Toughest question to all Christians!!!! Drawing!!!!

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
So I wanted to express a question. Very strong in the belief, but hey no one is perfect in faith. So here is the question.

Why didn't the 12 apostles draw or tried to carve or express there word of God through art at all? I mean something like this is amazing. All answers are hypothetical. I also know that during the era of the 12 apostles that witnesses (written witnesses) was the most truth evidence known in the time. Obviously, they didn't lie (although some will say). But I wonder why 12 guys wouldn't at least attempt to draw or paint what had happen.. Maybe they did? Vatican vault?

in short my answer. Maybe they did, maybe all the drawings of art during that era of the new testament could of had been 1 of the 12... And through the obscurity of time no one will ever find the truth artist
edit on 16-11-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


12 apostles = 12 constellations, 12 tribes of Israel, etc:



Jesus surrounds himself with 12 disciples. This is usually taken to be symbolic of the 12 tribes of Israel. This notion of 12 tribes, however, is itself a symbolic reference to the 12 signs of the zodiac in Babylonian astrology, which the Jews adopted whilst in exile in Babylon. The zodiac was an extremely important symbol in the Pagan world. Osiris-Dionysis is symbolically represented as the still spiritual center of the turning wheel of change represented by the 12 signs. [...] [In] the Mysteries of Mithras 12 disciples surrounded the godman, just as the 12 disciples surrounded Jesus. The Mithraic disciples were dressed up to represent the 12 signs of the zodiac and circled the initiate, who represented Mithras himself.


"The Jesus Mysteries"
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999).

I'm just puzzled as to why you chose not to ask your question via music or art?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Who knows - maybe the 3 attempts to destroy the Library of Alexandria after the crucifixion was a concerted effort by the PTB (at the various times) to hide the true nature of The Christs time here on Earth.


Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Julius Caesar's fire in the Alexandrian War, in 48 BC; the attack of Aurelian in 270 – 275 AD; the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391; and the Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.


Whos to say that there was not a plethora of information, records and drawings of The Christ - conveniently destroyed to ensure the truth was kept hidden until the end.

What powers that currently exist today, existed back then..............Hmmm, I wonder!!!



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


God forbids drawing of images, its a commandment neither to make them(images/idols etc) nor to worship them.
And the 12 apostles were religious jews just like Jesus pbuh.
All the art works come after the Roman Catholic Church removed that commandment or from painters who dint believe the church in the first place.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


I like your answer, i almost forgot about that library



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Maybe they weren't good painters? I don't think there were really 12 apostles, maybe 3 or 4 at the most, but I'm sure there were paintings of the real Christ but they were destroyed in order to keep HER identity secret.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


I think the obvious answer would be that either he was a woman or that the apostles/disciples were. I've also seen the notion entertained that each of the disciples had a female counterpart disciple that was removed from scripture.

Given that everything about Jesus was written long after the Jesus saga, perhaps they just didn't really know what he looked like.

I'm going with the "Jesus was a chick" theory.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River
Why didn't the 12 apostles draw or tried to carve or express there word of God through art at all?


Because they weren't artists? Most were laborers and fisherman. Matthew was a tax collector so he may have been educated, but not necessarily an artist. It's not even clear most of them were literate.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toromos

Originally posted by Jordan River
Why didn't the 12 apostles draw or tried to carve or express there word of God through art at all?


Because they weren't artists? Most were laborers and fisherman. Matthew was a tax collector so he may have been educated, but not necessarily an artist. It's not even clear most of them were literate.


Part of the point of the Apostles is that they weren't supermen or elites or even educated in some cases -- they were just run of the mill people whom Jesus called out and had the strength and interest to follow him. It's a little unrealistic to have assumed that they would have the talent, never mind the interest, to paint pictures of Christ, and even if they had, almost nothing from that time survived the Roman and Jewish persecution of Christians, anyway.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


It would explain why Jesus was so loving and compassionate. Those definitely aren't male attributes. Jesus was actually Mary in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


It would explain why Jesus was so loving and compassionate, those are female attributes not male. My thought is that Jesus was actually Mary. A woman having that much influence in a time where males had all the authority? Very threatening indeed, so they changed her to a him.
edit on 16-11-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Cuervo
 


It would explain why Jesus was so loving and compassionate, those are female attributes not male. My thought is that Jesus was actually Mary. A woman having that much influence in a time where males had all the authority? Very threatening indeed, so they changed her to a him.
edit on 16-11-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


This was at a time that the patriarchal paradigm of religion had won the battle against any sort of matriarchal worship. It would have caused a lot of people to question the current theological authority if the coming messiah was a woman. It was bad enough that Jesus was a pagan from afar.

I don't really have an opinion on it because Jesus could have been anything but it's fun to talk about for sure.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


While I don't think it can be "proven", I do think there have been enough clues left behind to assume she was a woman. DaVinci painted it into almost all of his most famous works. His painting "Salvator Mundi" is the best example I can think of with him putting Jesus' face on a womans body. DaVinci was very close to the RCC and knew stuff nobody else was allowed to know. To get it out there he hinted at it within his paintings, including Salvator Mundi, the Mona Lisa, and John the Baptist. I think the "holy grail" isn't Jesus' children but Jesus him... herself.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Cuervo
 


While I don't think it can be "proven", I do think there have been enough clues left behind to assume she was a woman. DaVinci painted it into almost all of his most famous works.


... because Da Vinci was around during the time of Christ, and the authors of the New Testament weren't.



And here I thought all this time that Da Vinci's female conspiracy was recasting John as Mary Magdalene.

Geez, even the Gnostics, who were nutty for promoting the role of women, didn't say Jesus was a girl, for Pete's sakes. I have to hand it to you, if I'm looking for a kooky theory that has zero basis in fact, following you around is likely to turn one up before too long.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I don't know, guys. When I say that Jesus was a woman, it's usually a bit tongue-in-cheek to get a rise out of somebody. I admit it. Same reason I tell Christians that Osama Bin Laden looks like Jesus (even thought I truly believe that).

There isn't any proof he was a woman yet it is suspicious that there were no art pieces from the time. You can't blame people for digging up scenarios like that because, as implausible as it sounds, we are speculating on a story where a man is born of a virgin and gets resurrected. I think it's game for wild speculation.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
it is suspicious that there were no art pieces from the time.


It is only suspicious when one casts 21st Century civilization into the 1st Century. Do you think that people were spending their time producing and reproducing artwork? Paintings were usually done on the side of walls, and those, along with statuary or busts, are rather easily destroyed, particularly when the Romans are rampaging through Jerusalem.

Frankly, it would be more surprising and suspicious if First Century pictures of this obscure prophet, whose followers were mercilessly persecuted by both the Romans and Jews, existed to this day.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


I'd venture to guess because none of them were artists.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



God forbids drawing of images, its a commandment neither to make them(images/idols etc) nor to worship them.
And the 12 apostles were religious jews just like Jesus pbuh.
All the art works come after the Roman Catholic Church removed that commandment or from painters who dint believe the church in the first place.


This is correct.

Have Christians pondered over the fact that in the thousands of years, there are no Israelite depictions of their own prophets or rulers? There could be an exception here and there, but I'm curious to see it.

Fine, the 12 apostles probably couldn't draw very well, but to say there wasn't a single person among the Israelites who could draw people is a bit of a stretch.

Most depictions of Jesus and the prophets are European.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Have Christians pondered over the fact that in the thousands of years, there are no Israelite depictions of their own prophets or rulers? There could be an exception here and there, but I'm curious to see it.



After the Romans' destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70, the practice of Judaism shifted from a focus on sacrifice to the study of sacred texts, the celebration of holy days, and the religious observance of the life cycle, all of which provided opportunities for the production and patronage of art. Torah scrolls were undecorated, but other Hebrew texts were painted with narrative and decorative imagery. Haggadot, books containing the text of the Passover Seder, sometimes depict scenes from the Bible or images of the contemporary celebrations of the Seder. ( Jews and the Arts in Medieval Europe)


Referenced page includes pictures of a bust of King David and a statue of a Jewish King (unnamed.)

Photo gallery of King David Private Museum and Research Center



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
My point is that children play with arts at an early age. Middle eastern kids (ancient) probably drew in sand and played with mud as well. Artistic creativeity flowed through everyone. Do not just single groups as fisher and laborer, They were probably more like us (venturing from music to poetry(writing).

And J.c. a girl? I lol @ that





top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join