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.

 

What did jesus look like??

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I understand your point, and it is good, but I interprit that to mean another person, not Jesus appearing differently.

I do not think it was maliciously intended as to make Jesus seem white, but rather artists see Jesus as they see him. They were not all biblical scholars.

It has just become a mainstay in the vision of Christ. He might have been black, but then again, he might have been Arabian looking.

Probability says that he would not be white, and if he was, he would be extremely tan.


I interpret literally. There's no other way. If you do interpret another way, then you're making stuff up---IMO.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Colonel]




posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
That Bible passage certainly does not make any specific references to apperance and it is certainly open to interpretation.

I still stand by my belief that the message is more important than appearance..

The Hitler example was poor at best. I don't ever recall hearing about Hitler preforming miracles.....

How do you know, if Jesus would come back, that an all powerful being would choose the same appearance twice? You don't.



[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
That Bible passage certainly does not make any specific references to apperance and it is certainly open to interpretation.

2 Corinthians 11:4: "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached

How do you know, if Jesus would come back, that an all powerful being would choose the same appearance twice? You don't.

Revelation 1:13: "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle."
Revelation 1:14: "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;"
Revelation 1:15: "And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."

This is what he said he would be back as.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I interpret literally too. I could literally mean another Christ or messiah.

Not Jesus himself with different pigmentation.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I interpret literally too. I could literally mean another Christ or messiah.

Not Jesus himself with different pigmentation.


Isn't that another Christ if it is different than the original?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I am going to assume that you are reading an English version of the bible??
Unless you are reading the Bible in it's original language, then interpreting the bible literaly is unsound.

You can read the same non-English book translated by five different translators and each of the five translations will be slightly different. Therefore, literal translation of the bible in English is by nature, flawed.

Why do you think so many of the non-English classics state who translated them? There is still great debate at many universities over who did the best translation of say..... Chekov and...get this, the Bible.

I suggest you learn the bible's original written lanquage and then get back me.

I still think equating backround with appearance is wrong. That is one thing you will never convince me on.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Actually, the NASB is a direct translation from the original texts. It makes it harder to read, but more acurate.

As for it being a different Jesus, I do not think it would be.

We have no pictures of Jesus, so our vision of him the person will differ depending on who you talk to. I do not think the image is what they are talking about so much as the person, and by person I mean the spirit or mind.

Again, I do not think many of the artistic visions of Christ are bad although inaccurate. But that does not mean that they are seeing a different person.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Even the best translation is still a "translation."

There is always something lost.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
So, its just best that we beleive nothing because all is "Lost in Translation."

Cop out.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
cop out, my a**.

If you are going to be that literal, then you had better go to the source.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Cop out. But, I believe what you're asking has already been done.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Literal translation is not sound.

The message Jesus delivered still out-weighs any petty appearance argument.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Ok, you go ahead and define your own scripture by the way you see it to fit your beliefs because you are chosen by God as the new prophet and interpreter of God's Word (because that is what you're doing) and I'll stick with the Bible.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I would not have the chutzpa to think something like that.....how do you know your interpretation is right? You Don't.

But, everyone perceives what they read in their own way....literaly or figuratively.


[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I have to read the Bible as it is written---not make up any interpretation so as my beliefs can fit.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
So, its just best that we beleive nothing because all is "Lost in Translation."

Cop out.

AND

I have to read the Bible as it is written---not make up any interpretation so as my beliefs can fit.

Once again, the proof must be shown to the ignorant.
*sigh*
So you think Jesus was born in the manger? For so many years we all did right? I know for a fact I have brought this up before....

Greek word used in Scripture is kataluma, and can mean guest chamber, lodging place or inn. The only other time this word was used in the New Testament, it means a furnished, large, upper story room within a private house. It is translated guest chamber, not inn (Mark 14:14-15). According to our Bible archaeology experts, Jesus was probably born in the house of relatives, but outside (under) the normal living and guest quarters.

So now, there is one PROVEN inconsistancy in translation. It could have been manger, but maybe not. The brief "cop out" comment is incorrect. It's not a "cop out" when there are proven translation issues.

The only "cop out" was your comment, because instead of realizing that there are inconsistancies...you refuse acknowledge that. It either has to be black or white for you, all or nothing.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Thankyou very much..............!



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
It either has to be black or white for you, all or nothing.


I only play for keeps, baby.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
God gave you a brain. Use it. If there are translation issues, then you are putting your trust in the translator, not God for your literal translation.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
It either has to be black or white for you, all or nothing.


I only play for keeps, baby.

I hear you. Just too bad your game is not backed by actual facts.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join