I found this on the internet (where else) and besides my amusement, I was genuinely curious and looked it up and it actually seems not too far fetched!
Plus you gotta admit, Cesare looks a lot more like this quintessential image than what the actual Jesus would have looked like – i.e., more like this image below if one uses logic and reason to trace his likely features given time and place. Even if one allows for him having more distinct features than his biological peers, it’s borderline impossible that he’d have looked like the wavy-haired, nigh porcelain-white trim-bearded pretty boy that so many adorn their walls with – he’d have looked more like a hippy because they didn’t exactly give a crap about trimming beards and cropping them close and styling hair and shit back then and definitely not the down-to-earth crowd that Jesus would have surrounded himself with.. but I’m getting off track.
For your information:
Cesare Borgia was an Italian nobleman, politician and cardinal (at age 18 by the way, when his daddy-o became pope! hooray nepotism!), whose fight for power was a major inspiration for The Prince by Machiavelli. A book that was explained as follows:
The descriptions within The Prince have the general theme of accepting that the aims of princes—such as glory and survival—can justify the use of immoral means to achieve those ends
He was the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) and his long-term mistress – this Pope also being the man some may know from the TV show The Borgia’s and he was quite a dude… his successor said the following about him:
“I will not live in the same rooms as the Borgias lived. He desecrated the Holy Church as none before. He usurped the papal power by the devil’s aid, and I forbid under the pain of excommunication anyone to speak or think of Borgia again. His name and memory must be forgotten. It must be crossed out of every document and memorial. His reign must be obliterated. All paintings made of the Borgias or for them must be covered over with black crepe…”
Those quarters remained sealed till the 19th century by the way. That’s how long people were a little freaked out by these people. But interestingly he wasn’t a terrible monster either, he was kind to Jew refugees, was a patron of arts and theatre, was sort of open-minded unlike the anal-retentive standards of the day and so I take any condemnation of him with a pinch of salt. Maybe he was more “Machiavellian” than pious and was definitely a libertine so I can see how the uptight douche-bags who were otherwise would have reviled someone like him trying to reform and tighten up the church, go easy on non-conformists and rein in church-power.
And of course his sister was the infamous and much-overused in pop-cultural fiction, Lucrezia Borgia – she of the several husbands, thirst for power and supposed love of poisoning including reputedly a hollow ring to dispense the same.
Basically this is me wondering why Christians persist in using a false image of their “lord” and idol and all that – besides the already obvious choice to use a wierdly version of him in general anyway.
Then again, over time religious people make less and less sense to me – more specifically the hardcore ones that don’t budge on anything ever and love being on the offense against everyone that isn’t, well, them.