Ship of Fools: Must Jesus be "Hot"?

Thread: Must Jesus be "Hot"? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026987

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Read this column this afternoon.

It is striking that in every crucifix or visual depiction, Jesus is either skinny or muscular. He is never overweight or fat (Because fatness was associated with wealth and Jesus was considered poor?)

Does it matter what the earthly Jesus physically looked like?

[ 27. February 2014, 20:09: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Another good reason for iconoclasm, IMO.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Another good reason for iconoclasm, IMO.

Because stealing people's pictures of Jesus then smashing or burning them will teach them not to think of the Savior as having a certain physical look?

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

Given that so many cultures have drawn Jesus in their own image, 21st century westerners should probably picture an obese Jesus.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Jesus was a palestinian Jew . So he does looked like any western image of him. He'd look nore like a native Israeli, dusky but fullly like any other man around say Jerusalem. Remember he was both fully divine & fully human. [Votive]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Given that so many cultures have drawn Jesus in their own image, 21st century westerners should probably picture an obese Jesus.

I think the aesthetic argument is that cultures have drawn Jesus and other religious figures in their idealized image.

I don't think most Italian men looked like Michelangelo's David when he carved that stature.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

He certainly didn't lead a sedentary life by any account. Being fat in those days would've required being at least moderately wealthy, I'd expect.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Another good reason for iconoclasm, IMO.

Yes, and maybe we should top it off we should take a trip to Geneva and burn someone at the stake…?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

The BBC did a program on what Jesus might have looked like, shown here courtesy of rejesus.co.uk This composite is an average of the facial types of that place and time (using skull shapes as guidance)

But you can click through to a variety of other versions, all the way to Rasta Jesus. Whatever works for your group is OK, since, like Paul, Jesus was/is "all things to all men"

This one is a little less likely.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

This one is a little less likely.

As is this. Rather too Brad Pitt, at least to me.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

This one is a little less likely.
As is this. Rather too Brad Pitt, at least to me.

Oops, same movie as the OP mentioned!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But you can click through to a variety of other versions, all the way to Rasta Jesus. Whatever works for your group is OK, since, like Paul, Jesus was/is "all things to all men"

I disagree. This is making God in our own image and denying the particularity of the incarnation. Jesus wasn't born a 20th century Jamaican pot-smoker or a 21st century American weightlifter. He was born a first-century Palestinian Jew. He's not a shape-changer; he's not Everyman.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Another good reason for iconoclasm, IMO.
Because stealing people's pictures of Jesus then smashing or burning them will teach them not to think of the Savior as having a certain physical look?

It would be interesting to know to what extent, if any, aniconic religions have succeeded in banishing mental images of their gods, prophets, etc.

I guess as a rough case study, I will say that I really don't get any clear and consistent image when someone says the name "Muhammed", the way I do when someone says "Jesus" or "the Buddha"(well, for the latter, there are a few standard images). I suppose this could be testament to the fact that Muslims have rarely portrated the guy in art, and no one from any other faith has picked up the slack.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Jesus was a palestinian Jew . So he does looked like any western image of him. He'd look nore like a native Israeli, dusky but fullly like any other man around say Jerusalem. Remember he was both fully divine & fully human.

Jesus in most European art just looks European to me. Interestingly, though, European art has often depicted other Jews as physically distinct. The point is that artists often have more on their minds than the simple desire for physical likenesses; the 'Other' is made to look very different, while the one who has been culturally assimilated is made to look as similar to the majority as possible.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Mousethief: I'm afraid that the Pope disagrees with you:

quote:
Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium, speaks of inculturation:

CHAPTER THREE : THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL [110]

116. … Through inculturation, the Church “introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community”,[90] for “every culture offers positive values and forms which can enrich the way the Gospel is preached, understood and lived”. …

and here

is an index page of African art that speaks to me about Jesus as He would be understood by some of my neighbours (using that word in the largest sense!)

I am reminded that, in one of the Psalms, the speaker talks about the farmer who weeps as he sows his seeds. In our context, that seems merely weird: but in sub-Saharan Africa, it matches their experience. Because of increasing drought, no-one knows whether to sow the seeds or to use them to feed one more meal to the family, just before they all become destitute and have to move to the city to beg. Context matters.

[ 28. February 2014, 00:40: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Must fat people be ugly.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mousethief: I'm afraid that the Pope disagrees with you:

quote:
Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium, speaks of inculturation:

CHAPTER THREE : THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL [110]

116. … Through inculturation, the Church “introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community”,[90] for “every culture offers positive values and forms which can enrich the way the Gospel is preached, understood and lived”. …

This says nothing at all about what I said.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Another good reason for iconoclasm, IMO.
Yes, and maybe we should top it off we should take a trip to Geneva and burn someone at the stake…?

Golly, good point.

After all, smashing a piece of inanimate material, and torturing a sentient creature to death, are practically indistinguishable.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Looking at the OP. As well as the Brad Pitt factor, that photo is highly reminiscent of the late Andy Whitfield's "Spartacus before he got his hair cut". The post scene is even reminiscent of the training ground in the Batiatus villa.

You can almost imagine the pre-production chat. "That's the image to go for; that'll sell" If Andy Whitfield had still been been around, I wonder if they would have offered him the job? That would certainly have increased the pre-release publicity.

Madison Avenue sexy Jesus? Just part of the general confusion over the meaning of love, I guess. More a commentary on our age than anything else.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But you can click through to a variety of other versions, all the way to Rasta Jesus. Whatever works for your group is OK, since, like Paul, Jesus was/is "all things to all men"
I disagree. This is making God in our own image and denying the particularity of the incarnation. Jesus wasn't born a 20th century Jamaican pot-smoker or a 21st century American weightlifter. He was born a first-century Palestinian Jew. He's not a shape-changer; he's not Everyman.

You've missed the point, as most people do (including me til I had some kind of revelation)
If Jesus had always been portrayed as a regular Jew from that region, it would be right and appropriate to say, this is a fair representation. But he wasn't, he was portrayed as a white European for a very long time. So part of underlining the okness of that - that it's ok to have a European image of Jesus- is to understand that a black Jesus, or Chinese Jesus is completely equally valid and ok.

And maybe even a female Jesus. Or a physically disabled Jesus. Or, dear God, a black woman disabled Jesus. When we have understood that white Jesus is our own image, then we can all be equally able to see who Jesus 'really' was.

[ 28. February 2014, 07:54: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

While I can objectively see that many of the actors who have played Jesus are conventionally good looking, I must admit I have never looked at an image of Jesus in church or on an icon and thought "hot." Ever.

Personally I would prefer more depictions of Jesus as Asian or African, if only to counter the "default" image of Him as a Northern European.

We also know that in some cases Jesus appeared to people but they didn't recognize Him, so He must have occasionally looked different to different people.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The local newspaper here suggested that the real miracle is His hair. Or should that be Hair. They also noted that it is a Jesus-Peter buddy movie, with Judas the evil villain completing the comic book. I probably will never see the movie, unless I'm home sick and so sick I can't change the channel when this comes on after Barney.

All of the Jesus movies suck don't they. They want to make us feel Jesus pain, because 'no pain, no gain', and torture and death must overshadow every little least bit of love, of kindness and every call for peace. These portrayals have invade our hopes and dreams to free up our minds so we can support killing of anyone, whether by soldier, bomb or drone.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Taliesin, you appear to be saying that 17 wrongs make a right. I'm not diggin' that.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The most credible Jesus by far for me in 50 years was by Colin Blakely in Dennis Potter's excellent 1969 Son Of Man.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Read this column this afternoon.

It is striking that in every crucifix or visual depiction, Jesus is either skinny or muscular. He is never overweight or fat (Because fatness was associated with wealth and Jesus was considered poor?)

Does it matter what the earthly Jesus physically looked like?

This is very much like the question raised in a seminary course I took a few years ago, called The Death of the Beautiful Young Man. The premise of the course is that there are "explicit and implied messages inherent in the iconography of Jesus' death." We looked at images of Jesus as hero; as soldier making the "ultimate sacrifice;" as unblemished lamb, and others.

My reaction to the image of Jesus as portrayed in this film (which I have no intention of seeing) is that it's playing into the "Manly Jesus" meme that Mark Driscoll and other American evangelicals are preaching nowadays.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
He is never overweight or fat.

Jesus would be the last person to commit the sin of gluttony, I should think.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The most credible Jesus by far for me in 50 years was by Colin Blakely in Dennis Potter's excellent 1969 Son Of Man.

Thanks for this reference, Martin. I've found it on YouTube, along with 6 or more other plays by potter.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Taliesin, you appear to be saying that 17 wrongs make a right. I'm not diggin' that.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. Maybe in your church there has only ever been icons of Jesus represented as the middle eastern Jew he was.

But in my culture, Jesus has largely been portrayed as a white man. In old pictures from my childhood he's given blue eyes and always suspiciously light brown hair.
When I went to college to undertake a teacher training course in religious studies, we were shown pictures of Jesus as an African man, and I said, well of course that's fine, as a representation, to 'own' Jesus for themselves, Etc... And then it hit me that by making Jesus a white man, western culture had 'owned' him in exactly the same way, and it has precisely the same validity, no more, no less.
Sadly, English churches are still inflicting a Jesus that looks like he's going out to bat for the Yankees on multicultural groups. Makes me furious.

[ 28. February 2014, 19:21: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think we may be misunderstanding each other.

Entirely possible.

quote:
Maybe in your church there has only ever been icons of Jesus represented as the middle eastern Jew he was.

<snip>

And then it hit me that by making Jesus a white man, western culture had 'owned' him in exactly the same way, and it has precisely the same validity, no more, no less.

But then surely the remedy is not to make a Black Jesus and an Indian Jesus and an East Asian Jesus, but rather to make a First Century Palestinian Jew Jesus?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

As for the artists making him beautiful, I suspect some of that is personal devotion. It is hard to show a person you love as less than beautiful, for the very reason that they ARE beautiful in your eyes. And in the absence of photographic evidence to keep you on the straight and narrow, well...

I actually like the multi-ethnic renderings of Jesus, the more the merrier, because they bring home to me visually that in fact we have no idea what he looks like in the flesh, and serve as a kind of warning against creating him in my own likeness, mentally speaking. He hasn't chosen to give us a definitive physical likeness we can all be sure is really his, though the technology was there to make it happen (painting, engraving, etc.) and he could have done something about the provenance problem. He didn't. Ergo, I think it's likely he's okay with a multiplicity of renderings, as long as we sit lightly to them and don't use them to bash one another over the head.

Of course, one day, all that will be left behind, forgotten, when we really do see him face to face.

And on a tangent--did anybody else get the feeling that whoever did that first century "reconstruction" of "what Jesus really looked like" was deliberately out to shock viewers? I mean, you're not going to be able to reconstruct foofy hair and ugly caveman posture/expression from a skull, no matter what you do with a skull. That has to be artist's choice. But if he showed him as a perfectly ordinary, forgettable "guy next door," that wouldn't sell many papers, would it?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think we may be misunderstanding each other.
Entirely possible.

quote:
Maybe in your church there has only ever been icons of Jesus represented as the middle eastern Jew he was.

<snip>

And then it hit me that by making Jesus a white man, western culture had 'owned' him in exactly the same way, and it has precisely the same validity, no more, no less.
But then surely the remedy is not to make a Black Jesus and an Indian Jesus and an East Asian Jesus, but rather to make a First Century Palestinian Jew Jesus?

This isn't going to happen, though, is it? Centuries of normative European art won't disappear. Those paintings and sculptures will still be hanging in cathedrals and museums around the Western world. Many contemporary western artists and now filmmakers are still influenced by those images - and consequently, so are the Christians who have absorbed their images over generations.

We should surely all recognise that Jesus was a Middle Easterner in the flesh, yes. But to imply that people of European ancestry can continue to identify with Jesus the Everyman as a European but people of other 'races' shouldn't begin to relate to him as one of theirs simply won't do any more.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Taliesin, you appear to be saying that 17 wrongs make a right. I'm not diggin' that.

Aright.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We should surely all recognise that Jesus was a Middle Easterner in the flesh, yes. But to imply that people of European ancestry can continue to identify with Jesus the Everyman as a European but people of other 'races' shouldn't begin to relate to him as one of theirs simply won't do any more.

Where did I imply that?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

My point is, it's no good making a 'first century Palestinian Jew Jesus' unless we first of all destroy the slender-faced European Jesus. Since we're not going to do that because it would be culturally impossible we have to accept the cultural existence of 'a Black Jesus and an Indian Jesus and an East Asian Jesus'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My point is, it's no good making a 'first century Palestinian Jew Jesus' unless we first of all destroy the slender-faced European Jesus.

Why? On this reading you can never repair any historical innacuracies, because you can't destroy all of the inaccurate portrayals of anything. All we can do is let everybody be wrong together. Whee!

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I think the point is time. It is the turn of the other to say what God looks like.

There was a link on here, recently, to some mad news presenter on Fox or something, who suddenly burst out, '...people just have to accept that Jesus was a white man!' And until that sort of attitude has gone, there needs to be every possible image of Christ.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Superb Taliesin: the turn of the other.

Let the dead bury their dead.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Another good reason for iconoclasm, IMO.
Yes, and maybe we should top it off we should take a trip to Geneva and burn someone at the stake…?
Golly, good point.

After all, smashing a piece of inanimate material, and torturing a sentient creature to death, are practically indistinguishable.

I guess you didn’t get my point. As we know, daronmedway is a calvinist, and thus he is part of a historical tradition were iconoclasm and heretic burning went hand in hand.

In Bergen, the city nearest were I’m from (in Norway) they had a semi-calvinist bishop in the 17th century (IIRC). He destroyed losts of art, but thankfullu he had no jurisdiction in St Mary’s Church, since this, being the Church of the German, because of the Hanseatic trade group, was under the jurisdiction of the bishop in Bremen, and thus all this art was kept for the future. Thank God!

But your sarcastic sentence is not that far from the truth. To paraphrase Heinrich Heine: “Where they have smashed art, they will end in smashing human beings.”

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I've always found it interesting that the Gospels never describe what Jesus looked like. That would certainly be part of a modern biography, but I don't know what the convention was 2000 hears ago. My own thought is that this is a good thing, or there would have been groups that concluded all red heads were holier than the rest of us, or that 5' 8" was the holy height, and so forth. Look at what a mess the church has made of the fact that Jesus was male, after all.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
My own thought is that this is a good thing, or there would have been groups that concluded all red heads were holier than the rest of us, or that 5' 8" was the holy height, and so forth.

Indeed. And the relentless chasing down and extermination by some people of, as it might be, people with green eyes because Jesus wasn't green-eyed.

There is a description of Jesus purportedly given by Lentulus, a Roman consul, in a letter to Tiberius, but this is likely to be a medieval forgery. It describes Jesus as being fair-haired, blue-eyed, long-haired and handsome. The prevalent Northern European image that we're familiar with today had clearly already been established by then.

[ 01. March 2014, 21:45: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Jesus was a less than average looking, non-descript, not even ugly-handsome Jewish builder. He could disappear in crowds easily. Even his own followers repeatedly couldn't recognise Him close up. He had an unmemorable, everyman, plain face and voice.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Another good reason for iconoclasm, IMO.
Yes, and maybe we should top it off we should take a trip to Geneva and burn someone at the stake…?
Golly, good point.

After all, smashing a piece of inanimate material, and torturing a sentient creature to death, are practically indistinguishable.
I guess you didn’t get my point. As we know, daronmedway is a calvinist, and thus he is part of a historical tradition were iconoclasm and heretic burning went hand in hand.

In Bergen, the city nearest were I’m from (in Norway) they had a semi-calvinist bishop in the 17th century (IIRC). He destroyed losts of art, but thankfullu he had no jurisdiction in St Mary’s Church, since this, being the Church of the German, because of the Hanseatic trade group, was under the jurisdiction of the bishop in Bremen, and thus all this art was kept for the future. Thank God!

But your sarcastic sentence is not that far from the truth. To paraphrase Heinrich Heine: “Where they have smashed art, they will end in smashing human beings.”

My comment was logical and ethical, not historical.

I am quite aware of connections between iconoclasm and heretic burning.

I am also aware that not all iconoclasts go in for heretic burning (eg Cromwell’s Calvinist Puritans), and that conversely, enthusiasts for holy pictures and statues, such as the RCC, can be quite keen about it.

The quote from Heine is therefore more rhetorical than historically accurate, and is not even as epigrammatic as his, “Dieu me pardonnera, c’est son métier”.

While according them neither dulia nor latreia, I am actually quite fond of icons, and have one on my wall depicting Ned Flanders with his fingers in the traditional ICXC position, which I feel no inclination to smash.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I've always found it interesting that the Gospels never describe what Jesus looked like. That would certainly be part of a modern biography, but I don't know what the convention was 2000 hears ago.

There are very few descriptions in the Bible of what people looked like. It is mentioned that Esau was hairy and Jacob was not, but this difference played a part in Jacob's deceiving Isaac and getting the blessing that should have been Esau's.

Offhand, I can't think of any other descriptions.

Moo

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Somewhere it says he were nowt to look at. Isaiah 53:2 A bit char-evo-fundie I realise. Tough.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think the point is time. It is the turn of the other to say what God looks like.

There was a link on here, recently, to some mad news presenter on Fox or something, who suddenly burst out, '...people just have to accept that Jesus was a white man!' And until that sort of attitude has gone, there needs to be every possible image of Christ.

It wasn't Jesus, it was Santa Claus. Although to some people, Jesus and Santa Claus probably ARE the same! [Devil]

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Ooops, I was wrong. Sorry about that.
http://www.eonline.com/news/490290/fox-news-says-santa-is-white-and-so-is-jesus

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There are very few descriptions in the Bible of what people looked like. It is mentioned that Esau was hairy and Jacob was not, but this difference played a part in Jacob's deceiving Isaac and getting the blessing that should have been Esau's.

Offhand, I can't think of any other descriptions.

Moo

Women in the Bible are occasionally described as being beautiful. Sometimes this was a blessing, but often it wasn't; it seems to have led to lots of unwanted, and even disastrous, attention.

I'm also reminded of Leah having 'weak eyes' (Gen. 29:17). In Jewish tradition (according to Wiki), this was a reference to her weeping constantly at her future arranged marriage to Esau. God heard her cries and she was married off to Jacob, who was the better man.

There are lots of physical descriptions in the Song of Songs, of course.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There are very few descriptions in the Bible of what people looked like. It is mentioned that Esau was hairy and Jacob was not, but this difference played a part in Jacob's deceiving Isaac and getting the blessing that should have been Esau's.

Offhand, I can't think of any other descriptions.

Moo
Women in the Bible are occasionally described as being beautiful. Sometimes this was a blessing, but often it wasn't; it seems to have led to lots of unwanted, and even disastrous, attention.

And even then, the reader is left to come up with their own ideas of what might constitute Beautiful.

Moo, thanks for bringing that up, the relative lack of physical descriptors in the Bible occurred to me, too.David was described as having "Beautiful eyes" (again, the details are left to us) and Absalom was described as having unusually long hair, and some OT version of a high-level civil servant was described as being fat, but even that only came in to accent the gruesomeness of his death.

Even with Esther-- who won a freaking beauty contest, for God's sake-- we are not given a breakdown on what constitutes beauty (although the author was kind enough to give us her beauty tips.)I'm willing to bet our current cultural insistence of a very strict definition of attractiveness would baffle ancient readers.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Mind you, the biblical writers were rarely writing about people that they themselves knew (so I understand) so perhaps it's hardly to be expected that they'd focus on precise physical details.

The woman in the Song of Songs makes some interesting points about her culture's expectations of beauty: she implies that a dark-skinned, flat chested woman like herself isn't considered conventionally beautiful, but her lover finds her appealing anyway.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The woman in the Song of Songs makes some interesting points about her culture's expectations of beauty: she implies that a dark-skinned, flat chested woman like herself isn't considered conventionally beautiful, but her lover finds her appealing anyway.

HM! Good point.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I'm less concerned about the "hot" Jesus of films like "Son of God" and more concerned about the fact that the actors chosen to portray Jesus in feature films all seem to be blue-eyed Europeans. Just once I'd like to see a cinematic Jesus who actually looked like he was born in the Middle East.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm less concerned about the "hot" Jesus of films like "Son of God" and more concerned about the fact that the actors chosen to portray Jesus in feature films all seem to be blue-eyed Europeans. Just once I'd like to see a cinematic Jesus who actually looked like he was born in the Middle East.

Well the actor in "Son of God," Diogo Morgado, is dark-eyed and dark-haired. He is European (Portuguese) but as casting goes, he at least has a Mediterranean look that is more common in the part of the world Jesus is from, than previous choices (Willem Dafoe! I mean, come on).

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Somewhere it says he were nowt to look at. Isaiah 53:2 A bit char-evo-fundie I realise. Tough.

I don't think this Messianic reference has anything to do with Jesus' actual physical appearance. After all, another Messianic reference describes him as 'fairer than the children of men' (Psalm 45:2) and Revelation 1:14 says 'his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire'.

These are not to be taken literally, I wouldn't think.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It fits with His indistinguishability. They don't. And modern translation of Psalm 45:2 use 'excellent' instead of 'fair'.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

And the Revelation cite is describing an image of a glorified Christ, not Jesus of Nazareth, itinerant rabbi.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Yes, agreed LutheranChik, but I still don't think Isaiah 53 physically describes the human Jesus.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

LutheranChik wrote:

quote:
Just once I'd like to see a cinematic Jesus who actually looked like he was born in the Middle East.

Well, in Pasolini's The Gospel According To St. Matthew, he is played by a Spanish-Italian actor. At a glance, he could pass for a Mideasterner.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

One of, if not *the* best Biblical film [Smile]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
One of, if not *the* best Biblical film

In the words of John Waters...

"The movie that got Pasolini into heaven."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And the Revelation cite is describing an image of a glorified Christ, not Jesus of Nazareth, itinerant rabbi.

So itinerant rabbis don't get glorified?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

Does it matter what the earthly Jesus physically looked like?

Try googling "halo effect"

Seems like there's something in the human psyche that identifies good with beautiful...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
The best Biblical film

FTFY

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Sorry? [Confused]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I worked for 3 academic years in the kiosk (tuck shop, where you buy filled rolls, drinks, etc)of a high school in northern Israel (albeit not the Gailee hills).
I would often think which of the boys would have looked like Jesus...really

That said; I would be the very first not to complain or have a crisis of faith if he looked like Georg Ganswein

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Sorry?

K-mann thinks that TGATSM is the best biblical film, bar none. So he/she re-wrote your post to reflect that opinion.

FTFY means "fixed that for you".

And yeah, it's good. Friendly heads-up, though, don't rent anything else by Pasolini under the assumption that it will be the same family-friendly Christian fare. It most likely will not.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I favor "The Life of Brian", myself.

I would like it if someone made a film from "Stranger at Killknock" by Leonard Wibberley. This is not about Biblical times, however.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Sorry?
K-mann thinks that TGATSM is the best biblical film, bar none. So he/she re-wrote your post to reflect that opinion.

FTFY means "fixed that for you".

And yeah, it's good. Friendly heads-up, though, don't rent anything else by Pasolini under the assumption that it will be the same family-friendly Christian fare. It most likely will not.

Ah right - I don't speak in acronyms [Biased]

and no... best not rent anything else by Pasolini - 120 Days of Sodom isn't exactly about the town twinned with Gomorrah, it's, um...well, it's er...no... [Eek!]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0