sydney
tinky ****in winky
Crucifixion, wasn't it?
the ascension shirley
Crucifixion, wasn't it?
Do any of these two early texts describe what Jesus looked like or could he have been a bald, red-eyed albino for all we know?
Do any of these two early texts describe what Jesus looked like or could he have been a bald, red-eyed albino for all we know?
No, except the prophetic reference in the Old Testament that refers to him as having 'no beauty that we should desire him'.
you won't go far wrong using schelotto as your baseline.......or that **** from arsenal
Lacazette?
you won't go far wrong using schelotto as your baseline.......or that **** from arsenal
'the prophetic reference in the Old Testament that refers to him as having 'no beauty that we should desire him
Sorry, but where will this all end?
As noted above: 'the prophetic reference in the Old Testament that refers to him as having 'no beauty that we should desire him'
Seems to rule out our Ezequiel I'd say?
Indeed. The western portrayal of Jesus as the 'white saviour' is a political one. His cloak is white and his complexion more in keeping with Plymouth than Palestine.
Any outrage here comes from personal prejudice rather than faith. And if faith is about truth then surely no-one should have a problem.
Yet all to often we see that faith is merely a symbol of cultural tribalism. This country is a good example. The phrase 'Christian country' is all too often trotted out by our leaders. This should be an offence to Christians. It is a faith, a way of life through devotion, not a cultural alignment. A Christian is a person who believes in Christ. 'Christian country' is a euphemism for 'White Anglo Saxon'.
I'm not even sure Jesus should be portrayed anyway. As the apostle Paul said in Athens, 'The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands'.
You are Nigel Farage and I claim my £5
the ascension shirley
Perhaps he’s referring to the other hundred threads?
To be fair to the OP, religion is a belief system. For some, the more challenging the thing you require to believe, the better. A catholic pal of mine was happy to use radioisotopes in his research that fit into a physics and chemistry world that works only if the earth is (at least) hundreds of thousands of years old, and yet was delighted to believe that god created the universe (in which the Earth sits icentrally) 6 thousand years ago.
If the OP's religious belief is likewise dependent on believing the physically absurd then, yes, why not believe that Jesus was a blond blue eyed anglo saxon? In fact, he should Rejoice that his belief system is being challenged by clearly satanic 'BLM' weirdos.
Alternatively, mate, why not chill out a bit? We all know you have been under the weather. You won't make things better by channeling Victor Meldrew at the drop of a hat.
Here is an idea for you. Change. It happens all the time. Why not embrace it? When I was younger it was quite acceptable to slap a woman's arse in the workplace. It happened every day in at least 2 places I worked. That is now illegal. I don't feel that my world has fallen apart as a consequence.
Chose the things that warrant outrage a little more judiciously and all may become a little more serene.
And - very best wishes [MENTION=17322]Lenny Rider[/MENTION]
I suppose I should come in here. I spent much time studying early church history in the late 80s.
There are very few secular references to Jesus in the first fifty or so years after his death (other than the gospels/letters/early church references etc). In fairness, it's not unexpected, although I'd like to see the ones that the early Christians, who were often divided on theology, had to hand. Some of the historical texts, such as Josephus reference to him as 'Christ' may have been doctored. That one doesn't ring true for me given that he was a Jewish historian. There were writings though, as Lucian refers to in his second century references to Christ crucified.
What is most uncontested for me is the existence of Christ. It's hard to believe otherwise. Also, the existence of John the Baptist seems probable, the crucifixion undeniable. There is an independent reference
It's a question of who he was. Without authentic early accounts beyond what we have in scripture as handed down (and the absence of the origins and sources of the original document(s) that the first three gospels rely on) it comes down to faith.
But that is what Christianity is, faith. Let a person's relationship with Christ guide them. If they hold the scriptures as divine (they cannot be proved not) then they are indeed that.
I don’t want to seem churlish but
Bond was a jock, so what about Chris Iwelumo?