Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The face of Jesus

By enterfornone in MLP
Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 04:28:33 PM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

Using new historical research and computer technology, the BBC have produced an image of how Jesus Christ might have looked. According to this article, "the image unveiled yesterday - of a swarthy, coarse featured man with short beard and hair - contradicts the traditional representation of Christ as blue-eyed and aquiline with long hair".

The image is part of a $4.3 million documentary which challenges many traditional beliefs, including suggesting that Jesus may have colluded with Judas to stage his "betrayal" and that evidence from death row inmates suggests Jesus' "sweating blood" on the cross may not be metaphorical.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o this article
o Also by enterfornone


Display: Sort:
The face of Jesus | 76 comments (74 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Duh (2.53 / 15) (#1)
by KnightStalker on Tue Mar 27, 2001 at 08:40:14 PM EST

$4.3 million to come up with this? You don't need a computer model to figure out that a Jewish guy who lived in the desert 2000 years ago was short, greasy and dark, and might not have been a god. Christians everywhere are no doubt running around in panic over the news that Jesus probably didn't look really gay.

He looks kind of gay. (3.00 / 17) (#2)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 27, 2001 at 08:52:29 PM EST

I like how he shapes his beard. I think Jesus shows an eye for design and clean lines that we would expect from the Lord. Especially a gay Lord. And his hair isn't long in the back, which is about the straightest thing you can do with your hair, and it looks just simply ugly. Jesus is hip to that, and in this image shows a man who wants to look good, and knows what to do with his hair.

I still wouldn't do him (I'm no Jesus lover) but I have to say he continues to look as fine as he ever did.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

That's just your wishful thinking (none / 0) (#75)
by leonbrooks on Mon Apr 02, 2001 at 09:52:13 AM EST

I still wouldn't do him

It takes two to tango. I suspect that the author of the words ``For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.'' would be entirely unenthusiastic about crossing swords or playing at amateur proctology with you.
-- If at first you don't succeed, try a shorter bungee
[ Parent ]

4.3 M is price of the telly programme (3.00 / 2) (#13)
by pw201 on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 06:56:29 AM EST

I assume the figure they quote was the cost of making the TV programme, which the BBC are screening on Sunday. Should be interesting to watch.

[ Parent ]
also.. (4.00 / 2) (#23)
by fantastic-cat on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 12:29:43 PM EST

they also reconstructed as computer models Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem which wasn't cheap. Having seen some parts of the show (I work in post production at the Beeb) it all seems pretty impressive stuff similar in quality to last years "Walking With Dinosaurs" probably worth checking out t.

[ Parent ]
Thank you for that sterling insight. (none / 0) (#55)
by static on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 06:24:55 PM EST

Christian scholars have known all along that he was a Jew. And numerous authors of the last 30 years have decried the "blue-eyed, long haired" look. OTOH, I agree that they didn't to spend a 7 digit sum to figure it out... Wade.

[ Parent ]
This is not news (2.25 / 4) (#3)
by br284 on Tue Mar 27, 2001 at 08:53:42 PM EST

We always knew what the face of Christ looked like. In 1977, in the town of Lake Arthur, New Mexico, a local lady discovered that the face of Christ was upon a tortilla she had made. She subsequently made the tortilla a shrine. More details at

Search for 'Maria Rubio'.

This is not a hoax. This place really exists.

-Chris

heh, they missed one nuke mishap... (1.50 / 2) (#4)
by rebelcool on Tue Mar 27, 2001 at 09:20:45 PM EST

accidentally dropping a nuke on a small mexican village, spewing radioactive debris all over. Of course, the american govt had to clean it up (not exactly cheap) and built the village a new school for the trouble.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Not mexican (2.00 / 1) (#15)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 08:01:03 AM EST

Spanish. A B-52 collided with a tanker over Palomares and the bombs fell free. 2, IIRC, fell on land and one came down at sea.

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

no no.. (2.00 / 1) (#21)
by rebelcool on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 11:05:09 AM EST

mexican. :) My father was stationed at white sands missile range during the time, he had plenty of rather interesting (and little publicized) stories of mishaps...

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

RMS == Jesus (3.00 / 4) (#5)
by Stick on Tue Mar 27, 2001 at 11:50:50 PM EST

I read an interesting troll last night on slashdot saying that RMS looked like Jesus.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
Well... (2.00 / 1) (#14)
by Pseudonym on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 07:32:02 AM EST

I guess computer technology has finally proven that this is not the case. Sorry, Richard.


sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
Well, yeah. (3.00 / 1) (#18)
by RangerBob on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 09:08:49 AM EST

Most zealots generally try to take on the appearance of a Christlike figure at some point in time. The long flowing hair and wearing robes to parties and the like are just another cry for attention.

[ Parent ]
looked like? (3.00 / 1) (#26)
by jxqvg on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 03:13:06 PM EST

I'm afraid the closest you could come to that would be: Jesus is to RMS as Young Elvis is to "Later" Elvis I.E., RMS probably doesn't get around on foot as much...

[sig]
[ Parent ]
There's no question (3.40 / 5) (#6)
by weirdling on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 01:13:37 AM EST

I've been reading 'Antichrist' by Nietsche, and while I do not necessarily agree with him, it seems amazing how little modern christianity agrees with the Christ portrayed in the Bible.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
That's Because (4.00 / 1) (#42)
by LordHunter317 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 12:11:30 AM EST

The modern Christian church is the church of the Antichrist. Don't believe me, its certianly in the Bible, mostly in the OT prophets & Pslams (which is a book of prophecy BTW).
Man cannot be wonderful. Man can only lift big rocks and grunt - Me to Ex-girlfriend
[ Parent ]
Bingo (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 09:02:57 AM EST

Once upon a time there was one Church. One branch split off over theology and politics (the non-Chalcedonian Churches like the Syrian Jacobites, the Coptic Churches, etc.). Later another branch split off due to a mix of politics, geography and theology (the Roman Catholic Church). When this second split became corrupt, it gave rise to many more schisms, some over theology, some over politics, one over not giving dispensation for divorce. These splits then split. The splits of the splits then split. And we have the modern Church of today with over 2600 different denominations, most (but not all) of which claim to be the sole inheritor of the doctrine and practice of the early Church.

In such a mess, I find it quite likely that a considerable number of those 2600 different sects will be teaching bad theology and bad practice. This is especially true given that so many of the schisms were over political and personal issues.

[ Parent ]

Yah, Gandhi noticed that too (3.00 / 1) (#74)
by leonbrooks on Mon Apr 02, 2001 at 09:42:09 AM EST

In fact, it was the one thing which stopped Mohandas from becoming a Christian. He didn't find as much as one person acting in a Christ-like manner.

Let that be a lesson to you all.
-- If at first you don't succeed, try a shorter bungee
[ Parent ]

Does this matter? (2.66 / 3) (#7)
by Woundweavr on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 01:16:25 AM EST

First of all, does it matter what Jesus looked like?

Second, this is obviously not very accurate. Just looking at a skull from a similar ethnicity does not give a truly accurate idea of his facial structure. There are differences within races. The issue of short or long hair might be correct. However, hair length can be different at different times. The technique for hair length seemed like good old fashioned Bible study with a touch of straight excavation. Nothing new and even more trivial.

Even if this was completely accurate, it wouldn't change how Jesus is portrayed. There's 4.3 million down the drain.

Can ANYONE possibly care? (4.50 / 8) (#8)
by CheSera on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 02:18:48 AM EST

This is incredible. Who in their right mind would give a flying what Jesus looked like? If he was green and had 3 arms he'd still be the so called "son of God". Is anyone's faith effected? Do the words in the bible make less sense or stop meaning what they mean to you if jesus had blue eyes or brown?

Look. I'm an athiest. I was raised an athiest. I've never believed. So this eternal quest to examine the physical reality that some christians and non-christians persue makes absoutly no sense to me. Who cares? The point is to learn what you can from his teachings. His apperance makes no diffrence either way. If you believe, then his apperance shouldn't matter because he is who he is no matter what. If you don't, well, there are a lot of bigger issues with the bible than the physical details of the christ. I really don't understand how anyone could want to spend 4.3 million dollars to make up some computer generated image that looks no more impressive than a Final Fantasy cut scene. Somebody explain this urge for me.


============
**TATDOMAW**
============

If he was green and had 3 arms... (3.50 / 4) (#9)
by pwhysall on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 02:28:10 AM EST

...Jesus would be COOL.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]
For about 4 months (3.00 / 3) (#20)
by cbatt on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 10:10:15 AM EST

Then the new Satan engine would be touted. 18 months later Satan III would come into existance boasting skeletal animation, curved surfaces, and world domination BFG. Everyone would then know just how lame Jesus was and the fan boys would flock back to their original love.

Of course, then we'd hear about Jesus:Tournament Edition and a great schism would develop.

It goes on and on and on.

-----------
Before you can understand recursion
you must understand recursion.

[ Parent ]

If he was green and had 3 arms... (2.66 / 3) (#16)
by Per Abrahamsen on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 08:21:08 AM EST

I'd would be much easier for me to accept him as only half human.

[ Parent ]
Odd. (3.00 / 3) (#30)
by Anonymous 242 on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 04:18:54 PM EST

Orthodox Christianity holds that Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine. This is the doctrine of the two natures of Christ and was formally defined at the council of Chalcedon. It predates Chalcedon by centuries. Some argue that it is one of the earliest Christian doctrines.

[ Parent ]
Agree! (none / 0) (#73)
by leonbrooks on Mon Apr 02, 2001 at 09:39:45 AM EST

Look. I'm an athiest. I was raised an athiest. I've never believed.

Don't fret, it's not incurable. (-:

His apperance makes no diffrence either way. If you believe, then his apperance shouldn't matter because he is who he is no matter what. If you don't, well, there are a lot of bigger issues with the bible than the physical details of the christ.

The, uh, crux of the matter. Well put.
-- If at first you don't succeed, try a shorter bungee
[ Parent ]

False icon (4.00 / 4) (#10)
by Scrymarch on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 04:04:06 AM EST

Other posters in this thread are right: it shouldn't matter what Jesus looked like.

That it does matter, and people are obviously intrigued, is because of that most human of tendencies, judging people by their appearance. Imagine when the first Christian artists were painting Jesus ... they knew he was a carpenter's son from the rough part of the Middle East, and they still painted him like a Roman emperor.

When that sort of superficiality is applied to a godhead it's the first step towards worshipping an icon. If you need a physical focus for your devotion, no matter what it is, you've raised a golden lamb*. No wonder Islam bans images in religious art, it at least avoids the reaction: "He can't be holy; he's not pretty enough ..."

* yes, yes, I realise there are other religious traditions where this is irrelevant

"pretty enough" (3.80 / 5) (#17)
by iGrrrl on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 08:49:43 AM EST

According to one sourse I've read, early descriptions of the historical Jesus were supressed precisely because he wasn't pretty.* The religion spread from its position as a subsect of Judaism into non-semitic peoples. During this time period (within 20-200 years after Jesus' death), physical descriptions of him have been reported to have been destroyed. What smooth and fair Roman wants to worship a short, hairy guy with one long eyebrow? Romans were generally used to gods of great physical beauty; it might serve conversion to the idea to hide the appearance of the man.

If true, this shows the first accomodation to local sensibilities, which became a hallmark of the spread of Christianity. The major holidays (Christmas, Easter) have dates which correspond to pre-Christian celebrations.

*My source for this is The Hiram Key, a book with admittedly questionable veracity.

--
You cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who regards other people as toys to be played with. localroger
remove apostrophe for email.
[ Parent ]

I'll give you Christmas, but not Pascha (4.00 / 3) (#28)
by Anonymous 242 on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 03:49:54 PM EST

The major holidays (Christmas, Easter) have dates which correspond to pre-Christian celebrations.
Well, sort of. Pascha is held in the Eastern Church the first Sunday after the 14th day of Nisan by the Jewish calendar. (In the Western Church, Pascha is often celebrated the Sunday before. This year the two methods of calculating the date overlap.) The date of the 14th day of Nisan in turn was derived from the Torah, which did predate Christianity by a couple thousand years, but from my vantage point it doesn't really look that that date was chosen because it overlapped with non-Christian holidays, but rather because that was the historical date of the resurrection.

I'll also concede the name Easter (derived from Istar), Easter bunnies (bunnies being a symbol of fertility), and Easter eggs were adopted from non-Christian sources. Whether or not these traditions predated Christianity is arguable.

[ Parent ]

not quite (3.00 / 1) (#40)
by enterfornone on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 12:06:25 AM EST

According to one sourse I've read, early descriptions of the historical Jesus were supressed precisely because he wasn't pretty.
The bible says Jesus wasn't pretty (Isiah I think, too lazy to look it up). The image of Jesus was supressed because Jews (and early Christians) have a thing against representing God as a person. In early drawings he was represented as a symbol such as a fish.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
almost (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 08:54:04 AM EST

The image of Jesus was supressed because Jews (and early Christians) have a thing against representing God as a person. In early drawings he was represented as a symbol such as a fish.
Show me one early Christian reference to being against images of Jesus. Being against images of Christ only appeared within Christianity with the iconoclasm controversy in the seventh or eight century which was largely influenced by growing contact of the undivided Church with the growing Islamic movement. In the east some Muslims went so far to fund iconoclasts (image breakers) to help weaken the Eastern Roman empire.

[ Parent ]
Of course it matters what Jesus looked like... (3.00 / 1) (#22)
by SIGFPE on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 11:39:12 AM EST

...if Jesus were black don't you think KKK members might have to rethink their policies a little? Or if there were a tradition of representing Jesus in art as looking Jewish don't you think that Christianity's two millennia of anti-semitism might have been at least slightly different?
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
hmm.. (3.50 / 2) (#35)
by enterfornone on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 07:46:39 PM EST

I don't think it's ever been a secret that Jesus was Jewish.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Actually... (none / 0) (#56)
by SIGFPE on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 07:23:49 PM EST

I don't think it's ever been a secret that Jesus was Jewish.
There is a long history of the Church distancing Jesus from his Jewishness and Christian art has frequently been complicit in this.
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
It also goes the other way (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Mar 30, 2001 at 01:09:02 PM EST

The Massoretic text of the Old Testament was standarized at Jamneh partly (but not entirely) due to Christian use of Jewish Scriptures. This is why the Reformers were mistaken in the intuitive but wrong idea of translating the Old Testament from Hebrew instead of Greek. The Greek Septuagint translated before the time of Christ offers textual readings that are centuries older than the Massoretic text that were standardized well after the final destruction of the Temple well after the death of Jesus.

While it is true that Christianity has been steadily distancing itself from its roots in Judaism, Judaism has also done quite a bit to distance its heretical (from the Jewish perspective) offspring.

[ Parent ]

Obviously you are unaquainted with iconodules (4.25 / 4) (#29)
by Anonymous 242 on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 04:10:01 PM EST

When that sort of superficiality is applied to a godhead it's the first step towards worshipping an icon. If you need a physical focus for your devotion, no matter what it is, you've raised a golden lamb*.
This argument is somewhat specious and misunderstands the theology behind icons within the Christian faith. I highly reccomend that you read Saint John Damascene's An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, espcially book IV chapter XVI, Concerning Images.

The Orthodox position is that Jesus had two natures, divine and human. Jesus Christ was God and became Man. Because God became Man and accepted worship in the person Jesus, it is now acceptable to offer worship to one creature (Jesus) because that creature is also uncreated, being also God. Combine this with the theology of icons, that what worship and veneration is given to a symbol passes through to the object of the symbol, venerating icons makes perfect sense.

Is this not why so many right-wing types want to ban flag-burning? The hostility shown toward the symbol of the flag passes through and is expressed to the entity for which the flag is symbolic.

they knew he was a carpenter's son from the rough part of the Middle East, and they still painted him like a Roman emperor.
(1) Most icons of Christ represent the resurrected Christ. Read the depiction of Jesus in the book of the Apocalypse and come back and tell me whether that description sounds more like a Roman Emporer or a carpenter's son.

(2) Classic icons use very stylized artwork. Only icons heavily influenced by the humanism of the rennaisance even attempt to make a realistic portrait of Jesus.

(3) Virtually every culture has depicted Jesus through in its own iconographic tradition. If one visits the Syrian Jacobite Churches, icons of Jesus look very Syrian. If one visits the Ethiopian Coptic Churches, icons of Jesus look very Ethiopian. If one visits the Slavic countries, icons of Jesus look Slavic. We have a somewhat lopsided view because Western European civilization conquered a good deal of the rest of the world and we inherited the Western European depicition of Jesus.

(4) Iconography was invented at a time when most people were illiterate. Aside from the theology of offering veneration to icons, there is much to be said for their pedagogic value.

[ Parent ]

Obviously you are unaquainted with ... (4.00 / 1) (#38)
by Scrymarch on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 10:02:45 PM EST

Firstly I have to say I admire that argumentative technique ...

"Obviously you've never read the Dead Sea Scrolls in the original Aramaic and Ancient Greek". :)

... but anyway, er, yes, I'll have to read that. I'm not sure that I buy into the veneration of symbols business though. As a programmer worshipping not a thing but a reference to a thing seems slightly absurd -

O great file pointer! Yea, verily it is blessed that which stores my data and allows me to retreive it!

or - O holy letters G-O-D, that guide me and protect me!

Anyway ...

[ Parent ]

Well it's true (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 08:37:21 AM EST

Firstly I have to say I admire that argumentative technique ...
If someone says that there is absolutely no reason to do a certain thing, it is rather obvious that that person is entirely unaquainted with the reasons that some people do that thing, regardless or not of whether that person agrees with the reasoning.

For example, I understand the reasons behind Stalinism and Naziism. That doesn't mean that I agree with either.

[ Parent ]

Great analogy (4.33 / 3) (#45)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 08:49:14 AM EST

... but anyway, er, yes, I'll have to read that. I'm not sure that I buy into the veneration of symbols business though. As a programmer worshipping not a thing but a reference to a thing seems slightly absurd -
The absurdity comes in wanting to worship a block of code, not in that one chooses to worship the pointer over the object the pointer points to.

That said, I think your analogy precisely proves the reasoning behind veneration of icons. Whatever you do to a pointer is passed on to the object that the pointer points to. This is precisely the theory behind iconography.

This is also why personkind (this one's for you, e.m.) is holy, we are icons of God, being made in the image and likeness of God. This is what seperates personkind from the animal, plant and mineral kingdoms.

BTW, did you even bother to read Saint John Damascene's book IV? He explains the theory much better than I do, which is why I supplied the pointer.

[ Parent ]

St John Damascene (none / 0) (#59)
by Scrymarch on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 10:14:31 PM EST

BTW, did you even bother to read Saint John Damascene's book IV? He explains the theory much better than I do, which is why I supplied the pointer.

Yeah, I gave it a read. It all looked interesting but I skipped ahead to the section dealing specifically with symbols. And yeah, it's a darn good argument. The points about being made in God's image and Jesus' physical form are particularly well done.

I'm not convinced; I think veneration is too much for an icon. But I certainly need to go away and have a good think about it.

You've one this round, lee_malatesta! [clenches fist]

[ Parent ]

But no... (none / 0) (#41)
by LordHunter317 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 12:07:26 AM EST

The Early Church (pre 330 A.D.) had no pictures of Christ or whatsoever. Their churches (when they finally had them) were decorated with one single thing, bare wooden crosses. Nothing else, and lots of crosses. Isaiah 53:2 (NKJV) says, "... He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him,There is no beauty that we should desire Him." Translation: Jesus was ugly.

We are not supposed to know what Christ looked like. Doing so would make us Apostles, and completely change our relationship with him. As such, count your blessings you don't know what He looked like, unless you want to do everything Paul went through.

In all honsetly, what Christ looked like on Earth doesn't matter anyway, because that's not His true form, nor is it what He will look like when He returns.
Man cannot be wonderful. Man can only lift big rocks and grunt - Me to Ex-girlfriend
[ Parent ]
Incorrect on one point, incomplete on the other (4.00 / 1) (#43)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 08:34:43 AM EST

The Early Church (pre 330 A.D.) had no pictures of Christ or whatsoever. Their churches (when they finally had them) were decorated with one single thing, bare wooden crosses. Nothing else, and lots of crosses.
Icons exist from prior to 330 AD. The earliest existing Church buildings (houses converted into places of worship) from the second and third centuries have contained icons. You also ignore the multitude of other symbols that were used by the earliest Christians, fish, XP (chi-rho), anchors, etc.
Isaiah 53:2 (NKJV) says, "... He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him,There is no beauty that we should desire Him." Translation: Jesus was ugly.
In context, this verse refers to Jesus before the crucifiction, death and resurection. Our resurrected body bears the same relationship to our current body as a plant bears to a seed.
We are not supposed to know what Christ looked like. Doing so would make us Apostles, and completely change our relationship with him. As such, count your blessings you don't know what He looked like, unless you want to do everything Paul went through.
I'd really like to understand your reasoning behind this assertion it makes no sense to me. (I hope you don't hold to Sola Scriptura because this idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible.)

Christ appeared to more than the apostles. Even Judas, Caiphas and Pontius Pilate saw what Jesus looked like without becoming Apostles in the same sense that Peter and Paul were Apostles.

[ Parent ]

Well.. (none / 0) (#48)
by LordHunter317 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 09:08:05 AM EST

We're refering to icons of worship here. Every picture I've ever seen of Christ was used as a form of worship of some sort or another. The fish was used as a form of identification, not in worship. The Early Chruch had no icons used in worship whatsoever, mostly because that would be a clear violation of the second commandment, among others.


As far as the ressurection body, you have it backwards. Our human body looks nothing like are spiritual body. And it is our spiritual body that was made in God's image, not our physical one. Our physical body is temporal, our spiritual is not. You really don't think God looks like a human do you? Everything I've read would imply God looks like pure light.

On my third point I'll admit i was slightly wrong. An apostle is anythign who recived the Gospel directly from Christ, instead of from another person. However, if anyone saw Christ come today, it would mean the second coming, that person was insane, or was about to become an apsotle.
Man cannot be wonderful. Man can only lift big rocks and grunt - Me to Ex-girlfriend
[ Parent ]
Where to get more info on the early Church (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 09:30:36 AM EST

The Early Chruch had no icons used in worship whatsoever, mostly because that would be a clear violation of the second commandment, among others.
There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that lends support to the assertion that the Early Church did not venerate icons as a method of worshipping God. If you have any, please show it to me so that I can change my mind to conform to reality. I greatly reccomend that you read some high quality books on the history of Christianity, especially the early Church. Jarislov Pelikan's five volume History of Tradition is excellent, but rather difficult to read. Justo L. Gonzalez's two volume The Story of Christianity is good, but has few references. W. H. Frend's The Early Church is good. If you want a (obviously) more biased book, consider Alexander Schmeman's The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy.

As far as the second commandment goes, you are mistaken. Veneration of an icon passes through to become veneration of the object the icon is of. This would violate the second commandment only if the icon was of something not due worship and/or veneration. I would refer you back to the writing of Saint John Damascene that I linked to earlier. Did you read that?

As far as the ressurection body, you have it backwards. Our human body looks nothing like are spiritual body.
I'm pretty certain that the resurrected Christ still looked human. When I read the gospel accounts of the Jesus after the resurrection, the description of Him sound like He still looks very human. He even goes so far as to eat. This would imply that the Orthodox doctrine of the resurection being both physical and spiritual has something to it.
And it is our spiritual body that was made in God's image, not our physical one.
I emphatically disagree with this statement. The physical body of Adam and Eve were created as much in the image of God as a physical body can be. If they weren't, they wouldn't be icons (images) of God.
You really don't think God looks like a human do you?
God has looked human ever since the conception of Jesus by the virgin Mary. Unless you are prepared to state that Jesus was not God (a doctrine which the early Church demonstrably believed) God does have a physical body.
However, if anyone saw Christ come today, it would mean the second coming, that person was insane, or was about to become an apsotle.
Good attempt at avoiding the question. Where is this theory to be found in scripture? I contend that it is not. Nor is it found in the traditions of the early Church. This theory is a modern construct with no historical depth.

[ Parent ]
god is not human (none / 0) (#57)
by enterfornone on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 07:57:28 PM EST

God has looked human ever since the conception of Jesus by the virgin Mary. Unless you are prepared to state that Jesus was not God (a doctrine which the early Church demonstrably believed) God does have a physical body.
Jesus had a human body because he was human (most Christian s beleive he was fully human as well as fully god). God does not have a human body, since he is omnipresent it would be impossible for him to have any physical body without taking up infinite space.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
I'm confused (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 08:44:13 PM EST

  1. If Jesus was God
  2. Jesus has/had a physical body
    .:
  3. God has/had a physical body.
One can not simultaneously claim that Jesus was God and God does not have a body unless one wants to contend that Jesus did not have a body.

[ Parent ]
God (none / 0) (#60)
by enterfornone on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 10:20:23 PM EST

God doesn't have a body any more than God is a burning bush. Jesus is just one of many representations God used when revealing himself to humans. God had a body when he was in the world as Jesus but he doesn't always have a body.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
That is some wacked-out theology (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Mar 30, 2001 at 08:43:10 AM EST

I think that perhaps you need to read some Church history. The notion that Jesus is just one of many representations God used (known as modalism) has been repeatedly condemned as a heresey from a very early date.

Not only that, but this notion reduces to ridicularity all the verses about Jesus going to sit at the right hand of God. It also makes the book of Revelation nonsensical because Jesus is seen in heaven as having a body.

Such a doctrine also threatens the very core of Christianity, that of the bodily resurrection.

[ Parent ]

Jesus and God (none / 0) (#67)
by enterfornone on Fri Mar 30, 2001 at 08:18:34 PM EST

OK here's my understanding, it's certainly not any official doctrine of anything.

Jesus had a body, there is no denying that. "Sitting at the right of God" refers to Jesus' authority as co-ruler of the universe, not his physical location.

Jesus was a particularly important representation of God, but he certainly wasn't the only way God revealed himself to man.

Jeus was fully human and fully God. He was simultaniously God as well as being God's son. He was God, but he was a seperate entity to God. It's hard to get your head around how a single person can be two people but that's how it was.

Read Death: The High Cost of Living. Didi was Death, she was also a person who experienced life in a way Death never could. At the end she was talking to herself as if she was a seperate person. The scene in Eddings Tamali where Aphrael and Danae appear in the same room is another example.

It makes absolutely no sense as far as human understanding goes, which is why it is almost impossible to explain or understand.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Here's what you are missing (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Apr 02, 2001 at 07:58:26 AM EST

God is three persons, distinct but undivided.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are all united in a singular Godhead. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all uncreated, ever existing, eternal, immortal, etc., etc.

The Son, has worn flesh ever since he became man in the person of Jesus Christ. The Son still wears a physical body. He rose from the dead in body and spirit, being the first born of a new creation.

Because God, now has a body, we can represent that body in Christian art. We can not represent the Father, nor the Holy Spirit who remain bodiless. Jesus, however, does have a very physical body.

[ Parent ]

a few reasons why modalism is a heresy (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Mar 30, 2001 at 09:52:34 AM EST

A good explanation of the doctrine of the trinity can be found in Jay Rogers' The Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This essay explains some of the different anti-Trinitarian heresies and why they are incorrect. The following is a quote from the section on modalism.
The following questions are designed to make you understand the problems with a modalistic interpretation of the Godhead. You will find it impossible to assume the modalist view while trying to interpret the following Scriptures.

1. "Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, 'Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.'" (John 17 1-5).

Jesus prayed to His Father. Was this relationship temporary or was this eternal? What problems does the modalist encounter in interpreting this Scripture?

2. "... and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, 'You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased'" (Luke 3:22).

Who is speaking in this passage?

3. "'When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, " (John 15:26).

Note that Jesus did not merely say: "I am sending you my Spirit." This passage is meant to teach us something about the co-eternal bond that exists between the Father and the Son. What is the interaction between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit implied here?

4. On the cross, Jesus prayed, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46).

Who was Jesus praying to in this passage?

5. "God is love" (1 John 4:16).

Love, an eternal attribute of God, existed before the creation of the universe. Who did God love before the creation of Adam, if there were not distinct persons in the Godhead?



[ Parent ]
Again (none / 0) (#61)
by LordHunter317 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 10:36:37 PM EST

Read the Anti-Nicence Fathers. All 14 volumes. Its in there somewhere, but since I don't have a local copy to work with and all my references and nots are at school, I couldn't even tell what volume to look at, thought I'd guess it'd be one of the first 5.

First off, I've never heard of Saint John Damascene. Who he is, what church body did he belong to, and what did he do? Answer me before I'll read the document.

As far as the whole spiritual/physical body thing, I know our spiritual body was created in God's image, becaues we all spirit, and simply bound to a temporal physical body. This is why Christ was allowed to be both human and God at the same time, God-spirit, human physical body. It's also the same reason that human cloning is impossible, because cloning a body does you exactly no good. As such, its what our spiritual body look like that determine who we are. And no account of Jesus's apparence before or after the ressurrection are given. He probably had a human=like form, but I've also been told that angels can look the same away too. Never seeing one I would not no. In the end, this is unimportant, because everyone will know what he looks like upon Judgement Day.

As far as the second commanment.. it says "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;" Anything, physical, regardless of whether it is due worship or not, is an idol. Wrong. I don't care if you know exactly what God looks like. Place before me and ask you to worship me, and I shall bash your face in. I remember Christ saying, "I am sweeking worshippers that will worship Me in spirit and truth."

As far as the last thing is concerened, what gave the Apostles their status was because they recived their Gospel from christ directly, instead of from another person. This is why they will given all that power, the Great Commission and the like. Last 4 accounts I've read of people seeing Christ were a bunch of Charasmatic fools who were clearly insane. Otherwise, it'd mean the second coming, and we'd all be seeing him together.
Man cannot be wonderful. Man can only lift big rocks and grunt - Me to Ex-girlfriend
[ Parent ]
rejoinder (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Mar 30, 2001 at 09:36:26 AM EST

Read the Anti-Nicence Fathers.
I suspect you mean the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Church Fathers from before the council of Nicea. The Anti-Nicene Fathers would would be the Church Fathers opposed to the council of Nicea. If they were opposed to the first Ecumenical council, I doubt they would be fathers. I've read their works. You can find them on line at The Christian Classic Ethereal Library. Be aware that some people considered to be Church Fathers (such as Tertullian and Tatian) succumbed to heresy and are somewhat suspect. Without knowing which "Church Father" you are referring to I have no idea whether or not to give credence to your statement. Also of importance is that not everything taught by the Church Fathers is sound doctrine. Obviously, the Church Fathers must have taught a large amount of sound doctrine or they wouldn't be considered to be Fathers. You can't take something as Gospel just because it was said by a Church Father. This is why a good reference is so important. I'll be more than happy to read a specific reference. I'm not about to search through the entire body of Ante-Nicene Christian writings looking for a reference that I am not convinced exists.
Its in there somewhere, but since I don't have a local copy to work with and all my references and nots are at school, I couldn't even tell what volume to look at, thought I'd guess it'd be one of the first 5.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "Its in there somewhere." We've been discussing several notions. Which do you speak of with this statement?
And no account of Jesus's apparence before or after the ressurrection are given.
The prophecies of Isaiah and the book of Revelation both detail Jesus' physical appearance to a certain extent, Isaiah before and after the resurection, Revelation after the resurrection.
I've never heard of Saint John Damascene. Who he is, what church body did he belong to, and what did he do? Answer me before I'll read the document.
One would think that following the link might have provided some of that information. You can read a bit about him on the web page of The Russian Orthodox Church of Saitn John the Baptist and in the Catholic Encylcopedia. He was a native of Syria and died in the late eighth century. He is recognized as a saint by both the Orthodox Churches and the (Franko) Roman Catholic Church.

Aside from that, it shouldn't matter what Church Saint John Damascene belonged to. His arguments will either stand or fail on their own merits. Saint Paul quoted Pagan Philosophers such as Menander in some of his soliquies as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. If something is true, it is true no matter who says it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that you are less interested in knowing if Saint John Damascene's arguments are sound or not than in being able to write him off because he belongs to the wrong Church. If you are not willing to read The Apologia of Saint John Damascene Against Those Who Decry Holy Images and engage in a discussion of the points he raises, I see no reason to continue the conversation on this particular point. What good is providing references in a dialogue if the other party is unwilling to follow up on them?

As far as the last thing is concerened, what gave the Apostles their status was because they recived their Gospel from christ directly, instead of from another person. This is why they will given all that power, the Great Commission and the like. Last 4 accounts I've read of people seeing Christ were a bunch of Charasmatic fools who were clearly insane. Otherwise, it'd mean the second coming, and we'd all be seeing him together.
You are still avoiding the question. Your assertion is that " if anyone saw Christ come today, it would mean the second coming, that person was insane, or was about to become an apsotle." What you have demonstrated is (1) some people that saw the risen Christ became Apostles and (2) some people that have claimed to have seen the risen Christ were raving lunatics. You've offerered no scriptural support that seeing the risen Christ can only mean the second coming, someone is about to become an apostle, or that the person who claims the vision is insane.

The Bible does not make any such claim. Nor does any early tradition of the Church make any such claim. Your claim is an entirely modern construct with no footing in scripture or the historical traditions of the Church.

[ Parent ]

Bah (none / 0) (#68)
by LordHunter317 on Sat Mar 31, 2001 at 08:21:07 PM EST

You're the one who dodged it this time, since I clearly showed that worshiping anything physical object (whether an image of something due worship or not) is idoltary. I think most of us have enough problems worshipping things we are not supposed to, so lets not add another thing to the mess.

Second, I know that some of the Fathers fell away in time, but still some of their works are accurate, and have to be studied with a grain of salt. So does the whole Bible. Things are not always as they seem my friend.

At either rate, I will go read that article and if I find it worth my while to say anything against it/for it, I will, below. Otherwise, I have no intent to comment on this anymore. I honestly don't have the time energy to go find everything I'd need to construct a further argument, right now I am away for the weekend, and I have homework and some serious studying to do. Have a good day, sir.
Man cannot be wonderful. Man can only lift big rocks and grunt - Me to Ex-girlfriend
[ Parent ]
Ewww. (none / 0) (#69)
by LordHunter317 on Sun Apr 01, 2001 at 12:02:07 PM EST

I read about half of the first part of that document before I got to sick to read it anymore (absolutely disgusting). I hope you do not believe that stuff. If you don't, then I wonder why you brought it up. If you do, I hope you find the Lord Jesus quickly before Judgement Day occurs.
Man cannot be wonderful. Man can only lift big rocks and grunt - Me to Ex-girlfriend
[ Parent ]
Bottom line (none / 0) (#71)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Apr 02, 2001 at 08:00:55 AM EST

The inability to counter any of the reasoning in the writings of Saint John Damascene leads you to claim the whole thing is revolting and therefore not worthy of response.

I had expected better.

[ Parent ]

effect on economy (3.60 / 5) (#11)
by xriso on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 04:23:18 AM EST

Today Jesus.com stock plummeted by 50%. Film at 11.
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
Sweating blood (4.00 / 3) (#19)
by hardburn on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 09:16:24 AM EST

Firstly, it wasn't durring his death that he was sweating blood; that happened just before his betrayal, which he knew was coming.

Secondly, it is quite possible to sweat blood when you are in a very high emotional state. Your heart is pumping so much that all your sweat glands can do is secreate blood instead of sweat.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


Moobie the golden calf. (4.00 / 2) (#24)
by gridwerk on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 01:12:28 PM EST

I read the article, as most have already said. Who cares what he looked like. What I don't understand is why people waste so much time trying to debunk the bible or proving that god or the miracles do not exist. I had a friend I lived with that would just get visibly upset and dumbfounded on how people could believe in god. I use to tease him that he was threatened by them having faith and believing in something he couldn't understand. I would follow that up with telling him not to worry because he was a prime candidate to become a Born again Christian, At which point our conversation would end and it would be a few hours or a day before he would talk to me again. I am getting off track a little.. I mean it seems to be a waste. Anything they come up with, Such as the "healing spring" sure you can say, that's how Jesus Healed those people. And a believer is going to turn right around and tell you, Yeah God Created the spring. As for the Mandrake resurrection miracle. I wasn't there, but from what I understand of crucifixion , and then the story of Jesus taking a spear in the side. I don't think Mandrake is going to cut it. As for
added that the series would challenge the notions about Christ of believers and non-believers. "We've respected people's beliefs and tried not to offend anyone, but I'm sure they'll find food for thought."
You just created a show trying to debunk or explain away the Life and actions of Christ.. People are going to be offended? You're not challenging anything. People who have faith in are going to continue to have faith. I'd like to believe that over in the UK they have something better to spend $4.3 million on

TV Licence (3.00 / 1) (#25)
by tumeric on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 03:01:33 PM EST

I'd like to believe that over in the UK they have something better to spend $4.3 million on

Actually, everyone who owns a TV paid for it --some people who own a TV and didn't pay for it are now in prison.

[ Parent ]

If you want to know the face of God... (4.25 / 4) (#27)
by greyrat on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 03:40:47 PM EST

...look in the mirror.
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

well yeah (2.00 / 2) (#36)
by enterfornone on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 07:48:06 PM EST

I know that, but what of people who aren't me :)

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Or, (2.00 / 2) (#37)
by orestes on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 09:35:47 PM EST

just ask Victor Hugo.

[ You Sad Bastard ]
[ Parent ]
Does it matter what Jesus looks like? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by cable on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 04:30:09 PM EST

Or does it matter more what Jesus did for us than what he looks like?

I tend to think of the later, it matters more what Jesus did for us than what he looks like. It doesn't matter to me if Jesus was tall or short, skinny or fat, black or white, what matters to me is that he died for our sins and came to save us.

------------------
Only you, can help prevent Neb Rage!

Yes, but don't forget the human factor (4.50 / 2) (#32)
by RangerBob on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 05:01:45 PM EST

It's not a matter of what Jesus did not being important, but let me ask you something. When you talk to your best friend, what do you prefer? Would you rather just read letters, or would you want to be able to see them face to face and interact? Humans are social creatures, it's just the way we are. Reading the Bible is all well and good, but for many people, being able to view what might possibly be the face of Jesus helps to bring them closer. It helps to bring the life and word of Jesus down to a more personal level. It helps people to believe that Jesus actually existed. You can't expect everyone to trust in blind faith alone.

A lot of people seem to be reacting like it's almost a bad thing that people might be interested in being able to look at the face of Jesus. My question is, why? Why jump to the conclusion that this is diminishing what Jesus did? As Christians, don't you think that anything that helps people to believe is a good thing? Don't you think that something that might make it more personal for other Christians is something that should be celebrated?

Some of us have doubts, and reading and having people preaching to us over and over again isn't going to do anything. But, every piece of evidence that helps to prove the existence of Jesus is important. Anything that helps to bridge a personal connection is important. And yes, what Jesus is said to have done is very important. But it's not a sin to want to believe. So,if being able to see the face of Jesus is important to some people, then let it be important to them.

[ Parent ]
Blessed are those who believe and have not seen (none / 0) (#76)
by cable on Thu Apr 05, 2001 at 11:32:12 AM EST

Remember that line? Blessed are those who believe and have not seen. Are we a world of "Doubting Thomases" out there? Do we actually have to see the man to believe in him?

I suppose some people may need "proof", or a picture to look at. Woe be to them! :)

------------------
Only you, can help prevent Neb Rage!
[ Parent ]

who cares? (4.00 / 2) (#33)
by crank42 on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 05:42:31 PM EST

Anyone who does not get their understanding of religious icons from television has heard all of these arguments before (the "collude with Judas" theory, for instance, is an old one, and is in The Last Temptation of Christ, among other places. Of course, that book is on the Index, so maybe some people haven't read it).

If the news is that the BBC has spent a great whack of money on a high-budget documentary that doesn't really say anything new, well, welcome to teeveeland. That's still not news.

Ridiculous. (4.00 / 2) (#34)
by Crashnbur on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 06:45:35 PM EST

I personally think that any conjuring of the face of Jesus is pretty ridiculous right now, seeing as how we have no remains to go on. (Or do we? Am I missing something?) What is their base for guessing what he looked like? Are they making an educated guess based on his nationality and other faces of his time, or are they saying that this is His face? Either way, I'm still skeptical.

crash.neotope.com


pretty much (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by enterfornone on Wed Mar 28, 2001 at 11:34:02 PM EST

<blockquote>
Are they making an educated guess based on his nationality and other faces of his time
</blockquote>
Well it's gotta be a lot more accurate than the long haired aryan of most Jesus depictions.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Documentary misses one big assumption (2.00 / 1) (#50)
by botono9 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 10:07:58 AM EST

The article states, "[The documentary] challenges other Biblical assumptions, notably that Jesus was "betrayed" by Judas."

What about the assumption that Jesus actually existed? There isn't much proof outside of the Bible that there was a man named Jesus who caused so much trouble during that time period.

My personal favorite explanation of Jesus is that he is a metaphor for psychedelic mushrooms and the Bible is merely a code book for a mushroom cult, allowing them to pass on their knowledge and practices without persecution. See, religion can be fun! :)


"Guns are real. Blue uniforms are real. Cops are social fiction."
--Robert Anton Wilson

True, there isn't very much evidence at all (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 10:44:55 AM EST

There isn't much proof outside of the Bible that there was a man named Jesus who caused so much trouble during that time period.
Aside from all the works about the life of Jesus that didn't make it into the Bible like the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Protoevangelium of James, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, etc., etc., etc.

Aside from the mention of Josephus.

Aside from the mention of one or two Pagan Roman historians.

We actually have more evidence that the historic person Jesus of Nazareth existed than we do most of the Roman emporers. One could perhaps make a compelling argument that the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Christian Church are two completely different persons, the latter being mythical. (Look into the works of the Jesus Seminar for some scholarly views with that particular bias. Then read the works of N.T. Wright and Timothy Johnson to see the opposing view.)

Arguing that Jesus never existed at all, however, has very little support from anyone but fringe wackos.

[ Parent ]

Ah, well, I guess that leaves... (none / 0) (#72)
by leonbrooks on Mon Apr 02, 2001 at 09:36:23 AM EST

...the evidence for Moses (Gulf of Aquaba, Egyptian inscriptions), Lot (Western shore of Dead Sea) and Noah (Turkey - and most sedimentary rock the world over).

I suppose we could factor in the noticeable changes that Christianity made in Middle Eastern and other societies before Constantine and his bunch of political technicians got involved and mucked it all up. And maybe the Phoenecian inscriptions recognising Solomon. And recognising David. Oh, yes, and over 300 specific prophecies. And maybe Josephus and a few other contemporary and near-contemporary historians. And ``My servant'' Cyrus...

``I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us? Eh?''
-- If at first you don't succeed, try a shorter bungee
[ Parent ]

I cannot believe this (4.00 / 2) (#51)
by AgentGray on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 10:18:19 AM EST

How can this get voted up this high?

It's just full of historical errors, and if they are not errors where is the proof? The article didn't even give it's own basis.

I believe that Christ "sweat blood" in the garden the night before, not on the cross according to what is written in the Bible. I didn't think it was metaphorical. It's been theorized for years that when the human body is in enough anguish that the pores can open wide enough for blood and sweat to come out. However, I think the Bible said "like great drops of blood."

Who cares what He looks like? To most people it's what He did that counts.

Yeah, Judas was colluded into hanging himself as well...

Jewish Guy In 'Looked Jewish' Shock (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by motty on Thu Mar 29, 2001 at 12:59:48 PM EST

Bizarrely, the BBC would appear to have spent a large amount of money in order to recreate the face of a friend of mine called Stuart, who would look exactly like that if he had a beard.

However, I'd point out this page on BBC news online:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/tv_and_radio/newsid_1243000/1243954.stm, wherein we learn that this is only a claim about what Jesus 'might' have looked like, based on a reconstruction from a skull of an entirely different first century Jewish guy.

Apparently, all us Jews look the same.

Well done BBC!
s/^.*$//sig;#)

What a farce. (4.00 / 1) (#62)
by kitten on Fri Mar 30, 2001 at 01:16:52 AM EST

"the image unveiled yesterday - of a swarthy, coarse featured man with short beard and hair - contradicts the traditional representation of Christ as blue-eyed and aquiline with long hair".

Should have read, "..the traditional representation of Christ as bearing a remarkable resemebelence to Andy Gibb."


mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
The face of Jesus | 76 comments (74 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!