saw_escapingmtn
6'1 and asymmetrical
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2026
- Messages
- 203
- Solutions
- 4
- Online time
- 2d 4h
- Reputation
- 253
I want to preface this by saying that I am broadly a Christian. It may sound disrespectful to argue that Jesus was an LTN, however, that is because people's brains are wired to respect more attractive people. Disagreeing with this conclusion is largely because people hate the unattractive and people are uncomfortable with accepting that their saviour was not a PSL 8 mogger, not because there is a good argument that Jesus was above LTN.
Debates about Jesus' appearance in popular discourse typically discuss his hair length and skin color. The apostle Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 11 that a man having long hair is a negative trait, troubling popular depictions of Jesus as having long hair, and genealogies of Jesus' lineage are debated to determine how dark or light Jesus' skin was.
These do not really matter, as it is obvious to any reasonable person that you can be exceptionally attractive with a variety of hair lengths and skin colors.
The more pressing concern is to do with if Jesus was generally beautiful while on earth. Depictions of Jesus may differ on miscellaneous traits, but throughout much of history, Jesus has been portrayed as beautiful in paintings, movies and television. The only exception in recent times is this depiction that claims to have been formed using forensic science:
This image pissed off a bunch of conservative Christians, but the debate claimed to focus on his skin color. These conservatives were most likely angry mostly because it portrayed Jesus as an LTN and they don't even realize it jfl. I don't care how accurate this exact depiction is, but it just goes to show how many Christians find it unsettling that Jesus could be unattractive. Also, Christians who were pissed would probably still be angry even if Jesus had lighter skin in this image, it's more so about his lack of harmony.
We can actually know for certain that Jesus was not beautiful. Isaiah 53:2, a text that prophesies about the coming Messiah, unequivocally states that there is "nothing in his appearance that we should desire him". The next verse then states that he was to be despised and rejected by mankind. Whether this implies a correlation between being despised for not being beautiful is up to interpretation, but the certain takeaway is that Jesus was not beautiful on earth.
This verse in Isaiah points to the LTN range as it does not hint at any obvious deformities or anything that would put Jesus below LTN, and nothing being particularly redeemable about his appearance fits the LTN range best IMO.
Jesus being LTN helps explain why he was despised by the world so much as during his ministry, he experienced worse treatment because of his looks by many outside of his immediate circle. Many of his teachings may have been rejected by others simply because he was not perceived well because of his looks.
I would go as far as to say that this was intentional. God incarnate made sure that those who trusted him during his ministry did so out of genuine faith rather than believing a beautiful person as we are already inclined to do that.
Debates about Jesus' appearance in popular discourse typically discuss his hair length and skin color. The apostle Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 11 that a man having long hair is a negative trait, troubling popular depictions of Jesus as having long hair, and genealogies of Jesus' lineage are debated to determine how dark or light Jesus' skin was.
These do not really matter, as it is obvious to any reasonable person that you can be exceptionally attractive with a variety of hair lengths and skin colors.
The more pressing concern is to do with if Jesus was generally beautiful while on earth. Depictions of Jesus may differ on miscellaneous traits, but throughout much of history, Jesus has been portrayed as beautiful in paintings, movies and television. The only exception in recent times is this depiction that claims to have been formed using forensic science:
This image pissed off a bunch of conservative Christians, but the debate claimed to focus on his skin color. These conservatives were most likely angry mostly because it portrayed Jesus as an LTN and they don't even realize it jfl. I don't care how accurate this exact depiction is, but it just goes to show how many Christians find it unsettling that Jesus could be unattractive. Also, Christians who were pissed would probably still be angry even if Jesus had lighter skin in this image, it's more so about his lack of harmony.
We can actually know for certain that Jesus was not beautiful. Isaiah 53:2, a text that prophesies about the coming Messiah, unequivocally states that there is "nothing in his appearance that we should desire him". The next verse then states that he was to be despised and rejected by mankind. Whether this implies a correlation between being despised for not being beautiful is up to interpretation, but the certain takeaway is that Jesus was not beautiful on earth.
This verse in Isaiah points to the LTN range as it does not hint at any obvious deformities or anything that would put Jesus below LTN, and nothing being particularly redeemable about his appearance fits the LTN range best IMO.
Jesus being LTN helps explain why he was despised by the world so much as during his ministry, he experienced worse treatment because of his looks by many outside of his immediate circle. Many of his teachings may have been rejected by others simply because he was not perceived well because of his looks.
I would go as far as to say that this was intentional. God incarnate made sure that those who trusted him during his ministry did so out of genuine faith rather than believing a beautiful person as we are already inclined to do that.
