What did Jesus look like? Unsurprisingly, he looked nothing like the Mormon depiction of him. That depiction is historically inaccurate, belied by the Bible text itself, and is actually kind of offensive.

Consider that Jesus Christ was a Galilean (ethnic) Jew. He spoke Aramaic, obeyed the Law of Moses, and in his time and place, was known by the very common Jewish name of "Yeshua bar-Yosef" (literally, "Joshua Josephson" in English).

He also looked and dressed like other Galilean Jews. This is confirmed most convincingly by the account of Judas Iscariot's betrayal. In that account, Judas needs to identify Jesus to the Romans by giving him a kiss. That this was necessary tells us that Jesus was not distinguishable by physical features or clothing.

This means that Jesus, like other Galilean Jews of the time, had short (not shoulder-length) dark brown or black hair, dark eyes, probably a prominent nose, olive skin, and wore normal, plainly-coloured, or even undyed, clothing. (This meant a linen or wool basic tunic cinched around the waist, a heavier overcoat or "mantle", and wooden or leather sandals). (Paul, who claims to have seen Jesus in vision, and knew many people who had known Jesus personally, also indirectly confirms that Jesus wore his hair short. See Corinthians 11).

But Mormon depictions of Jesus increasingly diverge from this historically and textually-supported reality.

In Mormon iconography, Jesus is no longer a Galilean Jew. Increasingly, the Mormon Jesus is gloriously Nordic - almost Thor-like. He has blond, shoulder-length hair, a square jaw and broad facial features. His eyes keep getting lighter in colour. He has an oversized bone structure. He looks like a pure Gentile from northern Germany or Scandinavia, not a pure Jew from the Mediterranean. I think that's kind of weird. It also strikes me as kind of offensive.

Aryan, Gentile, Viking Surfer Jesus images are popular with Christian white supremacist groups. I think Mormonism, which still pretends to be the only religion authorized to officiate in Jesus's name, ought to stick with the historical reality - not just out of respect for Jesus, but because it's in the church's own best interests to do so.

Just my two cents.

He looked identical to his dad.

Reconstructions of more plausible appearances:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-0jU2-m6I


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186

Thanks MarkJ for posting.

I had seen the Popular Mechanics rendering, but had never viwed the youtube skull and facial reconstructuring.

Fascinating stuff!

Thanks for the video link. The man they reconstructed had a nice face. Just not what we traditionally associate with Jesus.

Pop Mechanics Jesus looks like he got more than his fair share of Neanderthal DNA.

In the book, "An Underground Education," it explains in the religion section that one of the Pope Innocents declared all paintings of Jesus modeled after him, so that's how we got such a white Jesus. I cannot for the life of me find anything confirming this on the webz. Same book had a very amusing section on Joseph Smith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2014 05:50PM by Itzpapalotl.

Well you can be sure when he comes back (or not) he's much more likely to be mistaken for Barak Obama than Mitt Romney. Good point, Tal, about the story of Judas' betrayal. If Jesus looked anything at all close to the Greg Olsen paintings he could have just said, "the white guy!" Or the long-haired hippie freak or the surfer dude.

But then, when did mormons let a little thing such as a fact get in the way of their narrative?

Assuming that there was an historical Jesus…the dude had to have had long hair.

I'd hit that.

...a bevy of young, winsome, fair-haired and light-skinned beauties. His celestial harem, or what?

I think you're all just having fun with Jesus because you're free to do so, which is good. But people from Syria and Israel usually don't look like that, and aren't that dark, unless they are Jews from ancestries that either converted to Judaism, like Ethiopians, or acquired non-Jewish DNA in places like Egypt or Iraq.

When you say the phrase, "But Mormon depictions of Jesus increasingly diverge from this historically and textually-supported reality," I'm not sure you know what the word "reality" means. Jesus is fictional. The fact that an enlightened, celebrity exmo is using terms like "reality" to define Jesus is what is offensive. It is completely normal, and non-offensive, to invent characteristics for fictional people, especially Gods.

Besides, I've lived for years around people in the middle-east and while they vary greatly in skin tone and color, many of them are as white as we are. Most cultures with people who are predominantly white colored tend to consider themselves white as well.

"Aryan, Gentile, Viking Surfer Jesus images are popular with Christian white supremacist groups."

Poor association. Normal, non-supremacist groups also tend to invent a Jesus that is Aryan.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you say the phrase, "But Mormon depictions of
> Jesus increasingly diverge from this historically
> and textually-supported reality," I'm not sure you
> know what the word "reality" means. Jesus is
> fictional.

I'm fairly confident that Tal Bachman understands the meaning of the word 'reality'.

I take it, in context, to refer to the following statements he makes about Jews in the [supposed] time of Jesus [if he existed]:

"Jesus Christ was a Galilean (ethnic) Jew."

"He also looked and dressed like other Galilean Jews."

"That this [an identifying kiss by Judas] was necessary tells us that Jesus was not distinguishable by physical features or clothing."

"... Jesus, like other Galilean Jews of the time, had short (not shoulder-length) dark brown or black hair, dark eyes, probably a prominent nose, olive skin, and wore normal, plainly-coloured, or even undyed, clothing."

After all of the above descriptions of Jews in the [supposed] time of Jesus [who may or may not have been historical, according to one's belief or assurance or opinion or faith or non-faith], Tal says:

"But Mormon depictions of Jesus increasingly diverge from this historically and textually-supported reality."

'Reality' referring to the reality of the appearance and dress and language of Jews at the *historical* time in question.

Or at least, that is the way I read and understood what Tal wrote, not in any way that he is stating that Jesus is historical reality.

But.

That doesn't mean he doesn't believe that Jesus is historical reality. But it's not what he is claiming by the above statements. Again, in the way I read what he wrote.

snb said: "The fact that an enlightened, celebrity exmo is using terms like "reality" to define Jesus
is what is offensive."

Poor Tal. Benighted, in the eyes of some, by his own IRL reality. Burdened by "celebrity". Expected to be "enlightened". Can't just have an opinion or a belief, like the rest of us non-celeb, possibly non- "enlightened" exmos. In some cases, can't even discuss actual "reality" of the unarguable historical kind without being judged for it. Just to be clear, judging is using words like "offensive" in the context that "someone like Tal" should or shouldn't hold a certain view. Tal is just Tal. Why should he have to perform to our tune, that is, fit in with our [especially unstated] views of who he is and should be?

I am not, nor ever will be, a "celebrity" exmo. I do hope, though, for some [more] enlightenment somewhere along the way. And like the rest of us non-celebs, I have a mixture of knowledge, opinion and experience. Thank goodness it's OK to share it with others on this board who are like me in many ways.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2014 02:51PM by Nightingale.

I know the answer to this one. Jesus looks like nothing, because he didn't exist.

Any more than anybody else KNOWS he does exist? They don't KNOW but you do KNOW?

Just wondering. :)

We know that Jesus was a jew because:
1.) He went in to his father's business
2.) He thought his mother was a vergin
3.) His mother thought he was god