Yeah, sure. And I am George Bush with pink silk panties...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SONIA DORIS<br><font size=1>The Cranky wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yeah, sure. And I am George Bush with pink silk panties...[/QUOTE]
He was wearing purple earlier xD
He was wearing purple earlier xD
You know how Jesus has been pictured for 2000 years as a semi-blonde caucasian with green eyes.
Well, since Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jewish man, chances are the he was mostly a dark skinned man with the typical physical attributes of a man of the region instead of the lead singer of a metal band.
Who know what else has been hidden from us for the thousands of years. If Jesus got married and got some nookie, it doesn't make any difference.
Well, since Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jewish man, chances are the he was mostly a dark skinned man with the typical physical attributes of a man of the region instead of the lead singer of a metal band.
Who know what else has been hidden from us for the thousands of years. If Jesus got married and got some nookie, it doesn't make any difference.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You know how Jesus has been pictured for 2000 years as a semi-blonde caucasian with green eyes. [/QUOTE]
Sorta like this?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/mp3.aspx?Q=5597
:-)
Sorta like this?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/mp3.aspx?Q=5597
:-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You know how Jesus has been pictured for 2000 years as a semi-blonde caucasian with green eyes. [/QUOTE]
Sorta like this?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/mp3.aspx?Q=5597
:-)[/QUOTE]
BRIAN MAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
He's MY Jesus.
Sorta like this?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/mp3.aspx?Q=5597
:-)[/QUOTE]
BRIAN MAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
He's MY Jesus.
Supposedly he would have looked like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1250000/images/_1251512_sonofgod150.jpg
http://www.rejesus.co.uk/expressions/faces_jesus/facesj_media/b_bbc.jpg
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1251512.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1250000/images/_1251512_sonofgod150.jpg
http://www.rejesus.co.uk/expressions/faces_jesus/facesj_media/b_bbc.jpg
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1251512.stm
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You know how Jesus has been pictured for 2000 years as a semi-blonde caucasian with green eyes. [/QUOTE]
Sorta like this?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/mp3.aspx?Q=5597
:-)[/QUOTE]
BRIAN MAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
He's MY Jesus.[/QUOTE]
Whooo-ho-hooooa!! I really thought that was a Jesus impersonator, or something, before I caught on to who it really was...
Sorta like this?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/mp3.aspx?Q=5597
:-)[/QUOTE]
BRIAN MAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
He's MY Jesus.[/QUOTE]
Whooo-ho-hooooa!! I really thought that was a Jesus impersonator, or something, before I caught on to who it really was...
He could.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]He could.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA!
What a bunch of balogna.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA!
What a bunch of balogna.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]He could.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA!
What a bunch of balogna.[/QUOTE]
Fine. Believe what you wish, and ignore fact. That's what marks the narrow-minded religious nut from the sensible person.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA!
What a bunch of balogna.[/QUOTE]
Fine. Believe what you wish, and ignore fact. That's what marks the narrow-minded religious nut from the sensible person.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]He could.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA!
What a bunch of balogna.[/QUOTE]
Fine. Believe what you wish, and ignore fact. That's what marks the narrow-minded religious nut from the sensible person.[/QUOTE]
I don't belive that lie you said.
Besides, how can you even prove it.
The bible is a historical document that
has hardley had a change through the thousands
of years.
They are still the same wording as the scrolls
written back in time.
So how can you belive something like you said?
It doesn't make sense.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA!
What a bunch of balogna.[/QUOTE]
Fine. Believe what you wish, and ignore fact. That's what marks the narrow-minded religious nut from the sensible person.[/QUOTE]
I don't belive that lie you said.
Besides, how can you even prove it.
The bible is a historical document that
has hardley had a change through the thousands
of years.
They are still the same wording as the scrolls
written back in time.
So how can you belive something like you said?
It doesn't make sense.
Let me tell you something, I dont believe it, but that shit is crazy if it is true!!!
The man that wrote the Da Vinci code admitted
that what he wrote was fictional.
that what he wrote was fictional.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]He could.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA!
What a bunch of balogna.[/QUOTE]
Fine. Believe what you wish, and ignore fact. That's what marks the narrow-minded religious nut from the sensible person.[/QUOTE]
I don't belive that lie you said.
Besides, how can you even prove it.
The bible is a historical document that
has hardley had a change through the thousands
of years.
They are still the same wording as the scrolls
written back in time.
So how can you belive something like you said?
It doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
Do you know ANYTHING of Christian theology? Reading this, I doubt it.
The canon (what you know as the bible, which actually is the new testament) was put together by early Christian church-fathers. They made a selection from all of the text in circulation at that time. Many gospels were cut out because they were gnostic and not orthodox (the dominant christian sub-group).
Apart from that, the earliest of the gospels still dates to some 40 years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus. 40 years of oral tradition would DEFINITELY (not open for debate) have altered it.
An example of what happened during the oral tradition: in the oldest gospel, Judas is not villainized. In the newest, he is villainized extremely. In the oldest gospel, the focus is on Jesus, in the newest, it is on Christ.
The oldest WRITTEN VERSIONS of the gospels we have date from around 100-150 AD. So nearly a CENTURY after Christ's supposed death. So there AGAIN we have room for editing.
Christian theologists agree that the bible reflects not Christianity but the views of dominant groups. Throughout Christian history, several groups have contested over the power of the church. This leads to different gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reflect Orthodox Christianity, and the likes of Thomas, Peter, Phillip and Mary Magdalene reflect Gnosticism.
As for Apollonius and Simon Magus, historic texts about them survive, dating back just as far as the gospels.
Simon Magus is actually mentioned in the gospels in a lengthy passage where the authors go to extremes to discredit him. Would they do so if he wasn't a real threat to their religion?
As for the gospels, one last word: none of the authors of the gospels knew Jesus. Therefor, they can never have written down his words, which were, as I said, passed on for more than 40 YEARS ORALLY before they were first written down.
As you can see, I have more than enough proof. It's you position that cannot be proven.
Now I don't really CARE what you believe. That's you business, it doesn't matter. What you believe has no more to do with Christ than a bike does with mathematical mechanics. It's a belief-system, based on ideas represented in your 'Jesus Christ'.
Historically, we view Christianity differently.
However, there's no such person as Jesus. You'll be interested to hear that there were supposedly a great many people who did what Jesus did, made the same claim he did, etc.
Apollonius and Simon Magus are just two of the more well-known candidates.
So, in other words: Jesus is a combination of several people's acts and ideas, combined by a group of dissident Jews we now know as the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA!
What a bunch of balogna.[/QUOTE]
Fine. Believe what you wish, and ignore fact. That's what marks the narrow-minded religious nut from the sensible person.[/QUOTE]
I don't belive that lie you said.
Besides, how can you even prove it.
The bible is a historical document that
has hardley had a change through the thousands
of years.
They are still the same wording as the scrolls
written back in time.
So how can you belive something like you said?
It doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
Do you know ANYTHING of Christian theology? Reading this, I doubt it.
The canon (what you know as the bible, which actually is the new testament) was put together by early Christian church-fathers. They made a selection from all of the text in circulation at that time. Many gospels were cut out because they were gnostic and not orthodox (the dominant christian sub-group).
Apart from that, the earliest of the gospels still dates to some 40 years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus. 40 years of oral tradition would DEFINITELY (not open for debate) have altered it.
An example of what happened during the oral tradition: in the oldest gospel, Judas is not villainized. In the newest, he is villainized extremely. In the oldest gospel, the focus is on Jesus, in the newest, it is on Christ.
The oldest WRITTEN VERSIONS of the gospels we have date from around 100-150 AD. So nearly a CENTURY after Christ's supposed death. So there AGAIN we have room for editing.
Christian theologists agree that the bible reflects not Christianity but the views of dominant groups. Throughout Christian history, several groups have contested over the power of the church. This leads to different gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reflect Orthodox Christianity, and the likes of Thomas, Peter, Phillip and Mary Magdalene reflect Gnosticism.
As for Apollonius and Simon Magus, historic texts about them survive, dating back just as far as the gospels.
Simon Magus is actually mentioned in the gospels in a lengthy passage where the authors go to extremes to discredit him. Would they do so if he wasn't a real threat to their religion?
As for the gospels, one last word: none of the authors of the gospels knew Jesus. Therefor, they can never have written down his words, which were, as I said, passed on for more than 40 YEARS ORALLY before they were first written down.
As you can see, I have more than enough proof. It's you position that cannot be proven.
Now I don't really CARE what you believe. That's you business, it doesn't matter. What you believe has no more to do with Christ than a bike does with mathematical mechanics. It's a belief-system, based on ideas represented in your 'Jesus Christ'.
Historically, we view Christianity differently.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The man that wrote the Da Vinci code admitted
that what he wrote was fictional.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with the Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown is a lousy bread-writer of zero literary merrit. He's a no-one. However, he did not think of the theories he presents (which he indeed calls fiction) himself. He actually copied them from a set of works which ARE scientific in nature, of which Holy Blood / Holy Grail is the best-known.
that what he wrote was fictional.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with the Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown is a lousy bread-writer of zero literary merrit. He's a no-one. However, he did not think of the theories he presents (which he indeed calls fiction) himself. He actually copied them from a set of works which ARE scientific in nature, of which Holy Blood / Holy Grail is the best-known.