Have you actually read this, Max? I remember you thinking it would be a good book, based on what you had heard, but you had yet to read it. If you read it, you liked it? It is a pretty pitiful book. As far as Christ's appearance, the earliest images of him were much different than the traditional one of today. Of course none date to his time, or even in his century and the earliest are actually not christ but a lamb or shepherd or sometimes a whole scene of Jonah and the Wale, nonetheless the earliest Christ personified images vary, depending on what he is doing. When he is teaching he appears almost identical to images of Socrates. When he is depicted performing heroic acts, he is shown as the beardless, short-haired, youthful Apollo. When he is depicted as ruler of the cosmos, of Heaven, he is shown with a beard and short hair, in the mold of Jupiter (or a Roman emperor - there is some debate as to which was the bigger influence - Imperial Roman or pagan since they both used thrones, halos, etc.). In many images of his miracles, Christ is shown similarly, but with a Hierophant’s wand (actually next to the scroll of his teaching, a wand is Christ’s most common attribute). Further still is the depiction of Christ in feminine form. There is a series of images of Christ with small breasts, delicate sloping shoulders, wide hips and long wavy or curly hair. In many instances, these features work to contrast Christ with his apostles (long curly hair was not acceptable for men in the Roman world; texts from the time speak of such hair as being greatly offensive). These images are from the 4th century, roughly, and are the ones that got a little more masculine that turned into our images today.
Good stuff here. I'm still befuddled with the double standard placed on Muslim women. It's a 100 degrees in the ME and they have to dress like it's Halloween, whereas men just need to keep their shirt on. Who sold them this Brooklyn bridge? With these restrictions on interaction between men and women, the percentage of men playing for the other team must be quite high.
i have not read it. i've heard strobel speak before. i've had friend who've read it who liked it...i know Major read it and found it interesting. i know enough about it through hearing him speak...plus i've read countless books that take the same approach. there's one written by an attorney from Houston that uses the rules of civil procedure to try to prove up the resurrection. interesting stuff.
To each his own I guess, Max. I thought the book was a disservice to Christianity and there was too much of his "I am so cool" stories that it was pretty superficial "theology." That, and he is/was dishonest in his approach.
Except that it was Adam's fault, and he tried to lay blame instead of taking responsibility. Genesis 3:12 "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Be a man, Adam! See fellas? We've been falling for it for millinnea.
1) Oh for sure, I agree with that much. The part about him being God in flesh was the unclear part I was talking about. Aren't we all children of God? Obviously, I've only read a fraction of what you've probably read, so I'm just judging based on what I HAVE read. 2) Definitely, it doesn't change anything... It's just interesting to guess these things.. For example, if Jesus was black? Comparing that to how other blacks (I hope that's not offensive) have been treated in recent history, it's quite intresting... But the message is the same, ofcourse, regardless of what he looked/looks like.
i've not met him personally, rimbaud. but i am friends with people who know him very well. i think he's 100% sincere...that's certainly what i'm told. his wife was a Christian and he set out to disprove it, talking to recognized people across a lot of disciplines...and he ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the resurrection was real. the case for Easter, i've heard, is his best work. just goes to the resurrection, itself. focues on the eyewitness accounts...etc. but Meowgi hit on something here earlier. God is experential. There's more to it than just "proving Him up" using the rules of civil procedure. It's bigger than logic, frankly...though I don't think it's illogical, either. People can be persuaded by logic...but until you feel some emotional connection, He hardly is God to you. rambling again! sorry!
not what I meant when I said Son of God. I meant God in the flesh...the Trinity..the whole thing. the points where you and i would disagree!
