Is a picture of a young, virile Jesus sacrilegious?

I mean, we all know what he really looked like:
https://imgcdn.stablediffusionweb.com/2024/2/4/33063660-60af-4f33-8d1e-ac0873cc05de.jpg

It only fails as a piece of religious art in discounting the wounds. One could call it a pre-scourging depiction of Christ, but would still need to a crown of thorns.

I wouldn’t call it sacrilegious, but but it errs in not being at all venerable.

We don’t know what Jesus looked like. There are no contemporary depictions or descriptions. Any assertion about His visage is idolatry. It is a distraction from His message.

This is clear to me, and I am an atheist.

I don’t know about sacrilegious, but certainly not a true depiction since Jesus was of middle eastern decent.
So any picture of Jesus as a blue eyed blonde is just an artists rendering.

I have a photo of my husband that I call his Jesus photo. Stronger jaw, black long hair, short trimmed facial hair, and fully dressed. Looks way more handsome and virile to me than the depiction on your link.

I don’t think it’s sacrilegious, but I can understand why some people don’t like it. I personally think it’s it’s so strange to have Jesus nailed to a cross as something people hang up in their homes and churches and wear around their necks. Seeing that horrible circumstances? A constant visual of a violent end. It’s so odd to me.

He looks European…

Looks odd to me. But whatever rattles your cage.

I’m used to seeing pictures of Jesus in long robes or nailed to the cross with wounds and blood.

My Sister has a huge crucifix hanging on the wall at the end of her home’s hallway. It must be at least 4 feet long. Jesus’s lifeless body hanging in it is truly shocking. My Sister claims that her husband insisted on getting it. They’re both Catholics.

I’m an agnostic because I only know my own ignorance.

“He who does not really feel himself lost is lost beyond remission.” -Jose Ortega

I don’t find it sacrilegious, just quite unrealistic.

He looks too white and he looks like he’s trying to be sexy. It’s odd, to me.

“Heee’s . . . HOT JESUS! Check it and see! He’s got a fever of a hundred and three!”

If Christ had been old and ugly the sacrifice would not have been so great but to describe him as “hot” is truly demeaning.

The depiction of Jeaus as while is more sacrilegious.

Did he actually exist?
I have always been fond of the buddy Christ form

Like @smudges I don’t necessarily see it as sacrilegious, just highly inaccurate. He never dressed like that and certainly not when he was buried. From what I can gather, he was not naked when crucified, wearing only his tunic (undergarment) that covered from shoulders to legs. When he was buried, he was wrapped in a cloth as per Jewish law of the day.

The only possible sacrilegious aspect of this painting would be in trying to slowly altering the facts so that you can depict an alternate reality, slowly changing what people believe. But from this aspect my opinion doesn’t count. That is between the artist and God.

The other thing to look at with the painting depicted in the question is how people view it. Non-Christians can feel whatever they like about it, but this picture was commissioned to be used in a very important ceremony in Spain. If it offends the true believers, then I’d say it is inappropriate.