Wanted

by TheHighPriest 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • TheHighPriest
    TheHighPriest

    The new testament states that a warrant was issued for the arrest of Jesus and that Judas was the man that turned him in.
    This warrant would have carried a description of the man that called himself the king of the Jews, however this description did not find it's way into the Bible.
    This seem's a bit odd in particular since after all it would be interesting to know what the messiah really looked like.
    I mean, think about it, if you had the chance to record the events of a man of such importance would you not include a description of his image?
    The appearance of Jesus has been a subject of disscusion amongst many JW's (and other christians aswell I'm sure) and I remember many such occassions when the topic was being discussed and needles to say the opinions on this matter differed greatly.
    The one opinion however that usually prevailed was that of a strong well built man, after all he was a carpenter etc...
    As I said there is no such description in the Bible, however, it was reported by Josephus in his "capture of Jerusalem".
    Now, I don't know whether this report is a genuine one or not, maybe JH can throw some light on that, but a copy of Josephus description has survived in slavonic texts and it paints a picture quite at odds with the image many people have painted for themselves:

    '...a man of simple appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature, three cubits high, hunchbacked with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows, so that they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair with a parting in the middle of his head, after the manner of the Nazarites, and with an undeveloped beard.'

    Holy schmozzle! this sounds more like Quasimodo than Jesus.
    Three cubits would put Jesus under four foot six, could this really be accurate?
    According to the Acts of John (excluded from the Bible) it say's of Jesus:

    '...I was afraid and cried out, and he, turning about, appeared as a man of small stature...'

    Luke 19:3 tells about when Zaccheus tried to spot Quasi.. hmm.. Jesus in a crowd but he couldn't because someone was of low stature:

    '...And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and he could not for the crowd, because he was of low stature.'

    Now whether that was zaccheus or Jesus with a low stature I don't know you have to make up your own mind on that one.
    In light of this maybe a reading of Isiah 53 would confirm that Jesus indeed was of the "quasimodo type class", in my own humble opinion he would need to be to fulfill the prophesy.

    THP of the higher class

  • logical
    logical

    All this dwelling on Jesus appearance is quite silly really. What he looked like matters not, what does matter is what he did for us.

  • TheHighPriest
    TheHighPriest

    It may not matter much to you logical but to a lot of people holding him out to be of a more divine nature this description, how shall I put it, does not quite fit the bill.

    THP

  • BugEye
    BugEye

    Oh great High priest,

    The slavonic texts are renown for interpolations on the original and often include strange statements. A comparison of the slavonic vs ethiopian texts of the book of enoch reveals just how imaginative the slavs were.

    Just a thought.

    Dave

  • Mommie Dark
    Mommie Dark

    That sounds about right really. People WERE smaller then. In the Cleveland Art Museum they have a medievel suit of armor for horse and man. A 5-foot-tall female would be hard pressed to fit into it. The total weight of the armor was over 200 pounds! Imagine a man 4'6" carrying a load that big into battle!

    It doesn't detract from his accomplishments if he was short. Everyone else was probably pretty short then, too.

    Besides, Mom always said it ain't what you got, it's how you use it...

  • TheHighPriest
    TheHighPriest
    The slavonic texts are renown for interpolations on the original and often include strange statements.


    I was aware of that and that is why I questioned whether the statement was genuine or not. The reason I think it may well be a true description is as I said because Isaiah 53 say's he would be possibly even more trubled than that. However, that does not take anything away from his accomplishments as MD pointed out, only his looks or rather our perception of what he should look like.
    Thanks for pointing that out though.

    THP

  • JWD
    JWD

    The Bible states that Christ was not of attractive appearance.I`ve
    often thought that it probably would have been HARDER to believe had
    we have seen him than it is having not seen him.Sight can be quite
    an obstacle to faith. Naturally,faith in something that is only
    imaginary is meaningless as well.I beleive, it is the incredible
    uniqueness and agelessness of Christ`s teaching and actions which
    make him most appealing.Living in Japan for so many years,I have
    read about many other religions both new and old and have yet to
    find anything that has as much authenticity or applicability as
    does biblical teaching and the teaching of Christ. JWD

  • Mommie Dark
    Mommie Dark

    "I have
    read about many other religions both new and old and have yet to
    find anything that has as much authenticity or applicability as
    does biblical teaching and the teaching of Christ."

    Really? Perhaps you need to actually read some of the sacred texts rather than commentaries 'about many other religions.'I find the Tao much clearer and simpler.

    The salient points Jesus made, the genuine baseline moral precepts, are found in every religion. Jesus added a lot of stuff about swords and families divided and other unsavory stuff, IMO. Then there is the indisputable fact that most of the Jesus story is blatantly plagiarized from Mithraism and other even older religions (virgin birth, resurrection miracles, etc.)

    I find the Bible the least attractive package of guidelines available. The 'teachings' of Jesus are forever lost to us; all we have is third-and-fourth-hand accounts of what he said and did, and most of that is certainly not trustworthy enough to build a life upon.

  • reagan_oconnor
    reagan_oconnor

    Have any of you ever read "The Day Christ Was Born" and "The Day Christ Died" by Jim Bishop? They are two best-sellers, combined into one book. An excellent read.

    "DCD" is very detailed about Jerusalem and the surrounding areas during the ministry of Jesus. It also explains the relationship between the Romans and the high-ranking Jews, the relationships between Jesus and his apostles, the personalities of the apostles... granted, Bishop is relying on the authenticity of the period writings, and filling in the blanks, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

    ... I'm not finished with it yet,(I just got "In Search of Christian Freedom" so that's taking up most of my reading time) but I will soon.

  • TheHighPriest
    TheHighPriest
    The Bible states that Christ was not of attractive appearance.I`ve
    often thought that it probably would have been HARDER to believe had
    we have seen him than it is having not seen him.Sight can be quite
    an obstacle to faith


    I can't help but wonder if the hellenistic world at the time would ever accept Jesus as of divine origen had they known that he was an ugly looking character.

    , it is the incredible
    uniqueness and agelessness of Christ`s teaching and actions which
    make him most appealing.


    As MD pointed out you obviously don't know that he is portraid as a carbon copy of many other religions that preceed him by up too thousands of years. Give or take a few changes in history and we might all have been worshipping mithra instead of jesus although our beliefs would have stayed the same the name Jesus wouldn't even have been heard of.

    THP

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit