Jesus Christ: Tattooed Love Boy

reply to post by Logarock


Hey,

Just wanted to say that this is one of the best ATS posts that I have ever seen. If I may quote you, I am going to use it as my sig.

Its not even good herecy.

Only on ATS will you encounter someone that complains about insufficient heresy in a thread about Jesus.

I'm definitely adding you as a friend.

reply to post by Bybyots



Greetings Bybyots -

Interesting thread you've created.

In the manner of Jesus; there seems to be evidence that all humans spoke a
common language according to biblical scripture at the time of the Tower of Babel.
www.sacred-texts.com...
This language was known as "Solex Mal."
It was apparently centered around astrology which the Bible is encrypted with.
This being said, I would not be surprised if (Jesus did bare tattoos that) they were
mostly of astrological equations.

Sorry I can not contribute more as this is new to me..Jesus and tatty's.

@ Skalla -

Excellent pics of Otzi.
That 'mutha' was one badazz dude!
They say his tats when right down to the bone...damn.

Be well freinds.

reply to post by Bybyots


Tattoos of that time and culture were generally henna, and therefore, not permanent, and usually drawn on women's hands.
As to the rest of your OP, very interesting. I saw a thread today that he was also a shapeshifter. So who knows?
Jesus seems to have become whatever a particular social construct needs him to be. And I might suggest here this is by design, giving everyone a symbol they can relate to, and not provided by theologians, if you get where I am going, t hough I have no personal objection to seeing him the way you are describing.

Ever read a book by Nikos Kazantzakis: Think Meb Gibson made a lose interpretation of a movie based on the book---very loose. The book is welll worth the read. It portrays Jesus as a charismatic figure of the times, more political against the sellling of the temple and the political actions and their invovement of politics, a place as religious figures they obviously did not belong, but they were bartering levels of freedom as slaves of Romans and others. Anyway, in this book he was represented, really, as an epileptic, at the least, and a schizophrenic at the most extreme interpretation. Interestingly, this may very well have been the secret and magic to his charisma that served to gain him a following, speaking a mixture of truths no one else dared speak and outlandish ideas, for those times, at least.

Interesting OP. Thanks. More and more I think the Bible and Jesus were actually vehicles for division and world domination, and the truth probably really existed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The problem with this is anyone around who can translate sanskrit and aramaic could be telling us absolutely anything through the translations, abnd not what was necessarily written or defined by the texts. Just a thought.

reply to post by Bybyots


It is amazing that an "academic" could get away with calling this research.....or anything.

Let me point something out here. Not to be tossing words around for impacts sake but when you hear the word blasphemy and wonder what it means in a pure aplication well here you have it. And not according to church fathers or tradition but out of Jesus own mouth.

When He was accused of casting out demons by the power of satan, that is satan casting out satan in order to deceive, by the majic arts or what have you, he warned those that accused him that this is the one thing that would not be forgiven them. Jesus clearly warned them amoung other things not to lump Him in with the pagan or pseudo-religious exorcists or worse as they finaly did by accusing Him of operating under the authority of satan.

Mark makes the effort to show that the demons He cast out had more brains than the people accusing Him of some sort of majic.

Originally posted by skalla
time's kinda slipping thru my fingers right now and i still havent even had a chance to read the op in full, but i've done a little digging on the tattoo thing and it sure aint easy.
trouble is there are "magic" tattoos in Thailand associated with "heiratic movements" that really bork up clean searching etc. meh
found very little in some quick searches (mostly image based) but i did find these..

critink.tumblr.com...

Christ said that He came to "fullfill the law and the prophets". It was against the law to have tattos and certainly this type of shamanistic marker would not have been found on Jesus body. Our good friend Windword has suggested that the word John saw written on Christ were on par with these sort of tattos which is why he should retire from any sort of discussion on chrsitianity.

Besides this, all we have to suggest that Jesus had tattos are the super heated vapors of a pseudo-academic.

“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,d put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him:

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’e
“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
Acts 2:22-36

The fact that the Talmud 'rings true' to you should make you stop to think about why and how you have come to agree with such a wicked book from the wicked imaginations of men. Perhaps someday you'll understand why they own, produce, write, and act in nearly all of what you consume in the form of tv, film and print. Perhaps one day you'll sit down to really think about how plot lines, dialogues, plays to emotions, spoken words, images with symbols and song lyrics sung repeatedly have been your evil bible.

Belief comes through hearing.
If you can't yet figure out how the west has crucified the real Jesus Christ and accepted the murderer, insurrectionist and robber - just as the ancestors of those who produce the 'new bible' for your everyday consumption did 2,000 years ago - then there is no other caution that can be given except to live in fearful expectation of judgement which is not too distant.

Try turning to the Truth for the truth instead of the deceived who themselves are allowed to deceive.

reply to post by Logarock


thing is, we are not exactly discussing christianity, we are discussing possibilities regarding the historical figure of who is generally known to christians as christ which is an important distinction, though one that many christians would understandably find hard to accept. so much so that you for example would like to exclude folk from the discussion.
it's possible to believe in the historical figure of christ, or to wish to explore the issue without being a christian or attatching huge value to the new testament and translations thereof.
if you cant recognise or accept this, fair enough, i personally have no objection to you expressing that but please do not try to tell people that they cannot be involved.

however, if your outrage or annoyance circuitry has not been tickled enough yet, it may get worse as there are other avenues being explored regarding magical tattoo and such. it's not done to upset though (i would not wish to speak for the op, but i'm here as i find the subject fascinating from various angles), but it's a very interesting world we live in and not all of us regard one sect's reading of a selection of written works as the alpha and omega, as i am sure you are aware - regardless of the danger you may see us as putting ourselves in and so forth.

reply to post by tetra50

Jesus seems to have become whatever a particular social construct needs him to be. And I might suggest here this is by design, giving everyone a symbol they can relate to, and not provided by theologians, if you get where I am going, t hough I have no personal objection to seeing him the way you are describing.

This ^^^^ is a very insightful post. I couldn't agree more. Jesus has become all things to all people, still shapeshifting, LOL.

I would go so far to speculate that the portrayal of the biblical Jesus is actually a combination of "off center" charismatic figures of the times. I believe that it was the power of these rebellious, cult like movements that brought about the Jewish wars. The Bible skillfully weaves these ideological sects into one character, Jesus, but all three died on the cross.

On a separate note, I would be interested in learning how Necromancy, and it's symbols may have been incorporated into shamanistic tattoos. I remember reading about how the symbols were a sort of a map, possible star maps or underworld maps, that could be ritually performed via a sort of "dance."

reply to post by windword


Another thing you may not have considered about the bible, and I wrote this in another thread of Randyvous' recently. It is the same story, albeit character changes, and some group changes (ammonites,hittites,etc.), and changes in geographical context (though this is more rare.) My point being, it represents the same story, in past, present and future. There is a Scoffield edited edition, King James, which has a forward called the Panoramic view of the Bible. It allludes to this, and to the fact that the study of the text cannot be complete without considering every single book, chapter, and story to it, partially for this reason. There is a repetitive nature to it, of repeating the same no matter what covenents were made wtih what God, and with further study, it becomes quite clear that G-d, may actually represent many different dieties than the one we presently assume it is about.
These ideas alone present a whole new way of looking at the meaning and intent of the Bible. "For you have done worse than your fathers, and if you will turn away from your ways, I will forgive and preserve a remnant of you." This may be mixing some scripture, but is a nod to an example as to which covenant with which peoples made with exactly which diety????? Very interesting, really,, when you think about it, shapeshifting, tatoos and all. And just what were they selling in that temple, anyway? Little humor, there, Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Logarock

 

thing is, we are not exactly discussing christianity, we are discussing possibilities regarding the historical figure of who is generally known to christians as christ which is an important distinction, though one that many christians would understandably find hard to accept. so much so that you for example would like to exclude folk from the discussion.
it's possible to believe in the historical figure of christ, or to wish to explore the issue without being a christian or attatching huge value to the new testament and translations thereof.
if you cant recognise or accept this, fair enough, i personally have no objection to you expressing that but please do not try to tell people that they cannot be involved.

Trust me man, when I discuss these topics I am more than willing to examine any shread of info. However it will end up and must end up being evaluated for usefullness based on the the whole of information to be had. I find this hard to accept on the first level for its total lack of scholarship. Secondly on the poor source matter and lastly with its conflict with other sources known and closer to the subject matter. Thats how I do it.

What you want to do is discuss christianity in isolation wanting to bring subject matter to the table without having it subject to the scrutiny of other information. Thats what I have a problem accepting. Running weak and unsuportable ideas under the flag of "deny ignorance".

As well I have never said anyone couldnt be involed but simply expressed my opinion of the value of another persons contributions. What did he say? Did Jesus wear a swastika? You should be giving him the lecture you just tried to give me. You know the one that just assumed that my responces were knee jerk and typical christain and did not take into account information outside the realm.

however, if your outrage or annoyance circuitry has not been tickled enough yet, it may get worse as there are other avenues being explored regarding magical tattoo and such. it's not done to upset though (i would not wish to speak for the op, but i'm here as i find the subject fascinating from various angles), but it's a very interesting world we live in and not all of us regard one sect's reading of a selection of written works as the alpha and omega, as i am sure you are aware - regardless of the danger you may see us as putting ourselves in and so forth.

Well here i am fully aware of very real majic that utilizes tattos. I am also aware of other shamanistic ritual and devices that are said to protect from and exercise demons. This is part of my point in the above post. This issue was not avoided by the writers of several of the gosples but addressed and addressed by Christ himself as he was accused of same. This is why, just adding to the discussion really, that Christ warned some about calling him a witchdoctor. He took it personaly. He made it clear where his power and authority came from.

reply to post by Logarock


dude, i would have hoped that it was clear that was in no way a lecture that i gave you, or tried to give you. i thought that my tone, while ofc always tricky to express and recieve accurately via text, was casual and certainly not unfriendly.

to suggest that jesus may have had a swastika is not controversial either, or at least no more controversial than other tattoos - i'm sure it's safe to assume that you know of it's antiquity as well as it's development from crosses, spirals and other near eternal motifs that are likewise found very widely. the rest is just gravy

reply to post by skalla


Yea the swastika is all over the place. They used them over here and where you are. But its connected to sun worship, the resurection of the sun which is not something Jesus would have a tatto of. I dont think Wind had it that way anyway.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by skalla

 

Yea the swastika is all over the place. They used them over here and where you are. But its connected to sun worship, the resurection of the sun which is not something Jesus would have a tatto of. I dont think Wind had it that way anyway.

LOL! What do you think, that I was implying that Jesus was a Nazi?



If it was good enough for Buddha, it's good enough for Jesus.

reply to post by Bybyots

Ever heard of the Piss Christ, that sort of suits the Jesus that was despised and hung on the cross.
A man hated for eternity

Nothing new here, just anti Christ rhetoric,

The world hates Jesus, still does

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by skalla

 

Yea the swastika is all over the place. They used them over here and where you are. But its connected to sun worship, the resurection of the sun which is not something Jesus would have a tatto of. I dont think Wind had it that way anyway.

LOL! What do you think, that I was implying that Jesus was a Nazi?

Its hard to tell with you but I am learning.