yes it was! unbelievable. she ran like 5 abortion clinics in Dallas...she said her abortion clinics sent people out to teach high school kids to disregard their parents' values and have more sex...she participated in some plan to dillute birth control they distributed to teenage girls...she was involved in the coverup of a death of a woman during an abortion procedure...and was finally busted for performing abortions on women who weren't even pregnant!!! she said it was all about cash..moving people through the system...her motto was, "you make it, we'll scrape it." yikes. in her final month, she made $15,000...and then got busted by the media for the abortion procedure perfomed on women who weren't even pregnant.
Um, Lil Pun, I have gone to church for close to 30 years and I have never seen a "blonde, blue-eyed" Christ. I have seen Him pictured with long hair but it is always brown and His eyes are usually brown. As a matter of fact, I watched a special on Christ the other night on CNN and hearing that He has been pictured with blonde hair was the first time I had heard of that. BTW - what is the deal with "Kate Beckinsale" and polls? Every thread that has a poll now seems to have been started by "her".
do you know what I look like? you've never seen me. but you have some glimpse as to who i am. and someone could describe me to you...someone here who knows me personally...and leave out any description of physical characteristics. i just don't understand why what he looked like is of any importance. you might find this interesting...i have seen murals of artists' depictions of Christ from around the world...artists in China paint a picture of a very Chinese looking Christ...artists in Europe paint a very European Christ...and so on...that mural moves me to tears, because it eptiomizes my point...and it shows man trying to relate to God.
Well nobody here knows him personally so they couldn't describe what he's looks like let lone describe what he was/is like. It's only guessing.
I've never seen one with blue eyes either but I guess what I'm describing as blonde would be dirty blonde in todays lingo.
i would beg to differ with your first conclusion. but, even given that....i didn't write the Gospels. they are accounts of men who lived contemporaneously. so a friend might write down today about me....and then that would be preserved.
Ditto. I have never seen a picture of Jesus with blond hair and had never even heard that he had been pictured with blond hair. As Manny wrote, every picture I have ever seen has been brown hair (usually long) and brown/dark eyes. Every portrayal in a movie I have seen has been with brown hair as well.
I think it is cool to want to know what Jesus looked like. Of course it isn't absolutely necessary, but it can make him become more a real person, instead of something abstract. Why is SEEING what the crucifixion was like in The Passion of any importance? It is the exact same thing. Why belittle his questions anyway?
Then why have pictures or depictions of him at all??? I'm truly sorry MadMax I didn't mean to offend you in anyway. I know religion is a sensitive subject and me and you are obviously on different sides of the religion board (well I consider myself in the middle). We could go on and on about this and never really come to an agreement because our beliefs are so different. It's obvious it's very important to you and I won't comment on it anymore because you're one of my favorite posters. I'll just leave it at that.
please don't misunderstand me...I've LOVE to see Jesus..to see what he looked like. I'm not trying to belittle his questions, in the least. I was curious about his contention that if someone couldn't produce some scripture verse about what Jesus looked like, he would leave the discussion. I just didnt' understand that. And, I pointed out that from a Christian theological perspective, it's of little importance. Lil Pun -- if you took my posts as belittling your questions, I'm very sorry...not at all what I intended.
no...you didn't offend me at all!!! i guess this is where written communication fails us. i think it's awesome you have questions...and i'm sorry if i came across as a jackass.
Not to get too wrapped up in the issue of hair color, but most modern pictures of Jesus, while not having him as a platinum blonde, seem to depict him as distinctly pale and Nordic looking rather than Semitic. I see some of these square jawed, jacked up Jesus pictures (not the ones posted above but others) and he looks like a guy who should be out pillaging coastal fishing villages rather than giving lectures in bazaars and stuff.
Oh you didn't come across that way I just hate to ruffle feathers especially of people I enjoy but I guess this is the forum to do it in but I still don't like doing it.
in all seriousness...though i'd love to see Christ in the flesh...i have no interest really in what "color" he is. that's not what he's about to me at all. so you didn't ruffle my feathers...don't sweat it!
Sam I would consider the first picture brown hair. In the second he looks like one of the guys that used to play with Styx (Tommy Shaw?)
My understanding about why we have so many images of a white, brown-haired Jesus is that it developed from a European tradition. To put it mildly, both Judeaism and Islam are not big on depicting God. Religious history around the world, and most especially in the Middle East, involved a lot of idolotry. The Jews were commanded not to make for themselves carven images. And many hundred years after Jesus, Islam had the same command and for roughly the same reason. Consequently, it is of little surprise that early Christians would not have been too keen on painting portraits of Jesus. Early non-Christians weren't all that excited about adding any fuel to the fire either. There are some written descriptions that various Roman officials are said to have given. They seem in contrast to one another. Some indicate grey eyes, some purple, etc. I'm not sure what to make of those descriptions, the accounts I read seem less than reliable but maybe some of them were honest and accurate. In Europe, as was the case throughout the rest of the world as the gospel was spread, people did start to try to imagine what Jesus looked like. Because literacy wasn't prevalent, the gospels were often presented in plays. For convenience and to aid people in remembering who was who in the story, there was a certain consistency in the way each of the characters such as John and Jesus were portrayed. When artists painted Biblical scenes they generally used people around them as models. You have to keep in mind that in many parts of the world, people didn't travel a great deal. Some people did and when they returned, their descriptions of other races must have sounded incredably foreign to others. My mother-in-law grew up in rural France and, although I am sure she saw pictures, she never saw a black person before she was an adult! That said, I do think it is a mistake to sweep the issue under the carpet. It matters a little what Jesus looked like. What I mean is that I object to the notion that "He looked like whatever you feel comfortable with him having looked like." That may be true for fictional characters but it is not true for historical ones. I won't insist that everyone change their minds about what Jesus looked like but I do think people should recognize that He did exist in a particular time and place and did look a particular way. Even if we don't know what that way is. Also, our not knowing precisely what He looked like doesn't detract from everything else we do know about Him. After all, do we know what Pilot really looked like? Paul? John? Plato, for that matter? We may disagree about what they said and if they really said it but does our not having a jpeg of them make us believe they didn't even exist?
