jesus

[neptune]

why is it that in most paintings jesus is white with long hair?
like in the last supper and pictues of him on the cross

[Jonatan]

Pictures of "Jesus" are preposterous and leading-astray. Word of God teaches us not to make any images that should be portraying God. This is something that most christians should rather take inspiration from Islam. Sad is, that many muslims understand this question better than many traditional christians.

+ on the thing of painting "jesus", it is leading astray because everyone can portray "him" other way. While in one painting there are white long hair, in others may be brown hair, in others black hair or blonde hair and so on...
You ask why? Simply - because those paintings are not pictures of our Lord Jesus Christ! In presence, no one knows what Jesus looked like.
But I strongly doubt Jesus to have other than black hair, because the common sign of jewish phenotype is to have black hair.

Next thing, pictures of "him on the cross" - (repeatedly, not Him, because none can portray Him) are a great lie. Why? Because by the Bible, He experienced total shame being on the cross, even wholly naked and hadn't cover as in the pictures and statues can be found.
If the pictures and statues should be nearer to reality, also the circumcision should be there.
Statues and pictures of "jesus" (IT'S NOT HE, OKAY?) could be statues or pictures of anyone crucified.

[John]

the pictures of Yeshua present him with flowing hair and occasionally a beard to appeal to the pagan audience- it resembles Zeus.

Yeshua was actually probably 4'5''- 5'5'' feet. he probably had black hair, and revelation says his skin was like bronze.he probably had curly hair and stuff.

anyway, the aryan Jesus is not the Historicl Jesus

shalom- john

[anochria]

Pictures of "Jesus" are preposterous and leading-astray. Word of God teaches us not to make any images that should be portraying God.

Well, Jonatan, I'm glad you hold to the deity of Jesus, but I don't think the OT prohibitions against images apply to Jesus, but to God the Father, the invisible one.

Jesus, in becoming flesh, became the true IMAGE of the Father.

I don't see it as an inherently evil thing to draw pictures of the man Jesus Christ, though I also believe He was God. It's precisely his humanity that allows him to be depicted.

That said, I usually hate artist's representations of Jesus, and you guys are absolutely right about how Jesus certainly must have looked like any other Jew.

[John]

isaiah said that there was nothing about his appearance that would draw us to him.

also, i dont think that it is evil to draw or paint a picture of Yeshua or God.

the prohibition of images is more or less the prohibition of worshhipping those images. the Jewish enumeration of the 10 commandments counts "i am the lord your god" as a commendment, and joins together "graven images" and "no other gods." So, these two mitzvot compliment each other.

so, i dont think that we should condemn the artist who draws his representation of Jesus or God. if a person drew Jesus like Zeus, as long as he did not equate him with zeus or beileve him to be zeus, than there is nothing wrong with that. in fact, in that culture that would be a profound "statement" made by the author: Jesus is greater than zeus, king of the Gods.

now, the aryan jesus is not the historical Jesus, we know that for sure. but we can only know what the historical Jesus was not; we do not know how Jesus looked. so, all we can do is have symbolic representations of him. we all see Elohim and Yeshua in symbolic manners anyway, if not only for the fact that our minds cannot grasp the utter complexity of those two figures.

shalom- john

[Jonatan]

Well, yeah, maybe we understand the graven image or statue formed in such shape is not God, nor human, is only a piece of wood, stone or metal or whatever, but...

The dangerous thing about it is that it leads people into trap of idolatry - something as sacrificed to the idols. As in 1.Corinthians 8, Paul says that it is nothing, but many brothers are losing their eternal life because they count it as though it was something.
Practically, it leads many catholics into bowing down to it.

Clearly, it is proved to be great offense - scandalon (in greek) on which many are offended and fall.

Commandment says not only not to bow to it nor serve it, it also says NOT TO MAKE IT. Makers can be even worse in Lord's eyes because they are leading others to perdition through idolatry.

As for me, I do one thing with these: Like any other idols within my power, I destroy such things in zealousness for Adonai. Believe that it would please Him more than if someone mocks Him, trying to portay Him and thus making mocking caricatures of Him.

[John]

a representation of Adonai in a picture is not a true representation, only a symbol. it is a way for us to grasp Adonai in an earthly way.

if we worship the creation instead of the creator... THATS when we fall into sin. but the image itself is not horrible unless created for idolotry (in cases where an idol was amde to be worshipped, the idol maker is cursed under the second command... but if someone worships something that the maker did not intend to be worshipped than there is not curse to that person.)

but however you understand Adonai, we must not think of those AS Adonai, but as representations of him, though imperfect, that help us get some grasp on his eternity.

i dont think that the pictures are bad, only IDOLS. you can have a picture of Adonai without them being idols.

shalom- john

[Jonatan]

Well, it's very DIFFICULT to have such things "portraying Adonai" (cos we cannot even match His apperance into our imagination put into picture) without being idols.
Most of the pictures in the world - that are made to be symbol or picture "of Adonai" are traps to idolatry. Now, protestant-thinkers understand it that it's not Him, but Catholics and Orthodox Greek have a great problem here. Because they believe it to be channel to God - THROUGH IMAGES, believing it mediates the glory of the Lord! (Which is rather idolatry than entrance into true presence of God!)

Even the Israelites that made the golden calf while missing Moses, weren't that dumb to think that the image of the calf is God, they also believed that it is CHANNEL to God - that's why they said to Aharon: "Make us an image for a God because we don't know what happened to Moses" - they wanted to replace annointed mediator Moses by an image!

Even being symbols - and even such things being around us are forbidden to have in prayer, in communion with God.
Compare with Exodus 20:22-23

22 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
23 You shall not make anything to be with Me—gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.

No channels through images to Adonai! Remember that IT IS NOT TRUE REPRESENTATION OF ADONAI. It would be channel to "SOMEONE" else.

btw. Even Babylonians and other Chaldean nations believed that statues and images of Baal are channels to one true God, don't they?

[John]

we dont have to have them be channels- they acn just be paintings and stuff.

being a channel IS breaking the commandment, but i am saying that having them as a picture in your house is not bad at all- but if it is hard for you not to pray to it or use it as a tool to pray to God then dont have it in your house.

shalom

[Jonatan]

You're right.
Concerning this, it's not my matter, but anyway Rav Shaul says to us not to put stumbling block for the others.

[John]

exactly. so i wouldnt invite a person into my house if he used to worship images. but for myself, i could put up images because they dont mediate prayer, and arent prayed to, but represent who God is in my experience.

shalom