DS Forums

 
 

Is this what Jesus looked like?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-12-2016, 18:16
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,011
I can't make head nor tail of the 'picture'
nor me , it looks like Swamp Thing covered in tar .
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-12-2016, 18:22
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 619

That's a bewigged poster on Grindr looking for contacts
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2016, 19:02
Marispiper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 266
I always take the "son of god" description symbolically. Catholics worship "Mary, mother of Jesus" more prominently than Jesus himself and Protestants tend to worship Jesus and God as one or as linked entities. Mary and God certainly fulfils the one God that is both male and female, but I do worry as to why scholars feel it is perfectly fine to change the course or even invalidate Christianity, when they wouldn't even dare to do the same with Islam. Or Hinduism. I think it's fine, and kind of exciting to find things that more or less confirm Jesus' existence, but it should always be handled in a respectful and frankly, non-compromising way when it comes to undermining the spiritual belief, and lifelong hope, of millions.
As a Catholic, I just wanted to clarify that our church honours Mary...but we worship God... Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary doesn't come first in any sense even though many Catholics have a devotion to her, or another saint...as somebody who they look up to.
But God is the top man!
Marispiper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2016, 21:38
Andrew1954
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,990
I knew it, Jon Pertwee was Jesus!
Jesus was Dr Who. Makes a lot of sense.
Andrew1954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2016, 22:04
Fairyprincess0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,696
Jesus was Dr Who. Makes a lot of sense.
Based on the 'classic' look of jesus, id have said he was the 8th doctor.....
Fairyprincess0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 01:18
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
So my sunday school pics of jesus with long straight ginger hair were ........ wrong ?
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 01:24
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
Dammit, i'm just not going to trust those pre raphaelite painters any more ........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 01:34
Fizzbin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East London
Posts: 25,845
Based on the 'classic' look of jesus, id have said he was the 8th doctor.....
And the 6th Doctor was the basis for Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat
Fizzbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 01:46
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
If he even existed Yeshua ben Yosef would have looked something like this.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XhLtvYhvbsU/maxresdefault.jpg
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 09:17
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
His actual existence isn't that contentious. A man of that name may well have made some waves. Being the son of some supreme being, that's a whole new can of worms.
yet theres not 1 contemporary account that referes to him.... hmmmm....
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 09:33
Aetius_Maralas
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 716
yet theres not 1 contemporary account that referes to him.... hmmmm....
The same arguments that dismiss Jesus as having lived mean you lose a lot of historical figures.

I guess you don't believe in Alexander the Great then?
Aetius_Maralas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 09:41
dosanjh1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,793
yet theres not 1 contemporary account that referes to him.... hmmmm....
Paul The Apostle was born within his lifetime.
dosanjh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 10:08
skinj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,194
yet theres not 1 contemporary account that referes to him.... hmmmm....
Surviving one, or one that's been unearthed...yet.

I'm rot religious at all and find the concept of religion to be absurd today.
2000+ years ago however, Religion was a question answering guidance system for much more scientifically uninformed population.
I've said to people for years that I have no issue with there being a man called Jesus (or the correct spelling for the time/place) who was someone that was trying to change his surroundings & prevailing attitudes for the better. No issue at all that people admired him, followed him etc & would actually love for there to be solid evidence of this. The same also applies to the other major religions that still have huge influence in the world.
Unfortunately the belief systems that have built up around these people will be incredibly difficult to change & are unlikely to accept any actual evidence contradicting their long established books of faith (even though these books often contradict themselves in numerous places anyway).
This new(ish) finding will just be ignored by the Christian faith as either fake or a genuine article that was attempting to derail the Christian faith when it was made.
skinj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 11:04
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Paul The Apostle was born within his lifetime.
is there any evidence for this?.... but even so, did baby paul write a contemporary account?

and if it wasnt for paul pushing this agenda, christianity might not have taken off because as i understand it, all references track back to him...1 guy...

im astounded that so many intelligent people believe this guff as fact...
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 11:09
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Surviving one, or one that's been unearthed...yet.

I'm rot religious at all and find the concept of religion to be absurd today.
2000+ years ago however, Religion was a question answering guidance system for much more scientifically uninformed population.
I've said to people for years that I have no issue with there being a man called Jesus (or the correct spelling for the time/place) who was someone that was trying to change his surroundings & prevailing attitudes for the better. No issue at all that people admired him, followed him etc & would actually love for there to be solid evidence of this. The same also applies to the other major religions that still have huge influence in the world.
Unfortunately the belief systems that have built up around these people will be incredibly difficult to change & are unlikely to accept any actual evidence contradicting their long established books of faith (even though these books often contradict themselves in numerous places anyway).
This new(ish) finding will just be ignored by the Christian faith as either fake or a genuine article that was attempting to derail the Christian faith when it was made.
bib.... thats the point though, there is no solid evidence for this. its all heresay, conjecture, fable, myth. i find it remarkable that theres not 1 contemporary account of this supposed person who preached to thousands over a 3 year period. why?.

untill there is a solid indisputable account of 'him', then it must be treated with suspicion and the fact that its possible its all made up.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 11:32
skinj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,194
bib.... thats the point though, there is no solid evidence for this. its all heresay, conjecture, fable, myth. i find it remarkable that theres not 1 contemporary account of this supposed person who preached to thousands over a 3 year period. why?.

untill there is a solid indisputable account of 'him', then it must be treated with suspicion and the fact that its possible its all made up.
Unfortunately it needs to be remembered that there was no readily available way for the majority of people to record these historical details & if those that did would likely be on perishable items that have simply been lost through deterioration in the following 2000 years.
The stuff that has been "recorded" & kept is unfortunately 2nd/3rd/4th+ hand accounts dozens-hundreds of years later, possibly when those following in the words he laid down (although likely to have been twisted, altered, manipulated for various reasons) were in a position better to compile & keep records.
On the other hand, the anecdotal evidence that we have could just be whole load of crap based on a control system thought up a load of guys trying to influence culture years after his death but jumping on the almost mythical name he had created during his life.
skinj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 11:34
DW2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 266
and if it wasnt for paul pushing this agenda, christianity might not have taken off because as i understand it, all references track back to him...1 guy...
And your understanding is wrong. Paul's letters often respond to arguments and disagreements he had with other parts of the church (e.g in Galatians 2:11-21 Paul responds to an argument his readers are aware he had with Peter) It's would seem odd if Paul spend ages writing responses to things nobody else was saying or teaching. Therefore Paul almost certainly was not the only influential person within the early church as otherwise he wouldn't have spent so much time responding to 'false teachers' and other factions.

So why is it that only Paul's writing survive? Have you ever been to an archaeological site or a museum? If fragments or pottery or a pile of bricks are of interest to an archaeologist then how many writings made of papyrus etc are still around? It's important to remember that only a tiny percentage of everything that was written by the early church or the Romans survives to this day.

im astounded that so many intelligent people believe this guff as fact...
Seeing as even very sceptical scholars accept that Jesus existed, maybe you're overlooking the fact that believing Jesus was the originator of Christianity fits with the evidence better than any other explanation. I think Scientology is a load of rubbish, but that doesn't automatically mean Ron Hubbard didn't exist.
DW2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 11:39
John_Clunes
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 721
I always take the "son of god" description symbolically. Catholics worship "Mary, mother of Jesus" more prominently than Jesus
No they dont
John_Clunes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 11:51
dosanjh1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,793
is there any evidence for this?.... but even so, did baby paul write a contemporary account?

and if it wasnt for paul pushing this agenda, christianity might not have taken off because as i understand it, all references track back to him...1 guy...

im astounded that so many intelligent people believe this guff as fact...
DW2 explain's it better than I can.

Paul was certainly a contemporary of Jesus, even though he didn't meet him, his writings say he met with those who did - namely the early apostles.

It's logical to accept that Jesus very likely existed - Pauls existence is not in doubt.

Obviously that can't ever be watertight and definative evidence - but to be sceptical about it is rejecting a fairly strong balance of probability.
dosanjh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 12:20
BAR_MAG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 594
And there are new discoveries every year. I've heard for years that the Queen Néfertiti had mysteriously disappeared from all official records, years before her supposed death. Only to see a tv documentary about a recent discovery of her name being found written on a marble piece, in a... not sure, cavern or something like that? with a date and her rank, meaning that she hadn't disappeared but that the papyrus mentioning her had been probably lost to Time. Causing archeologists to come up with the theory that something had happened to her, death, repudiation.....

I had seen a tv documentary about what would happen if all humanity vanished out of the blue. In 10 000 to 20 000 years, there will be nothing left of us, only monuments like the Pyramids or Mont Rushmore.

Our civilisations would be just legends.
BAR_MAG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 12:21
BAR_MAG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 594
Double post, sorry.
BAR_MAG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 12:27
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Unfortunately it needs to be remembered that there was no readily available way for the majority of people to record these historical details & if those that did would likely be on perishable items that have simply been lost through deterioration in the following 2000 years.
The stuff that has been "recorded" & kept is unfortunately 2nd/3rd/4th+ hand accounts dozens-hundreds of years later, possibly when those following in the words he laid down (although likely to have been twisted, altered, manipulated for various reasons) were in a position better to compile & keep records.
On the other hand, the anecdotal evidence that we have could just be whole load of crap based on a control system thought up a load of guys trying to influence culture years after his death but jumping on the almost mythical name he had created during his life.
he supposed to have preached to thousands of people..... how come theres no widespread corroborative accounts passed down orally ? they didnt have to write it down, but it would have helped. the lack of such testimonies raises a red flag to me.... the only sort of testimony comes from people with a vested interest.

And your understanding is wrong. Paul's letters often respond to arguments and disagreements he had with other parts of the church (e.g in Galatians 2:11-21 Paul responds to an argument his readers are aware he had with Peter) It's would seem odd if Paul spend ages writing responses to things nobody else was saying or teaching. Therefore Paul almost certainly was not the only influential person within the early church as otherwise he wouldn't have spent so much time responding to 'false teachers' and other factions.
you mean people who disputed pauls version.... hmmm.... you think thats solid ground?

So why is it that only Paul's writing survive? Have you ever been to an archaeological site or a museum? If fragments or pottery or a pile of bricks are of interest to an archaeologist then how many writings made of papyrus etc are still around? It's important to remember that only a tiny percentage of everything that was written by the early church or the Romans survives to this day.
no comparison. pottery, bricks, whatever can be dated, traced, understood, they are what they are. writings on papyrus mean nothing, they are only evidence that they are writings on papyrus, it doesnt mean what the writing says is real.

but even so.... there is no writings contemporary to the life of jesus that support he existed. which id suggest is very strange for a character that had such a high profile.

id also refer you to the answer above.

Seeing as even very sceptical scholars accept that Jesus existed, maybe you're overlooking the fact that believing Jesus was the originator of Christianity fits with the evidence better than any other explanation. I think Scientology is a load of rubbish, but that doesn't automatically mean Ron Hubbard didn't exist.
i dont accept that 'nearly every scholar' accepts jesus existed.. no scholar would accept the existence of anything of which there is no evidence. im guessing your scholars are of a biblical/religious persuasion, certainly no scientist would belive in something theres no evidence for.

no comparison between jesus and hubbard.

DW2 explain's it better than I can.

Paul was certainly a contemporary of Jesus, even though he didn't meet him, his writings say he met with those who did - namely the early apostles.

It's logical to accept that Jesus very likely existed - Pauls existence is not in doubt.

Obviously that can't ever be watertight and definative evidence - but to be sceptical about it is rejecting a fairly strong balance of probability.
see... thats my problem. christianity is so entrenched in western society/culture, that people just accept he existed in some way.... that the biblical character was based on a real figure, and indeed that is one explaination. but its also possible that the whole jesus story is complete fiction. that point cannot be ignored, it is possible.

of course many doubt the biblical jesus, most i think would think he was an embellished character based on a real person - and that is possible. but on the other hand 'he' might be a complete work of fiction.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 12:29
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
And there are new discoveries every year. I've heard for years that the Queen Néfertiti had mysteriously disappeared from all official records, years before her supposed death. Only to see a tv documentary about a recent discovery of her name being found written on a marble piece, in a... not sure, cavern or something like that? with a date and her rank, meaning that she hadn't disappeared but that the papyrus mentioning her had been probably lost to Time. Causing archeologists to come up with the theory that something had happened to her, death, repudiation.....

I had seen a tv documentary about what would happen if all humanity vanished out of the blue. In 10 000 to 20 000 years, there will be nothing left of us, only monuments like the Pyramids or Mont Rushmore.

Our civilisations would be just legends.
thats clutching at straws.... and our civilisations would be far more then legends, theres far too much work been done on the planets surface.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 12:39
skinj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,194
he supposed to have preached to thousands of people..... how come theres no widespread corroborative accounts passed down orally ? they didnt have to write it down, but it would have helped. the lack of such testimonies raises a red flag to me.... the only sort of testimony comes from people with a vested interest.
Uuuummmmmm that's precisely what the new testament is isn't it?! At some point people got around to documenting the life and work of Jesus from the various stories & sources most of which are likely to have been passed down orally until that point.
Why would people that were not interested in what he did bother documenting it?
skinj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 13:09
skinj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,194
see... thats my problem. christianity is so entrenched in western society/culture, that people just accept he existed in some way.... that the biblical character was based on a real figure, and indeed that is one explaination. but its also possible that the whole jesus story is complete fiction. that point cannot be ignored, it is possible.

of course many doubt the biblical jesus, most i think would think he was an embellished character based on a real person - and that is possible. but on the other hand 'he' might be a complete work of fiction.
The interesting thing with the bible is that there are certain things within it that sound ridiculous (& imho all of the god/religious slant of it is. The Moralistic side has it's benefits but only to within the time period it was written, now a lot is irrelevant) that does appear to actually have some simple possible basis in truth that has been embellished.
I remember watching a documentary about one such possibility a long time ago, think this was it. It had interesting theoretical links between events that we know happened & stories that are embellished re-tellings of history from the bible.
skinj is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:42.