What you don't seem to understand according to the bible as well as extra biblical Jewish and roman references there was nothing unique about Jesus in appearance. He followed all Jewish customs and laws of the time. The only thing that set him apart was his teachings and miracles. Forget all the Cecil B DeMille movies and the play Jesus Christ Superstar and do a little historical research. That is what my opinions are based on, not myth and tradition. The predominant hair style for men today is short or even shaved. Just because your particular circle of friends may wear their hair long is not indicative of the majority of the population.
mary was of Davidic descent. But she could have been black or part black as well. Keep in mind there are very black people in Ethiopia who claim descent of King David as well. That's why we have "Haile Selassie I" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie_I_of_Ethiopia JAH! Rastafari! :sifone: Do your homework.
i have no idea why this is in the lsd forums.....but realistically he probably wouldve looked like what we refer to as a "terrorist"
There were probably some peeps who knew him very well that could historically document his image. I mean some of his disciples went on to do things that were historically documented. Which means they were real people and probably could describe this real Jesus Guy. There are historical documents from India about a traveler who came for enlightment, and was dubbed the Christ, for he was a perfect reflection of God. That's where Jesus was all those years missing from the bible, chillin' in India, seeking enlightenment.
yes exactly, thats what i was trying to jam into some religious freaks head in the marijuana forums...
I have done my homework, thats why I posted the things I did in here. Just because some Ethiopians claim descendancy from David does NOT mean Jesus was of the Negroid race, he would most likely have been of the Caucasoid, at least according to Carleton C. Coon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_race http://racialreality.110mb.com/racesofman.html Is there a possibility Jesus was black, sure. Is it probable, not likely. I'm not saying that from any prejudicial viewpoint, just based on the information that we do have available to us. Does any of it really matter as to the person of Jesus? Of course not. But I really doubt, in fact I'm pretty sure he didn't look like most of the pictures of him that have been around since the middle ages.
I give you an D- for your homework. "Googling" doesn't count for homework. Terms like "probably" "most likely" "possibility" "pretty sure" are not scientific, definitive or authoritative responses and you made the dogmatic statement that he was not negro in you previous post. buya
Why do you make the assumption that my viewpoints on Jesus' race and heritage is based on "Googling". I just threw those references out there as pertains to the different races and geographical location. My opinions about Jesus and who he was, what he did, where he was as a youth, and his racial lineage are based on studying the bible, archaeological findings and research, extra biblical sources that support and substantiate the biblical historical record. I spent many years involved with the church in my life and did quite a bit of studying about these topics over the years. So based on a whole lot more than "google", I have come to my conclusions. Why do you always take issue with me whenever I post something that is based more on fact than on myth and conjecture? If anything you should realize by now that I am the type of person that needs to research something for myself rather than just accepting what I am told. I know what I know and I know what I don't know. I should back off or be apologetic because I post things based on fact, science and research because you think I am being arrogant and condescending? All the terminology that you stated were not scientific or definitive are very correct when dealing with ascertaining the validity of historical evidences in the absence of hard documented proof. You have to read between the lines, apply logic and rationale to a problem of this nature, and rely on probabilities over possibilities. Do some more homework and you will find a lot that is accepted as historically true is based on just such concepts. It's actually simple, given what we do know about his lineage, the geographical area he lived in, and that Jew/Hebrews are members of the Caucasoid race all point to Jesus not being a black man. To say he was black requires some far reaches of logic and coincidence. As I said before with wording you seem to dislike, it's not impossible but highly improbable. Actually the last few times you have posted a response to something I have said is the most you have actually posted beyond some one line joke. I find that rather ironic considering I remember when I first starting to get active and join in on HF you commented that you enjoyed my posts and that I added something and that it was refreshing to see more than just the simple one-liner posts. Do you recall that? I don't want to be confrontational with you, I like most all of your posts and the person/personality they allude to. But I don't feel that just because I prefer to base what I post here on facts rather than myth and rumor and try to point out some of the facts about some of these drugs and related topics should be cause for you to take such issue with me. I thought part of the purpose of HF drug forums was to share information? I prefer to share verifiable facts or strong probabilities rather than hearsay, myth and conjecture. Why do you seem to have a problem with that as of late. buya back at ya
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ls8Mhoafn0 but didnt this say something before?? And who cares what nationailty the man was...Hes mearly a lord
Well id see it as a double sideded answer...Yes in a sense he has the same features which makes him a lord, right?...But no because Jesus was Jesus right?....Or was he just a portriat of a lord?...Because ive seen millions of Jesus look alikes right...I believe Jesus is the portriat of what was considered a lord during the times of when the roman catholic church began...But George was into Hinduism....Iam a religous freak man Lol Therefore id see Catholism as just the foundation for whoever a lord is....flhasbglasbgas;bgksbagh
any source outside literature (i.e the Bible) is highly suspect. im going to be the one to propose here that Jesus is just a conglomeration of the mythos surrounding the messiah like figures that were appearing in the middle east at the time. Similar stories are told of analogous characters complete with miracles, ressurrection ect. The idea of Christ as the annointed "logos" is an idealized version of what was probably one or more highly advanced human beings at the peak of their full potential. The idea of Christ as a singular historical person who's quotations remain intact is highly controversial.
