years ago, a man of 5' 9" in height would be looked on as a freak! No Charton Hestons in those days! Hal
Far as I know, it is just guessing as to what he may have looked like. Unless a skeleton can be found definitely attributable to Jesus, even forensic anthropology can't determine his appearance...but then Christianity would be over if a body were found. Based on his background, he wouldn't be the tall fair-skinned individual often pictured, but height and build cannot be determined without something to work with. Peter is also pictured as tall but the other apostles are not.
Not many tall pygmies either, but occasionally there is a tall one. I suspect the anthropologists are just playing games. There is also a move afoot that the entire Old Testament was made up by David, and that Moses and the Exodus never occurred. I find it unlikely since even the Greek myths have some substance behind them in antiquity.
In my research on Near Death Experiences and Heaven...this little girl Akiane painted this picture of Jesus after she met Him when she "visited" Heaven. I think she was 8 years old when she painted the picture of Jesus above. Colton Burpo of "Heaven Is For Real" also met Jesus when he "visited" Heaven when he was close to four years old. When his dad showed him picture after picture of Jesus done by various artists and asked Colton if one of them was what Jesus looked like, Colton said no. Then one day he was shown Akiana's picture of Jesus and before his dad could even ask...Colton said: "That's Him." There were plenty of tall men in the Old Testament....the Bible speaks of those "giants" often. I'm sure there were plenty of short, medium, and tall men too.
From a prophetic view point we have Isa. 53:2 which describes Him as: For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. If indeed this is a prophesy of the upcoming Christ, we can easily surmise that he was thin, and not very attractive at all......................
It does indeed but sometimes, when we take in the context, there are places where it is talking about men of great status. About the same as when Jesus said, "are ye not gods?" But yes, Saul, the first king of Israel stood "head and shoulders" above everyone else and I guess a 9' tall guy named Goliath would qualify as being a giant.
When I read that Scripture Bobby my interpretation is that Jesus looked nothing like the "King" He was and that the Jewish people were looking for. When Jesus comes back...I believe the Jews and all of us will see that King in all His glory!
I certainly don't disagree with you on this Bobby, but there are also Scriptures that talk about the "giants" in the land that the Israelites were supposed to go in and conquer to take over their Promised Land. They were afraid of these giants and that was one of the reasons they did not want to go up against them.
Yes, when we read Numbers chapter 13, the report that the spies brought back did include the sons of Anak, (giants) but as we peruse the rest of the scriptures we see that when the Israelites entered into Canaan and brought the land into submission they never once encountered a giant. The story the spies told were fables which we find in the commentaries was meant to make those who told the story seem more brave and greater than they were. For lack of better words, they "exaggerated" in the telling of their perilous 40 day journey. We also note that none of those who scouted the promised land lived to cross the Jordan again. It was Caleb and Joshua who, even after the report who still wanted to take the land and who eventually led the onslaught and again, there were no giants reported in the scriptures. If I recall correctly, King Og of Bashaan (Deuteronomy) was the last real giant referred to in the Bible.
All our lives we have been shown pictures of Jesus as being a tall, light-complexioned man with an angelic face and light, flowing hair. A lovely, well-groomed picture of Earthly Goodness. Historians of the ancient Middle East have come up with a composite of what the Son of God might have more accurately looked like, being a Semite, with dark hair and eyes, a dark, swarthy complexion and of medium height. Being racially Semitic, this might be closer to his actual appearance than the idealistic, romantic images we have been provided with by artists and sculptors all our lives Hal (click on thumbnail to enlarge)
Yes, that's possible, and I wouldn't dispute that the image shown could be fairly accurate. Of course, we can't say for sure. The one I tend to think is fairly accurate is the one that scientists have conjectured may also be likely is the one coming from the Shroud of Turin. The history of the Shroud has been fascinating to me and I have followed its study for years now. Its long and sorted, with no clear deductions as to its authenticity. In brief, here is a quick summary: In 1981, nearly 30 scientists (headed by John Jackson and Eric Jumper) comprised the Shroud of Turin Research Project known as STURP, analyzed the Shroud for five continuous days using state-of-the-art technology at the time. When their work was made public they all agreed to the following: “….that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. They also concluded: …..thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery…...” In 1988 the British Museum performed Carbon-14 dating techniques, finding the cloth dated to a time period of 1260 to 1390. But these findings were disputed byRaymond Rogers in 2005 who was then the Director of Chemical Research for STURP . In 2011 ENEA (National Agency for New Technologies) replicated the depth and coloration of the Shroud image using a 40 nanosecond burst from a UV excimer laser.The final paragraph of their work says: (speaking of their work) “...has found that the Shroud of Turin is not a fake and the body image was formed by a sort of electromagnetic source of energy.” In 2017 French researcher, Tristan Casabianca ran new tests and conclude in their 2019 report that there were numerous mistakes made by the British Museum when they published their conclusions in “Nature” , thus showing that the Shroud cloth sample they used was not homogenous, and the 1988 results, famously reported with “95% confidence” are suspect, and not reliable. So, after years of following these and other studies, I've concluded that this picture, as developed by the best experts in photographic science, and based on the image on the Shroud, best describes what Jesus looked like. I believe this with a certainty of about 96%. I would like others to say what they think.