I don’t have a religion, I don’t need one, I know God personally. But besides that. mighty man and men of renown doesn’t necessarily mean of great outward appearance, but of great internal spiritual strength as their Spirit is God Himself.
Here is Saul’s take on seeing Jesus:
Saul didn’t even know who Jesus was but knew He was Lord, that certainly shows that Jesus was a mighty man. Also that we here on the SDMB still debate and talk about Him 2000 years later testify that Jesus was indeed a mighty man, a man of renown.
The reason for His normal appearance for a time is hinted at here:
Jesus was made purposely to appear without the glory, without the Son of God side showing for the work He had to complete. But that side was always with Him, just not visible unless revealed.
What I want to know is, six feet tall under which definition of foot? Because, while there were length units called “feet” in many places, they happened to be different lengths.
Well, I’d say it’s very likely true that he didn’t speak Latin. But I ran this by a retired teacher (not that he was an authority) and he pointed out something I had not thought of. Greek was predominant in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, with Latin only predominant in the West. But speaking Latin as well as Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic cannot be ruled out entirely.
It’s possible that he was illiterate.
I’m pretty sure from my exhaustive reading of the “New Testament” that nowhere does he or anyone else say that he could read the Torah. There is definitely no reference to him writing anything at all, at least, not in the Bible. There is a very doubtful writing supposedly from some king in the Mideast, offering him sanctuary from his enemies. Since this was in the form of a letter, the implication is that he was writing to the king as well. But all of it seems to me these days to be almost 100% bull.
Jesus reading the Scriptures in the synagogue~ Luke 4:
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
Jesus writing on the ground~ John 8:
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
(The full site that you linked to is mind-boggling in its ultra-orthodox Roman Catholicism, complete with enough intellectual dishonesty to make any Protestant-based fundie green with envy. But that’s not the point, because you only wanted to link to a site that shows the Shroud. And the subject matter here would require a whole new thread.)
I just have a question for anyone who suggests that it might possibly be authentic.
How the heck would a covering wrapped around a body develop (by whatever conceivable “imprinting” process) **an image that was true to the shape **of the face, and other external body shapes (torso, limbs) for that matter?!
Well, for one thing, in case you haven’t noticed it yet, there’s a lot of clearly ***made-up crap ***in your treasured religious-fanatic document. (ETA: I didn’t mean you, but rather the religious fanatics who wrote and edited the various books. )
So, while your citations are interesting (I was aware of the ground-writing, but had forgotten the other stuff.) all bets are off with only very unreliable apologetic writings to go on.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re accusing me of. I said that while most U.S. Christians are bombarded with pictures of a Caucasian-looking Jesus and so might come up with that mental pictures like that, they’re also aware that these mental pictures are generated by their environment and that a first century Jewish peasant was probably not a white guy. I stated what I believe a portion of a large group believes, and drew no conclusions from that. Where’s the strawman? You could argue that I’m wrong, but stating that my argument is a strawman doesn’t make it so.
This is a cite from a document indisputably written before Jesus was born, and so isn’t much use in a historical discussion of what he looked like.
The cite from Acts refers to an experience significantly after the Resurrection. I don’t think we can reasonably assume that Jesus appeared in the same way after the Resurrection as he did before it, especially because Acts 9:3 (one verse before your quote) notes that Jesus appears to Saul as a dazzling light from heaven that only Saul (and not Saul’s companions) could see. It’s a big stretch to argue that this is a reason to view Jesus’ physical form as “a mighty man.” (emphasis mine)
The cite from John is part of a request of Jesus from God. There’s no particular reason to think that God acted on this request, especially since the document in question doesn’t make a claim that God did so. Besides, the request “Glorify me” is extremely vague. This could be something visible, invisible, spiritual, theological… Almost anything.
So you’ve moved the goalposts from “I’ve read this document and there’s nothing in it to support your claim” to “OK, so the document supports you, but it’s worthless anyway.” I agree with your conclusion that Jesus was probably physically unremarkable, but this is a disingenuous way to argue.
1 Samuel 16:12 says David was “ruddy” or “red-haired” in most translations, although some translations say “tanned” or even “healthy” instead. I believe the Hebrew word they’re translating is “admoni”.
A. I am not/wasn’t accusing you of anything, and
B. I wasn’t even aware that you had an argument.
Just stating my IME, generally. Nothing against you, just noodling around the topic.
)