ook at the above pictures, dear reader. Tell me if you think they are realistic portrayals of our Lord Jesus Christ. You must understand, dear reader, that there were no portraits taken, no sculptures made, nor do we have written descriptions of Jesus in Scripture. So where do the artists who paint these portraits get the idea that Jesus was an effeminate Caucasian, with long hair? One looks like he has a serious case of heart burn, and the other one seems to be auditioning for the lead role in Taxi Driver. "You talkin' to me?" I want facts, not fiction.
The facts are that Jesus of Nazareth [a town in Galilee], was born to Joseph and Miriam [Mary] who were of the Hebrew nation, specifically, the tribe of Judah. Yes, I realize that there are people who claim the city, town, or small hamlet of Nazareth only existed in the mind of Matthew - in other words, he made the whole town up. I won't get into that right now, rather for my argument's sake, I will just go with what Scripture has recorded, that Jesus grew up, in the town of Nazareth in Galilee of the Gentiles. As a man of Middle Eastern lineage, Jesus most likely had olive toned skin, and brown eyes. And as for his hair, brown or black. But what about its length and why does it matter? | It matters because the Bible forbids a man from looking like a woman and a woman from looking like a man by the standards set by the Almighty. That should end the debate right there. According to Scripture (which sets the standard) a Hebrew man's hair was to be short unless he made a Nazirite vow, or similar vow to God. Now I say that based on Ezekiel 44:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:14. Also worthy of note, Moses recorded in Deuteronomy 22:5, that men were not to wear women's clothes, and women were not to wear men's clothes - again, a standard set by the Almighty. Before I go any further, a bit of back story is required to paint the full picture. So get ready to learn something, it'll be fun, you'll see! |
To The Scriptures!
Here are some Scriptures regarding how men and women are to keep their appearances. There aren't very many, but they do speak volumes as to how God intended men and women to keep their own sex's appearance.
"They shall neither shave their heads nor let their hair grow long, but they
shall keep their hair well trimmed." Ezekiel 40:20
"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is
a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for
[her] hair is given to her for a covering." 1 Corinthians 11:14-15
"The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a
man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to
the LORD your God." Deuteronomy 22:5
Even though Ezekiel 44:20 pertains to the priests, they were the examples to the congregation as to what was clean and unclean, right and wrong, holy or unholy, or dark and light. Long hair on a man was considered a humiliation, because it is unmanly, or effeminate to have long hair. Sorry dudes, you gotta cut the grass on the melon. So as you can see, not much room for Jesus being a hippie here.
The Nazirite Vow
The Nazirite vow was one of consecration to God, and separation from worldliness.
Jesus was not a Nazirite from birth like Samson, Samuel, or even John the Baptist. How do I know that? Well for one, the Bible doesn't record God telling Miriam [Mary], or Joseph that he was to be one. Besides, a Nazirite (from birth, or even a person who took the vow) was not to touch anything that was made from grapes, nor were they to touch the dead, besides letting their hair grow long. And since Jesus drank wine, and touched the dead, then that means he was definitely not a Nazirite in these aspects, ergo, it would be pointless for him to have long hair. All of this can be verified in Numbers 6, Judges 13, 1 Samuel 2, and Luke 1. No where in Scripture does it even hint that Jesus took the Nazirite vow, yet Scripture does make reference to Paul making such a vow in Acts 18:18.
Jesus was not a Nazirite from birth like Samson, Samuel, or even John the Baptist. How do I know that? Well for one, the Bible doesn't record God telling Miriam [Mary], or Joseph that he was to be one. Besides, a Nazirite (from birth, or even a person who took the vow) was not to touch anything that was made from grapes, nor were they to touch the dead, besides letting their hair grow long. And since Jesus drank wine, and touched the dead, then that means he was definitely not a Nazirite in these aspects, ergo, it would be pointless for him to have long hair. All of this can be verified in Numbers 6, Judges 13, 1 Samuel 2, and Luke 1. No where in Scripture does it even hint that Jesus took the Nazirite vow, yet Scripture does make reference to Paul making such a vow in Acts 18:18.
"So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the
brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila [were]
with him. He had [his] hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had
taken a vow."
After the duration of the Nazirite vow was complete, which might be a few days to a few months, the hair of a man was cut short once more. As the Bible puts it, the hair was dedicated to God for that duration, "because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head." Numbers 6:7b. And Numbers 6: 18 states:
"Then at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the Nazirite must shave
off the hair that he dedicated. He is to take the hair and put it in the
fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering."
So during the Nazirite vow it was a sort of humiliation, or a humbling action for a man to grow his hair long that was dedicated to God. For those who would insist that is why Jesus had long hair (as a sign of his humility toward his Father) I would say having long hair isn't the only way for someone to show humility, especially in light of the glaring lack of Biblical evidence that he was in fact a practicing Nazirite.
Hair Length In History
Historically speaking, the hair length of men and women in other nations seems to not really have any clear cut boundaries. Meaning, that some secular cultures viewed long hair on men as acceptable, even desirable, and short hair on women equally acceptable and desirable. The deciding factor in the acceptable hair length of men and women seems to lie in the religious practices of a people's culture, and even in the mourning of departed loved ones. For the sake of brevity of the subject at hand, I will be focusing on Hebrew customs.
According to Moses, who penned what God dictated; men were to have short hair unless a Nazirite vow was taken, and women were to have long hair. Men were also to have beards, if their beard was cut or shaven off, it was a disgrace to him. Just as it was a disgrace to God for a man to have long hair, or shaven beard, it was a disgrace to have a shaven head, especially for a woman, as was the practice of their neighboring idolatrous nations, when they were in mourning, usually to honor the dead or their false gods. So why do artists insist on painting Jesus with long hair even though it is culturally unlikely? Well, lets look at the artists during the time that religious art was in its hay day.
According to Moses, who penned what God dictated; men were to have short hair unless a Nazirite vow was taken, and women were to have long hair. Men were also to have beards, if their beard was cut or shaven off, it was a disgrace to him. Just as it was a disgrace to God for a man to have long hair, or shaven beard, it was a disgrace to have a shaven head, especially for a woman, as was the practice of their neighboring idolatrous nations, when they were in mourning, usually to honor the dead or their false gods. So why do artists insist on painting Jesus with long hair even though it is culturally unlikely? Well, lets look at the artists during the time that religious art was in its hay day.
Were The Renaissance Artists Perverts?
Now how does this question relate to my topic? Well, hippies are all about "free love." Do it with anyone at anytime, as long as they were willing. This sexual behavior is not in keeping with God's law, something Jesus took very seriously. The time of the Renaissance has been heralded in history, as the age of enlightenment and reason. A sort of "coming out of the closet" from the dark ages, which weren't as dark as many of us have been led to believe. And a lot of religious art came out of this time period. The word renaissance itself means "re-birth" in Old French and Latin. So one must wonder, a re-birth of what? Any scholar will tell you, it was a re-birth of the classical greco-roman period. During the Renaissance period, not only was the style of classic Greek and Roman (nude) art revived, but also the art of reason - human reason. And so, during this time, the humanistic philosophies brought to us by Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, were also studied and practiced once more -- until now. These men didn't believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world, nor did they believe he was the only begotten Son of God. These men were secular humanists, and even expressed doubt in the pagan gods of their own | country such as Zeus, Hera, Apollo, and Aphrodite, etc. Even so, these gods were very lax in their sexual purity, much like the hippies. Instead, they worshiped mankind and man's ability to think, reason, and either create beauty or spawn the grotesque. As for their character traits, well Socrates and Aristotle were known pederasts - look it up if you don't know what that means, I simply can't bring myself to define it here, as I have sons. Anyway, this practice was tolerated in their culture, and I have come to learn that when researching other cultures, it is important that I must not impose my Biblical values upon them, if I want to understand where they are coming from. This is difficult to do, and I often find my lip raised in disgust and the hurl factor reaching critical when I read historical accounts of their accepted cultural practices, yet the facts are the facts. These things are important to know, because if a culture is copied or revered by another culture, then of course, many of the same practices will be adopted and incorporated, to some extent, openly or in the closet, depending on the already accepted cultural practices of the adoptive nation. But to maintain civil order, moral values and practices don't change overnight, it is a slow process, which brings this saying to mind: "Rome wasn't built in a day." It is also understood that cultures portray their lives through their art, but that really depends on the type of artist that is producing the work that they want to sell, or what is commissioned. |
Truly, Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo (among other Renaissance artists) were masters of the human form. And not only was Leonardo an artist extraordinaire, but he was also a scientist. Their portrayals of the human body sculpted in marble statuary and friezes, rendered in drawings, and painted on canvas or walls are undeniably stunning to behold. Yet, I'm compelled to point out the naked truth, that many of their works lack a significant amount of raiment. I have heard some say this fact only proves these men were homosexual perverts and purveyors of porn. But without clear cut evidence, it is difficult for me to overcome my artistic bias to fully arrive at that decisive conclusion - that these artists were gay, not that they were (technically) purveyors of porn. I guess the cocaine fulled pervert (Freud), saw no difference in the two. I would like to stress the fact that Leonardo specifically was put on trial for the suspicion of homosexuality and was acquitted. Sure, I would like to see more clothes on their works of art, but let's not forget that many of their works were commissioned by their wealthy patrons. Because of that, one must wonder who the real perverts were, the artists, or the ones who commissioned the work? What it all boils down to, as usual, is money. After all, an artist has to eat, right?
Again, brushing my artistic bias aside, Christian common decency dictates that nudity should be relegated to one of two, if not three places: the bedroom, bathroom, and the doctor's examination room, which are all sanctuaries that are sequestered away form prying or gawking eyes. Hippies, as I understand it, were not shy about going around nude. Their "love ins" must have been --eh-- fleshy. Yes, the human body is a thing of beauty, I'm not a total prude, it's a divine work of art, provided that one looks like King David or Bathsheba, and not Chris Farley or Roseanne Barr. Even though there are people with beautiful bods, I don't want to see too much of their skin, much less their privates, on public display. Pornography is defined as: printed or visual material concerning the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity. Lets face it, by that definition, that would make the Renaissance artists forerunners of Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint - a.k.a. porn kings. Sorry Leonardo. Knowing this I find it, oh I don't know, kind of odd that these artists would put a loin cloth on the Lord Jesus on the cross, when in fact he was stark naked, something that heightened the shame factor of the punishment. Again, a possible factor stemming from the commissioner of the art. I do not see Jesus as walking around half naked, or even the buff in Scripture, nor does he advocate such behavior. He's not looking much like a hippie, is he?
Again, brushing my artistic bias aside, Christian common decency dictates that nudity should be relegated to one of two, if not three places: the bedroom, bathroom, and the doctor's examination room, which are all sanctuaries that are sequestered away form prying or gawking eyes. Hippies, as I understand it, were not shy about going around nude. Their "love ins" must have been --eh-- fleshy. Yes, the human body is a thing of beauty, I'm not a total prude, it's a divine work of art, provided that one looks like King David or Bathsheba, and not Chris Farley or Roseanne Barr. Even though there are people with beautiful bods, I don't want to see too much of their skin, much less their privates, on public display. Pornography is defined as: printed or visual material concerning the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity. Lets face it, by that definition, that would make the Renaissance artists forerunners of Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint - a.k.a. porn kings. Sorry Leonardo. Knowing this I find it, oh I don't know, kind of odd that these artists would put a loin cloth on the Lord Jesus on the cross, when in fact he was stark naked, something that heightened the shame factor of the punishment. Again, a possible factor stemming from the commissioner of the art. I do not see Jesus as walking around half naked, or even the buff in Scripture, nor does he advocate such behavior. He's not looking much like a hippie, is he?
Androgyny And The Ancients
Androgyny plays a significant role in the Renaissance philosophy and art. Let's face it, guy hippies are androgynous. I have discussed in other articles that classical Greece and Rome are only copies of Babylon, one of the first civilizations on the earth, and only one city of many, which Nimrod founded in the land of Sumer. This city was a hot bed of pagan practices, such as sun god and moon goddess worship, temple sex rites, infanticide/child sacrifice, cross dressing, and homosexuality as well as other deviant behaviors that godly, and moral people would find deplorable. Because of this, again, it stands to reason, that any culture that copies the practices of these former nations, will to some extent, perform the same activities. For instance, the Babylonian gods and goddesses were often interchangeable, or could be considered to be androgynous, meaning | the moon goddess could also be the moon god, or the sun god could also be the sun goddess. Androgyny is defined as: showing characteristics of both sexes. Hermaphrodite is the Greek word used for describing a person with both sex characteristics, and is taken from the child of Hermes and Aphrodite in Greek mythology, a.k.a. Hermaphroditus. This is one reason that seems to clearly explain why Renaissance art shows Jesus as effeminate, even a mixture of a man and his mother, Mary ( or Miriam in Hebrew), or as a hippie. This doesn't mean Christianity is rooted in paganism, but rather that evil men have corrupted Christianity with paganism. As to the question why they portray Jesus as Caucasian rather than a Middle Eastern man, that is because people tend to see others as they see themselves. For example, black artists depict Jesus, his mother, and disciples as black - even though they are of Middle Eastern origin, not African. I have yet to have someone prove to me that Eber was a black man, or that Joseph and Miriam were black people from Egypt or Ethiopia. Jesus' line came from Judah, as far as I know, Judah didn't have an Egyptian, or Ethiopian wife. Since there is no description of Jesus in Scripture, other than that he wasn't easy on the eyes [Isaiah 53:2], artists will take license and let their imaginations take over. And let's not forget how artists and their works influence and inspire the works of other artists. |
The Gods of the Romish Church
Take a quick glance at this image. Can you tell which one is Jesus, and which one is Mary? At a distance, my husband and son had to take a hard look to tell the difference. There is a reason for that. The Romish Catholic Church has peddled veiled paganism since its inception, in the 4th century under the leadership of the undercover pagan, Constantine. And as a foremost patron of the Renaissance arts, The Romish Church has helped spread the false gospel that Jesus was a dead ringer for his mother - Miriam, known to them as "The Virgin Mary." Well, except for the beard. Yes, the religion that tries to pass itself off as a "Christian" religion, reveres the one whom Jeremiah disdainfully referred to as the "Queen of Heaven." The Romish church is notorious for giving her co-equal status and even elevates her above the Son of God. In antiquity, and as recorded in Scripture, the Queen of Heaven was the title for Ishtar, or Ashtoreth, an ancient Babylonian goddess. So the god of the Roman Catholic Church is in fact the harlot in Revelation, who currently goes by many names:
Semiramis, Ashtora, Ishtar, Isis, Hera, Diana, Venus, Aphrodite, Columbia, etc, etc, etc.
The Romish Church was mostly responsible for employing these morally depleted artists, who depicted the Savior of the World as a drag queen. They in turn, were inspired by their Classical Greek and Roman predecessors, who in turn, assimilated past pagan practices of Babylon, one of which is the glorifying of androgyny Even the color symbolism seen here can be linked to the ancient concept of androgyny. Red was used to symbolize the element of fire and the goddess, or female principle, while blue was used to symbolize the element of water and the male god, or male principle. This is also accomplished with the color combination of white and black. White being the male active principle, while black being the female passive principle. This is a pagan concept, that of opposites inhabiting the same space at the same time, and living in harmony. The color scheme of red and blue, and black and white are used throughout the ancient pagan temples located all over the world as a subtle visual representation of androgyny.
Suffice it to say, many will argue that God uses the colors of red/scarlet, and blue/sapphire in his instructions to Moses on how to dress God's priests. That is true, but it is not used to propagate the concept of androgyny, but rather as symbols of holiness unto the LORD. The color red/scarlet is the color of blood, and the color blue/sapphire, as far as God is concerned, alludes to the pavement under his feet at this throne. The washing of feet in the ancient times was a servile task. So the priests of God were to serve God by assisting the people in their atonement ritual of animal blood sacrifice, hence the blue and red in their raiment.
Most, if not all false religions, consider androgyny as the guiding principle and ultimate state of human self-identification. To that I say, "Yuck!" The Alchemical Hermaphrodite, even the alchemical wedding, symbolizes the conjunction of opposites, producing the divine-- so their adherents believe. But that philosophy seems to defeat the whole purpose of the two separate sexes the Almighty created, doesn't it? Notice, it was the Almighty who did the creating, ergo, he has the right to say what goes and what doesn't. To confuse the matter further, Judaism's Talmud teaches that God made Adam and Eve as Siamese twins, whom God had to separate with surgery. Really? God made them Siamese twins? This is what Paul would classify as an "old-wive's tale" or "fairy tale" of the Jews. I don't care what any of these people claim, we can't become God or even little "gods" through androgyny, or alchemy. Only the Almighty has the power to become human if he so chooses to, and he already did - he came to earth as Jesus, the son of God and the son of man. So, Satan's lie is still ringing in our ears: "You will not surly die, for God knows that when you eat of this fruit your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Semiramis, Ashtora, Ishtar, Isis, Hera, Diana, Venus, Aphrodite, Columbia, etc, etc, etc.
The Romish Church was mostly responsible for employing these morally depleted artists, who depicted the Savior of the World as a drag queen. They in turn, were inspired by their Classical Greek and Roman predecessors, who in turn, assimilated past pagan practices of Babylon, one of which is the glorifying of androgyny Even the color symbolism seen here can be linked to the ancient concept of androgyny. Red was used to symbolize the element of fire and the goddess, or female principle, while blue was used to symbolize the element of water and the male god, or male principle. This is also accomplished with the color combination of white and black. White being the male active principle, while black being the female passive principle. This is a pagan concept, that of opposites inhabiting the same space at the same time, and living in harmony. The color scheme of red and blue, and black and white are used throughout the ancient pagan temples located all over the world as a subtle visual representation of androgyny.
Suffice it to say, many will argue that God uses the colors of red/scarlet, and blue/sapphire in his instructions to Moses on how to dress God's priests. That is true, but it is not used to propagate the concept of androgyny, but rather as symbols of holiness unto the LORD. The color red/scarlet is the color of blood, and the color blue/sapphire, as far as God is concerned, alludes to the pavement under his feet at this throne. The washing of feet in the ancient times was a servile task. So the priests of God were to serve God by assisting the people in their atonement ritual of animal blood sacrifice, hence the blue and red in their raiment.
Most, if not all false religions, consider androgyny as the guiding principle and ultimate state of human self-identification. To that I say, "Yuck!" The Alchemical Hermaphrodite, even the alchemical wedding, symbolizes the conjunction of opposites, producing the divine-- so their adherents believe. But that philosophy seems to defeat the whole purpose of the two separate sexes the Almighty created, doesn't it? Notice, it was the Almighty who did the creating, ergo, he has the right to say what goes and what doesn't. To confuse the matter further, Judaism's Talmud teaches that God made Adam and Eve as Siamese twins, whom God had to separate with surgery. Really? God made them Siamese twins? This is what Paul would classify as an "old-wive's tale" or "fairy tale" of the Jews. I don't care what any of these people claim, we can't become God or even little "gods" through androgyny, or alchemy. Only the Almighty has the power to become human if he so chooses to, and he already did - he came to earth as Jesus, the son of God and the son of man. So, Satan's lie is still ringing in our ears: "You will not surly die, for God knows that when you eat of this fruit your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Proper Roles In Society
This next statement may get me in trouble with my sex, but I see men as amazing creatures. I think God may have surrounded me by men (my husband and children) because I appreciate their "maleness." What I mean is that a certain amount of male chauvinism doesn't bother me. I'm not talking about male chauvinism on steroids, but the kind that causes men to want to protect the women in their life, or to wrestle to see who's the strongest, or parry in verbal jousts to see who's the smartest. Even so, as a woman, men can exasperate me at times. Why are they compelled to use my best towels to wipe up nasty spills, or use my expensive fabric scissors to cut sandpaper? (Eye roll) But for the most part, I actually find their male behaviors to be rather endearing. I don't really know why, maybe it's because I understand and accept the Almighty's decree and rightful place men are to hold in society, as the leaders of it. Sure, testosterone is their major hormone, which makes them physically stronger than women, and they are more logical, not overly emotional, but then again, there are women who possess some of those traits. I have found that science has proven that hormones alone don't dictate gender behavior, but there are other factors involved such as upbringing, and social stereotypes. Nevertheless, there are proper roles each sex is to play in society, roles that God has hard wired into us. Men should be the protectors, providers, and | leaders of the home. While women are to support their father, or husband, and to be nurturers, and caretakers of the family. Scientists have indeed discovered that the brain simply molds to what it experiences repeatedly. And what really molds society is the philosophy it holds, based upon who sets the standard, and what repeated information is given to that society. Thus, when a society tries to push androgyny, or gender bending, that is when things get confusing and a society becomes corrupt and perverted simply because the vain philosophy of androgyny goes against the Almighty's hard wired original design which is: men are to be men, and women are to be women. God decreed that men, not women, are to rule their families with temperance, not an iron fist, and with the knowledge that they will be accountable to their creator for their actions. Women were made to submit to the man, or head of the household, in their family. Not in a slavish way, but in a way that allows a man to lead without competition; a woman is to stand by her man, so to speak. Of course, this decree works best when the man, or head of the household is god fearing. It should be fairly obvious that families are the bed rock, foundation, and even the building blocks of any society, so as the family goes, so goes the society. Okay. back to the subject at hand...hippy Jesus. |
So What Does Jesus Really Look Like?
Scripture just doesn't give us any kind of physical description of Jesus. In Isaiah 53, we read that he had no form or comeliness, and those who looked upon him didn't see any beauty that they should desire him. So, that means he would've been passed by on the street, like he was an average Joe, or as my husband would say, "Jesus isn't a 'pretty boy.' " Why don't we have a physical description? Because it simply isn't necessary, or important.
As if these Renaissance hippie visual representations aren't bad enough, thanks to the BBC, here is a picture of what is supposed to be a more accurate portrayal of Jesus. Sure, they gave historical Jesus the right coloring and hair length, but the virtual computing geniuses at the BBC were some how able to make their portrayal of historical Jesus look more like a neanderthal. Why is he so pissed, or is that a look of surprised confusion on his brutish face?
Worse still is this artist's visual portrayal of "Revelation" Jesus, as a sword swallowing, star juggling circus act, with glowing white hair, laser beam glowing eyes and a bad case of athletes foot! I mean, really? This is not what Jesus looks like in real life either. This is a clear case of symbolism gone amuck. Speaking of which, a long while back, my sister asked me what Jesus looked like, and I rolled my eyes and said, "Oh no, I'm so not going there!" She gasped in exasperation, "Oh! How do you know not to go there?" Then she quickly added how she had gotten into a heated argument with one of her husband's atheist relatives about Jesus' appearance in Revelation. I had to laugh and said, "You walked into that one! So he's going to take what was meant to be a symbolic representation of Jesus' authority as being an actual description for the real Jesus? That's ridiculous!" So, I advised her not to get led into that argument ever again, as it is a pointless argument. I realize I didn't have to tell her that, she learns from her mistakes, but still, I'm her big sister, its my job to give advice, right?
As if these Renaissance hippie visual representations aren't bad enough, thanks to the BBC, here is a picture of what is supposed to be a more accurate portrayal of Jesus. Sure, they gave historical Jesus the right coloring and hair length, but the virtual computing geniuses at the BBC were some how able to make their portrayal of historical Jesus look more like a neanderthal. Why is he so pissed, or is that a look of surprised confusion on his brutish face?
Worse still is this artist's visual portrayal of "Revelation" Jesus, as a sword swallowing, star juggling circus act, with glowing white hair, laser beam glowing eyes and a bad case of athletes foot! I mean, really? This is not what Jesus looks like in real life either. This is a clear case of symbolism gone amuck. Speaking of which, a long while back, my sister asked me what Jesus looked like, and I rolled my eyes and said, "Oh no, I'm so not going there!" She gasped in exasperation, "Oh! How do you know not to go there?" Then she quickly added how she had gotten into a heated argument with one of her husband's atheist relatives about Jesus' appearance in Revelation. I had to laugh and said, "You walked into that one! So he's going to take what was meant to be a symbolic representation of Jesus' authority as being an actual description for the real Jesus? That's ridiculous!" So, I advised her not to get led into that argument ever again, as it is a pointless argument. I realize I didn't have to tell her that, she learns from her mistakes, but still, I'm her big sister, its my job to give advice, right?
Yes, dear reader, I grow weary of people, even Christians who try to give a physical de-scription of our Lord, some even claim they have seen him in visions. Really? Well, the ones I believe are the ones who don't remember what he looked like after the vision, but the ones that give detailed descriptions, especially those that match the Renaissance art, are the ones I ignore. There's even a fake document that is floating around claiming that it was penned by a Roman centurion who gave a physical description of Jesus. I ignore that one too. I have an idea: why not just wait until he comes, then we will know for sure. Until then, just know wh at he isn't:
He isn't blond with blue eyes
He isn't a brutish neanderthal,
He isn't a long haired half-clothed hippie
And He certainly isn't a Sci-fi freak show.
So, there you have it dear reader, the reason why Renaissance artists depict our Lord Jesus as a long haired effeminate Caucasian hippie, flashing us a halfhearted"peace" sign (which I believe is really a sign for Virgo - the virgin), which is to preach the idolatrous gospel of godhood through androgyny. The other artists that copy the Renaissance artists lead don't necessarily uphold such esoteric occultist beliefs.
Incidentally, you can see nearly the same hand sign on pictures of Baphomet - the Satanic goat boy. All of this nonsense stems from pagan influences of past civilizations, esoteric color symbolism, misplaced ethnic identification, and a lot of vain imagination. All of which combine to create portraits of a hippie impostor, as seen in Renaissance and even modern artistic renditions. None of this should surprise us in the least, as Satan is always trying to confuse, counterfeit, manipulate, and lie regarding the truth - and the truth is: we just don't know what Jesus looks like - case closed! Who says history isn't fun?
He isn't blond with blue eyes
He isn't a brutish neanderthal,
He isn't a long haired half-clothed hippie
And He certainly isn't a Sci-fi freak show.
So, there you have it dear reader, the reason why Renaissance artists depict our Lord Jesus as a long haired effeminate Caucasian hippie, flashing us a halfhearted"peace" sign (which I believe is really a sign for Virgo - the virgin), which is to preach the idolatrous gospel of godhood through androgyny. The other artists that copy the Renaissance artists lead don't necessarily uphold such esoteric occultist beliefs.
Incidentally, you can see nearly the same hand sign on pictures of Baphomet - the Satanic goat boy. All of this nonsense stems from pagan influences of past civilizations, esoteric color symbolism, misplaced ethnic identification, and a lot of vain imagination. All of which combine to create portraits of a hippie impostor, as seen in Renaissance and even modern artistic renditions. None of this should surprise us in the least, as Satan is always trying to confuse, counterfeit, manipulate, and lie regarding the truth - and the truth is: we just don't know what Jesus looks like - case closed! Who says history isn't fun?