What did Jesus Look Like?

[@undecidedgenius]

I really wish people would stop showing this as the face of jesus. I did watch that documentary. The found a skull of someone from that time period, from what they assumed were the Jews at the time. They even told us in the documentary that this was not the skull of jesus. It would be the same as if you didn't know what Mohammed Ali looked like, so you took the skull of Mike Tyson.

[@pingwingugu5]

Or just some random skull

[@kimmmimemwest1895]

It's clearly says may have

[@undecidedgenius]

@@kimmmimemwest1895 6:46 to 7:03 "he looked something like this" is what he stated in this video.

[@kimmmimemwest1895]

@@undecidedgenius yeah that don't mean exactly .. they made it clear it's not his actual face.

[@norman102745]

He was not from a poor family. His uncle was the minister of mines under the emperor. His mother was is the Royal House of David. Josef was a builder and a man o means, poverty did not marry into royalty. Mary’s brother in law was a priest in the temple. Think about it.

[@beckc.5084]

yes, scholars believe that Joseph's profession was actually entrepreneur of some kind of construction company.

[@BurnBird1]

@@beckc.5084 do they? Considering that there's nothing in the text stating that.

[@BurnBird1]

She would have been descended of royalty hundreds of years back, like most people who have ever lived. And that's even assuming that we know of Mary's lineage, which we don't.

[@norman102745]

They knew, nothing was more important than who begat whom. The Bible is a genealogical record.

[@BurnBird1]

@@norman102745 the genealogy in Luke is not for Mary, that's just an excuse made by apologists to explain away the discrepancy between the two accounts.

[@dmcrorie777]

33 years old period

[@joelkenyon4768]

I love how your globe was out of order 🌎

[@sweet-beaks]

2:17 😂 I love this. Go father Ted!

[@nessesaryschoolthing]

They added an NPC in Dungeons and Daddies named "Well Actually." Not a flattering comparison.

[@NikhilSharma-wx7kb]

Great to see you're back

[@danielsmyth7836]

I like that your videos come out on a Saturday. Like a Saturday morning cartoon. Except its not the morning. 🤪🤪

[@pingwingugu5]

So where did that modern depiction of Jesus as a long haired pale skinny guy came from? I've seen it in roman style churches so that convention had to be established pretty early in middle ages.

[@beckc.5084]

I've researched on this topic a bit, there are different theories, but in my opinion the most likely one is a combination of two factors: 1) in the early days of Christianity, as you may know, the Gospel was rapidly spreading in the pagan communities of Greece and Rome. however, greeks and romans were not familiar with the jewish world. in order to make Jesus' message more palatable, many christians started presenting Jesus as some sort of philosopher. philosophers were very prominent "sage" figures at that time. the two major schools of philosophy during the 1st century AD were epicureism and stoicism. philosophers typically let their hair grow long and had a disheveled look, signifying their disinterest with beauty and looks. that might be the reason why jesus started being portrayed as a philosopher, who was uninterested in looking "polished". 2) at first, when Jesus was depicted in a group of people, he didn't look any different from the other characters. however, this made it difficult to recognize which one of them was actually jesus. so, with time, making Jesus have long hair made it easier to recognize him in a group setting. personally, I believe a combination of these two factors is the reason why today Jesus is typically depicted with long hair

[@pingwingugu5]

@@beckc.5084 Thanks, that makes some sense :-) I need to read into it

[@szymongorczynski7621]

@@beckc.5084 Further to that point, depictions of Jesus across the world have taken the appearance. I've seen Korean, Japanese, Chinese, sub-saharan African, and even Native American icons of the Holy Family.

[@norman102745]

He did not look Swedish, and he did not look like the BBC mockup: Jesus Neanderthal.

[@gigachadgaming6071]

About the last picture: knowing that it was from the BBC it's probably inaccurate, as they have other examples of making depictions of people with darker complexions than they would've been like As for what I think He looked like? Like an average Semite from that time period, if you want examples from today maybe like the alawites

[@callejacobson8487]

Bra fråga Hur såg Jesus Ut Egentligen ? 🤔

[@patriciahopey1384]

A Jewish man of his time . 3cheers from Canada

[@michaelwright8410]

Was there even a Jesus? Joe Rogan, John M. Allegro, and Terence McKenna say Jesus was a metaphor for a psychedelic psilocybin mushroom. I like that one best

[@gigachadgaming6071]

yes, there was a jesus.

[@yenovkpashalian2863]

Why wasting your time .humans are sick.

[@EpicFailWizard]

Very superstitious

[@yenovkpashalian2863]

Give me gd reason why this dumb video was made

[@user-xn9um6ne2q]

Assuming there was a historical person

[@beckc.5084]

every bible scholar, even atheist ones, affirms that he existed. now, whether you believe he was also God or not, that's another story, but as a human being, yes, he existed, and no credible historian denies this at this point. there's almost too much documentation. you could say he's the most documented historical figure to ever exist and yet the one people are least comfortable with admitting he existed, cause it would inevitably influence their belief system. both from internal and external sources, all the reports from that time (in Rome we have Tacitus and Svetonius, in Judea there's the Talmuds written by the Pharisees, and many more) refer to him as a Jewish preacher active during Tiberius' reign who was causing large gatherings and claiming to be the Messiah, who was later crucified by the romans. the resurrection also has good evidence for it, given that even the pharisees (his political enemies) admit that his tomb was found empty and that his corpse couldn't be found anywhere in Jerusalem

[@BurnBird1]

@@beckc.5084 you are *way* overstating the evidence for his existence. In fact, there is next to none. However, the reason why most historians believe he existed is that it's the simplest explanation. All our sources about his existence come from what Christians said about him, years after he died. Even the non-christian sources got their information from the christians. That these Christians got their teachings from a guy who later got killed is not s very extravagant claim, and thus it's believed to be factually accurate. Now, wether or not his followers actually saw him after his death is another story and something historians can't say anything about, although it seems most likely that, at the very least, his followers believed that they had seen him.

[@beckc.5084]

@@BurnBird1 where did you get this claim that the external sources got their information from christians? it's a claim you can't back up at all. what about the talmud? you're saying that *only* christians were aware of Jesus' existence, even though he was crucified? how could he have been crucified if only christians (his followers) knew about him? were christians the ones who crucified him? those who crucified him weren't christians... quite obviously. if this information came only from christians then why in the world would they fabricate it and spread it around the world? don't you know that according to the Torah, if a prophet is hanged from a tree that means God cursed him? and what about the Talmud? you're saying pharisees would write about Jesus in their OWN holy books, if it was something they could avoid in any way, if it was something they could pretend never happened, if it was something "only christians" told them? instead of having been a person they'd actually talked to? (and against their will, too, given that Jesus was constantly polemizing against them) even if we take the time to explore this illogical claim of yours, that the external sources are somehow also derived from christians, then so what? do we have any external sources on Pythagoras? on Buddha? and on many other historical figures who haven't personally written anything of their own? and yet you don't see anybody claim that Pythagoras or Buddha never existed, even though they both lived 600 years earlier than Jesus. Pythagoras has even less details of his life available and yet we all treat him as an important historical figure. i could list another thousands of ancient history figures that fit the same criteria of having only internal sources, lived way before Christ, and yet nobody is denying their existence, but guess what...I'd have to list almost the entire list of all ancient figures we know of. and yet Jesus *doesn't* even fit this criteria because the information we have on him, both external and internal is quite sufficient. most writings in the New Testament were written very early, and christians were already in Rome by Nero's reign from 54 to 68 AD. the claim that the gospels are to be dated anywhere later than immediately after Jesus' death is simply false. if we had to be as uncharitable as some people are with the historical Jesus' existence, we'd have to erase a lot of people from antiquity, trust me also... i don't understand what you mean by "the only reason why most historians believe he existed is that it's the easiest explanation"... do historians have to give the hardest explanation? are historians not supposed to come to a easy explanation whenever possible? do historians have to give the hardest explanation for things that can be explained simply? i thought the ockham razor applied to historiography, too. i don't see your point with this phrase, sorry.

[@BurnBird1]

@@beckc.5084 I didn't claim that Jesus didn't exist, just that there's not a lot of evidence, yet enough to say that he most likely did exist. My point is that we don't have *any* independent sources mentioning Jesus before his death, after which all information would have to come from people who knew about him, ie the Christians. I also don't understand why you assert that the gospels must have been written immediately after his death, when even the most radical scholars put the earliest dating at least a couple of decades after. The more accepted number tend to 60CE for Mark, 70-80 for Matthew and Luke and around 90CE for John. This is not in dispute, so I don't see the point of bringing it up.

[@beckc.5084]

@@BurnBird1 when I said immediately after his death, I meant 50-70 AD, too. that *is* very early for the time. the years between 33-50 of ministry of the apostles were concentrated in the area of Jerusalem and the regions around Judea so writing a gospel wasn't necessary yet. I mentioned it because you said that all the information we have on him was written many years after his life, which is not true. For someone who lived 2000 years ago, having so many different accounts of his life within a couple of decades of his death to reach every corner of the roman empire is astonishing. regarding your point... how could we have any independent sources before his death? it's unreasonable to ask for something like that, he was a nobody in a faraway province of the roman empire for most of his life, until one day he suddenly decided to start preaching. his ministry was very short because the things he was saying were absurd and made a lot of people angry. if he'd been a "apolitical" preacher like Buddha was, he wouldve preached for 50 years, like Buddha did. but Jesus was very involved with politics, which hastened his death. there would have been no material time for anybody to write anything about that. also, of course people who weren't interested in following him and listening to his teachings wouldn't have bothered to write anything about him. not only writing is something only educated scribes could do, but what would have been the point? he was just a preacher, like many others, for example like John the Baptist. from our point of view his story and crucifixion seem like huge events, but from the point of view of someone outside of Judea, or even from someone from Judea who didn't care about preachers, he was just a generic criminal who got crucified. why would there be any information about this? people got crucified all the time in Judea, there were a lot of rebellions against roman rule. outside of Judea people didn't even know what a Messiah was, to begin with, or what blasphemy he might have been accused of. it was just uninteresting to them. and from the point of view of Pharisees, they of course wouldn't have written anything in those three years of his ministry. it all happened too fast. they did write stories about him later, but like I said, they were all to discredit him. which is interesting because, if he really was a myth, wouldn't they have just denied he ever existed? wouldn't that have been better? all I'm saying is, people are wayyyy too demanding with the Bible, and it seems to me this is unwarranted. especially given that things didn't happen instantly like today. they didn't have internet. and yet they did their best to preserve and hand down stories of things they saw, heard and witnessed, to the best of their capacities. considering the context of antiquity, we can't demand modern standards. and yet, even with their ancient standards, it's more than enough to believe.