It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus's Face Drawn by Medical Artist Based on Forensic Anthropological Research Trends on News

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It is told in a first person, but there is no evidence that it was written by that person.

The story is at least told in first person sense.
and there is no evidence that indians painted the petroglyphs either according to that line of reasoning or that shakespeare wrote the tempest.

I am sure history is replete with documents accepted as being written by a person where there is no evidence other than testimony that it is so.
edit on 15-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
www.agapebiblestudy.com...

That is a reasonable summary if not all inclusive. also bear in mind that when the present calendar was created a 3 or 4 year error was introduced so if you look for reigns or dates of censuses or astronomical events they will be off unless you account for this. for example Christ was born 3 or 4 BCE or BC.

Parenthetically: if you look for such things in history at 1 AD you would not find them. (christ was born 9 months after dec 25, 4 BCE. thus probably in september.) this is not explicit in the bible but follows from verses concerning John the Baptist's birth, known facts about Zechariah and his temple duty (2nd week of the Course of Abaiyah) and Mary's visit to Elizabeth. Since we can pinpoint the exact date of Zechariah's duty at the temple and when he went home (the day after the sabbath of his duty week) we can determine the date of John's conception. and we know Mary visited Elizabeth within a day of her conceiving Christ when Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant. from that it is easy to extrapolate at least the month of Christ's birth (Sept) and probably the very day of it (24 Sept) since there seems to have been no complications to Mary's pregnancy. Anyway Christ was really born on or about 24 sept 4 B.C.E.


Please note, even Tadius lived after supposed events, so accuracy about supposed event would be questionable, but even with that, where exactly he mentions Jesus??

Again, we don't have any evidence Christ was born, nor evidence he was born by virgin...

Wouldn't that make interesting writing of the time??



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

It is interesting that you brought up Shakespeare because authorship is in question.

There are experts who examine writing styles that say there is some doubt between works,

Same with the book of John it is thought there could be up yo three different authors for it.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
doesn't matter. Horscht kritic lived by earliest extant dates and it then died by them. manuscripts were always copied by hand back then and often by more than one copyist.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Jesus's Face Drawn by Medical Artist Based on Forensic Anthropological Research Trends on News

That is about as 'real' as attempting to figure out the Cat in the Hat's genetic heritage!
Fictional people look like however the fiction says.
Just fodder to feed the Faithless 'beliefs'.
If it were of ANY importance to the story, it would have been included!



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
www.agapebiblestudy.com...

That is a reasonable summary if not all inclusive. also bear in mind that when the present calendar was created a 3 or 4 year error was introduced so if you look for reigns or dates of censuses or astronomical events they will be off unless you account for this. for example Christ was born 3 or 4 BCE or BC.

Parenthetically: if you look for such things in history at 1 AD you would not find them. (christ was born 9 months after dec 25, 4 BCE. thus probably in september.) this is not explicit in the bible but follows from verses concerning John the Baptist's birth, known facts about Zechariah and his temple duty (2nd week of the Course of Abaiyah) and Mary's visit to Elizabeth. Since we can pinpoint the exact date of Zechariah's duty at the temple and when he went home (the day after the sabbath of his duty week) we can determine the date of John's conception. and we know Mary visited Elizabeth within a day of her conceiving Christ when Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant. from that it is easy to extrapolate at least the month of Christ's birth (Sept) and probably the very day of it (24 Sept) since there seems to have been no complications to Mary's pregnancy. Anyway Christ was really born on or about 24 sept 4 B.C.E.


Please note, even Tadius lived after supposed events, so accuracy about supposed event would be questionable, but even with that, where exactly he mentions Jesus??

Again, we don't have any evidence Christ was born, nor evidence he was born by virgin...

Wouldn't that make interesting writing of the time??
cite:


Tallus was a secular historian who (circa AD52) [snip]
ad 52 was 19 years after the ministry of Christ. so he or his sources would have been living witnesses. It is irrelevant if these cites do not verbatem verify every bit of a gospel or biblical book. it is enough that taken together they present evidence for bits of it. sometimes the same bits and often different bits of it.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
yea, America would never accept 'jesus' unless he was a tall white man with blue eyes and pointy nose and white teeth and long golden blond hair.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
ad 52 was 19 years after the ministry of Christ. so he or his sources would have been living witnesses. It is irrelevant if these cites do not verbatem verify every bit of a gospel or biblical book. it is enough that taken together they present evidence for bits of it. sometimes the same bits and often different bits of it.


Not reliable sources, not from time, but even then, where does he mention Jesus Christ??

I am very sure that is wide established knowledge that outside of Bible, there is no mention of him, or you would see that already in textbooks as proof... and push to add it in history...



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
ad 52 was 19 years after the ministry of Christ. so he or his sources would have been living witnesses. It is irrelevant if these cites do not verbatem verify every bit of a gospel or biblical book. it is enough that taken together they present evidence for bits of it. sometimes the same bits and often different bits of it.


Not reliable sources, not from time, but even then, where does he mention Jesus Christ??

I am very sure that is wide established knowledge that outside of Bible, there is no mention of him, or you would see that already in textbooks as proof... and push to add it in history...
you obviously did not read the cites on the link i provided. he was in fact referred to by people outside the bible.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Because a history of Judaism as written by an antisemite and Holocaust denier should be taken seriously.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701you obviously did not read the cites on the link i provided. he was in fact referred to by people outside the bible.


Where and when???



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: stormbringer1701you obviously did not read the cites on the link i provided. he was in fact referred to by people outside the bible.


Where and when???
this and bear in mind this is not comprehensive i have seen other cites such as a roman who was not at all pleased with the new heathen religion or it's founder whom he slandered quite a bit. even mentioned that Pilate tried him and had him executed.

www.agapebiblestudy.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I can hear the army of footsteps from the arrogant Christians that feel the Cesare Borgia depiction of Jesus is the true Jesus.

I'd like to know more about these skulls, though, and why they are relevant. Nevertheless, any depiction of Jesus that isn't a white person is going to be infinitely more accurate than the common portrayal.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

I always said, Jesus looked more like the 9/11 19th hijacker than the lily white, blued eyed portrait which is hanging in every Italian grandparent living room.


Yeah like this winner here and his mommy who would pass for Mary, if in fact a Jesus ever existed note the above are not Levantines but Moroccans.

his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace
The hair of His head was white like wool plus he already played god on in the movies.
,


What some ancient Levantines looked like.

edit on 15-12-2015 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

As I said in the other thread, it has nothing to do with color.

Dude is butt ugly.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
yea, America would never accept 'jesus' unless he was a tall white man with blue eyes and pointy nose and white teeth and long golden blond hair.

All depending on the house hold I know many who long ditched Blond surfer Jesus..



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Protestant Jesus is an Aryan golden boy.

Catholic Jesus is a hairy Hispanic.

Coptic and Ethiopian Jesus is black.

Orthodox Jesus is Slavic.

Everybody knows this. All you have to do is look at the pictures.

Now do you understand why Islam forbids the making of images of the Prophet?



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   



edit on 15/12/15 by Astyanax because: irrelevant.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Frankly, I could care less.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Now do you understand why Islam forbids the making of images of the Prophet?

Because they suc at drawing??..



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join