Forward by Jennifer Rae Vliet: This is a link to the Real Jesus and an excerpt as well…
What did Jesus look like? Scripture indicates Jesus was neither outstandingly tall, nor outstandingly short; He was therefore of the average height of the average Jewish young man of His day. Research suggests that men were somewhat larger then than they subsequently became during the Middle Ages; consequently Jesus could have been between 5’ 7” and 5’10”.
His physical stature would have been similar to any other average laboring person who had spent his growing years lifting, tugging, pushing, pulling, and enjoying hard work out of doors. Jesus looked like what He was: a commonplace Jew of first-century Palestine. And as such, Jesus could have been either blond, redheaded, or dark-headed. There is no way to really tell, since members of the family of Judah can regularly exhibit any of this range of complexions and/or colors of eye or hair. If we may speculate, it may be reasonable to postulate that Jesus could have looked somewhat like his physical ancestor, David.
‘Not only would He definitely not have had flowing locks, he is also unlikely to have grown a long beard or even worn robes’
(DAILY MAIL) — He is one of the most instantly recognisable figures in the Western world.
But experts say that every image you’ve seen of Jesus is almost certainly inaccurate.
Not only would Jesus definitely not have had flowing locks, he is also unlikely to have grown a long beard or even worn robes.
Instead, historians believe that Jesus would have looked like any other unremarkable member of Judean society in the first century AD.
But there is one surprising detail that modern depictions of Jesus do get right.
While it might seem odd that Jesus is often depicted with rippling abs, experts agree that he probably would have been strong and lean.
Dr Meredith Warren, senior lecturer on Biblical and religious studies at Sheffield University, told MailOnline that these muscular depictions aren’t ‘completely off the mark’.
She says: ‘Jesus comes from a family where manual labour is the norm, and he certainly gets exercise with all the walking around.’
Unlike so many of our modern interpretations, experts think Jesus would have had dark skin, brown eyes, and short curly hair. For clothing, he would have worn a simple knee-length tunic and a woollen mantle
Regarding the article “Revealed. What Jesus really looked like according to experts”. What was not said in the article was that Jesus’s DNA-his genealogy, is traced back to Adam. I am of the opinion that his particular DNA line was pure. Adam is recorded as being created approximately 6,000 to 7,000 years ago. ( I use 6,000 to 7,000 because there is some pretty strong evidence that Biblical dating has been tampered with from the get go ). I am in no way saying that Adam was the first man, the first human being and I am not of the opinion that Genesis 1 and 2 are of the same creation. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance indicates that the word Adam, as first mentioned in Genesis 2:19 is aw-dawn and comes from aw-dam which means ruddy, to show blood in the face, flush, turn rosy. Modern science has coincidently determined that blue eyes came into existence at approximately the same time, 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. To add just a tad more clarity or confusion (depends on how you accept what is written) to the opening pages in Genesis 1, we have creation being completed by more than one—(God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?). In Genesis 2 we have the creation of Adam as being performed by the Lord God—singular.