|
|
Post by tabascobreath on Nov 23, 2008 21:56:41 GMT -5
.....hey, who's the whiteguy with the red shashed Walmart white robe with the shoe box tissue around his neck on the Home page?
Seriously, why do people hold on to that image of Yeshua?
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Nov 24, 2008 15:40:03 GMT -5
Whats so wrong with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Nov 24, 2008 15:50:04 GMT -5
Oh oh...it's one of the banished 3 I think! LOL!
But let's let them play...I'm going to call them "The YourShoeIns!"
Their the "Reverand Wright" type if you know what I mean (wink, wink).
LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tabasco Breath on Nov 24, 2008 17:22:44 GMT -5
I think the question should be, what's right with it? I didn't know they wore mullets back in those days, and it looks like the idea of Yeshua is beinb backed up by Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It's almost as if the idea of Yeshua had been regulated to a marketing firm. ...hmmm...maybe it has. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Nov 24, 2008 18:26:04 GMT -5
I think the question should be, what's right with it? I didn't know they wore mullets back in those days, and it looks like the idea of Yeshua is beinb backed up by Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It's almost as if the idea of Yeshua had been regulated to a marketing firm. ...hmmm...maybe it has. What's right with it? It matches the Book of Revelation's portrayal of him. Pax.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tabasco Breath on Nov 24, 2008 21:33:29 GMT -5
I think the question should be, what's right with it? I didn't know they wore mullets back in those days, and it looks like the idea of Yeshua is beinb backed up by Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It's almost as if the idea of Yeshua had been regulated to a marketing firm. ...hmmm...maybe it has. What's right with it? It matches the Book of Revelation's portrayal of him. Pax. Portrayal of a scene really has little to do with direct depiction of people. If people are going to depict Yeshua, why not a more realistic non marketing image of him? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Nov 25, 2008 11:48:02 GMT -5
What's right with it? It matches the Book of Revelation's portrayal of him. Pax. Portrayal of a scene really has little to do with direct depiction of people. If people are going to depict Yeshua, why not a more realistic non marketing image of him? According to scripture, that's about as realistic as one could get. That is, if one uses scripture to depict him (as was clearly done with this portrait). |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Nov 26, 2008 15:26:06 GMT -5
There are very few pictures of our Lord that look realistic to me. His is the elusive Icon, but don't we wish we had a photo of Him? There are some beautiful ancient Icons that look like they could be the real Jesus of Nazareth, but still I'm always disappointed by any representation of Him. Still, I think that's okay because It just makes me long to see His REAL image which will be far more glorious than anything Michelangelo could have come up with.
But really, the pictures with the blond hair are a little on the annoying side to be honest. How many Jews are blond really? Interestingly, Muslims say that Jesus has red hair. It is possible that His hair did become "bleached" a little by the sun. All they did was travel and He must have been outside a lot.
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Nov 26, 2008 20:00:00 GMT -5
Hi All----------
Truthfully I believe that pictures of Christ are too handsome......
Isa 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
and
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
now perhaps this is speaking of Him after torture because Judas had to identify Christ to his captors ---- He wasn't so out of the ordinary that He stood out
much love--------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Tabasco Breath on Nov 26, 2008 20:04:07 GMT -5
Portrayal of a scene really has little to do with direct depiction of people. If people are going to depict Yeshua, why not a more realistic non marketing image of him? According to scripture, that's about as realistic as one could get. That is, if one uses scripture to depict him (as was clearly done with this portrait). Which scriptures would those be? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Nov 27, 2008 1:00:03 GMT -5
my question is ... why does it really bother anyone that there are pictures that represent Jesus? I mean, are'nt there bigger things to worry about!
Get a life people!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Nov 30, 2008 13:29:58 GMT -5
There are very few pictures of our Lord that look realistic to me. His is the elusive Icon, but don't we wish we had a photo of Him? There are some beautiful ancient Icons that look like they could be the real Jesus of Nazareth, but still I'm always disappointed by any representation of Him. Still, I think that's okay because It just makes me long to see His REAL image which will be far more glorious than anything Michelangelo could have come up with. But really, the pictures with the blond hair are a little on the annoying side to be honest. How many Jews are blond really? Interestingly, Muslims say that Jesus has red hair. It is possible that His hair did become "bleached" a little by the sun. All they did was travel and He must have been outside a lot. teresa Well, people really need to see who it was that was living in Jeruselum during that time and compare that with scripture. The fact is that The Caucasian Race lived from The Caucus Mountains all the way deep "into" North Africa. And, The Bible is clear that David (Jesus' physical forefather) was white when it described him as "ruddy" (an appearance that only the fairest skinned white people could be). So, if David (generations before Christ) was white, why couldn't Jesus be white? 1/2 of the Arabs I know (and I grew up around a lot of them) that are pure Arabs have light colored eyes (blue, green, hazel, etc...) and many have light brown hair and all have light skin.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Nov 30, 2008 13:38:27 GMT -5
Hi All---------- Truthfully I believe that pictures of Christ are too handsome...... Isa 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: and Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. now perhaps this is speaking of Him after torture because Judas had to identify Christ to his captors ---- He wasn't so out of the ordinary that He stood out much love--------------knuckle    |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Nov 30, 2008 13:42:34 GMT -5
According to scripture, that's about as realistic as one could get. That is, if one uses scripture to depict him (as was clearly done with this portrait). Which scriptures would those be? Book of Revelations 8:6 And the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound them.1:14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire.6:11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.That's pretty much just for starters. |
|
|
|
Post by Tabasco breath on Dec 2, 2008 0:19:04 GMT -5
Which scriptures would those be? Book of Revelations 8:6 And the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound them.1:14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire.6:11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.That's pretty much just for starters. Although I think we both know that descriptor is symbolic, why doesn't the picture look like that rather then what a Jew from that ear actually would have looked like? |
|
|
|
Post by tabascobreath on Dec 2, 2008 0:24:52 GMT -5
my question is ... why does it really bother anyone that there are pictures that represent Jesus? I mean, are'nt there bigger things to worry about! Get a life people! You're question is a good one, but it does make a difference. If Jesus, heck even that name was a the Greek version of "Yeshua" in order for it to be more palatable for the Gentiles in which Christianity flourished, it would be a harder sell. Again, the idea of Jesus actually went through a marketing effort because Christianity succeeded not through the Jews themselves, but through gentile Anglo Saxons. ~be good |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Dec 2, 2008 14:53:11 GMT -5
Cradle Catholic, that's my favorite phrase!
Amen!
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Dec 2, 2008 15:28:59 GMT -5
Although I think we both know that descriptor is symbolic, why doesn't the picture look like that rather then what a Jew from that ear actually would have looked like? Isn't the image painted of the descriptor symbolic as well? And, again, who's to say that Jesus wasn't fair skined? There is no proof that He wasn't. And, what did a first century Jew look like exactly? If the tribes of Israel were of all different races, then why couldn't Jesus be of a white racial make up? Why does He have to be anything "but" white? The fallacy that He's portrayed as white because of European artistry, but the fact is that He has always been portrayed as white...even since the first century "by" Jews. If you look at the top of this page, you'll see a picture of Jim Caveziel, the actor who portrayed Jesus in The Passion of The Christ, an Actor of Meditteranian descent. I believe that this is the most accurate portrayal of Jesus to date...white, but not "lily" white. What do you think? Pax |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Dec 2, 2008 15:32:20 GMT -5
my question is ... why does it really bother anyone that there are pictures that represent Jesus? I mean, are'nt there bigger things to worry about! Get a life people! You're question is a good one, but it does make a difference. If Jesus, heck even that name was a the Greek version of "Yeshua" in order for it to be more palatable for the Gentiles in which Christianity flourished, it would be a harder sell. Again, the idea of Jesus actually went through a marketing effort because Christianity succeeded not through the Jews themselves, but through gentile Anglo Saxons. ~be good Actually, it was The Jews who spread Christianity throughout the world (and introduced it "to" Europe). What was it that caused it's successful taking of the world? The Roman Empire protecting Christianity from itself (as one of Christianity's persecutors along with the Jews) and from Pagans & Barbarians. Under the protection of The Empire, Christianity could flourish where it could be preached freely throughout the civilized world and as we all know, all roads led to Rome. It's like Democracy today which sprang from The U.S.. Because we are the most influential country in the world, what sells here, sells all over. Pax. |
|
