The bible itself condems Jesus

Hmm....documentaries explaining why Jesus was painted in that styIe by historians...or 16 year old on the internet that bashes religion. What a conundrum who to believe.:roll:LJS9502_basic

I'm not 16, but I see it would make you feel better to believe that I am. That's also an insult to 16 year-olds such as Funky_Llama who have displayed quite an impressive deal of intelligence. And you can't deny that, and if you do, you'd be nothing more than a bully.

The documentaries could be funded by the church as well. Did you think about that possibility? Of course they'll make every attempt to convince you they're telling the truth.

By the way, I'm 28. How old are you LJ? I asked you three times earlier and you clearly wanted to avoid answering, by disappearing from both threads that I asked you in. And when you showed back up, and even quoted the post where I asked, you ignored the age question, and just focused on my other point. Makes me wonder...what are you hiding? Are you ashamed? Are you a really old guy who doesn't want to say his age, because it would be embarrassing for a grown man to get owned by a 16 year-old like Llama? (And yes, he did own you, more than once even.)

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Pfft. 'Course not. But I'm relying on the fact that gullible Christians are - in my experience, at least - quite happy to assume it's real.

LJS9502_basic

What makes you assume it was Christians who put it to radiocarbon dating? Besides, I said 'in my experience', so clearly I do not mean every Christian.

And here's a fascinating fact: after scientists wanted to check again to verify their original findings, guess what? The Christians in ownership of it denied them!

I am fully aware of what ad hominem means.

I don't pretend to be an expert here. But neither are you; and besides, this is less about whether he did actually have long hair, and more about the more abstract notion that the way in which paintings of Jesus differ illustrates double standards on your part. As I said you question the authenticity of the paintings but you quite happily believe the Bible. It doesn't take an expert to see the problem there.

Besides, if you're going to trust the experts, then what about the legions of evolutionary biologists and astrophysicists whom you're so certain you know more about their own fields than?

Funky_Llama

As I stated.....HISTORIANS made the documentary. I'd say they are experts. Second, common sense answers this question if one thinks about it.

It has been stated over and over in this thread by SEVERAL people why the paintings are as such. I'm not questioning the authenticity of the paintings....they OBVIOUSLY EXIST. But the artists never saw Jesus....they had no description to work from.

What does evolution have to do with anything here? You want to bring science into this....fine. I'll sum it up for you.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

/thread.

And here's a fascinating fact: after scientists wanted to check again to verify their original findings, guess what? The Christians in ownership of it denied them!

Funky_Llama

Now I have to step out for awhile.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

No no no, you tell me why they would be different from each other to begin with. That's the real question. If Jesus' story is a true one, there shouldn't be all these "different versions". Just like nobody thinks the sun is purple and cold. There's only one version of the sun.

Variations in records from different times just shows inconsistency in the keepings of such things...that are supposedly sacred?!?!? :? Yowza.

Mr_sprinkles

Painting of jesus are not "records of his image" because there are none. They are images of what the artists believe jesus might have looked like.

And they all believe different because there is no description of jesus surviving from when he was alive. Simple eh?

And that's the problem; this is the Son of God! Are you really claiming that none of his legions of followers would not have recorded his physical appearance?

[QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]...Yes, the Sistine Chapel is real. We know this. Funky_Llama

Was refferring to the roof, and are paintings counted as records?

Oh, I see.

That doesn't answer the question.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

You may wish to look up ad hominem. I merely weighed the two sources. You are 16...that is not an attack. You do bash religion...that is not an attack. Simple facts. You want me to believe you. Why should I? Particularly when this issue has been studied by HISTORIANS. What are YOUR credentials then?Funky_Llama

I don't pretend to be an expert here. But neither are you; and besides, this is less about whether he did actually have long hair, and more about the more abstract notion that the way in which paintings of Jesus differ illustrates double standards on your part. As I said you question the authenticity of the paintings but you quite happily believe the Bible. It doesn't take an expert to see the problem there.

Besides, if you're going to trust the experts, then what about the legions of evolutionary biologists and astrophysicists whom you're so certain you know more about their own fields than?

Owned by a 16 year-old again.

Oh yeah, LJ, where are YOUR credentials? I'd like to see them, you know, since you were challenging his...

Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

LJS9502_basic

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And here's a fascinating fact: after scientists wanted to check again to verify their original findings, guess what? The Christians in ownership of it denied them!

LJS9502_basic

Now I have to step out for awhile.

And what is your source for this? I doubt that 'a big portion' would be needed, I really do. Only a small swatch is required.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I am fully aware of what ad hominem means.

I don't pretend to be an expert here. But neither are you; and besides, this is less about whether he did actually have long hair, and more about the more abstract notion that the way in which paintings of Jesus differ illustrates double standards on your part. As I said you question the authenticity of the paintings but you quite happily believe the Bible. It doesn't take an expert to see the problem there.

Besides, if you're going to trust the experts, then what about the legions of evolutionary biologists and astrophysicists whom you're so certain you know more about their own fields than?

LJS9502_basic

As I stated.....HISTORIANS made the documentary. I'd say they are experts. Second, common sense answers this question if one thinks about it.

It has been stated over and over in this thread by SEVERAL people why the paintings are as such. I'm not questioning the authenticity of the paintings....they OBVIOUSLY EXIST. But the artists never saw Jesus....they had no description to work from.

What does evolution have to do with anything here? You want to bring science into this....fine. I'll sum it up for you.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

/thread.

Don't they? You honestly claim that we could have come to exist through evolution and God creating us? Go on, try to reconcile creationism and Darwinism.

It has been stated over and over in this thread by SEVERAL people why the paintings are as such. I'm not questioning the authenticity of the paintings....they OBVIOUSLY EXIST. But the artists never saw Jesus....they had no description to work from.

LJS9502_basic

Wouldn't the description be with the same records that contained the details of his resurrection? Does that also mean that the resurrection never happened too? Oh wait I just remembered...after the resurrection, it was noted that Jesus looked different than he did before. If they noticed how he looked different, they must have known how he looked before. If they knew how he looked before, they must have recorded it somewhere.

/thread.

LJS9502_basic

That's the second time you've done this. Is it because you're worried that you might get owned, so you're trying to end the thread before it happens? I'm sensing desperation on your part.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

luke1889

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

mindstorm

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

And for the 4th time now, LJ avoids revealing his age. Deity_Slapper

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

123625

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

I saw the 11th Century one on Wikipedia. I don't know about the other one.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

123625

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

Thoughts of artist in 11th century: "Hmmm.. I wonder what Jesus looks like. I know what I'll do! I'll use the interwebz to find an earlier and likely more accurate picture of him!"

Nope.

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

mindstorm

In all fairness, the post you refer to does seems pretty sound. I have no problem in admitting that.

Would you agree, then, that the people who painted Jesus had absolutely no idea what he looked like, so they basically made it up?

If so, they still didn't give it much thought with the whole white skin business.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

mindstorm

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

Thoughts of artist in 11th century: "Hmmm.. I wonder what Jesus looks like. I know what I'll do! I'll use the interwebz to find an earlier and likely more accurate picture of him!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

I saw the 11th Century one on Wikipedia. I don't know about the other one

Funky_Llama

I was actually hoping for the area in which they came from. I can only assume the 3rd century one was painted somewhere in the middle east, as I beleive christianity had'nt spread that far by then. and the 11th centure one was painted somewhere in Europe, but these are just guesses.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]Nope.

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

luke1889

In all fairness, the post you refer to does seems pretty sound. I have no problem in admitting that.

Would you agree, then, that the people who painted Jesus had absolutely no idea what he looked like, so they basically made it up?

If so, they still didn't give it much thought with the whole white skin business.

I've once heard a story about one of the artists who actually used the same model for both Jesus and Judas. He didn't realize at the time it was the same person as he had changed so much over time. He used someone with an almost glowing face for Jesus and a ragged looking person for Judas. After the model spent time in prison he looked a little different it seems. Whether that story is true I have no idea btw.

First is you have to understand why this verse was even said. It isn't wrong to have long hair. 1. Paul when writing said this because their were male prostitutes in the city who had long hair and he didn't want the church to be identified with them. The same thing happened with females with short hair and a lot of jewelry.

2. Second thing is we have no idea what Jesus even looked like. 3. Many pictures of Jesus portray him with long hair and a beard but he could very well have been bald with no facial hair. The only thing we have to go on is the Bible saying he did not stand out in how he looked. The earliest paintings of Jesus portray him as having no facial hair also due to the fact that facial hair was considered to have been had by the underprivilaged.

mindstorm

1. Then why does it say, "doth not EVEN NATURE ITSELF TEACH YOU..." What would that have to do with prostitution? I think you might be misunderstanding your own scriptures.

2. If we don't know what Jesus looks like, then how do we know that anything he ever did (resurrection, miracles) happened either? Wouldn't those things kinda go hand in hand, as both miracles and a resurrection both are the types of occurences that can only be verified by an EYEWITNESS account. Key word being "eye", as in eyeball. Seeing with their eyes. Would they see Jesus' miracles, but not what he looked like? What? That's impossible unless he was walking around coated in invisible paint.

3. Why? Combine #1 and #3. If you recognize that Paul said what he said because of his feelings towards prostitution, why wouldn't the rest of the church, including it's leaders, also realize the same thing you realized, and thus, make sure they do not portray Jesus in a manner similar to male prostitutes? :? Shouldn't have they rejected any paintings that would portray him in a manner that even one of Jesus' own apostles condemned?

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

Funky_Llama

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

I saw the 11th Century one on Wikipedia. I don't know about the other one

Damn interenet! (have to retype_

I meant the places where they came from. I can only guess the 3rd century one came from somewhere in the middle east, and the 11th century one somewhere in europe. This judging by the art style and the religion at the time.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]Nope.

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

luke1889

In all fairness, the post you refer to does seems pretty sound. I have no problem in admitting that.

Would you agree, then, that the people who painted Jesus had absolutely no idea what he looked like, so they basically made it up?

If so, they still didn't give it much thought with the whole white skin business.

Apparently making a religion appealing is more importantant than having it make sense. Shocking I know.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

Funky_Llama

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

Thoughts of artist in 11th century: "Hmmm.. I wonder what Jesus looks like. I know what I'll do! I'll use the interwebz to find an earlier and likely more accurate picture of him!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

123625

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

I saw the 11th Century one on Wikipedia. I don't know about the other one

Damn interenet! (have to retype_

I meant the places where they came from. I can only guess the 3rd century one came from somewhere in the middle east, and the 11th century one somewhere in europe. This judging by the art style and the religion at the time.

Oh, right.

Also, I feel your suffering... I lose my submitted messages all the time.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

mindstorm

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

Thoughts of artist in 11th century: "Hmmm.. I wonder what Jesus looks like. I know what I'll do! I'll use the interwebz to find an earlier and likely more accurate picture of him!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

I think you're confusing reductio ad absurdum with straw man argument. The latter is fallacious; the former is not.

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Nope.

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

mindstorm

In all fairness, the post you refer to does seems pretty sound. I have no problem in admitting that.

Would you agree, then, that the people who painted Jesus had absolutely no idea what he looked like, so they basically made it up?

If so, they still didn't give it much thought with the whole white skin business.

I've once heard a story about one of the artists who actually used the same model for both Jesus and Judas. He didn't realize at the time it was the same person as he had changed so much over time. He used someone with an almost glowing face for Jesus and a ragged looking person for Judas. After the model spent time in prison he looked a little different it seems. Whether that story is true I have no idea btw.

Well, at least we seem to agree on this. :lol:

As for the story, well, I prefer not to give too much weight to uncertainties, so we'll leave it there for now. Interesting thought though.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

Funky_Llama

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

Thoughts of artist in 11th century: "Hmmm.. I wonder what Jesus looks like. I know what I'll do! I'll use the interwebz to find an earlier and likely more accurate picture of him!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

I think you're confusing reductio ad absurdum with straw man argument. The latter is fallacious; the former is not.

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

mindstorm

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

What was your earlier post? I hope it's more reliable than that crap you posted about microevolution yesterday, despite knowing it was fallacious.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

mindstorm

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

As do I, and perhaps the reason why that one was not a basis for the 11th century one. Was because the 11th century one probably never saw it. Just a guess. And to who ever posted the depictions, i would like to know where it is they came from.

Thoughts of artist in 11th century: "Hmmm.. I wonder what Jesus looks like. I know what I'll do! I'll use the interwebz to find an earlier and likely more accurate picture of him!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

I think you're confusing reductio ad absurdum with straw man argument. The latter is fallacious; the former is not.

Nope, it's my way of saying that you're confusing reductio ad absurdum with straw man arguments. :P

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

Funky_Llama

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

What was your earlier post? I hope it's more reliable than that crap you posted about microevolution yesterday, despite knowing it was fallacious.

What I had said was the following:

"Two things I need to say in regards to this. I'm sorry I haven't read the other posts to see if this was answered but I have a lack of time this morning.

First is you have to understand why this verse was even said. It isn't wrong to have long hair. Paul when writing said this because their were male prostitutes in the city who had long hair and he didn't want the church to be identified with them. The same thing happened with females with short hair and a lot of jewelry.

Second thing is we have no idea what Jesus even looked like. Many pictures of Jesus portray him with long hair and a beard but he could very well have been bald with no facial hair. The only thing we have to go on is the Bible saying he did not stand out in how he looked. The earliest paintings of Jesus portray him as having no facial hair also due to the fact that facial hair was considered to have been had by the underprivilaged."

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

mindstorm

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

What was your earlier post? I hope it's more reliable than that crap you posted about microevolution yesterday, despite knowing it was fallacious.

What I had said was the following:

"Two things I need to say in regards to this. I'm sorry I haven't read the other posts to see if this was answered but I have a lack of time this morning.

First is you have to understand why this verse was even said. It isn't wrong to have long hair. Paul when writing said this because their were male prostitutes in the city who had long hair and he didn't want the church to be identified with them. The same thing happened with females with short hair and a lot of jewelry.

Second thing is we have no idea what Jesus even looked like. Many pictures of Jesus portray him with long hair and a beard but he could very well have been bald with no facial hair. The only thing we have to go on is the Bible saying he did not stand out in how he looked. The earliest paintings of Jesus portray him as having no facial hair also due to the fact that facial hair was considered to have been had by the underprivilaged."

Ah, yes, I remember that. Thanks for the first bit - I was wondering if it was out of context. As for the second bit... don't you find it a bit odd that the Son of God's appearance, despite living his whole life very publicly, would not have his personal appearance written down anywhere?

Still waiting for your reply, Mindstorm.Deity_Slapper

I think he's going to do what he did to me yesterday when I proved that by his own claims, evolution happens: ignore it.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]Still waiting for your reply, Mindstorm.Funky_Llama

I think he's going to do what he did to me yesterday when I proved that by his own claims, evolution happens: ignore it.

It wouldn't be the first time...

But what's funny about that is that he actually brought up the fact that no one had replied to it yet, and claimed he answered my original post with it. Now that I've replied, he's just been going back and forth with you, as if I don't even exist anymore...like I'm Jesus or something. :lol:

And it was big post...you can't miss it mindstorm. Let's go already.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

Funky_Llama

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

What was your earlier post? I hope it's more reliable than that crap you posted about microevolution yesterday, despite knowing it was fallacious.

What I had said was the following:

Ah, yes, I remember that. Thanks for the first bit - I was wondering if it was out of context. As for the second bit... don't you find it a bit odd that the Son of God's appearance, despite living his whole life very publicly, would not have his personal appearance written down anywhere?

It's possible it was written down and that it was simply lost or destroyed. It's also possible that people cared more about what he did than what he looked like, since it's said in the bible he did not stand out at all. He was literally an average looking man.

Fact of the matter is, what difference does it make that a couple of artists made inaccurate portraits? How does that have anything to do with the religion itself? The fact of the matter is, Christ was an average looking jew in the middle east. Which means Short hair, possibly no beard, and he sure as hell wasnt white.

It's possible it was written down and that it was simply lost or destroyed. It's also possible that people cared more about what he did than what he looked like, since it's said in the bible he did not stand out at all. He was literally an average looking man.

Fact of the matter is, what difference does it make that a couple of artists made inaccurate portraits? How does that have anything to do with the religion itself? The fact of the matter is, Christ was an average looking jew in the middle east. Which means Short hair, possibly no beard, and he sure as hell wasnt white.

Tolwan

Funny post, I laughed a smidge. You say "it's possible" 2 times in your opening paragraph regarding Jesus' appearance and how maybe it was recorded but lost.

Yet then you go on to make absolute concrete statements about his appearance:

"He was literally an average looking man."

"The fact of the matter is, Christ was an average looking jew in the middle east. Which means Short hair, possibly no beard, and he sure as hell wasnt white."

If the description of Jesus' appearance was "possibly" lost... :roll: ...then how did YOU all of the sudden obtain FACTual knowledge, of what Jesus LITERALLY looked like? Using your own words there, pal.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]Still waiting for your reply, Mindstorm.Deity_Slapper

I think he's going to do what he did to me yesterday when I proved that by his own claims, evolution happens: ignore it.

It wouldn't be the first time...

But what's funny about that is that he actually brought up the fact that no one had replied to it yet, and claimed he answered my original post with it. Now that I've replied, he's just been going back and forth with you, as if I don't even exist anymore...like I'm Jesus or something. :lol:

And it was big post...you can't miss it mindstorm. Let's go already.

Oh, wow, I just read that post... that's pretty much unanswerable. I'm not surprised he's not responding to it! Heh... poor Mindstorm.

[QUOTE="Tolwan"]It's possible it was written down and that it was simply lost or destroyed. It's also possible that people cared more about what he did than what he looked like, since it's said in the bible he did not stand out at all. He was literally an average looking man.

Fact of the matter is, what difference does it make that a couple of artists made inaccurate portraits? How does that have anything to do with the religion itself? The fact of the matter is, Christ was an average looking jew in the middle east. Which means Short hair, possibly no beard, and he sure as hell wasnt white.

Deity_Slapper

Funny post, I laughed a smidge. You say "it's possible" 2 times in your opening paragraph regarding Jesus' appearance and how maybe it was recorded but lost.

Yet then you go on to make absolute concrete statements about his appearance:

"He was literally an average looking man."

"The fact of the matter is, Christ was an average looking jew in the middle east. Which means Short hair, possibly no beard, and he sure as hell wasnt white."

If the description of Jesus' appearance was "possibly" lost... :roll: ...then how did YOU all of the sudden obtain FACTual knowledge, of what Jesus LITERALLY looked like? Using your own words there, pal.

What we do know, atleast from the bible (take that as you will, as a christian i consider it largely factual), we know that he was largely an average looking person. Beyond that we have nothing to indicate what he looks like and i offered to possible reasons why. You are being very pedantic.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

First is you have to understand why this verse was even said. It isn't wrong to have long hair. 1. Paul when writing said this because their were male prostitutes in the city who had long hair and he didn't want the church to be identified with them. The same thing happened with females with short hair and a lot of jewelry.

2. Second thing is we have no idea what Jesus even looked like. 3. Many pictures of Jesus portray him with long hair and a beard but he could very well have been bald with no facial hair. The only thing we have to go on is the Bible saying he did not stand out in how he looked. The earliest paintings of Jesus portray him as having no facial hair also due to the fact that facial hair was considered to have been had by the underprivilaged.

Deity_Slapper

1. Then why does it say, "doth not EVEN NATURE ITSELF TEACH YOU..." What would that have to do with prostitution? I think you might be misunderstanding your own scriptures.

2. If we don't know what Jesus looks like, then how do we know that anything he ever did (resurrection, miracles) happened either? Wouldn't those things kinda go hand in hand, as both miracles and a resurrection both are the types of occurences that can only be verified by an EYEWITNESS account. Key word being "eye", as in eyeball. Seeing with their eyes. Would they see Jesus' miracles, but not what he looked like? What? That's impossible unless he was walking around coated in invisible paint.

3. Why? Combine #1 and #3. If you recognize that Paul said what he said because of his feelings towards prostitution, why wouldn't the rest of the church, including it's leaders, also realize the same thing you realized, and thus, make sure they do not portray Jesus in a manner similar to male prostitutes? :? Shouldn't have they rejected any paintings that would portray him in a manner that even one of Jesus' own apostles condemned?

Sorry, I didn't mean to avoid the questions, I needed to take a shower. :P

1. I see your point. If you feel as if that means you shouldn't have long hair then cut it. Indeed nature does teach long hair on males to be a bit less natural but I'm not sure if that means it is morally wrong. My hair even isn't all that short. Other people such as Samson and John the Baptist had long hair which was a sign of their commitment to God. If it's a sign of their commitment to God then how could it be morally wrong?

2. We do not know what Jesus looked like simply because there are no records of such unless you want to include 3rd Century paintings. Even those may or may not be true however. The facts of the resurrection and miracles are recorded in the Bible and even people against what he taught like that of the Jews believed he did miracles as stated in the Jewish Targums. You make the argument that they saw his miracles but did not comment on how he looked. Could it be that it is of unimportance compared to his actions? How he looked is of little or of no importance to who Christ was. We have little idea of what most of the people of the Bible looked like and that's also of little or no importance.

3. The thing about the prostitutes was a situational thing for the Corinthian church as that was who he was writing to. The cultural norms of that city is what caused Paul to state that. If the cultural norm is different in another town then the point of the verse needs to be found which is simply to not dress like a prostitute. An example would be that of the middle finger. Here it is seen as an insult and I could tell you not to do that for that reason. Another culture can't go by that same rule. They'd have to go by the purpose of the statement, do not insult others.

Sorry it took so long to respond. btw, I do not typically seek to leave topics when I do not know an answer. If I do not know or at least know a theory then I'll gladly admit.

Edit (yes again): I've got to go to church so sorry if I do not respond to future posts for a while.

What we do know, atleast from the bible (take that as you will, as a christian i consider it largely factual), we know that he was largely an average looking person. Beyond that we have nothing to indicate what he looks like and i offered to possible reasons why. You are being very pedantic.Tolwan

If we have nothing to indicate what he looks like, then we have nothing to indicate that he even existed! Let alone performed miracles and rose from the dead. Those are some serious situations there. Are they not?

If I saw someone walk on water, or rise from a grave, I'd be pretty sure my mind would remember exactly what that person looked like. I would tell everyone about it. The news would spread faster than AIDS in a bathhouse. Yet you're saying we have absolutely ZERO on Jesus' appearance? And how long did he walk around doing this stuff? For years, right? So not one person recorded his image? Not one? In all those years? But many, many people DID record his speeches, his miracles, his crucifiction, and his resurrection? Yeah, right dude. :roll:

P.S. - I always thought it was kinda funny that the word crucifiction has the word fiction in it. :P

I'm not 16, but I see it would make you feel better to believe that I am. That's also an insult to 16 year-olds such as Funky_Llama who have displayed quite an impressive deal of intelligence. And you can't deny that, and if you do, you'd be nothing more than a bully.

The documentaries could be funded by the church as well. Did you think about that possibility? Of course they'll make every attempt to convince you they're telling the truth.

By the way, I'm 28. How old are you LJ? I asked you three times earlier and you clearly wanted to avoid answering, by disappearing from both threads that I asked you in. And when you showed back up, and even quoted the post where I asked, you ignored the age question, and just focused on my other point. Makes me wonder...what are you hiding? Are you ashamed? Are you a really old guy who doesn't want to say his age, because it would be embarrassing for a grown man to get owned by a 16 year-old like Llama? (And yes, he did own you, more than once even.)

Deity_Slapper

The documentaries were not funded by churches. They were historians and scientists....now you're reaching. Are you claiming scientists would lie? Historians? The difference is the documentaries weren't biased....however, some users here are and will even argue against facts.

My age has nothing to do with anything. I don't give out personal info.....those who have been here awhile can ascertain my age group if they wished. Nice try....seriously dude stop dwelling on my personal information.

I haven't been owned in OT yet.:roll:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you weren't a specific target though if you keep going on about inconsistency.:roll:

Again.....He was painted in away that appealed to the artists of the day. It was NOT intended to be a photorealistic likeness. The image was copied and became standard. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIGION.

luke1889

Ok, so even if it's not crucial to the religion as a whole, I still don't see why his image would change so drastically from the 3rd to the 11th Century.

Surely the former would be a basis for the latter?

And what is your source for this? I doubt that 'a big portion' would be needed, I really do. Only a small swatch is required.

Funky_Llama

Don't they? You honestly claim that we could have come to exist through evolution and God creating us? Go on, try to reconcile creationism and Darwinism.

Funky_Llama

Samson and John the Baptist had long hair which was a sign of their commitment to God. If it's a sign of their commitment to God then how could it be morally wrong?mindstorm

So, having long hair is a sign of commitment to god, you say, yet the very scripture that you tried to defend is now smeared by your new take on the subject. If it's a commitment to god, then the bible (being the perfect word of god!) would not claim for it to be a shame. If the bible is perfect, and it's gods' word, and god is never wrong, then it must be a FACT (assuming the bible is really god's word) that long hair is a shame. If you believe the bible is 100% true, then why would you now say that long hair is a commitment to god? So you believe in 2 contradicting theories at the same time? How can you live with that? :lol:

How he looked is of little or of no importance to who Christ was. We have little idea of what most of the people of the Bible looked like and that's also of little or no importance. mindstorm

See my latest post on this.

The thing about the prostitutes was a situational thing for the Corinthian church as that was who he was writing to. The cultural norms of that city is what caused Paul to state that. If the cultural norm is different in another town then the point of the verse needs to be found which is simply to not dress like a prostitute.

mindstorm

Situational? The verse reads quite literally, and uses "nature itself" as the reason for claiming that long hair is a shame. If he had a problem with the actions of the prostitutes, why didn't he just say their ACTIONS were abominable? He even could have brought up the whole homosexuality angle...for example, it could have read like this: "Doth not nature itself teach you that sex with another man would bring shame upon him?" How about that? Why would he say anything regarding HAIR, if his focus was on their BEHAVIOR? Seems like hair would be a petty thing to attack, and it wouldn't be very effective at stopping the behavior that he didn't like either. If he was trying to convince them away from prostitution, he would have told them explicitly why. Not just tried to get them to cut their hair. :roll:

Honestly what would that do? Oh you've cut your hair? Congratulations, you're no longer a prostitute! (As if hair is connected to the whims of the heart) Gee whiz.

11:13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

11:14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

11:15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

11:16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

and

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KoeVQFyoa04

peace

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

I'm not 16, but I see it would make you feel better to believe that I am. That's also an insult to 16 year-olds such as Funky_Llama who have displayed quite an impressive deal of intelligence. And you can't deny that, and if you do, you'd be nothing more than a bully.

The documentaries could be funded by the church as well. Did you think about that possibility? Of course they'll make every attempt to convince you they're telling the truth.

By the way, I'm 28. How old are you LJ? I asked you three times earlier and you clearly wanted to avoid answering, by disappearing from both threads that I asked you in. And when you showed back up, and even quoted the post where I asked, you ignored the age question, and just focused on my other point. Makes me wonder...what are you hiding? Are you ashamed? Are you a really old guy who doesn't want to say his age, because it would be embarrassing for a grown man to get owned by a 16 year-old like Llama? (And yes, he did own you, more than once even.)

LJS9502_basic

The documentaries were not funded by churches. They were historians and scientists....now you're reaching. Are you claiming scientists would lie? Historians? The difference is the documentaries weren't biased....however, some users here are and will even argue against facts.

My age has nothing to do with anything. I don't give out personal info.....those who have been here awhile can ascertain my age group if they wished. Nice try....seriously dude stop dwelling on my personal information.

I haven't been owned in OT yet.:roll:

You 'haven't been owned in OT yet'? I find that hard to believe... 59,478 posts, and not one of them has had a flaw pointed out?

And no, scientists wouldn't lie... which is partly why the fact that the Turin Shroud was carbon dated to well after the time of Jesus is so conclusive.

By the way...pulled out the Bible to read the entire text and not that taken out of context. In it's entirety it merely promotes what was custom at that time in regard to proper appearance by males and females. Custom dude. The last part is particularly revealing since it states the opposite of what you've quoted...

11:16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do churches of God.

Oops....the entire quote is not what you stated it to mean.:lol: