ok, but how did john know?

I don't know how he knew. It's the most ancient legitimate source for the appearance of Jesus that I have found.

I think it's highly likely that Jesus did have some resemblance to his traditional iconographic depiction. I base this on the extremely conservative nature of the tradition: while individual icons of the same person may differ from one another, the figure of Jesus, or St. Paul, or any of the figures of the early church are very clearly distinguished and individualized.

That's a beautiful icon, Dienekes.
Much nicer than the forensic artists' mock-ups.

Antaeus

The Jewish encyclopedia only mentions five ancient Jewish skulls. Is this what you are basing your conclusions on?

>> The Jewish encyclopedia only mentions five ancient Jewish skulls. Is this what you are basing your conclusions on?

It only takes two skulls to show that a population is variable in craniofacial form, hence the Jewish encyclopedia has three skulls more than necessary.

Diekenes,

The Jewish encyclopedia article was written how many years ago--60, 70, 80? This encyclopedia is an online version of something that was written many years ago, and although it is reliable as a guide to Jewish thought, it is not necessarily reliable as a guide to anything else.

The NY Times artist based his rendering on three skulls. Regarding variability, well, of course there is going to be variability and any three skulls. So what? The point when creating a rendering of how someone from a certain place MIGHT have looked is to find the common features. I rather doubt Jesus looked like Max von Sydow, although anything's possible.

You laughably say that it's likely Jesus looked like some rendering in an icon that was created 7 centuries after Christ's death, by a Greek!

Do you expect me to take you seriously?

Everything you write is out of emotional bias, Diekenes. This is not science. It's the very definition of pseudo-science.

Just state your biases, Diekenes, and then give us your conclusions, and be honest about the fact that none of this has anything to do with science and everything to do with religion.

>> The Jewish encyclopedia article was written how many years ago--60, 70, 80?

They could measure skulls reliably not only 80, but 120 years ago.

>> The NY Times artist based his rendering on three skulls. Regarding variability, well, of course there is going to be variability and any three skulls. So what?

So, if they called it an "average of three ancient Jewish skulls" I'd have no problem with it. No need to bring Jesus into the discussion.

For example, here's an average of 32 male German faces:

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/durchschnittsgesichter/m(01-32).jpg

This tells us very little about what individual Germans look like.

>> You laughably say that it's likely Jesus looked like some rendering in an icon that was created 7 centuries after Christ's death, by a Greek!

Well, I wish that the Jews hadn't rejected Jesus and knew how to draw, in which case we would have extant portraits of him from the 1st century. So, we have to use the evidence that we have.

>> Do you expect me to take you seriously?

Yes

>> Everything you write is out of emotional bias, Diekenes. This is not science. It's the very definition of pseudo-science.

Well don't read me if everything that I write has emotional bias.

>> Just state your biases, Diekenes, and then give us your conclusions, and be honest about the fact that none of this has anything to do with science and everything to do with religion.

This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with recording and evaluating the sources about Jesus' appearance.

> Well, I wish that the Jews hadn't rejected Jesus and knew how to draw, in which case we would have extant portraits of him from the 1st century. So, we have to use the evidence that we have

What an arrogant little asshole you are!

>> What an arrogant little asshole you are!

What is your problem exactly?

I think people in that part of the world (M.East) are famously bad at representational art, most 'specially portraits of humans. Why? I would guess it's that thing in the Commandments, and maybe something like it in the Koran, forbidding "images". The prospect of being stoned to death, seems to me, would deter one from developing the requisite skills.

Good find! The fact that the written account of Jesus' appearance that you found goes back only as far as the 7th Century doesn't mean there aren't earlier writings it may be based on. Even if it's based on an oral tradition, I don't see why an oral tradition can't remain intact through several centuries. Isn't the Hebrew Bible based in large part on oral traditions handed down over centuries? Aren't the Homeric poems?

The bible doesn't really states how jesus looked in the flesh during his ministry. But the bible clearly states how jesus looks when he returns with the clouds. He has hands and feet the color of polished bronze(Dark-brown). So most likely he's dark brown(skin). His hair like whitest whool. So apparently jesus has whooly hair. Now add 2 and 2 together, and you have the lord with dark-brown skin and whooly hair. That sounds nothing like the images man depicts of jesus.

interest. Starting on our fourth drink, our inhibitions were lowered and we were having fun. We’d known each other since early high school and had final fantasy manga hentai cartoon pics sex simpsons sailor moon cartoon porn having moon sailor sex comic futurama porn

was large. I guessed maybe nine inches. He leaned over to suck on Jan's left tit. He quit long enough for them to lie down. simpsons sex pictures ariel disney erotica fantasy final gallery hentai fucking jetsons digimon xxx

eyes and light-brown hair with blonde highlights. For a couple of months after my boyfriend and I split, I was experimenting a lot sexually to daphne nude porn ranger rescue flintstones pics porn porn simpsons toon flintstones pics sex