Not trying to be edgy, but i don't see how this is more important than any 1000 year old clay vases that are found randomly.
Sure it's the oldest depiction, but it's still 400 years late. It's no more accurate than the ones we make today.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;46154972]Not trying to be edgy, but i don't see how this is more important than any 1000 year old clay vases that are found randomly.
Sure it's the oldest depiction, but it's still 400 years late. It's no more accurate than the ones we make today.[/QUOTE]
it's not "more important", it just makes us question the image of jesus that we have. we've already been doing that, but adding one more piece of archaeological evidence that suggests - yet again - otherwise to the puzzle just thickens the plot
not edgy, just ignorant
Haha. Thinking Jesus is real based on a plate made 400 years after his death.
Silly americans
[editline]5th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;46154202]Honestly the idea of Jesus is stupid
[/QUOTE]
I agree
[QUOTE=Pr0fane;46155362]Haha. Thinking Jesus is real based on a plate made 400 years after his death.
Silly americans
[editline]5th October 2014[/editline]
I agree[/QUOTE]
*tips fedora*
In the [B]Fegelein[/B]l orb? Are we sure it's genuine and not some practical joke?
[QUOTE=Pr0fane;46155362]Haha. Thinking Jesus is real based on a plate made 400 years after his death.
Silly americans
[editline]5th October 2014[/editline]
I agree[/QUOTE]
Haha. Thinking this is being taken as a religious finding, rather than a historical one.
Silly Pr0fane.
Also, congratulations! You have an opinion! Why not hang around and tell us all about it (but really, don't). The worst thing is that you went out of your way to edit someone's post so that you'd have a reason to butt in with a non-sequitor; were you expecting validation? A hail of winner ratings as the entire forums falls at your feet and hails "Pr0fane, outspoken atheist!"
For the record, I'm also an atheist. I, and the majority of others in this thread, know when saying so it appropriate, though.
[QUOTE=Pr0fane;46155362]Haha. Thinking Jesus is real based on a plate made 400 years after his death.
Silly americans
[editline]5th October 2014[/editline]
I agree[/QUOTE]
I find it hilarious that you edited J!NX's quote just so it could look like someone actually agreed with you.
[QUOTE=Pelican;46155320]it's not "more important", it just makes us question the image of jesus that we have. we've already been doing that, but adding one more piece of archaeological evidence that suggests - yet again - otherwise to the puzzle just thickens the plot
not edgy, just ignorant[/QUOTE]
Do we even need more evidence to know that any depiction of Jesus we have is a blind guess? That's proven already.
I hate when a subset of a religion does iconoclasty, but shit do i understand it when i think about it. Icons are dumb, they make religion even dumber in my view. Unless, of course, you have a recent religion that actually has the correct depiction of their profet and shit.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;46154666]I don't think this depiction is necessarily more accurate than the modern ones. I mean it's still 300+ years after his death, I don't think the artist actually knew what he looked like.
He's just depicted to look like a Roman.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much the time when romans were being forced to convert too, so its more of a historical PR than anything else " hey look Jesus looked like us so we can relate!"
Kinda why white/black Jesus stereotypes exist
This is fantastic. I love news about finding old artifacts that can 'change views'. Having multiple depictions of christ that vary from location to location is actually fairly interesting.
Jesus was a great man, very much a cool guy, very peaceful chap, never hurt nobody. He never killed anyone, or destroyed\enslaved people, never became a pedophile. Am i right Muhammad?
[QUOTE=Pr0fane;46155362]Haha. Thinking Jesus is real based on a plate made 400 years after his death.
Silly americans
[editline]5th October 2014[/editline]
I agree[/QUOTE]
There's tons of historical accounts that all point to Jesus actually being around during that time. The only thing we're uncertain of is whether or not he did any of the miracles he was claimed to do.
[QUOTE=Orkel;46154141]Fegeleinl[/QUOTE]
what?
[QUOTE=Killergam;46156124]Jesus was a great man, very much a cool guy, very peaceful chap, never hurt nobody. He never killed anyone, or destroyed\enslaved people, never became a pedophile. Am i right Muhammad?[/QUOTE]
Well there was that time he went around chasing people with whips, but they don't like talking about that.
I couldn't give a single shit about Jesus' skin color, it's his supposed ideology that gets me.
[editline]5th October 2014[/editline]
But I'm thinking a lighter skin complex, like Arabic or something.
Well to be fair these guys weren't known for their art.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;46155837]Do we even need more evidence to know that any depiction of Jesus we have is a blind guess? That's proven already.
I hate when a subset of a religion does iconoclasty, but shit do i understand it when i think about it. Icons are dumb, they make religion even dumber in my view. Unless, of course, you have a recent religion that actually has the correct depiction of their profet and shit.[/QUOTE]
what the hell are you even saying? "do we need more evidence" if there's evidence found for something then we damn well don't ignore it, jesus christ. not to mention that it's JESUS, the figurehead for the BIGGEST religious community in the world????
why on earth would icons make religion dumb? you can't have a religion without an icon
[QUOTE=Orkel;46154141]
Made somewhere around the years 300-400. Goes to show just how wrong the classic modern white handsome depiction of Jesus is.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying this piece made 300-400 years after his death is more accurate than things made 2000 years after his death?
This shows that Jesus was a Roman.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;46156140]There's tons of historical accounts that all point to Jesus actually being around during that time. The only thing we're uncertain of is whether or not he did any of the miracles he was claimed to do.[/QUOTE]
didn't they uncover a map from biblical times that correlated like all of the towns and settlements that jesus visisted or the bible mentioned.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;46156140]There's tons of historical accounts that all point to Jesus actually being around during that time. The only thing we're uncertain of is whether or not he did any of the miracles he was claimed to do.[/QUOTE]
Psssst, point me to them.
Cause let me tell you bro, there's no documents other than the Gospels which mention Jesus
Testimonium Flavian is probably a forgery to some extent.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46156652]Psssst, point me to them.
Cause let me tell you bro, there's no documents other than the Gospels which mention Jesus
Testimonium Flavian is probably a forgery to some extent.[/QUOTE]
there has been...
[quote] In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[13] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".[14][/quote]
i really don't want to get into googling "is jesus real" so i'm going to just trust the sources cited by wikipedia
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46156652]Psssst, point me to them.
Cause let me tell you bro, there's no documents other than the Gospels which mention Jesus
Testimonium Flavian is probably a forgery to some extent.[/QUOTE]
tacitus mentions him briefly
[QUOTE=Pelican;46156736]tacitus mentions him briefly[/QUOTE]
While I aint interested in discussing the historicity of Jesus I'll just mention that scholars disagree on the accuracy of Tacitus' Annals.
Some think it was Tacitus talking, others that it was just him relaying what Christians of the time thought.
Plus it's inaccurate, since Pontius was not a Procurator ("during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus")
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;46154352]idk I just imagine him as Arabic or some related ethnicity, considering the region Christianty was formed, along with the other Abrahamic religions
[editline]5th October 2014[/editline]
Yeah, according to Wikipedia, Jesus was born somewhere in what is currently Jordan, Israel, or Palestine.[/QUOTE]
Bethlehem's just inside the West Bank.
[QUOTE=Pelican;46155320]it's not "more important", it just makes us question the image of jesus that we have. we've already been doing that, but adding one more piece of archaeological evidence that suggests - yet again - otherwise to the puzzle just thickens the plot
not edgy, just ignorant[/QUOTE]
I don't really see how "this thickens the plot" tbh. We've been aware that Jesus was a Hebrew, and that he didn't look like a western European, for ages.
I mean it's an interesting find from a cultural standpoint but it's not evidence of anything, besides the fact that there were indeed Christians in Rome.
The best evidence for Jesus' existence is the fact that they had to make shit up and fuck with the dates in order to get him born in Bethlehem, even though he would have clearly been born in Nazareth. If it was a wholecloth fabrication, they could have said "Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem and Jesus was born there." But they had to jump through hoops and invent censuses to get it to match the prophecy. This makes me think they were at least basing Jesus on some person who lived around that time.
[QUOTE=Pelican;46156422]what the hell are you even saying? "do we need more evidence" if there's evidence found for something then we damn well don't ignore it, jesus christ. not to mention that it's JESUS, the figurehead for the BIGGEST religious community in the world????
why on earth would icons make religion dumb? you can't have a religion without an icon[/QUOTE]
There's quire a few religions and quite a few subsets of religions (including subsets of christianism) that are against icons. Some of them like to break icons (iconoclasty) which i think is kinda barbaric, but i can understand the reason behind it. You're literally worshiping a statue that was made by a random person, depicting another random person pretending to be your prophet or whatever.
If Jesus existed, he would probably look more like [url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/QA/face-of-jesus-01-0312-mdn.jpg]this[/url] than your average statue/paiting.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;46154182]here's an image of the bowl in question:
[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77994000/jpg/_77994511_patenaenlavitrina3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
This predates horseshoes, that's incredible!
[QUOTE=Pr0fane;46155362]Haha. Thinking Jesus is real based on a plate made 400 years after his death.
Silly americans[/QUOTE]
Hey, the person who made this plate did it based on what he was told by some guy who heard from some other guy that there was this guy named Jesus 400 years ago and this is what he looked like back in the day. How much more evidence do you need before you believe? Even today sometimes Jesus will appear on piece of toast, so seeing this plate shouldn't be seen as out of the norm.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
