Comments on: What Christ looked like
Add a Comment
- Jewish prophet. Period.
- Reply to this comment
- 1) Christmas isn't the birth of Christ. The Biblical account means that he could not have been born after October.
2) Jesus NEVER approved of the words attributed to him
Christianity is a nice thought, but it's sad that so few actually even bother to even TRY to follow Christ's teachings.
Besides, judging from the region he was in, Jesus ceratinly wasn't white. I know that doesn't go over well when I bring it up to Redneck Republicans here in the South. - Reply to this comment
- to laffewi
Thank you so much for doing this. Many people have read with delight your exposition about the teachings of the Bible. Before learning what the Bible truly says, I had studied four years of theology in a Catholic school. In my theology class I had never heard the defense that California Surfer gives about the trinity and the deity of Jesus-I refer to what he says about the apostles and the disciples.
I just wish that California Surfer gives his Bible a second chance. Because it doesn't make sense that only certain parts of the Bible are inspired by God. This would contradict 2Ti 3:17.
The light be with you always. - Reply to this comment
- Actually I believe the four gospels were written anonymously and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were attached to them later as a way to differentiate them. None of the authors claimed to be written by eye-witnesses.
- Reply to this comment
- If this is the way you win people over to Christianity, poor Jesus.
- Reply to this comment
- If this is the way you win people over to Christianity, poor Jesus.
- Reply to this comment
- Popular Mechanics is pretty worthless anyway, but for them to show that picture of what looks like a criminal, just to look at it is repulsive but to say oh, this is a computer generated image of Christ? its tolerated and people are allowed to mock Christ; any other religion, try mocking their leader?
It is kind of odd that no absolute likeness was done of Christ, but then in a cosmic sort of way it makes sense because each group of people can paint him as being in their likeness. If Christ was white then people would say those with dark skin must be evil? The early Mormon church did this, all blacks are descendants of Cain, are cursed and can never get into heaven. But the LDS church changed this pillar of their belief decades ago. Just like if there was some document that Christ hand wrote? people would fight wars just to own it. To you doubters out there, consider what is written about the Ark, aka "Noah's Ark" the box that had the special items in it? In the Indiana Jones movie, the first one, they depicted in a story what really took place in ancient bible times. God is able to preserve his written scriptures over the years.
Anyway, using logic and truth we can only derive 1 of 2 possible conclusions: Either Christ is God exactly as Scripture claims; or we do not know. We cannot "CONCLUDE" that Christ is not God because we do not have enough information.
If everyone was truthful in their answer to is Christ really God? the only answer would be either yes or I dont know. - Reply to this comment
- Thank all of you for the interesting reading. I have enjoyed each comment.
As I read each comment I could not help to see that each of us comes to this via are own path. As a nurse and a Christian, I have come to know that science is wonderful but it doesn't have all the answers. Why is it they cannot get a DUE date right? Why does one person die today and another person who has the same diagnosis worse projected life span live for years?
Yes, I belive. I know that there have abuses and atrocities in the name of all religions. I cannot change the past. I cannot change anothers point of view. I can only get up every day and serve as I know God wants me to be. Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays! Which ever floats your boat. - Reply to this comment
- WAS JESUS CHRIST A REAL, HISTORICAL PERSON?
The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly stated time and place in great detail. (see Luke 3:1,2,21-23)
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus,Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus found in Book XVIII. sections 63,64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: "Christus[latin for "Christ"]. from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."-The Complete Works of Tactitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book 15, par 44.
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independant accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."-(1976), Macropaedia Vol.10,page145.
Even today,with all the evidence still in tact, there are those that have the arrogance and audacity to deny the Holocaust ever happened. This most definitely shows that there are those that despite overwhelming evidence and proof, that they will arrogantly and defiantly deny the existence of something or someone if they choose not to believe. Not only will they choose to believe a lie against all the evidence and facts they will preach it to others as if it is factual when it is not.
There have been many critics of the Bible over the past 3 centuries that have made all kinds of criticisms against the Bible stating that certain persons never lived. Yet, time and time again these critics who make slanderous claims against the Bible are proved false when archaelogy discovers undisputable evidence proving these persons actually lived.
For example for years Bible critics made the unfounded claim that Pontius Pilate never existed. Yet in 1961, thanks to archaelogy they were proved wrong.
Sargon and Sennacherib who were Kings of Assyria were scoffed at by Bible critics stating they never lived. Yet archaelogy proved these critics were greatly mistaken when their palaces were dug up and found.
One modern day archaelogist stated that he carries a Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other, since he highly respects the accurate details of the Bible.
The most amazing thing that I have found through out this entire thread is that those who make the greatest criticisms against the Bible have never read it, to even know what they are talking about. They are simply mindlessly parrotting what they have heard others say without ever investigating the facts to actually know anything.
Ask yourself; Could a person who never lived have effected human history so remarkably?
According to Will Durant a well respected historian, He argued: "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels."
Yes, think about it. Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. "Dates before that year are listed ad B.C., or before Christ," explains The World Book Encyclopedia. "Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini(in the year of our Lord)."
Something to really think about for those that can think for themselves. Not allowing themselves to be swayed by illogical, closed minded to the facts, individuals who have the most blinded faith of all, actually believing in nothing and that everything came about through purposeless blind chance. - Reply to this comment
- why argue about something that doesn't exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Reply to this comment
