The hatred of Jews

A first-century Jew looked similar to a modern-day Palestinian because 80% of the Palestinians are genetic descendants of those first-century Jews, as opposed to 90% of those who currently claim to be but are not. Even scientific extrapolations were performed to approximate what they looked like back then, and we can be sure it wasn't of European stock.

Does the following more closely resemble a Palestinian or an Israeli?



And I'm pretty confident I'm not a goat because I actually follow the scriptures and His words rather than follow religious traditions, movies, and propaganda. In case you were wondering, a goat will be someone who does not feed, clothe, visit, and care for the least of his brothers and sisters during their time of punishment...while the sheep are those who do.

So again, it's critically important that we lock down who the chosen people are. Thankfully, scripture helps us to prove all things.

While i do acknowledge that most middle easterns look like the picture above, i also acknowledge that this new and recent depiction of Jesus which was done by scientists, cannot help but promote some wokeism in there.
Because there are blonde people with blue eyes in the middle eastern region or the mediteranean region.
I happen to have blonde hair with blue eyes and so does my wife.
We were both considered 'rare' in high school growing up in the mediteranean region.
And my cousin has red hair. She was really really rare for a child born in the mediteranean region. You'd think she's Irish on first look.
So while the majority have dark features, not all of them have dark features.

The exercise was performed well over a decade ago before this woke stuff took off. Scientists use skulls from the area to extrapolate the proportions of flesh that could wrap around it.

"Popular Mechanics reports that British forensic experts and Israeli archaeologists have collaborated to develop a computer model of Jesus Christ’s face based on forensic anthropology" - news.artnet.com article


Regarding blond hair and blue eyes, as you say it is a rare occurrence. It doesn't commonly happen, but it does happen. But for hundreds of years paintings, sculptures, and reliefs depicted darker features for the Messiah and Mary...until the Renaissance when the Roman Catholic Pope sanctioned and funded the "washing" of all depictions of the Messiah, using the image of Cesare Borgia, a relative, as the basis for the new image.

Scripture says the following about the Messiah:

Isaiah 53:2
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.


The scripture says that the Messiah was an average-looking man. He was not attractive at all like Hollywood often depicts Him. He wasn't here to attract anyone through the flesh so He wouldn't have stood out in a crowd because of appearance. It's a fact that the blond-haired, blue-eyed combination is traditionally considered beautiful/attractive, especially if it's rare among a group of people.

He also wouldn't have had long hair as typically depicted because as Paul explains, back then for a man to have long hair was shameful (1 Corinthians 11:14).

He looked like an average Palestinian man, like those people who are currently being slaughtered daily by Israeli soldiers...which is right in line with end-time prophecy because satan is said to have great wrath for the people from whom The Messiah came; perfectly reflecting their disdain toward the Messiah.


Revelation 12:12-13
Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea; with great fury the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.

13 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.


...and at the helm is a man who is literally a war criminal. He's literally a "lawless one" that his rabbis label as "a chosen one"...one who Western world leaders praise and protect and follow...who speaks "peace and safety" but then slaughters genetic descendants of ancient Israel indiscriminately no matter the age or gender.

Totally agree with you and the scriptures posted.
What i would like to point out is that every group customizes their depiction of Jesus but in the case of atheists they do it to diminish His glory.
Here's what i mean.
In the classic Orthodox Church the icon of Jesus is portrayed like this:

which supports the Isaiah verse.
But in the Japan Orthodox Church, Jesus is depicted like this:

Of course we know that Jesus wasn't Asian but in their case they are worshiping Christ while customizing the message a bit to their traditions.
In the case of the atheist they want to show that He was just a man and nothing more. But if you want to show that He was just a man, at least paint a picture that's based on the Isiah verse and don't try to make Jesus look like They/Them people.
Maybe i'm reading a bit too much on that but for me it is something that i love very much. I would like to know what Jesus looked like and sounded like and if i were to show this picture:

then the woke brigade or even some Christians might not like it because it makes Jesus less middle eastern.
But a man looking like that picture above with that skin tone and face shape is something that i've seen at an Egyptian Church i go to from time to time.
So they do exist.

Like i said, it's a topic that i enjoy so i am very ocd about it to a fault.

I find it interesting that people tend to have a desire for Jesus to look like their own native people. Christians tend to have him "White-washed", with many depictions having auburn hair and blue eyes. Even within the Christian subgroup, there are Black denominations that claim Jesus was "Black". I don't know how he could have been, but whatever. The Japanese picture of Jesus that was posted above looks like he would have eyes similar to Japanese people. I've even seen a blonde hair-blue eyed Jesus.

God forbid Jesus looks like the bible says... an average man of his time and location. Do we really need to cater to the people and give them a "palatable" looking Jesus that looks like them in order to accept Him as the Savior of the world? No! It doesn't matter what He looks like but rather recognizing he's the one TRUE God.

Did they return after the diaspora?

What do you make of that?
When i see this, i think that people want to make Jesus their own despite major cultural differences, except the atheist of course.
The most starking example is Japan.

What if He was the most beautiful man ever? What would that change? Would it have made it more challenging for Him to be the purest man ever?

Aaron was perfect, without blemish (aesthetically anyway). JS.

The description of Leah's "dim" eyes is considered by some to be an allusion to them being very light blue,

hence a reference to Gentiles

Well, as i mentioned, this is something which i'm obsessed with because when we are talking about Jesus Christ the Son of Man who was sent here by Father Almighty, i would like to know what He looked like and what He sounded like.
You know what i mean? Since God joined His creation, i want to know what He looked like.

I wanted to know...and now I do. I've seen a lot of beautiful people but, none of them are Him. He is the capital T the most beautiful. And now, I wonder if the proper translation of 'and when we see Him there is no beauty that we should desire him" is not taken similar to how 'there is nothing a plastic surgeon can do for Him' can be mistaken for being so ugly not even a plastic surgeon could help but that is dismissing the possibility of that He is so perfectly formed that anything anyone might venture to 'correct'. It was when He was marred that he was appalled, and I'm leaning toward that interpretation being speaking more toward the glory he 'covered up' (and temporarily revealed in His transfiguration) while robed in His humility (who among us would desire that?).

I am going to have to say I cannot relate to this desire at all, there was a time years ago when it passed my mind, I am thankful He did not come when when pictures could be taken and I think God did this intentionally. Just my imho.


He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Isaiah 53:1

While i realize that there might be some denominational differences here where one group always defaults to "idolatry", my first and main problem with Jesus looks is the ownership that atheists and scientist want to establish for the rest of us.
I understand that the Japanese know that Jesus wasn't Asian and i also understand that the blacks know that Jesus wasn't black but their desire to personalize Jesus is probably because they love Jesus.
So for me personally, i will accept whatever appearance God has chosen but at least i would know. Now i'm simply speculating fueled by this desire to know.
I mean for me it would be the most wonderful thing to see Him in-person with whatever characteristics He has chosen.

When you look at your past family members in pictures, you don't want to know what they look like? I realize that we have different likes and dislikes but i personally want to know what my family members looked like since when photography was invented.
So knowing what the Son of Man looked like, it's like at the peak of my interests.

Nope, He does not look that way anymore.
Worship in Spirit and Truth.

I don't mind the art work it is not about God to me, it is just art.

I have to ask you one more question because i’m curious.
When someone tell you: “Jesus was a woman”, what’s your response to that?
He doesn’t look like that anymore in Heaven?

Jesus was God wrapped in human flesh, the flesh was XY.

Interestingly, the "diaspora" is defined as (1) exile from Jerusalem since it was their cultural and religious center and (2) the scattering of the people (i.e., there isn't a centralized community anymore). So as soon as Jews were banned from Jerusalem they were considered in exile/dispersed, and as long as they are not all home they are still in their diaspora. Now, I would always read "exiled from Jerusalem" and immediately interpret it to mean "exiled from the total land of Judea" as a knee-jerk interpretation, as if the land was completely emptied out, however, the details of scripture and history are important (as I'm sure you've found).

Some Jews never left the land of Judea, especially the poor who couldn't afford to travel (unlike the wealthy of Jerusalem who fled in all directions). Judgment was passed on Jerusalem, a city in Judea. In 70AD, there was a total decimation of any Jew who stayed in Jerusalem followed by the banning of any Jews who fled from returning to the city of Jerusalem for a time...but many continued in the land of Judea (specifically, The Galilee, but all over Judea) which was eventually renamed Syria-Palestine.

Other Jews who lived in Palestine migrated to Babylon and built a community there. Eventually, there were two prominent communities of Jews: Palestinians (as they were known) who remained in the land and Babylonians who considered the Palestinians "of lesser stock" ( sounds familiar...) and disagreed with them on many things. - See excerpt

[By the way, The Pharisees - the same called "brood of vipers" by Messiah - migrated to Babylon and created The Babylonian Talmud, a collection of all the man-made religious traditions that the Messiah denounced because they negated the Laws of The Almighty. Babylonian missionaries then migrated North from Babylon to spread "Talmudism" as it was originally known before they renamed it "Judaism". They also established that if a woman of any ethnic background converts to Judaism any children born to her would be ethnically Jewish, tracing their heritage through the woman instead of through the man as scripture teaches. But I digress...]

Fast-forward to the time of the Byzantine Empire conquering Palestine in the 600s AD, and the Jews fled Palestine into the mountains...but under the ARAB ISLAMIC EMPIRE after 638AD many Jews were allowed to return and repopulate Palestine; some estimate 300k-400k Jews living in Palestine at the time. But regardless of the number, scholars agree that Jews were the majority in the land at the time. Yet under the rule of the Islamic Empire, the majority "adopted Islam, the Arabic language, and added elements of Arab culture [to their culture]". - Palestinian Identity and Cultural Heritage

During this time, the Islamic ruler in charge also allowed any remaining Jews to resettle in Jerusalem for the first time in 500 years...but out of those who retained their culture as Jews they weren't allowed to worship on the Temple Mount since the Dome of the Rock was built. Only those who followed Islam were allowed to worship.

Next, we skip ahead to...

The Crusades 1099-1500s (not exact timeframe): Roman Catholic Christians VS Muslims. The Christian crusaders who claimed the land would persecute Jews as enemies of God...and when Muslims would claim the land they welcomed the Jews back and encouraged them to resettle in Jerusalem. Back and forth this went on for centuries with the MUSLIMS purposely not harming the JEWS each time (I believe they are the "locust" of Revelation 9 tasked with not harming those marked...).

So there were always Jews in Palestine eventually known as Palestinians after the land was renamed, who either converted to Christianity or Islam or retained their traditions as Jews.

---

There's a lot more to this that I'm tempted to add but is getting pretty long, but I think what I've shared so far answers your initial question. Let me know if it doesn't.

Isaiah 53:2b-3