How Jesus Dressed

I thought this was a good article overall, and helps to dispel the numerous misconceptions based on a couple of millennia of artistic imaginings in terms of how Jesus dressed and looked:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-did-jesus-wear?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The initial reference to a physical likeness based on a skull from the era doesn't accomplish much IMO. (I personally think the various renderings based on the Shroud of Turin are likely to be more accurate and certainly look more like what I would "imagine" Jesus to have looked like). However, the links provided are otherwise very interesting and informative.

The long and short of it is that Jesus' attire and overall "look" was, well . . . pretty shabby. He would not have been dressed in the kinds of boldly colored robes we see in various paintings. As the author says:

"And so while Jesus wore similar clothes to other Jewish men in many respects, his “look” was scruffy. . . .

Wearing a basic tunic that other people wore as an undergarment would fit with Jesus’ detachment regarding material things (Matthew 6:19-21, 28–29; Luke 6:34-35, 12:22-28) and concern for the poor (Luke 6:20-23).

This, to me, is the beginning of a different way of seeing Jesus, and one very relevant for our times of massive inequality between rich and poor, as in the Roman Empire. Jesus aligned himself with the poor and this would have been obvious from how he looked.

The appearance of Jesus matters because it cuts to the heart of his message. However he is depicted in film and art today, he needs to be shown as one of the have-nots; his teaching can only be truly understood from this perspective."

Cordially,
S&S

PS--There is a nice sketch to give the general idea.

SeaAndSky said:

I thought this was a good article overall, and helps to dispel the numerous misconceptions based on a couple of millennia of artistic imaginings in terms of how Jesus dressed and looked:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-did-jesus-wear?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The initial reference to a physical likeness based on a skull from the era doesn't accomplish much IMO. (I personally think the various renderings based on the Shroud of Turin are likely to be more accurate and certainly look more like what I would "imagine" Jesus to have looked like). However, the links provided are otherwise very interesting and informative.

The long and short of it is that Jesus' attire and overall "look" was, well . . . pretty shabby. He would not have been dressed in the kinds of boldly colored robes we see in various paintings. As the author says:

"And so while Jesus wore similar clothes to other Jewish men in many respects, his “look” was scruffy. . . .

Wearing a basic tunic that other people wore as an undergarment would fit with Jesus’ detachment regarding material things (Matthew 6:19-21, 28–29; Luke 6:34-35, 12:22-28) and concern for the poor (Luke 6:20-23).

This, to me, is the beginning of a different way of seeing Jesus, and one very relevant for our times of massive inequality between rich and poor, as in the Roman Empire. Jesus aligned himself with the poor and this would have been obvious from how he looked.

The appearance of Jesus matters because it cuts to the heart of his message. However he is depicted in film and art today, he needs to be shown as one of the have-nots; his teaching can only be truly understood from this perspective."

Cordially,
S&S

PS--There is a nice sketch to give the general idea.

Click to expand...

Hi and ty for sharing!
i wanna to share my knowledges about that.
is very hard to manage that cause the the second commandment of the Torah clearly said "you will not make an image of anything that is in heaven, on earth or underground" I think that Elohim gave this command to combat the unbridled idolatry that existed at the time towards the pagan entities to whom many cults of the time often performed human sacrifices and quite bloody rites. This rule, however, was taken literally (see also the iconoclasts of the first centuries of the Byzantine Empire) therefore any artistic, pictorial or sculptural representation was clearly prohibited. I seriously doubt that the ancient Jews painted or sculpted anything in the light of that law. so it is really difficult to reconstruct the features of Jesus. the only reference we have is the Shroud veil. however, some interesting characteristics are deduced from it, which lead to the following conclusions: 1: let's forget categorically the idea of the Caucasian Jesus, with feminine, sweet features, typical of iconography with light skin and light brown hair. he was a Middle Eastern and such were his ethnic features, so he had dark beard and hair, I think black or very dark brown, and Palestinian features. also, however, some of his ancestors were Roman, so he still had Latin-like features, too. this gave him a very beautiful face, as severe and penetrating as it was noble in features and bearing. the skin was dark and tanned. the build was robust. Jesus was the son of a carpenter and from what I know he himself was not only a rabbi and a spiritual leader but was also a carpenter and architect. manual labor had guaranteed him a strong, firm and robust physique (which also allowed him to survive several hours of the torture of the cross, which would have killed an ordinary man in a few minutes). Jesus was six feet tall, a very impressive stature for the time. considering also the strength he exerted when he threw the tables of the money changers away from the temple of jerusalem, he must have possessed considerable muscular strength. passing to the clothes, as far as I know he had three clothes, in linen. - a petticoat. - a surcoat - a cloak. here is a reconstructed 3D cast based on the shroud that shows what Jesus was like, at least based on the only relic that can be used as a model and tangible proof.


apparently the shroud looks like a fake Renaissance. in reality the shroud on its surface has a biofilm made up of bacteria, spores and pollen that correspond to the vegetation present in Palestine in the first century after Christ. it is said that the figure of the shroud has one leg longer than the other and that it is disproportionate and with anatomical defects, but from forensic research it has been noted that the shroud perfectly matched a human body with such characteristics due to the fact that it was wrapped around the body. the folds and flaps of the shroud and the way it was wrapped when the resurrection of Jesus produced the luminous flash that imprinted the image on the cloth (which is not painted but is in effect the first daguerreotype in history) are the cause of the deformations of the image. it seems that in order to create the image, the cloth is shrouded by an immense amount of energy

****, video subtitles are only on italian -.-

https://www.padovaoggi.it/cronaca/m...edaliera-universita-padova-17-marzo-2018.html

i paste here the article translated on english.damned barrier language. XD where will be a babel fish of "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" . also a lens of the Lensmen should be okay...
however... here the translated text:

<<Padua caput mundi: the 3D model of the body of Jesus wrapped in the Shroud was created " No one, until now, had done it. And it took two years of hard work. But the final result is nothing short of surprising: the synergy between a scientific group of the University of Padua and the hospital of Padua, in collaboration with the sculptor Sergio Rodella, led to the creation, using scientifically validated methods, of a model life-size three-dimensional of the body of Jesus Christ wrapped in the Shroud which surprisingly corresponds to the double image, front and back, present on the cloth. Jesus 3d-2 ">>

good news! found on english!


I read the article. I can confirm from my sources that he was wearing a chiton made of one piece instead of two, an overcoat and a cloak. he was crucified only with the underside because the cloak was stolen by the Roman guards and played with it. keep in mind that in the time of Jesus there was nothing more shameful and humiliating for a man than being robbed of his cloak, so it was a terrible humiliation for him. More than due to the fact that he went around in "underwear" as argued by the originator, this is due to the fact that a particular type of spinning, sewing and processing of the fabric was used, for which at the time it was possible to obtain even decent dresses from just one satin.
PS. i agree with the sandals and with the choose of Jesus to live in total poverty

IMO the 3D model of the body of Jesus looks very much a stereotype of most other depictions of Jesus and for me no more believable than any of the others.. ... S&S is right Jesus would have been a scruffy individual.. very likely with bad/decaying teeth.. and on todays standards unwashed with soiled/dirty and heavily worn clothes .. As I have said in other posts what people looked like in your past incarnations memories are very important in verifying your memories

Hi John,

I disagree in terms of the 3-D image. This is not mere imagination, it is based on scientific study and projections from what is believed to be the burial shroud of Jesus:

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/see-a-3-d-model-of-jesus-based-on-shroud-of-turin

https://ourcommunitynow.com/news/scientists-unveil-3d-model-of-jesus-based-on-shroud-of-turin-relic

In terms of tooth decay, ancient people often had pretty good teeth due to the absence of sugar in their diets, though carbohydrate consumption via grains/bread breaking down into sugars could still be a problem. Here is an article in terms of medieval teeth, which were pretty good overall. I doubt that dental care had advanced that much between ancient Judea and the medieval period, so these findings may still be good:

https://slate.com/human-interest/20...people-in-the-middle-ages-have-bad-teeth.html

In terms of personal cleanliness, I doubt that they were much worse than people living on the American or Australian frontier a hundred and fifty to two hundred years ago. The Jews were scrupulous hand washers, and I assume like our own recent ancestors, they were quite capable of doing at least a rudimentary bodily wipe-down with a wet cloth. Soap or something similar was also around in those days:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap#Ancient_Middle_East

Still, there was no deodorant around yet, and Jesus and his disciples seemed to spend a lot of time sleeping rough in the outdoors, though they apparently also stayed in the houses of various supporters and disciples from time-to-time. So, probably a bit scruffy overall with occasions to get cleaned up--which I am sure they all looked forward to.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--I had long ago heard that Jesus was likely strongly built due to carpentry work, which I can believe when I look at the types of crude manual tools they had to work with back then. I had also heard that the somewhat "wispy" image given to him in some art work was a bit ludicrous. I.e., he was a bold public speaker who spoke the truth to power and would probably been very rugged and fit not only from his background but from walking the length and breadth of Palestine over a three year period. So, definitely not a weakling in any sense of that word.

Hi Tanker,

One area where I disagreed with her was in re hair and beard. The gentiles of the empire, influenced by Greece and Rome may well have been as short-haired and clean shaven or short-bearded as she portrays in the drawing. However, my understanding is that the Jews had a long tradition of Holy Men, Patriarchs and Prophets with long beards and hair (including the Nazirites) going waaaaaay back. Likewise, long beards were cultivated by Greek and Roman philosophers. So, not everyone was necessarily as clean-cut as she portrays. I'm going to go with the usual imagery of long hair/beard on that one.

Cordially,
S&S

S&S, I wasn't meaning I thought of Jesus as short-haired, it was just that before the beard etc. was added, it had already struck me it was very much a Jewish face. I haven't yet looked at the various videos etc. posted on this thread, so haven't seen a drawing. I have no particular image in mind when I personally think of Jesus, and am not likely to know the truth while I'm here, so for now I have an open mind! Isaiah tells us that the Messiah would look unremarkable, and I kind of like that idea.

the way of dressing of the ancient Jews was very different from that of the Greeks, for the simple reason that there was not much love or friendship towards the Greeks themselves, if you look at the history of the old testament, the Egyptians were responsible for slavery for the Jews, the Greeks of several crimes carried out by mobsters or idolaters. the ancient Hebrews wore a curious hybrid look between that of the neighboring ancient Persia of a thousand and one nights and Roman clothes. imagine the robes of Julius Caesar hybridized to an Indian sari, just to get an idea. the shroud as far as I can tell is authentic, at least due to the fact that, as I said, above the Turin shroud a biofilm of bacteria, fungi and microorganisms and pollen was found that matches the ecosystem and the vegetables that grew in Palestine in the first century , no Renaissance forger could have replicated this biofilm that can only be examined under the microscope. the only discrepancy is that upon examination of the C14 it appears to be datable to 1400 but this does not take into account one thing: the shroud around 1600-1700 risked being almost destroyed in a fire, which also damaged it in a point that later was restored. luckily she was saved in time. the fact is that prolonged exposure to flames and heat provided the cloth with a large amount of carbon by absorption of the CO2 produced by the fire and this distorted the dating by rejuvenating it. this is what I know about the Turin veil. I think it is a reliable relic, at least personally. tanker's analysis is very correct, also regarding the fact that the Jews were a very clean people and Jesus was the son of a carpenter, he was not a dirty tramp, his build was robust, thanks to the long manual work done in the father's shop. maybe he cleaned himself very well but washing and cleaning were things the ancient Hebrews insisted a lot on. regarding clothing, ignore two factors. 1: his family was of quite distinct origins: among their ancestors there was King David, direct heir of Solomon, the cloak that Jesus wore belonged to David himself, it was a fabric that the family was handed down over the centuries. another issue is that the ancient Jews had a particular type of spinning and weaving and used spindles very different from those in use in Greece or Rome. the Viking spindles were simple and made it possible to weave heavy and very thick clothes between them, which served to protect from the cold of the north. heavy, coarse, furry clothes. the Roman spindles made it possible to weave thinner dresses of silk, linen or cloth much more beautiful and attractive. the spindles of the Jews were different from the Roman and Greek ones, their spinning technique made it possible to weave an entire dress from a single fabric satin, without seams! front and back! the Roman and Greek threads, on the other hand, required two satins which were then sewn together. and I tell you because with a friend I have been doing whole days research on the ancient tailoring of the first century in Palestine, when we discussed the matter. However, it is not at all a statuette made to adhere to classical canons, it is precisely forensic scientific research, and I do not understand what the visions of a regressive hypnosis have to do with it (which precisely being visions do not have a particular scientific truthfulness, unless are not facts verifiable later) with a forensic reconstruction conducted by qualified researchers lasting years of work and research. PS. I admit that I was very angry to see Jesus compared to a filthy bum who walked the streets. I am a very believer and even if my spirituality differs a lot from the standard canons of the Roman church, since I consider a certain importance of astrology and I give a certain value to the hypothesis of the transmigration of souls between bodies (otherwise I would not be in this forum if I weren't scientifically studying the subject), so for me it was a bit like a blasphemy. I'm sorry about this.

Hi,

Jesus was a rabbi, and he basically dressed like a rabbi of his own era and place.

His hygiene was basically ordinary to the time era he lived in. He grew up in Egypt and Nazareth (Galilea), which were both places known for good house hold and a high level of personal hygiene among both the royals and all ordinary people (the not-rich). Houses in Nazareth had bathrooms with terracotta tiles on the wall, running water, fire place, boilers and bath tubs.

Jesus and his disciples were hiking a lot from town to town, and they became sweath and dusty. But, according to the gospels, they allways washed themselves when entering into a house. This was normal custom and ordinary behaviour at the time. If Jesus had been stinking and dirty, like some members of this forum suggest in this comment section, he would not have had any disciples and people would not have come to listen to him, which they did by thousends. People would not have liked to be near a stinking and dirty person, just like nobody like that nowadays either.

You see, people did not have that different preferences in the antique, than modern people nowadays. They also liked good food and nice smelling perfumes/oils back then too - even in Galilea and Judea, where Jesus lived and preached.

According to Wikipedia the following is how the image of Jesus emerged obviously from the imaginations of man ....The conventual image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair emerged around AD300 but did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity and much later in the West.. It always has had the advantage of being easily recognizable and distinguishing Jesus from the figures shown around him
As a result this image of Jesus has become universally excepted by Christians that this is how he must have looked when the facts are this image came from the imaginations of man .. I had a quick look at the images of Jesus played by actors who played Jesus... all reflect this image of Jesus and look almost identical to the 3D image which we are asked to believe is accurate even when it mirrors the image that came from the imaginations of man Its a long stretch to believe what came from the imaginations of man were in anyway accurate to what Jesus looked like

Hi Traveler,

I agree with almost everything you have said. However, I don't think the author was comparing Jesus to a "filthy bum who walked the streets"--just expressing her belief that he was dressed in a humble manner that united him with the less well-off members of his society. This was something that would have made him seem "shabby" to the more well-off Pharisees and Sadducees, IMO.

Cordially,
S&S

An interesting subject. Sometimes I've heard people say things like, "If Jesus was alive on Earth today, He'd be - such-and-such", various ideas appear but they generally have him appearing today in some outstanding role, someone famous and significant. I often think He'd be more likely to pass unnoticed in the street, not worse, not better than others, someone who would blend in. It wasn't appearance or manner of dress which made Jesus stand out, it was what was on the inside.

@Speedwell if Jesus live into our days, probably, at least is not in some poor enviroment like Third World or slums of India, I think they would get him out immediately as soon as he would stamp the foot with his sermons to some rich, politician, industrialist or Freemason. At best, they would take him for a fool and intern him by listing him among the 1,000,000 "delusional personality disorders". replying to others:

Stewardess Ester Ősz said:

Hi,

Jesus was a rabbi, and he basically dressed like a rabbi of his own era and place.

His hygiene was basically ordinary to the time era he lived in. He grew up in Egypt and Nazareth (Galilea), which were both places known for good house hold and a high level of personal hygiene among both the royals and all ordinary people (the not-rich). Houses in Nazareth had bathrooms with terracotta tiles on the wall, running water, fire place, boilers and bath tubs.

Jesus and his disciples were hiking a lot from town to town, and they became sweath and dusty. But, according to the gospels, they allways washed themselves when entering into a house. This was normal custom and ordinary behaviour at the time. If Jesus had been stinking and dirty, like some members of this forum suggest in this comment section, he would not have had any disciples and people would not have come to listen to him, which they did by thousends. People would not have liked to be near a stinking and dirty person, just like nobody like that nowadays either.

You see, people did not have that different preferences in the antique, than modern people nowadays. They also liked good food and nice smelling perfumes/oils back then too - even in Galilea and Judea, where Jesus lived and preached.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's is the most accurate concept about life into ancient jewish society.
they were a very clean people and although Jesus and the apostles led a life of vagabonds, they used to be always hosted by someone. in antiquity there were not many hotels and inns, and usually they mainly grouped merchants or bad guys. the followers of the Torah lived in a very simple, humble and merciful way so you always found someone willing to share a bed, a bathroom and some food with you. they cleaned and washed perhaps a little haphazardly, but much more so than many cultures of the same historical period, or worse still, of the Middle Ages, where the lack of hygiene caused the spread of great infectious epidemics.


I think I have also misinterpreted the words or the tone in which they were written due to language barriers and I regret that. if I have offended someone I apologize. unfortunately yesterday I was in a particularly black mood due to some personal events that happened to me that depressed me a lot. My faith is one of the few holds I have and I have a strong reverence towards the figure of Jesus, I'm sorry. Yes, I think Jesus did not dress like a nabob, but not like a bum either. in order to be heard by the people he had to have a pleasant appearance and a stately bearing, but he still had to be well accepted by the poorest and most humble so he did not go around dressed up like Zacchaeus (the tax collector who, in a comic episode of the Gospel, hid on a sycamore tree fearing that Jesus was inciting the people who had plucked against him, when instead he just wanted to invite himself to lunch at his house. tell him not even a word of reproach. Zacchaeus did everything by himself. "I ... I have decided to give a part of my goods to the poor" in short, he didn't go around dressed like Zacchaeus and people like him, but not even like a beggar. as for his hair and beard, from the Shroud cast it seems that he had them long, I think that he too shaved them every now and then, just like we do.
Even though he was God, or a higher higher entity, he was nevertheless incarnated in the body of an ordinary human being.
He had the exact same physiological needs as all of us. I can assume that this experience was significant on Elohim's part. it is noted that in the old testament
the jewish god could be very hard, severe and even bad towards those who violated the torah or committed heinous crimes against his fellow men or against the people he protected (from what I understand the elohim were a group of entities that protected the nations and there was one for each people).
There may be various reasons behind his incarnation:
1: desire to understand and have the utmost empathy for the human condition, the suffering, needs and emotions of mere mortals. The only method was to become one of us.
2: bad manners didn't work very well. to guarantee humanity the greatest possible well-being for its future it was necessary to create a faith based on hope, love and universal compassion, which sustained our species in the darkest and most horrendous historical periods and gave us the strength to move forward without ever making us feel completely alone.
even though the church has committed many mistakes and atrocities over the centuries I personally believe that if Catholicism had not existed the historical events of the last 2000 years would have been even more horrendous.
the ethical and moral bases and the teachings of Jesus were at the basis of the birth of civil societies, after all, the constitutions are inspired by the same values.

@SeaAndSky

Hi Traveler,

What you have said is very interesting. I was particularly struck by your knowledge of the lesser Elohim and their division and governance of different peoples as the ancient gods. This is a recent interest area for me, and one in which I have gained a good deal of useful information from studying the works of Dr. Michael Heiser. I recommend the "Unseen Realm" as a very good book on these matters, though I have no idea whether it is available in Italian translation:

https://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Realm-Recovering-Supernatural-Worldview/dp/1577995562

Also, you'll have to explain your animosity towards the Freemasons to me. In the U.S. they are merely a fraternal and charitable organization. Like most others of that type, they are slowly fading from the scene with ever declining membership.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--I agree with your statements about the positive benefits of the Christian Church/faith (in all of its subdivisions) in terms of civilization over the past couple of millennia, but do not think that I can agree with your statements about the "Jewish God" or about Jesus possibly being here to learn, etc.

PPS--Part of your reaction to various comments may be traceable to John Tat's somewhat acrimonious post. From that standpoint it will be useful for you to know that he serves and worships the gods of ancient Egypt, and intends in his death and next life to help bring them back in a strong and forceful way. He also holds the God of Christianity in contempt. He is a nice guy in other respects, but he does let his animosity get the best of him sometimes in situations like this.

PPPS--Michael S. Heiser is an American biblical Old Testament scholar and Christian author. His area of expertise is the nature of the spiritual realm in the Bible, namely the Divine council and hierarchy of the spiritual order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Heiser

Hi. The book looks really interesting although I don't know if I'll be able to get it or find it in my language, but I can find it.
Well, yes, I can understand that everyone has their own differences of belief and worship. i see in jesus an incarnate divinity and you don't, and john tat hates these things because of his belief, i suppose neopagan. however, it is one thing to profess different religions and believe in different things and one thing is to impose or denigrate the faith of others. maybe because of the harshness of the post or maybe because of the language barrier
maybe I took his comment a little over the top, also because as I said, something happened to me in my private life that really made me turn the boxes, these days. I'm sorry.

Regarding Freemasonry. Well, personally they scare me very much. And I personally don't like the triangle club very much for various reasons.
chief among them is the excessive greed of the lobbies they have created, but this is not the place to make a controversy out of it.
I think that in the USA they are not very widespread or if they
are acting in the shadows and do not give much attention. as far as I know,
the first Freemasons were a Christian-style religious society, a sort of neo-hermeticism whose purpose was to raise knowledge and the human condition through wisdom, even of forgotten ancient things. there are many esoteric groups of this type. in 1700, with the advent of the Enlightenment, some grand masters of lodges of the time voluntarily destroyed some ancient texts and changed the rules of their lodges,
which thus became secular. the fact is that there are various streams and lodges of Masons, and they are often in dispute among themselves.
there are the progressive factions, and there are those that are instead of a satanic-Luciferian mold.
here in Europe those of the second type are much more widespread, so much so that the Church has considered immediate excommunication for anyone who adheres to such orders. can't blame them. some do really awful things.
let's say they are colluding with black masses, Satanism, etc. and then there is the worst of all, which is the so-called deep state, which is also located in the Vatican itself.
a dark church within the church that seeks to subvert Christianity from within.
there are things that are better if I don't say, and you are free to not believe me.
also because this is not the right thread.
good night!

Hi Traveler,

Regarding your first paragraph--I also see Jesus as incarnate divinity, and hold to the Nicene Creed as the only true ecumenical creed. I also hold to the Apostle's Creed with one exception: the original language posits a resurrection of the flesh, which I believe to directly contradict 1 Cor. 15. However, I also believe that the spiritual body of the resurrection (as described in 1 Cor. 15) is fully capable of manifesting physically, as can be seen in the example of the three strangers who dined with Abraham prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (and in other Biblical examples).

Also, in terms of John Tat, he is not a Neo-Pagan and generally doesn't have much interest in such individuals. He is elderly and his story is long and rather strange, but basically it involves memories that go back to the founding of Egypt by what he refers to as the "sun gods", and what you and I might refer to as a group of Elohim who took charge of and actually selected and "called" a group of people to the region of the Nile. These people then became the founders of ancient Egypt under the guidance and protection of these sun gods. John believes the person who carries these memories and the memories of numerous incarnations in ancient Egypt is his true self (or perhaps personality). There is much more that could be said on this subject, but all of John's knowledge and beliefs in regard to the sun gods and ancient Egypt basically comes from interactions with this inner personality and another outside and less important entity. From this standpoint, John is partly a man of our era, and partly a man of a very different and ancient era. Both of these are totally loyal and devoted to the ancient Egyptian gods.

Regarding your second paragraph--I will need to do more research. The Freemasons in Italy or elsewhere beyond the English speaking world are certainly not anything I know very much about. In the U.S. there may be groups of the type you mention. In fact, many people believe there are such groups. However, as far as I know, they are not associated with the Freemasons.

Cordially,
S&S

SeaAndSky said:

Hi Traveler,

Regarding your first paragraph--I also see Jesus as incarnate divinity, and hold to the Nicene Creed as the only true ecumenical creed. I also hold to the Apostle's Creed with one exception: the original language posits a resurrection of the flesh, which I believe to directly contradict 1 Cor. 15. However, I also believe that the spiritual body of the resurrection (as described in 1 Cor. 15) is fully capable of manifesting physically, as can be seen in the example of the three strangers who dined with Abraham prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (and in other Biblical examples).

Also, in terms of John Tat, he is not a Neo-Pagan and generally doesn't have much interest in such individuals. He is elderly and his story is long and rather strange, but basically it involves memories that go back to the founding of Egypt by what he refers to as the "sun gods", and what you and I might refer to as a group of Elohim who took charge of and actually selected and "called" a group of people to the region of the Nile. These people then became the founders of ancient Egypt under the guidance and protection of these sun gods. John believes the person who carries these memories and the memories of numerous incarnations in ancient Egypt is his true self (or perhaps personality). There is much more that could be said on this subject, but all of John's knowledge and beliefs in regard to the sun gods and ancient Egypt basically comes from interactions with this inner personality and another outside and less important entity. From this standpoint, John is partly a man of our era, and partly a man of a very different and ancient era. Both of these are totally loyal and devoted to the ancient Egyptian gods.

Regarding your second paragraph--I will need to do more research. The Freemasons in Italy or elsewhere beyond the English speaking world are certainly not anything I know very much about. In the U.S. there may be groups of the type you mention. In fact, many people believe there are such groups. However, as far as I know, they are not associated with the Freemasons.

Cordially,
S&S

Click to expand...

Sea and sky, then ... I do not know the story of the guests of Abraham you are talking about because unfortunately I only have the gospels in the paperback at home (plus the cei version - - as much as I would like to have a beautiful bible in installments with an original translation. anyway, well all in all, despite my Neptunian square that from the learner points my retrograde mercury, which makes me misunderstand every time I open my mouth,
I would say that we are cleared up. for your friend I cannot pronounce myself, and I have not well understood but more or less I have understood that two people coexist in him and one had to do with these ancient spirits who founded the Egyptian civilization.

the only protector of Egypt that I know from Jewish traditions is unfortunately the fallen angel named Dumah, but he does not make any text because Dumah repudiated God and embraced the underworld.
there were also other fallen angels, whom it is good never to trust:
Melchiah was a protector of Eden, but he let the snake in, I don't know by negligence or by will. zephon had to do with the cults and human sacrifices related to the Mesopotamian god baal. rahab defied God as did luficero with arrogance. he was trapped in the depths of the sea, at least until he found a book of universal wisdom lost by the archangel of knowledge raziel.

he could use the book for evil purposes and instead gave it back to him, this earned him forgiveness.
turel, finally, well, turel was too busy copulating with human women
from him the nephilim were born, which in Greek mythology
I think are equivalent to giants and titans.
I do not exclude that the same gods venerated by the ancient Greeks were actually nephilim.
It occurs to me that perhaps the mammoth and terrible goliath killed by David belonged to this lineage, a sort of polyphemus that terrified the Jewish army of the time and that routed the soldiers of Israel.
I think the entities he refers to have kept their discernment. the Egyptians were a great civilization, being able to last for so many millennia was really a remarkable feat.
I cannot blame all egypt for the suffering suffered by the Jews during their slavery.
I believe that the fault lies solely with the pharaoh of that time who was an arrogant idiot. if he had listened to Moses he would have spared the ten plagues and the death of the firstborn, as well as the loss of his army in the waters of the Red Sea.


as far as Freemasonry is concerned, the situation is rather thorny. I can't talk about it here, I can only tell you that in Italy it has his hands in politics, the church, the Vatican, and that both the most fearful mafia bosses and satanic covenants are satellites to these lodges.
I really hope that not all modern hermetic societies are so misled, but at least in my country this is the sad reality. there is a reason why my country is rulede by one of the most corrupt and inefficient political class in europe. -_-

SeaAndSky said:

I thought this was a good article overall, and helps to dispel the numerous misconceptions based on a couple of millennia of artistic imaginings in terms of how Jesus dressed and looked:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-did-jesus-wear?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The initial reference to a physical likeness based on a skull from the era doesn't accomplish much IMO. (I personally think the various renderings based on the Shroud of Turin are likely to be more accurate and certainly look more like what I would "imagine" Jesus to have looked like). However, the links provided are otherwise very interesting and informative.

The long and short of it is that Jesus' attire and overall "look" was, well . . . pretty shabby. He would not have been dressed in the kinds of boldly colored robes we see in various paintings. As the author says:

"And so while Jesus wore similar clothes to other Jewish men in many respects, his “look” was scruffy. . . .

Wearing a basic tunic that other people wore as an undergarment would fit with Jesus’ detachment regarding material things (Matthew 6:19-21, 28–29; Luke 6:34-35, 12:22-28) and concern for the poor (Luke 6:20-23).

This, to me, is the beginning of a different way of seeing Jesus, and one very relevant for our times of massive inequality between rich and poor, as in the Roman Empire. Jesus aligned himself with the poor and this would have been obvious from how he looked.

The appearance of Jesus matters because it cuts to the heart of his message. However he is depicted in film and art today, he needs to be shown as one of the have-nots; his teaching can only be truly understood from this perspective."

Cordially,
S&S

PS--There is a nice sketch to give the general idea.

Click to expand...

Hi! I respect this post and I believe that Jesus really dressed this way.