Science insulting the image of Jesus

smaneck said:

I think I was suggesting the opposite, that the shroud was made centuries after Christ.



Not in Judaism. Uncut hair was a sign one was devoted to God. Remember Samson?

Click to expand...

That would have been the vow of a Nazirite, which Jesus was not because He kept none of the other requirements of the vow.

Not that I think Jesus necessarily had short hair, but that He was not a Nazirite...which would require explaining away a number of other things unnecessarily.

smaneck said:

Why KJV? It was only passed down for four hundred years, whereas the Vulgate was the word of God for over a millennium.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, even modern rabbis refer to the Vulgate.

RDKirk said:

That would have been the vow of a Nazirite, which Jesus was not because He kept none of the other requirements of the vow.

Not that I think Jesus necessarily had short hair, but that He was not a Nazirite...which would require explaining away a number of other things unnecessarily.

Click to expand...

Granted. I think John the Baptist was probably a Nazirite, but not Jesus. My point is that Palestinian Jews had no problem with long hair on men.

rockytopva said:

Here is a video of a woman speaking in tongues in our church... How do I know it was real? Because I, having been there, could sense the Holy Spirit in the sanctuary.
[/MEDIA]

Here is an image of the Lord Jesus Christ. How do I know it was real? Because I can sense the divine nature on his countenance.

Click to expand...

You're not using the same standard of evidence. You have never "been there" with the Shroud of Turin, have you? Haven't you only seen pictures of it--reduced pictures at that? So you can't have personally sensed anything about the Shroud itself.

bhsmte said:

Are your senses and perceptions of the same infallible?

Click to expand...

With regard to the speaking of tongues, scripture tells us that if they are valid, there will be someone who will--through the Holy Spirit--sense their validity and interpret.

And, when you look at the text, even the judgment of reliability of preaching is supposed to be held in abeyance until two or three persons can testify that the Holy Spirit has indicated its reliability (which is why the old-school preachers used to say, "Can I get a witness?" or "Can I get an amen?"--scripture says they need that validation to be considered reliable).

But even though I believe in such spirituality...I don't think it works looking at a picture on the Internet.

rockytopva said:

Well, to make the long story short, the Christ does not look like a criminal.

Click to expand...

What makes that image look criminal to you?

RDKirk said:

That would have been the vow of a Nazarite, which Jesus was not because He kept none of the other requirements of the vow.

Click to expand...

(Mat 26:29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
(Mar 14:25) Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
(Luk 22:18) For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.


This was a Nazarite vow He made---

rockytopva said:

Well then, someone does not need a supernatural force to be kind, loving and compassionate... I worry, however, that in this day of materialism and learning, that this force is one that can easily dissipate out of the human life. Painting the image of Jesus without any of God's Grace and Lovingkindness shinning through is nothing but the motivations of satan in evil men, such as what we have in these scientist!

Click to expand...

The basic problem here is painting a picture of a face and calling it Jesus.

dfw69 said:

Can Jesus be killed?..can God be killed...I don't think so...they cannot die ...so incorruptible...no longer human...when Jesus returns he will not be human but God ...

Click to expand...

Are you saying you do not believe Jesus physically died?

If not, you realize, then, there is no promise of resurrection for any of us.

mmksparbud said:

(Mat 26:29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
(Mar 14:25) Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
(Luk 22:18) For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.


This was a Nazarite vow He made---

Click to expand...

You didn't miss the "henceforth" in that sentence, right? And that "henceforth" means "from this moment"---you know that, right?

And that Jesus made this statement within 48 hours of his death...you read the context, right?

So if that was a Nazirite vow, it was a very short one.

JGG said:

Wait if humanity can be killed, and Jesus cannot be killed, how is Jesus human?

Click to expand...

Jesus' current state should not be called "human," it should be called "material." Or maybe "humanoid," but that's more generic. The term "human" also carries a great deal of philosophical baggage that does not apply to the resurrected Jesus.

dfw69 said:

I'm not sure I understand your positions


Jesus lay down his life to die once...he will not die again...he will not be another sacrifice for freedom from the law again

I would think immortals would not need food to survive ...but perhaps the flesh and bones need food ...who knows..

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

I think the resurrected Jesus has a set physical properties that is greater than "normal" humans, but not clearly defined by scripture.

smaneck said:

Granted. I think John the Baptist was probably a Nazirite, but not Jesus. My point is that Palestinian Jews had no problem with long hair on men.

Click to expand...

And I agree that Paul was writing in respect to the cultural concepts of that particular locale.

TLK Valentine said:

That's because there isn't anything. The face is that of a typical Jewish peasant of the period, which, by all accounts, is exactly how Jesus lived his earthly life -- as a homeless, wandering street preacher.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And no one recorded an image of what Jesus looked like, the first images appeared in the 3rd century by artists who never met him.

RDKirk said:

You didn't miss the "henceforth" in that sentence, right? And that "henceforth" means "from this moment"---you know that, right?

And that Jesus made this statement within 48 hours of his death...you read the context, right?

So if that was a Nazirite vow, it was a very short one.

Click to expand...

Well, of course--it's obvious it was a short one! Which, of course, means, He didn't have the time to grow His hair long,---- however, He knew what was going to happen, and could have started to grow it long before--He was pretty busy at the end and may not have taken the time to get hair couffed! Nobody knows for sure either way. Doesn't matter to me if He was bald--which after a Nazarite vow, is the final step--
(Num 6:18) And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

madaz said:

Exactly! And no one recorded an image of what Jesus looked like, the first images appeared in the 3rd century by artists who never met him.

Click to expand...

Odds are no one recorded His image because almost everyone knew what He looked like was irrelevant.

rockytopva said:

Many churches have images of Jesus. The problem is when a non-Christian does it. It becomes obvious very quick that such a person never had a personal relationship with the Christ to begin with!

Click to expand...

Again, please provide ANY proof, hints, assertions, rumors, gossip, idle chatter, hearsay etc........you have that these anthropologists involved are non-Christian.

So far all you have presented is: "I do not like the picture, THEY must not be Christians."

rockytopva said:

Many churches have images of Jesus. The problem is when a non-Christian does it. It becomes obvious very quick that such a person never had a personal relationship with the Christ to begin with!

Click to expand...

Does that mean: if you like it, the person must be a Christian, if you don't like it they aren't?
tulc(is just wondering)

rockytopva said:

Many churches have images of Jesus. The problem is when a non-Christian does it. It becomes obvious very quick that such a person never had a personal relationship with the Christ to begin with!

Click to expand...

To Renaissance scholars and philosophers, these classical sources held great wisdom. Their secularism, their appreciation of physical beauty and especially their emphasis on man’s own achievements and expression formed the governing intellectual principle of the Italian Renaissance. This philosophy is known as “humanism.”
http://www.history.com/topics/italian-renaissance

DaVinci left thousands of letters that are still being poured over and not a one mentions a "personal relationship with God"--
He didn't even believe in the flood. He believed that God exists--but He was nit a Christian as this forum would define it. He was totally into what could be proved scientifically, and was very critical of those people who based their believes on faith and not logic. He was all about the beauty of the human form and it's complexity and not about it's maker. The charges of homosexuality were not proved, but everyone seems to understand he leaned that way and the beauty of his art, esp the male form, they feel confirms that. I very much doubt you would have approved of him.---nor many of the other painters of religious art which they painted mostly for money as most were commissioned by churches--and some the Pope.