You'll have to carp on artists all the way back to the 1st century. You might also take a look at some of the indigenous peoples from those areas and note the blue eyes and light brown hair. Check out the Galatians, written to by Paul in AD56.
Oligonicella
at June 27, 2006 7:04 AM
Swede Jesus. Interesting. Unbeknownst to most of the faithful, Jesus was depicted throughout history, at least until the 8th century, as a dark haired-short cropped, Italian looking guy in a Roman tunic. This was because the Romans adopted him and then the Catholic church furthered the illusion. It wasn't until the 8th century that the artists began drawing him as the Swede Jesus. Also-a note-Brian Flemming just released a film called the Beast. It is a take-off on the Da Vinci Code. The big secret here is that the church conspired to keep secret the fact that Jesus never did exist, which of course happens to be factually correct. In theatres near you.
everybody hates chris
at June 27, 2006 8:19 AM
You are more correct about the time than my post. I erred by 5c you by 3.
However, what may be considered one of, if not the, earliest depiction shows what appears to be a white guy with long brown hair and (although hard to tell) blue eyes from around 525ad. A good discussion of the history of his image is at http://www.answers.com/topic/images-of-jesus
You can download the image and play with the color balance like I did and see for yourself.
"...which of course happens to be factually correct."
Opinion only. There are references to a Jesus, but it is not clear that they refer to the biblical one.
None of this, however, deals with what exactly pictures of Jesus are supposed to be, which is a picture of an ideal, not an actual. Hence the white, black, hispanic, oriental, etc depictions. Don't look at them as portraits. If you do, you miss the point entirely.
Oligonicella
at June 27, 2006 1:35 PM
The big secret here is that the church conspired to keep secret the fact that Jesus never did exist, which of course happens to be factually correct. In theatres near you.
It's factually correct that Jesus didn't exist?
I thought that was still being hotly debated.
The existence of angels ufos and werewolves are also hotly debated. Nonetheless, I have examined all the evidence, and ruled against Jesus. If he wished to appeal, let him file the necessary papers.
everybody hates chris
at June 27, 2006 5:06 PM
That's what Pilate said!
eric
at June 27, 2006 8:22 PM
"I have examined all the evidence..."
Really? You have examined all the evidence? I have doubts about the truth of that statement. Please give us the logic behind your refutation that the emperical references (non-Christion) to a Jesus are fabrications or fakes.
Keep in mind, the great archeologists of the day insisted the fables of the great golden era were just that, fables. Until, that is, the discovery of said Celtic and Merovingian burials. Sutton Hoo?
Like I said, your opinion only. You do not get to determine fact, only your belief or disbelief. Facts determine themselves.
Oligonicella
at June 28, 2006 6:45 AM
No Ollie- I determine facts. There are only two people on this planet capable of doing so. The Pope is one and i am the other. We are both infallible. Be careful---I may determine that you don't exist either
everybody hates chris
at June 28, 2006 7:25 AM
Sorry, but Nazareth's current location was prohibited for human habitation until circa 100AD. People claiming Jesus was from Nazareth haven't looked at any maps or read about the area at the time.
Note:
You'll have to carp on artists all the way back to the 1st century. You might also take a look at some of the indigenous peoples from those areas and note the blue eyes and light brown hair. Check out the Galatians, written to by Paul in AD56.
Oligonicella at June 27, 2006 7:04 AM
Swede Jesus. Interesting. Unbeknownst to most of the faithful, Jesus was depicted throughout history, at least until the 8th century, as a dark haired-short cropped, Italian looking guy in a Roman tunic. This was because the Romans adopted him and then the Catholic church furthered the illusion. It wasn't until the 8th century that the artists began drawing him as the Swede Jesus. Also-a note-Brian Flemming just released a film called the Beast. It is a take-off on the Da Vinci Code. The big secret here is that the church conspired to keep secret the fact that Jesus never did exist, which of course happens to be factually correct. In theatres near you.
everybody hates chris at June 27, 2006 8:19 AM
You are more correct about the time than my post. I erred by 5c you by 3.
However, what may be considered one of, if not the, earliest depiction shows what appears to be a white guy with long brown hair and (although hard to tell) blue eyes from around 525ad. A good discussion of the history of his image is at http://www.answers.com/topic/images-of-jesus
You can download the image and play with the color balance like I did and see for yourself.
"...which of course happens to be factually correct."
Opinion only. There are references to a Jesus, but it is not clear that they refer to the biblical one.
None of this, however, deals with what exactly pictures of Jesus are supposed to be, which is a picture of an ideal, not an actual. Hence the white, black, hispanic, oriental, etc depictions. Don't look at them as portraits. If you do, you miss the point entirely.
Oligonicella at June 27, 2006 1:35 PM
The big secret here is that the church conspired to keep secret the fact that Jesus never did exist, which of course happens to be factually correct. In theatres near you.
It's factually correct that Jesus didn't exist?
I thought that was still being hotly debated.
Deirdre B. at June 27, 2006 1:38 PM
The existence of angels ufos and werewolves are also hotly debated. Nonetheless, I have examined all the evidence, and ruled against Jesus. If he wished to appeal, let him file the necessary papers.
everybody hates chris at June 27, 2006 5:06 PM
That's what Pilate said!
eric at June 27, 2006 8:22 PM
"I have examined all the evidence..."
Really? You have examined all the evidence? I have doubts about the truth of that statement. Please give us the logic behind your refutation that the emperical references (non-Christion) to a Jesus are fabrications or fakes.
Keep in mind, the great archeologists of the day insisted the fables of the great golden era were just that, fables. Until, that is, the discovery of said Celtic and Merovingian burials. Sutton Hoo?
Like I said, your opinion only. You do not get to determine fact, only your belief or disbelief. Facts determine themselves.
Oligonicella at June 28, 2006 6:45 AM
No Ollie- I determine facts. There are only two people on this planet capable of doing so. The Pope is one and i am the other. We are both infallible. Be careful---I may determine that you don't exist either
everybody hates chris at June 28, 2006 7:25 AM
Sorry, but Nazareth's current location was prohibited for human habitation until circa 100AD. People claiming Jesus was from Nazareth haven't looked at any maps or read about the area at the time.
Radwaste at June 29, 2006 5:46 PM
Leave a comment