The Absolute Power of Christianity!

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm curious why this is such a big hang-up for you. Why does it matter how Jesus is depicted?

it's more of an issue of historical accuracy. if people think that there were white people running all over the middle east at that time, it really hurts efforts to educate.

and then there are the problems with racism

to paraphrase the 13th apostle rufus: a black man can steal your car but the can't be your savior?

His daddy was God. What color was God?

well, that's your opinion on that........

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Half would be from Mary (let's assume conventional genetics for a moment to ease the consideration) and according to genetics, there is a variable range from one extreme to the other of possible combinations. Does that mean albino is out? Hehe, now it's getting tricky huh? The only safe assumption is not to make assumptions.

albino jesus is out because he wouldn't have been able to do a public ministry....

it's fairly safe to make certain assumptions

Again, you know this...how?

because jesus would have looked similar to everyone in the area due to the genetics of his parents (or in your belief the genetics of mary)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's more of an issue of historical accuracy. if people think that there were white people running all over the middle east at that time, it really hurts efforts to educate.

Close to answer, but the Med was world trading central. We had Jews in Rome, Muslims in Spain...and whatever happened to the Minoans anyway? When the family took their flight to Egypt, did they stand out? Why or why not? You're going by probably, not historical accuracy still.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and then there are the problems with racism

Please explain.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
to paraphrase the 13th apostle rufus: a black man can steal your car but the can't be your savior?

Mind sharing an original thought rather than borrowing comedy?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, that's your opinion on that........

It's your opinion that he isn't.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
albino jesus is out because he wouldn't have been able to do a public ministry....

Warmer! Almost got it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's fairly safe to make certain assumptions

It's okay to make educated guesses so long as we remember they are guesses.

because jesus would have looked similar to everyone in the area due to the genetics of his parents (or in your belief the genetics of mary)

Right, but again if 50% of that genetic material is God, what color is God? You're still missing half of the equation.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
God isn't guiding her hand when she paints.

Originally posted by saint4God
Agreed, I don't see where anyone makes this claim.

then why attribute her painting skills down to god? if he's not guiding her hand, then he has nothing to do with her painting skills.

Originally posted by saint4God
He doesn't have straight blonde hair, blue eyes and his nose isn't typical of northern European, no? The artistic convention throughout the ages is to depict Christ as one of the culture in which the painting was to hang. For example, my favorite painting is Supper at Emmaus' House by Caravaggio:

C'mon Shauny, we both know better than to run this loop again

. I wish we had the time and dedicated thread for Art History, but is a little off-topic.

it's not off-topic. the fact that people adopt jesus' appearance and make it suit their own culture, shows that they're not interested at all about the real jesus and what the real jesus looked like.

blonde hair and blue eyes.. surely no one would depict jesus in that way?

www.io.com...

in african countries jesus is depicted darker. in european countries and america people seem to prefer the white jesus. is this a racist thing? would fewer white people accept jesus as their savior if he was very dark skinned?

Originally posted by saint4God
What do you have against whites? Where in the Bible does it say what he looked like?

i have nothing against white people. so if the bible doesn't tell us what jesus looked like, we could therefore assume that a fair idea of his appearance would include a skinhead, white european features, 4 foot tall and a ginger beard. afterall if the bible doesn't tell us what jesus looked like, he could therefore look like anything? or maybe the more logical thing to do would be to look at what people look like in that region today, and that way we can put together what jesus was more likely to looked like.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
He probably didn't have long flowing chesnut brown hair that looks like it belongs in a l'oreal commercial.

Originally posted by saint4God
Probably? Now we're rolling dice...

judas had to give jesus a kiss to show that he was jesus. from this we know that jesus therefore would have looked like everyone else and was no different to the average joe. the only reason people would have a hard time accepting a short haired jesus, is that in almost every painting and movie, jesus is depicted with long hair. we're not rolling the dice anymore, when we look further in to this.

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm curious why this is such a big hang-up for you. Why does it matter how Jesus is depicted?

because it goes to show that jesus is different depending on the culture. in africa he's pictured as a dark jesus. in america he's pictured as a white jesus. so there must have been two jesuses? one black and one white.. but then again maybe it doesn't matter that some people picture jesus as white and some picture him as black.

Originally posted by saint4God
His daddy was God. What color was God?

Right, but again if 50% of that genetic material is God, what color is God? You're still missing half of the equation.

you're working on the assumption that god has skin. if you're assuming god has skin, then you're assuming god is a human who passes on genes. so you're saying god was a human who passed on genes?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
then why attribute her painting skills down to god? if he's not guiding her hand, then he has nothing to do with her painting skills.

One extreme or other eh? So if your teacher didn't move your hand when doing your homework, why give the teacher any credit for your learning?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
it's not off-topic.

A discussion in the conventions of Art History is indeed off topic. We're talking about The Absolute Power of Christianity, not Art History.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the fact that people adopt jesus' appearance and make it suit their own culture, shows that they're not interested at all about the real jesus and what the real jesus looked like.

No it doesn't, this is an incorrect assumption/presumption/conclusion. It has a lot more to do with being able to identify with Christ. This practice of teaching through relation was more of a catholic practice than a protestant one. On the whole it matters not to the message.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
in african countries jesus is depicted darker. in european countries and america people seem to prefer the white jesus.

...which is what I'd stated a few posts ago...

Originally posted by shaunybaby
is this a racist thing?

Identification through relation. Perhaps there were racists, but that would be against the Bible to discriminate.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
would fewer white people accept jesus as their savior if he was very dark skinned?

It would be an interesting study. I doubt it though. The message isn't according to appearances. In fact, in his messages were quite a bit about not judging or prejudging others.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i have nothing against white people. so if the bible doesn't tell us what jesus looked like, we could therefore assume that a fair idea of his appearance would include a skinhead, white european features, 4 foot tall and a ginger beard. afterall if the bible doesn't tell us what jesus looked like, he could therefore look like anything? or maybe the more logical thing to do would be to look at what people look like in that region today, and that way we can put together what jesus was more likely to looked like.

Sure, you could go by probabilities. But, there is a much more logical, reasonable way to get closer to the truth...and it's in the Book itself.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
judas had to give jesus a kiss to show that he was jesus. from this we know that jesus therefore would have looked like everyone else and was no different to the average joe.

Wohoo! You're on the stick shaunybaby! Well done. Now you have established proof. I'll add to that and reinforce it with the following:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." - John 8:58-59

"The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"

"Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light." When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them." - John 12:34-36

At least twice Jesus hid from the crowds. Surely this would not be possible if he had a great variance in visual appearace between himself and the others.

There is more proofs, but I think shauny's observation is more than enough.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the only reason people would have a hard time accepting a short haired jesus, is that in almost every painting and movie, jesus is depicted with long hair. we're not rolling the dice anymore, when we look further in to this.

Long hair was to show that he was not "clean cut". We can establish he was not clean cut pretty well I think.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
because it goes to show that jesus is different depending on the culture. in africa he's pictured as a dark jesus. in america he's pictured as a white jesus. so there must have been two jesuses? one black and one white..

More than that depending on who's painting you're looking at, or as you've put so well here...

Originally posted by shaunybaby
but then again maybe it doesn't matter that some people picture jesus as white and some picture him as black.

Agreed.

Originally posted by saint4God
you're working on the assumption that god has skin. if you're assuming god has skin, then you're assuming god is a human who passes on genes.

It's times like this that make me very happy we can have a civilized, progressive discussion. Looking forward to more of them.

Originally posted by saint4God
so you're saying god was a human who passed on genes?

Not at all, and thank you for proving the point.

Hopefully this concludes the rabbit trail of Jesus' skin color and/or depictions in artwork.

P.S. How he looked then is not how he looks in the end of the age

[edit on 31-3-2007 by saint4God]

oh this takes me back to... well, about any point where both shauny and saint have been on.

i'd like to throw in one thing, the very fact that there is a clear development in her artistic style is evidence that this isn't a divine gift. a divine gift would be a girl that just started painting incredibly out of nowhere.

Originally posted by saint4God
One extreme or other eh? So if your teacher didn't move your hand when doing your homework, why give the teacher any credit for your learning?

but you're not giving god credit for 'teaching'.. you're giving him credit for being the reason why she's a talented artist. the old 'gift from god'.

Originally posted by saint4God
P.S. How he looked then is not how he looks in the end of the age

do you think the 'interpretations' of jesus are actually interpretations of what he would look like if he came back today or tomorrow?

Originally posted by saint4God
P.S. How he looked then is not how he looks in the end of the age

and exactly how does that work? he went into heaven as a physical being with a body that (in this theory) won't age or die because he's in paradise. how does his body change?

and do you think jesus will come back as a white guy? really? he'd change his appearance just to make it more familiar to the bible-thumpers of european descent?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
but you're not giving god credit for 'teaching'.. you're giving him credit for being the reason why she's a talented artist. the old 'gift from god'.

Further than that, to a believer even life itself is a gift of God. What we do with our gifts is the decision we make.

Originally posted by saint4God
do you think the 'interpretations' of jesus are actually interpretations of what he would look like if he came back today or tomorrow?

Not at all, but will address in greater detail in the next post madness puts forward because I see the similar and direct question being asked. The same proof you used to determined he had that regional appearance is the same proof I'll use to show that he's much different and will be able to say more accurately what that is.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and exactly how does that work? he went into heaven as a physical being with a body that (in this theory) won't age or die because he's in paradise. how does his body change?

How indeed! But can tell you that it in fact it did.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and do you think jesus will come back as a white guy?

White hair, yes. Not his feet though.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
really? he'd change his appearance just to make it more familiar to the bible-thumpers of european descent?

On the contrary! It'll be a lot different than what we're used to on accepted conventions or understandings of genetics. To reiterate, using the same proof shauny used to show he was east mediterrainian in appearance. Ready?

"As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze." - Daniel 7:9

"and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters." - Revelation 1:13-15



[edit on 1-4-2007 by saint4God]

Just 2 cents.
It was common practice for painters to depict Jesus as belonging to the era and region of the painter. Caravaggio would paint beautiful images showing Jesus in Italian Renaissance costume, being arrested by men in armor of the period, or calling upon an Apostle in a tavern.

Firstly, the painter obviously had closer contact and familiarity with his own world... imagining how ancient Jerusalem might look without all the references a modern painter would have access to would be difficult.
And also, placing the picture in the Contemporary world would have made it more personal to the viewer. They can feel the emotion of the moment better. ("What if God was One of Us?")

So... *shrug*

saint, i'm done. you give me two writings that are obvious allegorical pieces to anyone with an objective view as predictions of future events.

i'm out
it's like talking to a wall here

2270 replies!!! Was that really necessary!?!

Originally posted by emjoi
Just 2 cents.
It was common practice for painters to depict Jesus as belonging to the era and region of the painter. Caravaggio would paint beautiful images showing Jesus in Italian Renaissance costume, being arrested by men in armor of the period, or calling upon an Apostle in a tavern.

Firstly, the painter obviously had closer contact and familiarity with his own world... imagining how ancient Jerusalem might look without all the references a modern painter would have access to would be difficult.
And also, placing the picture in the Contemporary world would have made it more personal to the viewer. They can feel the emotion of the moment better. ("What if God was One of Us?")

So... *shrug*

These are some very interesting points and said better than I think I could. The point Christ was establishing is that God was willing to become one of us, to walk in our shoes, and die for all the things we had done so that we could enter into God's kingdom without that weight of sin preventing us from doing so. This is indeed the absolute power of Christianity. Well done emjoi, I've not met many who can articulate both Christianity and Art History so well.

You have voted emjoi for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4GodThe point Christ was establishing is that God was willing to become one of us, to walk in our shoes, and die for all the things we had done so that we could enter into God's kingdom without that weight of sin preventing us from doing so.
[edit on 1-4-2007 by saint4God]

So, we do the crime, and he does the time? He takes the fall for us? We make him the patsy, and pass the buck? That sounds like a ruse to me, a test, or a trick to test our ethical convictions. That is, if it is not complete and utter nonsense. What if saying you agree to the sweet deal, that states you will gladly shirk your responsibility for your actions and let someone else pay for your misdeeds, so that you can get a big reward... is only a test. It is all quite beyond my imagination that any of it is really likely, but if it is at all similar to what you Christians all say it is, then I would bet that the carrot dangled before you is a trap. Don't do it. Say no to Jesus, and accept whatever consequences there may be for your sins. Then, either way, you can say you didn't duck out of your duty. You may pay a stiff price, but you can be proud that you did not give in to the temptation. Character, integrity, ethics, these words will describe you. That is enough for me. Jesus himself could not sway me to give up my sins to him, in person.

BlackGuard, I don't think you understand Christian theology. Jesus being a sacrifice for the sins of humankind does not mean people don't pay the price when they sin. The only consequences that Jesus is capable of helping people avoid when it comes to sin are eternal ones.

That's it. If you murder somebody then you do time, plain and simple. If you become a Christian inside the prison though then God won't hold the crime against you and you can enter Heaven.

Does this mean Christians can commit crime and get away with it? No way. You have to pay the price to the laws of your country. God doesn't hold it against you though because of the concept of grace. Does this mean we can sin?

As Paul said in Romans 6:15-25 'What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.' (NIV)

I would like to add to jimbo's thoughts that someone must be willing to change for God to forgive them.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I would like to add to jimbo's thoughts that someone must be willing to change for God to forgive them.

Yea, I forgot to add that bit. Sticking with the prison theme, you can't just say 'I'm a Christian now' and go out and do another murder.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
2270 replies!!! Was that really necessary!?!

I guess your post makes it 2271. I think it's an endless topic. For some it may be necessary, for others less so.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
So, we do the crime, and he does the time?

An interesting, modern way of putting it. I'm good for it . Back then they called it atonement.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
He takes the fall for us?

Ya, voluntarily. There were many years of us "not getting it", so we needed a demo.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
We make him the patsy, and pass the buck?

He made Himself the patsy. What Christ said on the cross as recorded in Greek is "Tetelestai" which translates to "It is finished". He wasn't saying his life is over here. Tetelestai is a financial term that means "the debt is paid in full". Now he didn't owe a debt because he was sinless. The man who knew no sin, became sin for us ("And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" according to the old testament prophecy). He rose again to show us that indeed his payment was acceptable for those who trust in him.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
That sounds like a ruse to me, a test, or a trick to test our ethical convictions.

Then test the test/ruse/trick. Apply whatever litmus to it you like. I have some recommendations as to how if ideas are shortcoming.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
That is, if it is not complete and utter nonsense. What if saying you agree to the sweet deal, that states you will gladly shirk your responsibility for your actions and let someone else pay for your misdeeds, so that you can get a big reward... is only a test. It is all quite beyond my imagination that any of it is really likely, but if it is at all similar to what you Christians all say it is, then I would bet that the carrot dangled before you is a trap. Don't do it. Say no to Jesus, and accept whatever consequences there may be for your sins. Then, either way, you can say you didn't duck out of your duty. You may pay a stiff price, but you can be proud that you did not give in to the temptation. Character, integrity, ethics, these words will describe you. That is enough for me.

I know it burns the eyes of people on the board sometime, but it's entirely relevant:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23

The choice is not a difficult one. We like to make it that way for some reason.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Jesus himself could not sway me to give up my sins to him, in person.

I am sorry to hear you say that. You'll have your opportunity to apply your statement. In the meanwhile I can only hope you'd reconsider.