While the "ugly brown guy" picture may not have been created to depict what Jesus specifically, that IS how people have been using that picture. I've seen tons of people and headlines claiming that picture was a depiction of what Jesus looked like.
The whole reason the image is still relevant is because people who want Jesus to look like that use it to support their claims. It’s a shame that Trent leaves out those types of details when talking about people who are right wing.
There is another image of Jesus based on that but which looks much more presentable and powerful, it was generated with the help of AI but not entirely.
Why would you want him to be brown? He was related to David Here are the Bible’s physical descriptions of King David, both of which describe him as a handsome young man, likely in his teens: 1 Samual 16:12: The Prophet Samuel meets David. “Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome.” 1 Samuel 17:42: Goliath meets David. “And when the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him, for he was but a youth, ruddy and handsome in appearance.”
What struck me is that the icons looks surprisingly similar to the shroud. What has frustrated me with the claims of leftists (which the right reacts to) is that the church white-washed Jesus. And that’s just absolutely deserving of being pushed back on. However, I’m not opposed to the Son of God being depicted in the individual cultures. It is good to be reminded he has his own body and visual presentation as an aspect of the true incarnation, but also we are all created in God’s image and so we all have kinship with His Son… and the cultural depictions show this.
@@JP-kx2zj They want to use Jesus as a tool to spread anti white racism. They want make sure Jesus looks nothing like a European in order to break the sacred bond between Jesus and Europe.
@@JP-kx2zj Race is more or less a social construct so that would be your first mistake also if you believe the icons should depict Jesus exactly like he looked then your belief is heretical since that would make you an iconoclast. Photius the Great (who is a saint to both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) actually rebukes you here . "The dissimilitude which is observed among images does not void the nature and truth of the image. For the thing depicted is not expressed only by the figure of the body and the form of the colors, but also by its disposition, its harmonious action, its emphasis of passions, its dedication in holy places, by the explanation of its inscriptions, and in other more prominent symbols which should not at all be absent in the images of the faithful. Through these things, no less than if everything were present, we are led to the memory and honor of the thing depicted, which is the purpose of iconography."
@@Yoseph-tr5bx "Race is more or less a social construct" Idiotic, simplistic nonsense. Race is more than skin deep. Different races have different bone structures, intelligence, strength. Some are more susceptible to certain illnesses than others.
@@SilvioManfredDante Educate yourself before you speak with me. Why are Ethiopians and Eritreans who have 50% of their ancestry coming from West Asia considered black then? It is simply because of the way they look. Even between black Africans there are more genetic differences than between a Chinese and a European thus it is easy to see that the general grouping is arbitrary. And what about your heresy? You seem to have glossed over it and made everything about race. Have you repented of your heresy Silvio?
@ observingyt6159 that’s true, but my point is that is what is meant by saying that the “average height” is “such and such”. There’s usually a geographical context to that type of statement.
I was just reading an article the other day that stated the average height of Judean men during this time period was probably around 5' 5". The estimate was based on skeletons and other evidence. If I recollect correctly, the height range for the Roman Empire was 5' 2" to 5' 8".
Didn’t Jesus appear to St. Faustina and He instructed her to “paint the pattern you see here with the signature: Jesus, I trust in You.” When she first saw the original painting under her direction, she wept in disappointment and complained to Jesus: “Who will paint You as beautiful as You are?” She heard these words spoken to her, “Not in the beauty of the color, nor of the brush lies the greatness of this image, but in My grace.” Which the image now is famously associated with the prayer of using the Rosary called the Divine Mercy Chaplet! I’ve always thought Jesus looked very closely to the vision that St. Faustina encountered
Me too. It's a mystery. But maybe more important than the features is the loving look in his eyes. He surely mustn't have been far from what we see in that image of Saint Faustina. Maybe a little bit more middle eastern like. And always fair and kind.
Thank you for your grounded take. As someone who personally believes the shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ, it’s important to mention that there is not 100% certitude. it’s also refreshing to hear about artistic depictions of Christ as it is clear we can see Christ and through so many people around the world throughout history. He lives on!
There has been talk of trying to get DNA from the shroud and clone Jesus. They might reproduce a Jewish man of 2000 years ago, but he would not be God. Not to be sacrilegious,,but the Romans must have crucified thousands of men. How are we to even know who the man of the shroud was? By faith?
‘there is not 100% certitude’ about anything in the Bible using the same context. We believe John wrote the Book of John. What’s is 100% certain is we can’t prove with 100% certitude that John wrote it.
I think it's a mistake for the Catholic Church and Catholics to sow doubt about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin or to pin its authenticity solely on dating technologies. There are so many data points which suggest it is authentic and really there is only one explanation for whose image it is on the cloth that it is working against evangelizing people to continue to deny it. The Catholic Church needs to embrace it and aggressively promote it for what it very obviously is.
@matthewcollins8148 What you say is true. Believing in something requires making a conscience decision to have faith, despite not being completely certain. And that's fine. However the problem with what you're saying is that there is no requirement to believe the Shroud of Turin is genuine to believe in the Gospels, but in order to accept the Catholic faith the same is not true in the reverse. Catholics must accept the gospel accounts as truth, they don't have to accept the Shroud as genuine. The other issue is that it's possible the Shroud will be "disproven" somehow scientifically. I think at least for now it's prudent for the Catholic Church to not make an official position on its authenticity, lest they possibly get egg on their face later, even possibly from a bunk test.
Your bothering to make this video for us is such a gift. It is good that you give a Catholic, reasonable, facts based reflection on the physical appearance of Jesus. Every reality about Jesus is more precious than fire tried gold.
@@BenChokin The entire notion that there can be a contemporary idea of what an arguably historical Jesus looked like is sheer nonsense, but Horn of Empty has to keep churning out content that will capture the interest of goofy Catholics and Catholic-adjacent fundies.
@@highroller-jq3ix Also, in the video, Trent literally spoke about how it doesn't matter how Jesus looked like. Meditating on how He looked like is legitimate, but ultimately not the point of Christianity and all of our cultures can depict Him with traits similar to ours. Because his appearance is not the point. If it ever was, it would have been reported by the writings of His disciples. But you're clearly not interested in well-reasoned arguments (you clearly didn't watch this video and still decided to rage-bait in the comments). You're probably just a troll who who hates Christian Catholics. You probably check out if there are new videos from this channel just to get your hate-boner going on, in your otherwise apathetic life devoid of any other emotion (which is probably a sign of lingering depression. Get that checked out, please). I pray for you to come back Home and live a better life than the one you are living right now, because we both now you can't go in the direction you're going for much longer. The good news is that it's never too late to change your ways, until you're alive. Peace be with you.
Missed you (though I did watch you on Catholic Answers with your recent great segment with the pulling the plug thumbnail)! Thank you, Trent! Been praying for you, your family, and everyone here in my Rosary. Hope you all have a light-filled peaceful joyful blessed week.
If the Gospel writers wanted us to know what Jesus looked like, they would’ve included it in their Gospels 🤷♂️ turns out His teachings and deeds were more important
@@ApostolicZoomer I think your idea of Prima Scriptura is totally flawed. If taken to it's natural conclusion, you'd have to say that the Assumption is not that important of a teaching because "If the Gospel writers wanted us to know what happened to Mary at her time of death, they would've written it down"
The point of questioning traditional and timeless depictions of Jesus is about questioning (poisoning) the traditional and timeless faith. They don't care about the truth of what this or that person "actually looked like, actually". They care about destroying.
But why would it question the tradition of the faith if almost all images of Jesus didn't come from revelation? It feels more like some trad christians want Jesus to look european no matter what.
@@asggerpatton7169 Define "looking European"? European includes olive-skinned people. Levantine people even today are olive-skinned, let alone 2000 years ago. So you tell me - why does it actually feel like certain parties want Christ to have looked sub-saharan? You can find Moroccans and Tunisians today who are olive-skinned (that is, lightly tanned and NOT black) and even blue-eyed. There is no reason to ever presuppose that Christ would have been darkly melanated. It's also a presumption that he would have necessarily been brown-eyed. The objection to the 'traditional' depiction assumes that only a northern European could look like that, but that is patently untrue because of aforementioned north-african and Levantine phenotypes.
@@asggerpatton7169 Now is not the time to "question" the fundaments of Christian aesthetics. For reasons mentioned above. "We're just looking for the truth" No. No-one is ever "just looking for the truth".
I believe the shroud is authentic, and the statue they made based on the shroud looks like a middle estern man around 5' 8 or 9". Coincidentally the statue looks like Jonathan Roumie
If only people were as concerned with following Jesus' teachings as much as they are preoccupied with how he possibly looked, we would be in a better place.
I don't think you realise who these people are. The people who care about his appearance already care about his teachings, and the ones who don't care about his teachings don't care about his appearance anyhow.
@@MeanBeanComedy -- This is good Catholic "both/and" convo right here! There are those who care more about appearance than substance; there are those who care about both appearance and substance; and there are those who met his substance and yet did not recognise his appearance; and now there many who meet his substance every day and find him in a radically and fundamentally different appearance.
Sure, the "official line" on the one artist conception is that it is "an average man from Gaza," but the message that filtered down throughout the pop culture was that we were all now supposed to believe that the "real" Jesus looked like a drunken Lebanese cab driver...
@@samuraijosh1595 yeah but you can have a lot diferent faces with diferent hair length with these hair colors, average dont mean anything realistic to me
Point taken on the "Galilee Man," but I distinctly remember watching the news as a young boy and them saying "This is probably what Jesus looked like," and they may as well have said "based on science." I concede though that memories can be tricky things, but I always felt like this was a secular attack against religiosity as if the elites were saying "stupid Christians: this is 'reality' and you just believe in lies and fairytales." I think a lot of our biases become so ingrained that they speak from the unconscious, and I mean that for every man.
We live in contradictions. That's why we open our eyes wide when Jesus mentions to turn the other cheek or to carry a burden twice the distance asked for. Also St.Paul states this in 1Cor.7:29-33. We always seek for our best interests when we acknowledge no God, and when we do acknowledge God we are asked to go against the world, in other words to be in contradiction because the world is already in a contradiction. Therefore it's understandable that many will mock the Gospel because God chose the meek and humble rather than the proud and arrogant.
Tbh Clement of Rome does seem to quite this verse to discuss how Jesus looked as well. Most of the early patristic writers, in fact, argue that Jesus was unremarkable to look at, and that any beauty seen in Him was not physical but in how He spoke and acted.
I love Trent. But these felt like pretty weak arguments. To the point that the video seems pretty unnecessary. I 100% understand that people shouldn't feel any certainty about what the Lord looked like based on a trained model's rendering. But we're not talking about private revelation. This is something different. The shroud is public, and despite the attempts to establish doubt, there's still the miraculous aspects of it that were unaddressed. This is likely Christ's burial cloth, and it left behind an image. From that image, a deeper one was constructed. This is much different.
Trent completely missed the point. He just attacked the most common depiction of Jesus resembling the shroud because what? Culture? I'm black and I love the variety of depictions that show how Jesus could look like for each of us, and it's "canon" in a sense since resurrection bodies have been shown to change appearance at will. But the historical Jewish body is clearly that of our most common art works and the saints confirm it in their visions. Today we are blessed to have the shroud, let's recognize the Lord. This is a massively powerful witness he left us and all glory be his.
@@asggerpatton7169 thats a fair point. The models used to generate it have definetly seen depicitons of jesus as well as the shroud, so it likely rendered Jesus based off of a common theme in the artistic renderings of Jesus that it was trained on.
Jesus was jew so very much realistically, he could be in two colours, white or tanned. Black Jesus is crazy how idiot it is and sounds. I can't imagine that lol
@@deutschermichel5807 ???? There seems to be prejudice behind that comment. Yes I agree that some non Catholic groups tend to make black Jesus a separate entity but if the icon is sourced from a Catholic source then it's okay
I have to remind people all the time that its perfectly acceptable to depict jesus as any race because it shows that everyone no matter where we come from are united in our faith. Also, if i remember correctly at least visions of Mary have had her appearing in the appearance of the local people. So it's perfectly acceptable to believe Jesus would do the same/perfectly acceptable for people from every race to show him as their rac/culture. My mother has a statue of the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus dressed in traditional garb from i believe Vietnam, that a family friend gave her years ago. It's one of my favorite statues she owns because it shows how universal we are I follow a few asian artists who do recreations of famous pieces like The Last Supper in their culture's traditional art styles, and scenes drom the Bible. Its absolutely amazing and i love it
For the artists depicting Bible stories, would you happen to have a few names or channels I can look up to see? I’ve had a love for some Asian art styles and would love to see stuff like that 😁
"This image never tried to represent Jesus." 30 seconds later "Jesus probably looked something like this." I hope my insurance covers whiplash injuries.
That statement is still 100% true, the image was not supposed to be an authentic depiction of Jesus himself but an example of a common Galilean man, which Jesus would have looked somewhat similar to.
@@megamind8901we don’t care about Jesus’ race. We know that Jesus was most likely not white. We are against the anti white and anti Christian attacks that occur due to the Jesus race debate. Think of it like BLM where we agree that black lives matter but we vehemently oppose the true motives and methods utilized by the movement to push forward asinine ideas
These two things are not mutually exclusive. All Trent is saying is that the image itself is not supposed to be a direct depiction of Jesus per se, but just what could be the average Galilean (which is what Jesus was born as, duh) - so a kind of estimation, if you will. So yes, if that image is indeed what the average Galilean looked like, then Jesus would've looked at least *something* more like that. *Edit - Oh shoot, I didn't notice someone already gave a response, lol. Eh, I'll just keep this up here as reinforcement
While the dating of the shroud is debatable, I’ll grant that, we have no idea how the shroud was manufactured. People in the 1300’s just didn’t have access to that level of radiation. Further more, they would have had to skewer the corpse of an actual crucifixion victim with whatever produced that level of radiation in order to create the image we see on the shroud. If it was a forgery, why not just paint the linen? Why go to such extravagant lengths to invent a new kind of technology to only be used this one time. If I’m wrong, show me 14th century x-rays.
You're correct, The Shroud of Turin is indeed authentic. The carbon dating was a failure due to last minute decisions and not noticing the French weaving technique used to repair the Shroud.
Our Lord assumed a literal physical incarnation. His human nature came from the BVM (who had a specific genotype and phenotype), thus it is completely safe and correct to say that Our Lord had one specific appearance during his life in the Levant. Appealing to inculturated iconography is a red herring IMO. The lab coats had to construct ugly representations of Our Lord, because of course they had to. They can't help themselves from making some mocking, oafish vestige. The Sinai icons are correct. The Mandylion of Edessa is correct. The Shroud of Turin is correct.
While I agree that the sinai icons and mandylion of edessa are in line with how the shroud looks (especially his chin). "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him" Isaiah's prophecy cannot be overlooked, everything he said would happened, happened to the minute detail. So it doesn't seem 100% accurate that he looked like sinai and mandylion depictions, he was probably more on the unattractive side than attractive. And I don't think the scientists said it was Jesus, they just said that is how the average guy in Jerusalem looked like 2000 years ago. Obviously it is not Jesus, because the shroud shows long hair and a longer beard. His appearance his probably not as unattractive as the guy the scientists showed but probably somewhere between him and sinai Jesus.
You just can't stand that he might've looked non-white why are bringing race into this. Leave the religion and worship your stupid pagan Gods if you want a white God. My God happens to be Jewish. Amen.
@@brainer5457Please explain the image on the Shroud. Is it a diabolical magic trick? We can't replicate it, even with our current understanding of light /radiation and the properties of linen textiles.
What if Jesus was actually ugly, though? I mean, He came as a humble carpenter, why is it surprising if He chose not to incarnate as some Brad Pitt looking guy? He probably came as an ordinary looking guy to test the hearts of the people and the Pharisees. Human beings are very shallow.
@@brainer5457 This verse from Isaiah is talking about Jesus in agony on the cross. It should not be at all used as proof of what Jesus looked like. Even the most attractive man in the world would look ugly if one were to cover his face and body in blood, scars, and filth. You underestimate how brutal and horrible crucifixion was.
Considering Jesus appeared to many mystics in the last 2000 years, don’t any of their descriptions have any commonalities? St. Faustina for example was asked to have a painting done of him. Can’t we use those images as relatively close enough to how Jesus looked? After all, she would have had to describe how he looked.
I don't think we can eliminate natural causes for the similarities between the shroud and the Divine Mercy image. How common was knowledge of the shroud around Sr. Faustina and the painter that they could have had no exposure? @@rafexrafexowski4754
Let’s be all honest here, depiction wise the South Eastern European and middle eastern Orthodox and especially Byzantine Jesus depictions are the best representations of him. They are the only ones that don’t make him look like a full blooded, Germanic white guy like the Protestants do. Or like northern Italian man. Neither does it go too far by making him look like a Ethiopian or too Arab. It makes him look very typically Levantine/Mediterranean man. Long thick Wavy/Curly brown hair, long narrow nose, brown eyes, tan olive skin color. It doesn’t matter too much how he looked tbh but, if we talk about how he looked like he probably did like how most South East European and middle Eastern Orthodox icons of him look like. In particular, the early Byzantine depictions.
YOU: They are the only ones that don’t make him look like a full blooded, Germanic white guy like the Protestants do. *ME: LOL. It was the Roman Catholics that have spent 1500 years making fake European pictures/statues of Jewish Messiah Jesus -- Rome has taught that the Roman Church has replaced the physical 12Tribes of Jacob, and therefore Rome has made statues/pictures of Jesus to look more like Romans than Jews in order to remove Jesus and the Church's Jewish affiliation.* Rome also has ignored Isaiah 53:2 which describes Jesus as physically ugly/homely. *And then the "protestants" came out of the Roman church and brought many Roman heresies with them.*
Well Christ appeared to Sister Faustina and gave us the image of Divine Mercy. Jesus as depicted in the image looks similar to the ai image from the shroud.
Great message for us! I would add one potential piece of evidence: the Orthodox tradition of icons instructs how Christ should be drawn, with one particular feature notable, a long thin nose. I would not insist that this is proof that it is so but I would also wonder whether this tradition has ancient roots, as so many traditions do. For instance, we have traditions regarding the authors of the gospels (eg Mark was Peter's secretary who wrote down his eye witness account, Luke was a companion of Paul). It does look as though the Shroud matches this tradition.
Trent, I have learned a lot watching your videos. It is quite helpful in understanding the Catholic point of view Can you please do a rebuttal video to Gavin Ortlunds "Why the reformation was needed"? I would love to see your response! You do good work!
I love this video from Fr. Mike Schmitz about what Jesus looked like: ua-cam.com/video/EEo6aX1x7xI/v-deo.html "We see him when we see the poor. We see him when we see the widow. We see him when we see the orphan, the immigrant, the neglected, the rejected, the people that everyone else ignores. When we see them, we see Him. The other is we see Jesus every single day in the eucharist, every single day. You had adoration, you go to mass, you see him. This is what he looks like. What does he look like? He looks like that. He looks humble. He looks powerful, looks glorious, he looks holy." If you thought it was humbling for Jesus to become a single-celled man in Mary's womb, He has also humbled Himself to manifest as bread and wine, so that it is His body and blood.
I find the "woke Jesus" depiction particularly revolting because it's so politically charged and uncharitable. All the old icons portray Jesus with the long Nazarene hair for a reason. Ignoring that is deliberately alienating
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him" - 1 Corinthians 11:14. Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, would he have written this if Jesus had long hair?
@@threedragonstalk2123 Paul was also familiar with Jewish customs: *"All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.* _Numbers 6:5_
@@sivad1025 The passage you cited only describes those who chose to take the Nazirite vow - which involved abstaining from wine. We can thus assume that Christ did not take that vow, and would not have a reason to avoid cutting his hair.
Jesus did most likely look middle eastern tho tbf, i mean he was from Galilee, the fact that his appearance turned into a white-black debate is the most american thing ever lmao, that being said lets not forget his most important attribute is his divinity and his most important work is what he did on the cross, God bless ❤
People want to talk about idolatry, but methinks the real idol is the one that exists within the social consciousness where people have created and recreated this image of Christ in their minds. To actually cement Christ the Person would shatter the idol they've created. You're allowed to think and believe anything you want about Christ, so long as it isn't the truth.
I honestly don't give a fig what Jesus looked like. It makes no difference to me one way or the other. Last year they were telling me that Cleopatra was a "lack woman. The tried that with Jesus too awhile back. He was not a black dude with curly hair either. Why do they keep trying? I follow a Shroud of Turin group and it is pretty much a given there that the Shroud is genuine and that it was made by extraordinary means.
The problem is not that Jesus in all likelihood didn’t look like a guy from Sweden. The problem is that there are evil entities in this world that want us to believe that Jesus couldn’t have looked like a guy from Sweden. And that’s because these same entities from Satan hate guys from Sweden solely based on their ethnicity and appearance. It’s a form of anti white bigotry which is a ploy in the cultural genocide of white people.
The shroud of turin is real but the AI recontruction of his face is not accurate. AI has 0 grasp on what Jesus looked like, only what it can take from existing depictions of Jesus through google images and paintings. The shroud shows a facial structure, but 0 facial features. For example, the there are multiple reconstructions using AI on the shroud of turin and they all come out with a different looking Jesus. No Jesus is not lack, but he is neither white. Historically if you are living in Jerusalem 2000 years ago chances are you looked middle eastern with black hair, brown eyes, olive skin and typical middle eastern facial features.
@@loganmisiak5573Absolutely. That is why colonialists and the early capitalists were so obsessed with race, and placing whites at the top and blacks at the bottom. Race, as we know it today, is a modern concept that was born out of European colonism as a means for subjucating "inferior" races. Today, it has taken an interesting turn, with liberals who are just as obsessed with race as racists, capitalists, and colonialists, with white the opposite of virtue, and everything else wonderful- an over correction to say the least.
What if The Jesus that was imprinted on the shroud was not the Jesus as he was born and written in Isaiah, but the resurrected glorified body of Him? If so, then that'd be how he looks like now. This would explain the height, the appearance, and why the disciples did not recognize Him.
@@deutschermichel5807 tbh the gospel of John does have Jesus showing His wounds to Thomas, so the idea isn't IMPOSSIBLE. idk if I would agree with it, but it's possible in a sense.
@@deutschermichel5807 Considering the crucified & resurrected body was inside the shroud. This would mean some overlap of the imprint, namely the feature of the crucifixion (the blood that marked His wounds) and the feature of resurrection (brief moment of radiation that imprints His features).
6:31 "Raptures may be above nature, and in their substance divine, but in their circumstances conformed to the ideas naturally received, such God leaves in the state they are in." I had this idea in mind yet couldn't find the right words to explain, so I'm so glad you included this quote by Pope Benedict XIV along with commentary at the end. Thank God for His wisdom He gives to His Church!
Psalm 45:2 says, "You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever" and Pontius pilate also describes Jesus as being handsome in his letter to ceaser. The ai image is probably pretty closs to what jesus looks like.
The supposed letter written by Pilate to Caesar is widely recognised as a fraud, or at least as something interpolated from whatever was originally written, as well as the so-called letter of Lentulus. Also, Origen and other ante-Nicean fathers including Clement of Rome (and Tertullian, I think?) when discussing Psalm 45 say that this is not about Jesus' physical appearance (at least not pre-resurrection), but rather that His manner and means of life was so pure that His words and deeds were gracious and drew people to Him. Not my words, that's theirs. So Psalm 45 has no relevance regarding Jesus' physical appearance, at least before the resurrection. I suppose that you could argue that it refers to Jesus physically post-resurrection but that's a different argument entirely.
@samueljennings4809 Well, the Ethiopian Orthodox regard it as authentic, and even consider Pontius PIlate to be a martyr and a saint, which is interesting and Jesus is described like this post resurrection which isn't handsome but kinda scary Revelation 1:14-16 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
I do believe Jesus was handsome, and artists' renditions of Him, based on the Shroud, depict Him as handsome as well. Forensic artists' reconstruction based on the Shroud are also very handsome. This latest AI image is that of His face after it was severely beaten. That's not how Jesus looked before he was scourged! How could the Son of Mary, who was beautiful, be plain and ordinary in appearance?🙏🌹
I cant watch "The Chosen" because I cant picture Jesus on that actor, different than Jim Caviezel on Passion of Christ. The image of Jesus, for me, its crucial!
Nope lol, he addresses that within the first 2 minutes. He's clearly more skeptical about the methodology of this more recent research and the assumptions it had to make for it to work.
I was a little on edge when I saw this vid in my recommended but it was very informative! I personally like the idea of different cultures depicting Jesus differently, as he is a universal savior. He did have an objective appearance, but perhaps a perfect description was left out of the Bible for a reason. Maybe knowing what he truly looked like isn't important when it comes to salvation.
They're accurate because of the image on the Shroud. We can see in history when artists and iconographers all suddenly started to make Jesus look like the image on the Shroud, because the Shroud was on display at Edessa in the Early Middle Ages.
@@janeyount8412 I do think there is a miraculous aspect to the development of icons and paintings but it's not because the Shroud was publicly available. Can you see anything on the shroud as it looks to the naked eye? No. The only way we can see a proper image is when we take the photo-negative, and there was no way to take a photo-negative in the Early Middle ages.
@alisterrebelo9013 Yes, you can see the image with the naked eye. That's why the Shroud was displayed and venerated for centuries before photography was even invented! Studies show that the dimensions of the facial features of icons closely match those of the Shroud. Of course iconography is miraculous, in part because the Shroud is a miracle!
@janeyount8412 nonsense. Shroud was found in 14th century and the earliest depiction we have Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) is from 6th century. Observe that.
Paul talks about the fact that men with long hair are abominations, or disgraceful. I've always wondered why Jesus has been shown with long hair, if in the bible, it seems to be forbidden. Not to say he could not have had long hair, or that there is a different context I'm unaware of, but it is a bit strange.
Personally, I love the idea of a very big Jesus. I always imagined Jesus as a tall and strong man. I imagine Him as the kind of man that, based on looking at him, the Jews at the time assumed He was capable of being the warrior king that would toppled the Roman Empire and reign on Earth just like they were picturing. That would amplify their confusion and anger even more when it became obvious that His true message didn’t fit neatly into their pre-conceived notions. It makes sense why they’d all be offering Him a king’s welcome into the city only to turn on Him with so much anger later that same week when He didn’t fit neatly into their biased narrative. The idea that, despite being strong and fit, He refused to fight back; that a man of great stature would meekly allow Himself to be captured adds to the humiliation, scorn, and mockery people would be throwing at Him. Idk, the image of a big strong man who meekly laid down His life without fighting back really adds another layer in my opinion. But the shroud allows for it to be interpreted as Him being between an average range and a really tall range. Who knows for sure? The point isn’t about how He looks, it’s about who He is. I think Him subverting expectations by being a strong man could emphasize that.
@janeyount8412 if that’s the case then why is there a range of estimated heights as short as 5’7”? With Msgr Ricci’s estimate even going as short as 5’3”? Maybe it isn’t as clear as you might be claiming?
@@janeyount8412 Maybe. I have looked into it, and they aren't in agreement regarding height estimation either, which is why there is always a height (~5'7"-6'2"). Most leaning towards the shorter end of that estimation.
@samueljennings4809 "The estimated height of the Shroud man at around 175-180 cm (5"9' - 5"11') corresponds with the average height (178 cm) of adult male skeletons excavated in the 1st-century cemetery near Jerusalem (Haas 1970) and with the ideal male height of 4 ells (176 cm) according to an interpretation of the Talmud (Kraus 1910-11)." - The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology by William Meacham - Archaeologist CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - N° 3 - (June 1983)
I dont get why people are so fixated on what Jesus looked like to the point tht its not curiosity, but agenda driven. They want so bad for him to be white brown or black and will jump at the slightest bit of evidence that supports their bias and attack anyone that disagrees with it or ignore any other evidence that may suggest otherwise. It's cool to get all these pieces of information and artifacts/descriptions of Jesus from an inquisitive and historical POV, but at the end of the day, what he looks like plays no role in our salvation.
@alfieingrouille1528 It's true friend. 👍 For example, teaching someone that confession is wrong or devotion to the Eucharist erroneous hurts the soul and prevents full spiritual healing. We must pray for the conversion of Protestantites to true Christianity.
@@Theosis_and_prayer Confession to your local priest is neither wrong nor actually biblically required. What is actually wrong is mandating that a christian practice this to find his way to heaven. thats absoluetely wrong
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov Anyway, Jesus was not whte the way we think of whte today, he most probably looked like Jews of the period. Nothing wrong with that but that's simply how it is. People who are not happy with this are not thinking like Christians.
why was this video made exactly? the catholic mystics have already said Jesus and Mary were slightly taller than the average person. Slightly tan but still fair-ish skin, "chestnut" hair/auburn, a large forehead, long face, and multi-colored but dominantly green eyes....and incredibly beautiful, both. Catherine Emmerich even says that on the way to Bethlehem, when Joseph and her was trying to lodge, they lodged in one of the places and a maid became extremely haughty and jealous because Mary was more beautiful than the maid.
The cringiest ones are people who claim Jesus was brown. I’m Middle Eastern and I’m very pale, along with most of the people from my country. Some people even have green or blue eyes, like my mom and my cousins.
Sounds like literally every Arab guy I know.😂 The Levantine coastline area where Jesus was nowadays, for the people most related to 1st century Jews, has Mediterranean features which is brown and hazel eyes as common, light to medium olive skin, and then some blue and green like you said. My close friend even laughed about how all but 1 of his 6 siblings have blue or green eyes and they're Arabs.
@@Kostas_Dikefalaios 'I swear bro, you look Mexican.' 😂 it really do be like that. My buddy even claims he's whiter than us because his eyes are brighter blue. Americans see depictions of terrorists and assumes that's what everybody in ME looks like, then sees a tanned Greek guy and thinks he's Mexican.
Middle Easterners have a wide variety of skin tones, just as Europeans do, and all are of the Caucasian race. (Caucasian doesn't mean "white"!) Jesus' skin tone could have been anything from pale olive to dark bronze.
It doesn't (always) bug me when people say that Jesus probably didn't look like typical Western paintings of him. It's true that Jesus wasn't of an ethnicity we would usually consider "white" today. What drives me absolutely up-the-wall insane is when people say "Jesus probably wasn't the blond-haired, blue-eyed guy we're familiar with". What UNIVERSE have you been living in where Jesus is usually depicted with blond hair?! Why do you gaslight yourself into believing you've seen scores and scores of blond-haired Jesus paintings throughout your life? I've seen like, what, maaaybe four in my entire life? and I'm pretty sure most of them were centuries old, back when today's standards of realism weren't a thing.
We humans have DNA from both of our Mothers and Fathers, so if both My parents have a lighter complexion. I will have a whiter complexion. It all depends on what Mary's skin complexion is because Jesus didn't have a biological father. However, Jesus was his own person and had a different complexion than anyone. I personally believe Jesus had a lighter tan complexion, like modern day Syrians or middle-eastern people. The Bible also describes certain Jews as ruddy/red!
If I had to speculate, Jesus' phenotype is probably most similar to "Arab" Christians of northern Israel and southern Lebanon (historical Galilee area).
"The Bible also describes certain Jews as ruddy/red" Lamentations is not talking about their skin tone or how Jews looked, it is specifically using metaphors to describe how the Jews fell from grace from whiter than milk (pure) to blacker than a coal (dirty) and their inviatble judgment by the babylonians who are sent by God to judge Jerusalem for their rebellion against him. If it were using literal language than how does one go from "whiter than milk" to "blacker than a coal"?
Abgar V of Edessa sent a cloth to the disciples requesting that an image of the Savior be painted on it. Jesus transferred an image to the cloth without paint. This formed the basis for iconographic depictions of Christ, the forerunners of Catholic statues and thus common images of Jesus. This original icon is called 'the icon not made with hands' (which is very curious considering the image on the shroud is also 'not made by hands', as far as we can discern with modern scientific study). And the shroud maps near-perfectly onto the image of the icon. This tradition concerning the icon exists in both the ancient Syriac and Armenian texts. We never had an incorrect depiction of our Lord, for He gave the Church His face for all eternity.
There is always an interest in making Jesus ugly. The Bible stated that Jesus wouldn't be beautiful so he didn't tempted women but he didn't necesarilly had to be ugly
I feel kinda sad that people are calling the 'brown guy' ugly... especially after finding out he was a real person, and yeah, I don't think he's as good looking as how Jesus is depicted in most art... but, he was a human being and there are people alive who look similar to him. That's not right mate... not right.
@@TicketToRide-dj4vk thats referring to him coming as a humble man instead of the wordly conqueorr the jews had hoped for not his litetral bodily appearance
@@chiroh145 YOU: thats referring to him coming as a humble man instead *ME: Here is Isaiah 53:2 from the original Hebrew:* "For he comes up as a shoot before Him, and as a root out of dry ground. Not is a form *(TOAR/appearance or visage as "beautiful/comely)* to him, and not is majesty *(HADAR/glorious or beauty or comeliness or magnificence)* that should we see him and not an appearance *(MAREH/view or appearance of something seen as in handsome/beauty)* that we should desire *(CHAMAD/delight in, lust or covet the beauty)* him" *Jesus was NOT physically seen as attractive/handsome/comely -- there was nothing about the physical appearance of Jesus that would cause people to follow him or desire him or think he was special in any way* -- that way, when people followed the "ugly" Jesus, they were doing so strictly based on what Jesus was preaching and the miracles that Jesus did.
@chiroh145 YOU: thats referring to him coming as a humble man instead *ME: Here is Isaiah 53:2 from the original Hebrew:* "For he comes up as a shoot before Him, and as a root out of dry ground. Not is a form *(TOAR/appearance or visage as "beautiful/comely)* to him, and not is majesty *(HADAR/glorious or beauty or comeliness or magnificence)* that should we see him and not an appearance *(MAREH/view or appearance of something seen as in handsome/beauty)* that we should desire *(CHAMAD/delight in, lust or covet the beauty)* him" *Jesus was NOT physically seen as attractive/handsome/comely -- there was nothing about the physical appearance of Jesus that would cause people to follow him or desire him or think he was special in any way* -- that way, when people followed the "ugly" Jesus, they were doing so strictly based on what Jesus was preaching and the miracles that Jesus did.
@@chiroh145 YOU: thats referring to him coming as a humble man *ME: Not according to the Hebrew meaning of the words used in Isaiah 53:2. Here is the verse:* "For he comes up as a shoot before Him, and as a root out of dry ground. Not is a form (TOAR/appearance, visage) to and him, not is majesty (HADAR/glorious, beautiful, comeliness) that we should see him, and not an appearance (MAREH/hansom/comeliness in shape/visage) that we would desire (CHAMAD/to delight in, beauty, lust, covet, desire) him." *Its talking about Jesus' physical appearance as being NOT handsome/comely/beautiful to the point that no one desired him at all -- THIS was so that no one would follow Jesus except based on what Jesus was preaching/salvation.*
yeah i remember watching that documentary, it was simply suppose to depict the average Galilean of that time not necessarily Jesus. however i would also say one reconstructed skull is not a large enough sample size to show us the variation of facial features that existed just as if we did that to a skull today. also i have a problem with the recent ai depiction jesus only a few years ago another ai generated image based on the shroud was circulating where he looks more middle eastern. the simple fact is ai typically generates a plethora of images with much variation and i would assume that was the case when that recent image was generated they only released the one they like. i personally like ray downing image this was done by a team of human 3d artist based on the shroud and i think it is a better match
Human 3d artists aren't going to be any help when it comes to facial features since facial features are based on skin and flesh. We can clearly see his facial structure from the shroud, but we have 0 facial features and unless we have some DNA to work with we cannot accurately put together something that would look like Jesus. 3d artists are going to be good in terms of matching their rendition with the facial structure of the shroud, but the colour of his skin, eyes and hair is still a mystery and impossible to know without DNA.
of course the Shroud doesn't provide any specific information about skin, hair, or eye color; it only captures the shape and form of the body. However, it's important not to assume that color is the only feature that defines a person's ethnicity. Regarding the creation of an image based on the Shroud, I prefer the work of a human team over AI generation. Converting a 2D image to a 3D model is a scientifically technical process rather than an artistic one. The human team may make assumptions about superficial features like hair and skin color, but these can be easily adjusted. On the other hand, AI, while powerful, is somewhat of a "black box." It is designed to produce a wide variety of imaginative images, which might prioritize creativity over precision or accuracy when replicating a specific source, it also lacks that technical process that a human team trained in that area would have.
In all honesty, who cares what he looks like? I've seen beautiful chinese, japanese, ethiopian, and slavic iconography depicting Him in a way thats familiar to them. So what's the big deal?
@ ChristIsLord7 The Shroud doesn’t have any clear answer, and the Church has no official statement on it either. There are good Catholics who doubt and are skeptical of the Sheoud, yet are still faithful.
@@JP-kx2zjso do you say that Trent isnʼt a real Catholic because he doesnʼt immediately believe in everything without evidence? There is zero scientific evidence that the Shroud is from the times of Christ. Maybe it was. Maybe is wasnʼt. The faith doesn't revolve around a piece of cloth, no matter how educative it might be to depict the Passion of our Lord.
Trent, you should absolutely make a video about the Turin Shroud. Specifically, your personal opinion on it, examination of the evidence etc. It's a fascinating subject regardless of whether or not it's a genuine relic. Would be very interested to hear your thoughts.
@matthewcollins8148 I have no idea what Trent Horn thinks of the shroud. Even if he doesn't think it's authentic, I'd still like to hear his perspective on the evidence gathered over the last forty or so years. As I say, it's fascinating.
'Exposed'? There isn't a right or wrong answer about the shroud. Catholics aren't duty bound to believe its genuine anymore than they're duty bound to believe its false. You can look at the evidence and make up your own mind. I'm sure any video Trent Horn were to (hypothetically) make about the shroud's authenticity would be thorough and thoughtful. Even if he came to a conclusion that I personally didn't agree with, I would still enjoy listening to an opposing view from someone I know would give an opinion with honest intentions.
Counsel of Trent: “It’s fine when nonwhites associate Christ as nonwhite.” Also Counsel of Trent: “When whites associate Christ as white, it’s worrying.”
The problem is those are just interpretations. He was criticising people saying Jesus was DEFINITELY white and posing it as an absolute. The people posting white Jesus are calling the brown Jesus “a gross brown guy” and even calling it demonic. Do you see this difference lol?
I like to think that Jim Caviezel’s Jesus was the closet portrayal to what Jesus would have looked like. The guy worked with his hands everyday and was a carpenter/ stone mason. He would have had a build that was considered fit for his day and he would have had a big, tall presence. Also the Bible mentions women fawning over him.
We have plenty of ancient DNA from around Jesus's time. Unsurprisingly the closest modern match are Samaritans (with high levels of endogamy for over 2000 years) followed by Palestinian Christians (who did not intermarry with muslims from the south) These people are not European and not middle eastern, but distinctly levantine. Its not uncommon for them to have light eyes or hair.
If you want to know how Jesus looked read Isaiah 53 : 1-9 ( suffering servant showing his description) , Isaiah 50: 6 (shows he heard a beard ) and Revelation 1:9-18 ( probably how Jesus looked after he went to heaven
Great pilpul. "He didn't claim to show what Jesus looked like, just what a Galilean living at the same time and same age as Jesus would have looked like for a documentary about what Jesus looked like."
So? If you're going to infer what Jesus looked like without direct evidence, using a reconstruction of an average male from that region as a stand-in is completely valid. Did Jesus exactly like that? Probably not, was his appearance within a range that this depiction sat in the middle of? If the science was correct, probably.
Important points here Mr. Trent. That being said, there are also other better images based on or matching the Shroud that weren’t made using A.I. The recent Mystery Man exhibit is another recent one, which includes an accurate sculpture. There’s also the ISA tile. Both the original Divine Mercy Image and Akiane Kramarik’s Prince of Peace painting match the Shroud's image of the face too.
I'm still more struck by all of the evidence that points to it's authenticity (the dirt samples, the explanation of burial from the gospels, the matching of the head cloth and the full cloth, etc). The pictures, whether accurate or not, are just bonus.
Personally I don't think we should be arguing about what Jesus looked like, but focusing on what he did for us and his nature. His appearance is not going to forward the gospel in anyway, like Christ commands us to, and really if Jesus wanted us to know exactly what he looked like, he would have made it clear. Christ started the One, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, Apostolic Church. Let us strive to see what that Church looks like instead of the literal physical appearance of Christ.
He didn’t explain this well, but his point is that not everyone who is descended from a person will look like that said person. Why not argue that EVERYONE descended from David was handsome,even after 1000 years? Is such an argument reasonable? That’s his point that he’s trying to make.
This is why Muslims never bothered worrying about how Muhammad would look like. They just focus on His teachings. This is why Christianity start to lose credibility in the world. Instead of worrying about Jesus-Christ's teachings, they are more concerned about the possible variety of the shades of the face of Jesus. Caucasian people would wish that Jesus had a pale face and blue eyes. Black and brown people would wish He had more of a darker complexions. The middle easterners think Jesus had a more olive tanned face. Do you think God the father would care about such a shallow topic about Jesus?
What I love about Trent is his commitment to pointing out errors from wherever they arise. I'm a conservative, so I tend to be more wary of the left and the errors presented in left wing ideology. But there are plenty of errors in right wing circles, and ultimately, we need to be Christians, not political ideologues for either the right or left.
Due to the tribal nature of American politics, this will inevitably make him a villain to the right wing. You can already see people discrediting his faith in Christ because of him being a supposed ethnic Jewish. Nuance is an incredibly difficult thing to have in online political discourse.
Thanks Trent. I'm sure as now, there was slight or even considerable variations between what people looked like or their height etc. I do like the new AI produced Image of the Man from the Shroud. I always believed that the Shroud was genuine, theres just so many things like how the Image was made, Crucifixion accuracy, negative image, pollen from Middle East etc.
it's not in the bible, it doesnt matter. this is the problem with catholicism. catholicism is still somewhat intertwined with the underlying pagan European culture Christianity sought to replace. Looking for revelation and answers outside scripture is just paganness thriving underneath.
Even if Jesus resembles the guy on the left, there is no way he actually looks like that guy. Notice the eyes - his eyes look fearful, guilty, even lost. Do you really think anyone with the wisdom of Jesus would have that sort of countenance?
Christ is King.
AMEN AND HALLELUJAH 🔥🙏✝️❤️🔥
Phil Leotardo did twenty years
No. The White race has our own gods.
Amen✝️❤🙏
King Christ is a worshipper of his GOD - THE ONLY TRUE GOD 👉 THE FATHER. That's what he preached and practiced
While the "ugly brown guy" picture may not have been created to depict what Jesus specifically, that IS how people have been using that picture. I've seen tons of people and headlines claiming that picture was a depiction of what Jesus looked like.
The whole reason the image is still relevant is because people who want Jesus to look like that use it to support their claims. It’s a shame that Trent leaves out those types of details when talking about people who are right wing.
I don’t understand why it even matters. So what if that’s what Jesus looked like? How does this impact the faith in any way?
There is another image of Jesus based on that but which looks much more presentable and powerful, it was generated with the help of AI but not entirely.
@@taitus7009this claim doesn’t come from right wing people. it comes from the left wing
@Ironworthstriking you're missing the point. They aren't arguing over skin colors
Reminds me of the crying kid from SpongeBob meme.
"But I don't want to believe in Jesus!"
"Then why do you want Him to be brown?"
Why would you want him to be brown? He was related to David Here are the Bible’s physical descriptions of King David, both of which describe him as a handsome young man, likely in his teens:
1 Samual 16:12: The Prophet Samuel meets David.
“Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome.”
1 Samuel 17:42: Goliath meets David.
“And when the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him, for he was but a youth, ruddy and handsome in appearance.”
@@ubemon Watch Metraton's video on what Jesus looked like to answer what bronze meant
@@PUNISHERMHS_2021 you guys are such copelords when you just realised youre worshipping a non white Jewish guy who probably had olive light brown skin
Hahahaha!!!!
Bible description is accurate🎉🎉🎉😂
What struck me is that the icons looks surprisingly similar to the shroud. What has frustrated me with the claims of leftists (which the right reacts to) is that the church white-washed Jesus.
And that’s just absolutely deserving of being pushed back on.
However, I’m not opposed to the Son of God being depicted in the individual cultures. It is good to be reminded he has his own body and visual presentation as an aspect of the true incarnation, but also we are all created in God’s image and so we all have kinship with His Son… and the cultural depictions show this.
Let’s focus on what Jesus has said and not His skin colour and let us also firmly identify and call out anti white racism.
@@JP-kx2zj They want to use Jesus as a tool to spread anti white racism. They want make sure Jesus looks nothing like a European in order to break the sacred bond between Jesus and Europe.
@@JP-kx2zj Race is more or less a social construct so that would be your first mistake also if you believe the icons should depict Jesus exactly like he looked then your belief is heretical since that would make you an iconoclast. Photius the Great (who is a saint to both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) actually rebukes you here . "The dissimilitude which is observed among images does not void the nature and truth of the image. For the thing depicted is not expressed only by the figure of the body and the form of the colors, but also by its disposition, its harmonious action, its emphasis of passions, its dedication in holy places, by the explanation of its inscriptions, and in other more prominent symbols which should not at all be absent in the images of the faithful. Through these things, no less than if everything were present, we are led to the memory and honor of the thing depicted, which is the purpose of iconography."
@@Yoseph-tr5bx "Race is more or less a social construct"
Idiotic, simplistic nonsense. Race is more than skin deep. Different races have different bone structures, intelligence, strength. Some are more susceptible to certain illnesses than others.
@@SilvioManfredDante Educate yourself before you speak with me. Why are Ethiopians and Eritreans who have 50% of their ancestry coming from West Asia considered black then? It is simply because of the way they look. Even between black Africans there are more genetic differences than between a Chinese and a European thus it is easy to see that the general grouping is arbitrary. And what about your heresy? You seem to have glossed over it and made everything about race. Have you repented of your heresy Silvio?
The average height of men 2000 years ago was not 5'1".
In Judea in particular. Which, iirc the average was closer to 5’4-5’5.
@@samueljennings4809 also even though the average height today is 5ft9-10 I see hundreds of people above 6ft every month
@@observingyt6159
Is the modern average global? Because westerners are taller than third worlders
@ observingyt6159 that’s true, but my point is that is what is meant by saying that the “average height” is “such and such”. There’s usually a geographical context to that type of statement.
I was just reading an article the other day that stated the average height of Judean men during this time period was probably around 5' 5". The estimate was based on skeletons and other evidence. If I recollect correctly, the height range for the Roman Empire was 5' 2" to 5' 8".
Starting OCIA today with my wife, thanks for your help getting us there Trent!
What's ocia?
@@awreckingball The Church recently renamed RCIA to OCIA: Order of Christian Initiation of Adults.
@@awreckingball they renamed RCIA to OCIA
@@awreckingball RCIA in the Anglican Ordinariate is called OCIA (Order of Christian Initiation for Adults)
@@MagnusVonBlack for real
Didn’t Jesus appear to St. Faustina and He instructed her to “paint the pattern you see here with the signature: Jesus, I trust in You.” When she first saw the original painting under her direction, she wept in disappointment and complained to Jesus: “Who will paint You as beautiful as You are?” She heard these words spoken to her, “Not in the beauty of the color, nor of the brush lies the greatness of this image, but in My grace.” Which the image now is famously associated with the prayer of using the Rosary called the Divine Mercy Chaplet!
I’ve always thought Jesus looked very closely to the vision that St. Faustina encountered
she doesn't know anything
Me too. It's a mystery. But maybe more important than the features is the loving look in his eyes. He surely mustn't have been far from what we see in that image of Saint Faustina. Maybe a little bit more middle eastern like. And always fair and kind.
@@lukelance540why not
@@lukelance540I encourage you my friend to research her encounter with Jesus! It’s a very interesting story and miracle!
To be fair, I think it's held that visions are almost always colored by the mind of the visionary.
Thank you for your grounded take. As someone who personally believes the shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ, it’s important to mention that there is not 100% certitude. it’s also refreshing to hear about artistic depictions of Christ as it is clear we can see Christ and through so many people around the world throughout history. He lives on!
There has been talk of trying to get DNA from the shroud and clone Jesus. They might reproduce a Jewish man of 2000 years ago, but he would not be God. Not to be sacrilegious,,but the Romans must have crucified thousands of men. How are we to even know who the man of the shroud was? By faith?
‘there is not 100% certitude’ about anything in the Bible using the same context.
We believe John wrote the Book of John. What’s is 100% certain is we can’t prove with 100% certitude that John wrote it.
I think it's a mistake for the Catholic Church and Catholics to sow doubt about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin or to pin its authenticity solely on dating technologies. There are so many data points which suggest it is authentic and really there is only one explanation for whose image it is on the cloth that it is working against evangelizing people to continue to deny it. The Catholic Church needs to embrace it and aggressively promote it for what it very obviously is.
If I were Trent - I’d skip the long version of his Shroud messaging.
His Patreon income would go down.
@matthewcollins8148 What you say is true. Believing in something requires making a conscience decision to have faith, despite not being completely certain. And that's fine.
However the problem with what you're saying is that there is no requirement to believe the Shroud of Turin is genuine to believe in the Gospels, but in order to accept the Catholic faith the same is not true in the reverse. Catholics must accept the gospel accounts as truth, they don't have to accept the Shroud as genuine.
The other issue is that it's possible the Shroud will be "disproven" somehow scientifically. I think at least for now it's prudent for the Catholic Church to not make an official position on its authenticity, lest they possibly get egg on their face later, even possibly from a bunk test.
Your bothering to make this video for us is such a gift.
It is good that you give a Catholic, reasonable, facts based reflection on the physical appearance of Jesus.
Every reality about Jesus is more precious than fire tried gold.
Did you learn to speak English from a bad Conan the Barbarian novel.
@@BenChokin The entire notion that there can be a contemporary idea of what an arguably historical Jesus looked like is sheer nonsense, but Horn of Empty has to keep churning out content that will capture the interest of goofy Catholics and Catholic-adjacent fundies.
@@highroller-jq3ix Lol, evident attention-seeking troll is evident 😂
@@highroller-jq3ix Also, in the video, Trent literally spoke about how it doesn't matter how Jesus looked like. Meditating on how He looked like is legitimate, but ultimately not the point of Christianity and all of our cultures can depict Him with traits similar to ours. Because his appearance is not the point. If it ever was, it would have been reported by the writings of His disciples.
But you're clearly not interested in well-reasoned arguments (you clearly didn't watch this video and still decided to rage-bait in the comments). You're probably just a troll who who hates Christian Catholics. You probably check out if there are new videos from this channel just to get your hate-boner going on, in your otherwise apathetic life devoid of any other emotion (which is probably a sign of lingering depression. Get that checked out, please). I pray for you to come back Home and live a better life than the one you are living right now, because we both now you can't go in the direction you're going for much longer.
The good news is that it's never too late to change your ways, until you're alive. Peace be with you.
@@highroller-jq3ix --- 1 Peter 1:7
Missed you (though I did watch you on Catholic Answers with your recent great segment with the pulling the plug thumbnail)! Thank you, Trent! Been praying for you, your family, and everyone here in my Rosary. Hope you all have a light-filled peaceful joyful blessed week.
If the Gospel writers wanted us to know what Jesus looked like, they would’ve included it in their Gospels 🤷♂️ turns out His teachings and deeds were more important
That seems kinda like Sola Scriptura...
@@thomasphelmer2657 new buzzwords youve learnt there, little guy....
@@thomasphelmer2657 Prima scriptura. There is a difference.
@@ApostolicZoomer I think your idea of Prima Scriptura is totally flawed. If taken to it's natural conclusion, you'd have to say that the Assumption is not that important of a teaching because "If the Gospel writers wanted us to know what happened to Mary at her time of death, they would've written it down"
@@thomasphelmer2657 That’s only if you assume there is no allusion to the Assumption in Scripture, which I reject.
I never really cared for what Jesus looked like.
I do
Yes who cares what God incarnate looked like.
Do you need knowledge of Jesus' face to go to heaven? @@awreckingball
@@awreckingball I do
@@fij715He was obviously being sarcastic.
Why should these weirdos care if they don't even believe in him?
Ok.. weirdo. Please preach your religion elsewhere.
@@greenbird679 Yes. He is a weirdo who puts picture of a monkey in his profile pic
Because they care about spreading their narratives and ideas.
Most secular people believe that Jesus existed. They just believe he was only a man.
Cause you are invested in him being Nordic.
I’m just happy that finally someone else is pointing out that the Letter of Lentulus was an utter fraud.
The point of questioning traditional and timeless depictions of Jesus is about questioning (poisoning) the traditional and timeless faith.
They don't care about the truth of what this or that person "actually looked like, actually". They care about destroying.
Thats actually true
This. It's deconstructive, post-modern nonsense
But why would it question the tradition of the faith if almost all images of Jesus didn't come from revelation?
It feels more like some trad christians want Jesus to look european no matter what.
@@asggerpatton7169
Define "looking European"? European includes olive-skinned people. Levantine people even today are olive-skinned, let alone 2000 years ago.
So you tell me - why does it actually feel like certain parties want Christ to have looked sub-saharan?
You can find Moroccans and Tunisians today who are olive-skinned (that is, lightly tanned and NOT black) and even blue-eyed.
There is no reason to ever presuppose that Christ would have been darkly melanated. It's also a presumption that he would have necessarily been brown-eyed. The objection to the 'traditional' depiction assumes that only a northern European could look like that, but that is patently untrue because of aforementioned north-african and Levantine phenotypes.
@@asggerpatton7169 Now is not the time to "question" the fundaments of Christian aesthetics. For reasons mentioned above.
"We're just looking for the truth" No. No-one is ever "just looking for the truth".
I believe the shroud is authentic, and the statue they made based on the shroud looks like a middle estern man around 5' 8 or 9". Coincidentally the statue looks like Jonathan Roumie
That’s correct
Imho, it resembled Jim Caviezel in The Passion. It makes sense, though, since they analyzed the shroud and created facial prosthetics based on it.
Phil Leotardo did twenty years
If only people were as concerned with following Jesus' teachings as much as they are preoccupied with how he possibly looked, we would be in a better place.
Bingo. How he looked ultimately has ZERO to do with understanding and following Jesus.
And yet, "white jesus" is constantly be pushed onto everyone
I don't think you realise who these people are. The people who care about his appearance already care about his teachings, and the ones who don't care about his teachings don't care about his appearance anyhow.
@@MeanBeanComedy -- This is good Catholic "both/and" convo right here! There are those who care more about appearance than substance; there are those who care about both appearance and substance; and there are those who met his substance and yet did not recognise his appearance; and now there many who meet his substance every day and find him in a radically and fundamentally different appearance.
@@jacobhargiss3839 -- What about how he looks now?
Sure, the "official line" on the one artist conception is that it is "an average man from Gaza," but the message that filtered down throughout the pop culture was that we were all now supposed to believe that the "real" Jesus looked like a drunken Lebanese cab driver...
alcohol doesnʼt make someone brown
To me is even more funny to imagine every single dude in that time looking the same
We know who the “official line” are. Lets not forget Trent Horn already chose them
@@AlissonWololo he said the average man...the average Swedish man has blonde or light brown hair....
@@samuraijosh1595 yeah but you can have a lot diferent faces with diferent hair length with these hair colors, average dont mean anything realistic to me
Point taken on the "Galilee Man," but I distinctly remember watching the news as a young boy and them saying "This is probably what Jesus looked like," and they may as well have said "based on science." I concede though that memories can be tricky things, but I always felt like this was a secular attack against religiosity as if the elites were saying "stupid Christians: this is 'reality' and you just believe in lies and fairytales."
I think a lot of our biases become so ingrained that they speak from the unconscious, and I mean that for every man.
We live in contradictions. That's why we open our eyes wide when Jesus mentions to turn the other cheek or to carry a burden twice the distance asked for. Also St.Paul states this in 1Cor.7:29-33. We always seek for our best interests when we acknowledge no God, and when we do acknowledge God we are asked to go against the world, in other words to be in contradiction because the world is already in a contradiction. Therefore it's understandable that many will mock the Gospel because God chose the meek and humble rather than the proud and arrogant.
The quote you give from Isaiah 53:2 is referring to Our Lord disfigured during His Passion.
Tbh Clement of Rome does seem to quite this verse to discuss how Jesus looked as well. Most of the early patristic writers, in fact, argue that Jesus was unremarkable to look at, and that any beauty seen in Him was not physical but in how He spoke and acted.
@@samueljennings4809I like the idea of Jesus looking like an average Jewish man
@@deutschermichel5807yes, maybe thats Trent’s same feeling 🤔
THIS IS SUCH COPE HAHAHAHAH
I love Trent. But these felt like pretty weak arguments. To the point that the video seems pretty unnecessary. I 100% understand that people shouldn't feel any certainty about what the Lord looked like based on a trained model's rendering. But we're not talking about private revelation. This is something different. The shroud is public, and despite the attempts to establish doubt, there's still the miraculous aspects of it that were unaddressed. This is likely Christ's burial cloth, and it left behind an image. From that image, a deeper one was constructed. This is much different.
This was Trent’s worst video.
Trent completely missed the point. He just attacked the most common depiction of Jesus resembling the shroud because what? Culture?
I'm black and I love the variety of depictions that show how Jesus could look like for each of us, and it's "canon" in a sense since resurrection bodies have been shown to change appearance at will. But the historical Jewish body is clearly that of our most common art works and the saints confirm it in their visions.
Today we are blessed to have the shroud, let's recognize the Lord.
This is a massively powerful witness he left us and all glory be his.
AI tends to "modelize" the faces it creates. That's why most AI models will generate model looking faces unless prompted to do otherwise.
That’s rite
@@asggerpatton7169 thats a fair point. The models used to generate it have definetly seen depicitons of jesus as well as the shroud, so it likely rendered Jesus based off of a common theme in the artistic renderings of Jesus that it was trained on.
The whole time I thought Jesus looked like the icons in my parents’ home: A Black man with dreads, lol.
Jesus was jew so very much realistically, he could be in two colours, white or tanned.
Black Jesus is crazy how idiot it is and sounds. I can't imagine that lol
Are those Catholic icons? You are free to imagine him that way. Maybe without the dreads tho lol
@@deutschermichel5807 ???? There seems to be prejudice behind that comment. Yes I agree that some non Catholic groups tend to make black Jesus a separate entity but if the icon is sourced from a Catholic source then it's okay
He looks closer to that than a blonde hair blue eyed man.
A rcst comment.
I have to remind people all the time that its perfectly acceptable to depict jesus as any race because it shows that everyone no matter where we come from are united in our faith. Also, if i remember correctly at least visions of Mary have had her appearing in the appearance of the local people. So it's perfectly acceptable to believe Jesus would do the same/perfectly acceptable for people from every race to show him as their rac/culture. My mother has a statue of the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus dressed in traditional garb from i believe Vietnam, that a family friend gave her years ago. It's one of my favorite statues she owns because it shows how universal we are
I follow a few asian artists who do recreations of famous pieces like The Last Supper in their culture's traditional art styles, and scenes drom the Bible. Its absolutely amazing and i love it
For the artists depicting Bible stories, would you happen to have a few names or channels I can look up to see? I’ve had a love for some Asian art styles and would love to see stuff like that 😁
"This image never tried to represent Jesus." 30 seconds later "Jesus probably looked something like this."
I hope my insurance covers whiplash injuries.
@@corran483 😂
Why do you want Jesus to be white so bad?
That statement is still 100% true, the image was not supposed to be an authentic depiction of Jesus himself but an example of a common Galilean man, which Jesus would have looked somewhat similar to.
@@megamind8901we don’t care about Jesus’ race. We know that Jesus was most likely not white. We are against the anti white and anti Christian attacks that occur due to the Jesus race debate. Think of it like BLM where we agree that black lives matter but we vehemently oppose the true motives and methods utilized by the movement to push forward asinine ideas
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
All Trent is saying is that the image itself is not supposed to be a direct depiction of Jesus per se, but just what could be the average Galilean (which is what Jesus was born as, duh) - so a kind of estimation, if you will.
So yes, if that image is indeed what the average Galilean looked like, then Jesus would've looked at least *something* more like that.
*Edit - Oh shoot, I didn't notice someone already gave a response, lol. Eh, I'll just keep this up here as reinforcement
While the dating of the shroud is debatable, I’ll grant that, we have no idea how the shroud was manufactured. People in the 1300’s just didn’t have access to that level of radiation. Further more, they would have had to skewer the corpse of an actual crucifixion victim with whatever produced that level of radiation in order to create the image we see on the shroud. If it was a forgery, why not just paint the linen? Why go to such extravagant lengths to invent a new kind of technology to only be used this one time. If I’m wrong, show me 14th century x-rays.
You're correct, The Shroud of Turin is indeed authentic. The carbon dating was a failure due to last minute decisions and not noticing the French weaving technique used to repair the Shroud.
I love the channel. I miss the longer episodes though
Our Lord assumed a literal physical incarnation. His human nature came from the BVM (who had a specific genotype and phenotype), thus it is completely safe and correct to say that Our Lord had one specific appearance during his life in the Levant. Appealing to inculturated iconography is a red herring IMO.
The lab coats had to construct ugly representations of Our Lord, because of course they had to. They can't help themselves from making some mocking, oafish vestige.
The Sinai icons are correct. The Mandylion of Edessa is correct. The Shroud of Turin is correct.
While I agree that the sinai icons and mandylion of edessa are in line with how the shroud looks (especially his chin). "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him"
Isaiah's prophecy cannot be overlooked, everything he said would happened, happened to the minute detail. So it doesn't seem 100% accurate that he looked like sinai and mandylion depictions, he was probably more on the unattractive side than attractive.
And I don't think the scientists said it was Jesus, they just said that is how the average guy in Jerusalem looked like 2000 years ago. Obviously it is not Jesus, because the shroud shows long hair and a longer beard.
His appearance his probably not as unattractive as the guy the scientists showed but probably somewhere between him and sinai Jesus.
You just can't stand that he might've looked non-white why are bringing race into this. Leave the religion and worship your stupid pagan Gods if you want a white God. My God happens to be Jewish. Amen.
@@brainer5457Please explain the image on the Shroud. Is it a diabolical magic trick? We can't replicate it, even with our current understanding of light /radiation and the properties of linen textiles.
What if Jesus was actually ugly, though? I mean, He came as a humble carpenter, why is it surprising if He chose not to incarnate as some Brad Pitt looking guy? He probably came as an ordinary looking guy to test the hearts of the people and the Pharisees. Human beings are very shallow.
@@brainer5457 This verse from Isaiah is talking about Jesus in agony on the cross. It should not be at all used as proof of what Jesus looked like. Even the most attractive man in the world would look ugly if one were to cover his face and body in blood, scars, and filth. You underestimate how brutal and horrible crucifixion was.
Let's remember that Christ said: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Considering Jesus appeared to many mystics in the last 2000 years, don’t any of their descriptions have any commonalities? St. Faustina for example was asked to have a painting done of him. Can’t we use those images as relatively close enough to how Jesus looked? After all, she would have had to describe how he looked.
@@vazgl100 Her image looked extremely similar to the Shroud of Turin though
I don't think we can eliminate natural causes for the similarities between the shroud and the Divine Mercy image. How common was knowledge of the shroud around Sr. Faustina and the painter that they could have had no exposure? @@rafexrafexowski4754
Phil Leotardo did twenty years
0:48 WE NEED ONE
Yeah, really good idea.
Let’s be all honest here, depiction wise the South Eastern European and middle eastern Orthodox and especially Byzantine Jesus depictions are the best representations of him.
They are the only ones that don’t make him look like a full blooded, Germanic white guy like the Protestants do. Or like northern Italian man. Neither does it go too far by making him look like a Ethiopian or too Arab.
It makes him look very typically Levantine/Mediterranean man.
Long thick Wavy/Curly brown hair, long narrow nose, brown eyes, tan olive skin color.
It doesn’t matter too much how he looked tbh but, if we talk about how he looked like he probably did like how most South East European and middle Eastern Orthodox icons of him look like. In particular, the early Byzantine depictions.
YOU: They are the only ones that don’t make him look like a full blooded, Germanic white guy like the Protestants do.
*ME: LOL. It was the Roman Catholics that have spent 1500 years making fake European pictures/statues of Jewish Messiah Jesus -- Rome has taught that the Roman Church has replaced the physical 12Tribes of Jacob, and therefore Rome has made statues/pictures of Jesus to look more like Romans than Jews in order to remove Jesus and the Church's Jewish affiliation.* Rome also has ignored Isaiah 53:2 which describes Jesus as physically ugly/homely. *And then the "protestants" came out of the Roman church and brought many Roman heresies with them.*
Well Christ appeared to Sister Faustina and gave us the image of Divine Mercy. Jesus as depicted in the image looks similar to the ai image from the shroud.
Great message for us! I would add one potential piece of evidence: the Orthodox tradition of icons instructs how Christ should be drawn, with one particular feature notable, a long thin nose. I would not insist that this is proof that it is so but I would also wonder whether this tradition has ancient roots, as so many traditions do. For instance, we have traditions regarding the authors of the gospels (eg Mark was Peter's secretary who wrote down his eye witness account, Luke was a companion of Paul). It does look as though the Shroud matches this tradition.
Trent, I have learned a lot watching your videos. It is quite helpful in understanding the Catholic point of view
Can you please do a rebuttal video to Gavin Ortlunds "Why the reformation was needed"? I would love to see your response!
You do good work!
I love this video from Fr. Mike Schmitz about what Jesus looked like: ua-cam.com/video/EEo6aX1x7xI/v-deo.html
"We see him when we see the poor. We see him when we see the widow. We see him when we see the orphan, the immigrant, the neglected, the rejected, the people that everyone else ignores. When we see them, we see Him. The other is we see Jesus every single day in the eucharist, every single day. You had adoration, you go to mass, you see him. This is what he looks like. What does he look like? He looks like that. He looks humble. He looks powerful, looks glorious, he looks holy."
If you thought it was humbling for Jesus to become a single-celled man in Mary's womb, He has also humbled Himself to manifest as bread and wine, so that it is His body and blood.
The Galilean man sculpture reminds me of the the researchers that recreated the voice of a dead pharaoh…it still cracks me up today.
He reminds me of Trent ‘
Phil Leotardo did twenty years
I find the "woke Jesus" depiction particularly revolting because it's so politically charged and uncharitable. All the old icons portray Jesus with the long Nazarene hair for a reason. Ignoring that is deliberately alienating
Not true, early depictions represent him with short hair
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him" - 1 Corinthians 11:14. Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, would he have written this if Jesus had long hair?
@@threedragonstalk2123 Paul was also familiar with Jewish customs:
*"All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.* _Numbers 6:5_
@@sivad1025 The passage you cited only describes those who chose to take the Nazirite vow - which involved abstaining from wine. We can thus assume that Christ did not take that vow, and would not have a reason to avoid cutting his hair.
@@threedragonstalk2123 Right, I never said Jesus took the vow. My point was that long hair was not foreign in Jesus' culture which Paul knew of
My favorite Jesus is Korean Jesus. I don't have a reason, I'm just obtuse
I like the Ethiopian Jesus and the Byzantine one
I prefer Vietnamese Jesus, who’s across the street from Korean Jesus.
it's the barbecue
Jesus did most likely look middle eastern tho tbf, i mean he was from Galilee, the fact that his appearance turned into a white-black debate is the most american thing ever lmao, that being said lets not forget his most important attribute is his divinity and his most important work is what he did on the cross, God bless ❤
Great video! Referencing historical data and historical events that explain why individuals see what they see.
Why is it so hard to just accept that’s the authentic burial cloth of Christ?
People want to talk about idolatry, but methinks the real idol is the one that exists within the social consciousness where people have created and recreated this image of Christ in their minds.
To actually cement Christ the Person would shatter the idol they've created. You're allowed to think and believe anything you want about Christ, so long as it isn't the truth.
Trent, I know you’ve said in the past that you don't think the Shroud is authentic... would you be open to making an episode on that topic?
It’s not about what Jesus looked like, it’s about what he did
He died for our sins and rose again on the 3rd day
I honestly don't give a fig what Jesus looked like. It makes no difference to me one way or the other. Last year they were telling me that Cleopatra was a "lack woman. The tried that with Jesus too awhile back. He was not a black dude with curly hair either. Why do they keep trying? I follow a Shroud of Turin group and it is pretty much a given there that the Shroud is genuine and that it was made by extraordinary means.
People who are obsessed with skin color will try to make everyone a specific color!
Jesus was neither black nor white. Neither of them make sense. Brown is not ''black''
The problem is not that Jesus in all likelihood didn’t look like a guy from Sweden. The problem is that there are evil entities in this world that want us to believe that Jesus couldn’t have looked like a guy from Sweden. And that’s because these same entities from Satan hate guys from Sweden solely based on their ethnicity and appearance. It’s a form of anti white bigotry which is a ploy in the cultural genocide of white people.
The shroud of turin is real but the AI recontruction of his face is not accurate. AI has 0 grasp on what Jesus looked like, only what it can take from existing depictions of Jesus through google images and paintings. The shroud shows a facial structure, but 0 facial features.
For example, the there are multiple reconstructions using AI on the shroud of turin and they all come out with a different looking Jesus.
No Jesus is not lack, but he is neither white. Historically if you are living in Jerusalem 2000 years ago chances are you looked middle eastern with black hair, brown eyes, olive skin and typical middle eastern facial features.
@@loganmisiak5573Absolutely. That is why colonialists and the early capitalists were so obsessed with race, and placing whites at the top and blacks at the bottom.
Race, as we know it today, is a modern concept that was born out of European colonism as a means for subjucating "inferior" races. Today, it has taken an interesting turn, with liberals who are just as obsessed with race as racists, capitalists, and colonialists, with white the opposite of virtue, and everything else wonderful- an over correction to say the least.
What if The Jesus that was imprinted on the shroud was not the Jesus as he was born and written in Isaiah, but the resurrected glorified body of Him? If so, then that'd be how he looks like now. This would explain the height, the appearance, and why the disciples did not recognize Him.
And how are you gonna explain the wounds?
@@deutschermichel5807John 20:27
@@deutschermichel5807 tbh the gospel of John does have Jesus showing His wounds to Thomas, so the idea isn't IMPOSSIBLE. idk if I would agree with it, but it's possible in a sense.
@@deutschermichel5807 Considering the crucified & resurrected body was inside the shroud. This would mean some overlap of the imprint, namely the feature of the crucifixion (the blood that marked His wounds) and the feature of resurrection (brief moment of radiation that imprints His features).
LMAO glorified? So becoming more attractive meant he ascended to a higher plane of divinity? Damn that's shallow.
6:31 "Raptures may be above nature, and in their substance divine, but in their circumstances conformed to the ideas naturally received, such God leaves in the state they are in."
I had this idea in mind yet couldn't find the right words to explain, so I'm so glad you included this quote by Pope Benedict XIV along with commentary at the end.
Thank God for His wisdom He gives to His Church!
Psalm 45:2 says, "You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever" and Pontius pilate also describes Jesus as being handsome in his letter to ceaser. The ai image is probably pretty closs to what jesus looks like.
The supposed letter written by Pilate to Caesar is widely recognised as a fraud, or at least as something interpolated from whatever was originally written, as well as the so-called letter of Lentulus. Also, Origen and other ante-Nicean fathers including Clement of Rome (and Tertullian, I think?) when discussing Psalm 45 say that this is not about Jesus' physical appearance (at least not pre-resurrection), but rather that His manner and means of life was so pure that His words and deeds were gracious and drew people to Him. Not my words, that's theirs.
So Psalm 45 has no relevance regarding Jesus' physical appearance, at least before the resurrection. I suppose that you could argue that it refers to Jesus physically post-resurrection but that's a different argument entirely.
@samueljennings4809 Well, the Ethiopian Orthodox regard it as authentic, and even consider Pontius PIlate to be a martyr and a saint, which is interesting and Jesus is described like this post resurrection which isn't handsome but kinda scary
Revelation 1:14-16
14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
I do believe Jesus was handsome, and artists' renditions of Him, based on the Shroud, depict Him as handsome as well. Forensic artists' reconstruction based on the Shroud are also very handsome. This latest AI image is that of His face after it was severely beaten. That's not how Jesus looked before he was scourged! How could the Son of Mary, who was beautiful, be plain and ordinary in appearance?🙏🌹
@janeyount8412 precisely, was saying the same thing to myself earlier while looking at my icon of Mary.
I cant watch "The Chosen" because I cant picture Jesus on that actor, different than Jim Caviezel on Passion of Christ. The image of Jesus, for me, its crucial!
Same here. Jim Caviezel’s Jesus is the best portrayal. No other actor has come close. I always vision him whenever I pray.
Did Trent just said that the Shroud of Turin is fake because it contradicts the brown Jesus theory??
Nope lol, he addresses that within the first 2 minutes. He's clearly more skeptical about the methodology of this more recent research and the assumptions it had to make for it to work.
I was a little on edge when I saw this vid in my recommended but it was very informative! I personally like the idea of different cultures depicting Jesus differently, as he is a universal savior.
He did have an objective appearance, but perhaps a perfect description was left out of the Bible for a reason. Maybe knowing what he truly looked like isn't important when it comes to salvation.
Byzantine icons are accurate. Its crazy how accurate.
They're accurate because of the image on the Shroud. We can see in history when artists and iconographers all suddenly started to make Jesus look like the image on the Shroud, because the Shroud was on display at Edessa in the Early Middle Ages.
@@janeyount8412 I do think there is a miraculous aspect to the development of icons and paintings but it's not because the Shroud was publicly available. Can you see anything on the shroud as it looks to the naked eye? No. The only way we can see a proper image is when we take the photo-negative, and there was no way to take a photo-negative in the Early Middle ages.
@alisterrebelo9013 Yes, you can see the image with the naked eye. That's why the Shroud was displayed and venerated for centuries before photography was even invented! Studies show that the dimensions of the facial features of icons closely match those of the Shroud. Of course iconography is miraculous, in part because the Shroud is a miracle!
@janeyount8412 nonsense. Shroud was found in 14th century and the earliest depiction we have Christ Pantocrator (Sinai) is from 6th century. Observe that.
@@betrion7 Nonsense! Says who?
Paul talks about the fact that men with long hair are abominations, or disgraceful. I've always wondered why Jesus has been shown with long hair, if in the bible, it seems to be forbidden. Not to say he could not have had long hair, or that there is a different context I'm unaware of, but it is a bit strange.
Personally, I love the idea of a very big Jesus. I always imagined Jesus as a tall and strong man. I imagine Him as the kind of man that, based on looking at him, the Jews at the time assumed He was capable of being the warrior king that would toppled the Roman Empire and reign on Earth just like they were picturing. That would amplify their confusion and anger even more when it became obvious that His true message didn’t fit neatly into their pre-conceived notions. It makes sense why they’d all be offering Him a king’s welcome into the city only to turn on Him with so much anger later that same week when He didn’t fit neatly into their biased narrative. The idea that, despite being strong and fit, He refused to fight back; that a man of great stature would meekly allow Himself to be captured adds to the humiliation, scorn, and mockery people would be throwing at Him. Idk, the image of a big strong man who meekly laid down His life without fighting back really adds another layer in my opinion. But the shroud allows for it to be interpreted as Him being between an average range and a really tall range. Who knows for sure? The point isn’t about how He looks, it’s about who He is. I think Him subverting expectations by being a strong man could emphasize that.
Totally agree. The Shroud clearly places Jesus at above average height, about 5'11".
@janeyount8412 if that’s the case then why is there a range of estimated heights as short as 5’7”? With Msgr Ricci’s estimate even going as short as 5’3”?
Maybe it isn’t as clear as you might be claiming?
@@samueljennings4809 Ask the forensic scientists who have studied the Shroud. That's what's I've heard and read.
@@janeyount8412 Maybe. I have looked into it, and they aren't in agreement regarding height estimation either, which is why there is always a height (~5'7"-6'2"). Most leaning towards the shorter end of that estimation.
@samueljennings4809 "The estimated height of the Shroud man at around 175-180 cm (5"9' - 5"11') corresponds with the average height (178 cm) of adult male skeletons excavated in the 1st-century cemetery near Jerusalem (Haas 1970) and with the ideal male height of 4 ells (176 cm) according to an interpretation of the Talmud (Kraus 1910-11)."
- The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:
An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology
by William Meacham - Archaeologist
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - N° 3 - (June 1983)
Thank you, my friend! Have a very blessed day as well!
Divine Mercy picture symatrically matches the face on Shroud as per Marian fathers interview with specialist
I dont get why people are so fixated on what Jesus looked like to the point tht its not curiosity, but agenda driven.
They want so bad for him to be white brown or black and will jump at the slightest bit of evidence that supports their bias and attack anyone that disagrees with it or ignore any other evidence that may suggest otherwise.
It's cool to get all these pieces of information and artifacts/descriptions of Jesus from an inquisitive and historical POV, but at the end of the day, what he looks like plays no role in our salvation.
PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IS LIKE RAT POSION. SOME TRUTH BUT THE ERRORS WILL KILL THE SOUL.
Bruh
@alfieingrouille1528 It's true friend. 👍 For example, teaching someone that confession is wrong or devotion to the Eucharist erroneous hurts the soul and prevents full spiritual healing. We must pray for the conversion of Protestantites to true Christianity.
@@Theosis_and_prayer Confession to your local priest is neither wrong nor actually biblically required. What is actually wrong is mandating that a christian practice this to find his way to heaven. thats absoluetely wrong
@@samuraijosh1595 You're not understanding.
@samuraijosh1595 it is biblically required 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 no way around it
I love icons. Seeing the unseeable. Internalising the unlimited. An earthly gate to the heavens.
AI art is actually terrible
But Christian conservative love it. Because capitalism.
So you think he looked Swedish then?
@@vertigo2894 They were referring to A.I so called "art" in general.
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov Anyway, Jesus was not whte the way we think of whte today, he most probably looked like Jews of the period. Nothing wrong with that but that's simply how it is. People who are not happy with this are not thinking like Christians.
WES CAWELL. WES CAWELL. WEST. CALDWELL
why was this video made exactly? the catholic mystics have already said Jesus and Mary were slightly taller than the average person. Slightly tan but still fair-ish skin, "chestnut" hair/auburn, a large forehead, long face, and multi-colored but dominantly green eyes....and incredibly beautiful, both. Catherine Emmerich even says that on the way to Bethlehem, when Joseph and her was trying to lodge, they lodged in one of the places and a maid became extremely haughty and jealous because Mary was more beautiful than the maid.
Mary was ugly/homely, we know this because Jesus was ugly/homely (Isaiah 53:2) and all of Jesus' human DNA/physical traits came only from Mary.
The cringiest ones are people who claim Jesus was brown. I’m Middle Eastern and I’m very pale, along with most of the people from my country. Some people even have green or blue eyes, like my mom and my cousins.
Sounds like literally every Arab guy I know.😂
The Levantine coastline area where Jesus was nowadays, for the people most related to 1st century Jews, has Mediterranean features which is brown and hazel eyes as common, light to medium olive skin, and then some blue and green like you said. My close friend even laughed about how all but 1 of his 6 siblings have blue or green eyes and they're Arabs.
Notice how its mostly Americans with barely any contact to Semites. I am a Greek and some Americans even wanted to claim I wasnt white haha.
@@Kostas_Dikefalaios 'I swear bro, you look Mexican.' 😂 it really do be like that.
My buddy even claims he's whiter than us because his eyes are brighter blue. Americans see depictions of terrorists and assumes that's what everybody in ME looks like, then sees a tanned Greek guy and thinks he's Mexican.
So what
Middle Easterners have a wide variety of skin tones, just as Europeans do, and all are of the Caucasian race. (Caucasian doesn't mean "white"!) Jesus' skin tone could have been anything from pale olive to dark bronze.
It doesn't (always) bug me when people say that Jesus probably didn't look like typical Western paintings of him. It's true that Jesus wasn't of an ethnicity we would usually consider "white" today. What drives me absolutely up-the-wall insane is when people say "Jesus probably wasn't the blond-haired, blue-eyed guy we're familiar with". What UNIVERSE have you been living in where Jesus is usually depicted with blond hair?! Why do you gaslight yourself into believing you've seen scores and scores of blond-haired Jesus paintings throughout your life? I've seen like, what, maaaybe four in my entire life? and I'm pretty sure most of them were centuries old, back when today's standards of realism weren't a thing.
Trent is not wearing a suit today😮😭
Based. Thanks for a knowledgeable, reverent, humble take on a topic far too many people simply co-opt as ammo in the culture war.
We humans have DNA from both of our Mothers and Fathers, so if both My parents have a lighter complexion. I will have a whiter complexion. It all depends on what Mary's skin complexion is because Jesus didn't have a biological father. However, Jesus was his own person and had a different complexion than anyone.
I personally believe Jesus had a lighter tan complexion, like modern day Syrians or middle-eastern people. The Bible also describes certain Jews as ruddy/red!
If I had to speculate, Jesus' phenotype is probably most similar to "Arab" Christians of northern Israel and southern Lebanon (historical Galilee area).
He is Acheiropoeita
Your DNA doesn't only come from your parents. But also from your grandparents, and further down.
@@agnesbukasa357 from your mother and father!
"The Bible also describes certain Jews as ruddy/red"
Lamentations is not talking about their skin tone or how Jews looked, it is specifically using metaphors to describe how the Jews fell from grace from whiter than milk (pure) to blacker than a coal (dirty) and their inviatble judgment by the babylonians who are sent by God to judge Jerusalem for their rebellion against him.
If it were using literal language than how does one go from "whiter than milk" to "blacker than a coal"?
Abgar V of Edessa sent a cloth to the disciples requesting that an image of the Savior be painted on it. Jesus transferred an image to the cloth without paint. This formed the basis for iconographic depictions of Christ, the forerunners of Catholic statues and thus common images of Jesus. This original icon is called 'the icon not made with hands' (which is very curious considering the image on the shroud is also 'not made by hands', as far as we can discern with modern scientific study). And the shroud maps near-perfectly onto the image of the icon. This tradition concerning the icon exists in both the ancient Syriac and Armenian texts. We never had an incorrect depiction of our Lord, for He gave the Church His face for all eternity.
@@Markusctfldl all mistruths.
So people have drawn christ as he was for 2 thousand years.
sounds you didnʼt listen
@@deutschermichel5807 Christ looks as he was always depicted. We now have proof.
@@DungTran-li2wn So are we just gonna ignore the earliest depictions that Trent referenced where he looks like a Roman with no beard and short hair?
@@REMDRIFT we literally have a picture of him now.
@@REMDRIFT What do you mean he "looks like a Roman"?
great take on this issue! God bless.
I thought the new AI image looked like the divine mercy painting.
There is always an interest in making Jesus ugly.
The Bible stated that Jesus wouldn't be beautiful so he didn't tempted women but he didn't necesarilly had to be ugly
I feel kinda sad that people are calling the 'brown guy' ugly... especially after finding out he was a real person, and yeah, I don't think he's as good looking as how Jesus is depicted in most art... but, he was a human being and there are people alive who look similar to him. That's not right mate... not right.
Isaiah 53:2 says that Jesus was ugly/homely, so much so that no one desired him.
@@TicketToRide-dj4vk thats referring to him coming as a humble man instead of the wordly conqueorr the jews had hoped for not his litetral bodily appearance
@@chiroh145 YOU: thats referring to him coming as a humble man instead
*ME: Here is Isaiah 53:2 from the original Hebrew:*
"For he comes up as a shoot before Him, and as a root out of dry ground. Not is a form *(TOAR/appearance or visage as "beautiful/comely)* to him, and not is majesty *(HADAR/glorious or beauty or comeliness or magnificence)* that should we see him and not an appearance *(MAREH/view or appearance of something seen as in handsome/beauty)* that we should desire *(CHAMAD/delight in, lust or covet the beauty)* him"
*Jesus was NOT physically seen as attractive/handsome/comely -- there was nothing about the physical appearance of Jesus that would cause people to follow him or desire him or think he was special in any way* -- that way, when people followed the "ugly" Jesus, they were doing so strictly based on what Jesus was preaching and the miracles that Jesus did.
@chiroh145 YOU: thats referring to him coming as a humble man instead
*ME: Here is Isaiah 53:2 from the original Hebrew:*
"For he comes up as a shoot before Him, and as a root out of dry ground. Not is a form *(TOAR/appearance or visage as "beautiful/comely)* to him, and not is majesty *(HADAR/glorious or beauty or comeliness or magnificence)* that should we see him and not an appearance *(MAREH/view or appearance of something seen as in handsome/beauty)* that we should desire *(CHAMAD/delight in, lust or covet the beauty)* him"
*Jesus was NOT physically seen as attractive/handsome/comely -- there was nothing about the physical appearance of Jesus that would cause people to follow him or desire him or think he was special in any way* -- that way, when people followed the "ugly" Jesus, they were doing so strictly based on what Jesus was preaching and the miracles that Jesus did.
@@chiroh145 YOU: thats referring to him coming as a humble man
*ME: Not according to the Hebrew meaning of the words used in Isaiah 53:2. Here is the verse:* "For he comes up as a shoot before Him, and as a root out of dry ground. Not is a form (TOAR/appearance, visage) to and him, not is majesty (HADAR/glorious, beautiful, comeliness) that we should see him, and not an appearance (MAREH/hansom/comeliness in shape/visage) that we would desire (CHAMAD/to delight in, beauty, lust, covet, desire) him." *Its talking about Jesus' physical appearance as being NOT handsome/comely/beautiful to the point that no one desired him at all -- THIS was so that no one would follow Jesus except based on what Jesus was preaching/salvation.*
What about your pictures of jesus and Mary. Over the centuries, no way he looks like a Jewish rabbi ,but a blue eyed gentile.
yeah i remember watching that documentary, it was simply suppose to depict the average Galilean of that time not necessarily Jesus. however i would also say one reconstructed skull is not a large enough sample size to show us the variation of facial features that existed just as if we did that to a skull today.
also i have a problem with the recent ai depiction jesus only a few years ago another ai generated image based on the shroud was circulating where he looks more middle eastern. the simple fact is ai typically generates a plethora of images with much variation and i would assume that was the case when that recent image was generated they only released the one they like.
i personally like ray downing image this was done by a team of human 3d artist based on the shroud and i think it is a better match
Does the Shroud say anything about the depicted manʼs skincolour?
Human 3d artists aren't going to be any help when it comes to facial features since facial features are based on skin and flesh. We can clearly see his facial structure from the shroud, but we have 0 facial features and unless we have some DNA to work with we cannot accurately put together something that would look like Jesus.
3d artists are going to be good in terms of matching their rendition with the facial structure of the shroud, but the colour of his skin, eyes and hair is still a mystery and impossible to know without DNA.
of course the Shroud doesn't provide any specific information about skin, hair, or eye color; it only captures the shape and form of the body. However, it's important not to assume that color is the only feature that defines a person's ethnicity.
Regarding the creation of an image based on the Shroud, I prefer the work of a human team over AI generation. Converting a 2D image to a 3D model is a scientifically technical process rather than an artistic one. The human team may make assumptions about superficial features like hair and skin color, but these can be easily adjusted. On the other hand, AI, while powerful, is somewhat of a "black box." It is designed to produce a wide variety of imaginative images, which might prioritize creativity over precision or accuracy when replicating a specific source, it also lacks that technical process that a human team trained in that area would have.
@@zekidan8284*gasp* how dare you say humans should create ART under a Christian video! Only A.I is allowed to create so called "Art".
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov pretty sure i never used the word only
The Lord allegedly allowed Himself to be photographed by Sister Anna Ali in Rome 1987 and He gave her the reasons why in the 'Divine Appeal' message.
In all honesty, who cares what he looks like? I've seen beautiful chinese, japanese, ethiopian, and slavic iconography depicting Him in a way thats familiar to them. So what's the big deal?
Super good stuff. Thank you.
Wait so Trent you question the shroud? I would like to see a video on this. I was totally thinking it was real.
@ ChristIsLord7 The Shroud doesn’t have any clear answer, and the Church has no official statement on it either. There are good Catholics who doubt and are skeptical of the Sheoud, yet are still faithful.
It’s real because it can be touched.
Everything that can be touched is real.
@@fij715and stuff that can bot be touched?
@@JP-kx2zjso do you say that Trent isnʼt a real Catholic because he doesnʼt immediately believe in everything without evidence? There is zero scientific evidence that the Shroud is from the times of Christ. Maybe it was. Maybe is wasnʼt. The faith doesn't revolve around a piece of cloth, no matter how educative it might be to depict the Passion of our Lord.
It's real
Trent, you should absolutely make a video about the Turin Shroud. Specifically, your personal opinion on it, examination of the evidence etc. It's a fascinating subject regardless of whether or not it's a genuine relic. Would be very interested to hear your thoughts.
Why hasn’t he done that already ?
I think I know the answer from this video which was his worst.
@matthewcollins8148 I have no idea what Trent Horn thinks of the shroud. Even if he doesn't think it's authentic, I'd still like to hear his perspective on the evidence gathered over the last forty or so years. As I say, it's fascinating.
He shouldn’t do it
He relies on Patreon monthly income.
With his views on the Shroud fully exposed his meal money would plummet.
'Exposed'? There isn't a right or wrong answer about the shroud. Catholics aren't duty bound to believe its genuine anymore than they're duty bound to believe its false. You can look at the evidence and make up your own mind. I'm sure any video Trent Horn were to (hypothetically) make about the shroud's authenticity would be thorough and thoughtful. Even if he came to a conclusion that I personally didn't agree with, I would still enjoy listening to an opposing view from someone I know would give an opinion with honest intentions.
Trent has already said in the past that he does not think the Shroud is authentic. I'd still like to hear his thoughts on it though.
Counsel of Trent: “It’s fine when nonwhites associate Christ as nonwhite.”
Also Counsel of Trent: “When whites associate Christ as white, it’s worrying.”
Most likely phrases said in different contexts.
The problem is those are just interpretations. He was criticising people saying Jesus was DEFINITELY white and posing it as an absolute.
The people posting white Jesus are calling the brown Jesus “a gross brown guy” and even calling it demonic. Do you see this difference lol?
I like to think that Jim Caviezel’s Jesus was the closet portrayal to what Jesus would have looked like. The guy worked with his hands everyday and was a carpenter/ stone mason. He would have had a build that was considered fit for his day and he would have had a big, tall presence. Also the Bible mentions women fawning over him.
We have plenty of ancient DNA from around Jesus's time. Unsurprisingly the closest modern match are Samaritans (with high levels of endogamy for over 2000 years) followed by Palestinian Christians (who did not intermarry with muslims from the south) These people are not European and not middle eastern, but distinctly levantine. Its not uncommon for them to have light eyes or hair.
Exactly right, the icon of Jesus as the high priest is exactly what you’d get.
If you want to know how Jesus looked read Isaiah 53 : 1-9 ( suffering servant showing his description) , Isaiah 50: 6 (shows he heard a beard ) and Revelation 1:9-18 ( probably how Jesus looked after he went to heaven
Great pilpul. "He didn't claim to show what Jesus looked like, just what a Galilean living at the same time and same age as Jesus would have looked like for a documentary about what Jesus looked like."
So? If you're going to infer what Jesus looked like without direct evidence, using a reconstruction of an average male from that region as a stand-in is completely valid. Did Jesus exactly like that? Probably not, was his appearance within a range that this depiction sat in the middle of? If the science was correct, probably.
@@seaofseeofyes. But analysing one single Judean skull is not big enough of a sample size
Important points here Mr. Trent. That being said, there are also other better images based on or matching the Shroud that weren’t made using A.I. The recent Mystery Man exhibit is another recent one, which includes an accurate sculpture. There’s also the ISA tile. Both the original Divine Mercy Image and Akiane Kramarik’s Prince of Peace painting match the Shroud's image of the face too.
Yet again they are trying to ridicule Christianity.
How is this ridiculing Christianity, exactly? 🤨
How so?
I'm still more struck by all of the evidence that points to it's authenticity (the dirt samples, the explanation of burial from the gospels, the matching of the head cloth and the full cloth, etc). The pictures, whether accurate or not, are just bonus.
Personally I don't think we should be arguing about what Jesus looked like, but focusing on what he did for us and his nature. His appearance is not going to forward the gospel in anyway, like Christ commands us to, and really if Jesus wanted us to know exactly what he looked like, he would have made it clear.
Christ started the One, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, Apostolic Church. Let us strive to see what that Church looks like instead of the literal physical appearance of Christ.
Please Trent, could you do a video on Maria Valtorta writings ?? It is formidable and so unknown !!
"Jesus should be short not tall like his ancestors king David"😮
He didn’t explain this well, but his point is that not everyone who is descended from a person will look like that said person. Why not argue that EVERYONE descended from David was handsome,even after 1000 years? Is such an argument reasonable?
That’s his point that he’s trying to make.
@@samueljennings4809 but then I don't get to be annoying
Yes, because every descendent of king David was tall for centuries until Jesus...
@@asggerpatton7169 King David himself was actually probably only five feet tall, the average height of Israelites of his time.
This is why Muslims never bothered worrying about how Muhammad would look like. They just focus on His teachings. This is why Christianity start to lose credibility in the world. Instead of worrying about Jesus-Christ's teachings, they are more concerned about the possible variety of the shades of the face of Jesus. Caucasian people would wish that Jesus had a pale face and blue eyes. Black and brown people would wish He had more of a darker complexions. The middle easterners think Jesus had a more olive tanned face. Do you think God the father would care about such a shallow topic about Jesus?
What I love about Trent is his commitment to pointing out errors from wherever they arise. I'm a conservative, so I tend to be more wary of the left and the errors presented in left wing ideology.
But there are plenty of errors in right wing circles, and ultimately, we need to be Christians, not political ideologues for either the right or left.
Due to the tribal nature of American politics, this will inevitably make him a villain to the right wing. You can already see people discrediting his faith in Christ because of him being a supposed ethnic Jewish. Nuance is an incredibly difficult thing to have in online political discourse.
Thanks Trent. I'm sure as now, there was slight or even considerable variations between what people looked like or their height etc.
I do like the new AI produced Image of the Man from the Shroud.
I always believed that the Shroud was genuine, theres just so many things like how the Image was made, Crucifixion accuracy, negative image, pollen from Middle East etc.
Jesus was a Galilean Jew. So he would have looked like a Galilean Jew.
The depiction at 1:44 on the left KINDA looks like Atticus in The Chosen haha. Such a cool character by the way.
Did not have Trent Horn Shroud of Turin skepticism on my 2024 bingo card
it's not in the bible, it doesnt matter. this is the problem with catholicism. catholicism is still somewhat intertwined with the underlying pagan European culture Christianity sought to replace. Looking for revelation and answers outside scripture is just paganness thriving underneath.
@@samuraijosh1595Funny, coming from one who treat scriptures as if he is reading tea leaves.
What’s not in the Bible ?
Thanks a lot Trent. 👍😁
The shroud is the real deal only God can take a picture 2 thousand years before man developed the technology.
Even if Jesus resembles the guy on the left, there is no way he actually looks like that guy. Notice the eyes - his eyes look fearful, guilty, even lost. Do you really think anyone with the wisdom of Jesus would have that sort of countenance?
Jesus was white, and that's okay.
Ask those who have seen him today by vision and dreams. They will tell you.
He was not, no matter how badly race idolaters want Him to be.
@Wilkins325 how do I know you aren't doing the same thing?
"I don't believe in Jesus"
"Then why does he HAVE to be brown?"
He wasn’t white, sorry that yall wanna praise whiteness and not Christ.
@@Wilkins325
Next time you hop in your DeLorean, can I tag along?
Thérèse of Lisieux had a great devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus.