Do not believe the israeli-made "depictions" of Jesus.Jesus Christ was a Galilean Levantine. This is what he looked when you feed every genuine descriptions of the Lord into AI
>>18435339There are no genuine descriptions. Besides, the Shroud of Turin is literally him and he looks super Jewish. He's not ugly, but he's not attractive. He actually looks like Isaiah 53's depiction of the Suffering Servant.>He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
>>18435344>There are no genuine descriptions educate yourself retard
>>18435344>the Shroud of Turin is literally him and he looks super JewishNot saying that he didn't look jewish, but the shroud is a forgery
>>18435387I've considered it, but it is almost certainly the Mandylion.
>>18435339>>18435344the "most real" possible interpretation of the shroud is that it was an icon made for the Severan/Edessa dynasty and modeled on his relatives that looked most like Cleopatra VII due to themselves being the descendants of Drusilla of Mauretania, whom were Jesus' niece.He was a greco-berber-italian mutt, but probably looked very similar to the "stereotypical" jesus.
>>18435375>letter of lentullus >authentic and not a renaissance forgerythey couldn't even get roman names right, publius is a praenomen not a nomen
>>18435883>renaissance forgeryaccording to who? jews?
>>1843589318th and 19th century scholars and the Catholic Church. The letter doesn't fit in with Roman letters, there's no record of a Lentulus ever being governor of Jerusalem or Judea, and there is no record of it before the 15th century.
>>18435375>>18435893That image was made by a British christcuck>b-but jews?You lost.
