What did Jesus Look Like?

[outhouse]

Does this not suggest that historical knowledge is correct ?

When I mention history in this context, I am mentioning knowledge. I am mentioning what we know.


Not what is written or perceived as history, what IS studied and determined as historical, often with different amounts of plausibility. Now when it comes to Jesus, the two basic certainties are baptism by John and crucifixion. beyond that are degrees of less certainty to the point of heavily debated possibilities, with none as certain as the 2 foundational certainties all historical studies use as a base. Less a few oddball historians promoting a mythical origin I do not follow.


What is believed on faith often due to lack of study, does not stand up to what scholars determine is historical.

Apologetic rhetoric, is not historical. It factually does not stand up to knowledge because it is often biased based and not studied in depth. It is meant to persuade readers.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sheesh did you not understand that after reading that article I had no arguments with your timeline and the fact that I never said Jesus was Immanuel the son(?) of Isaiah.
I would suggest that YOU reread the article to see how in context the names of the sons were used by Isaiah !

You are now running around in circles because you cannot see that I conceded your point and that I have now increased my knowledge and understanding of what transpired

You said -

"Apart from the uncertainty concerning Isaiah's second child Immanuel,..."

There is no uncertainty. It is known and acknowledged.

*

 

[outhouse]

So to get back on topic.

jesus would have been sun beaten med short hair to keep bugs out, roughly 5' tall at best, black hair, and brown skin, thin and semi frail looking from years of malnutrition.

Spoke Aramaic and how much Koine is unknown if even at all.

Diet, flat bread dipped in vinegar or olive oil, some lentil's and a few seasonal greens. Almost no meat less Passover which amount to a drunken barbeque. The fish market was owned by the rich Hellenist and peasants did not have much access to the fish being sent to Sepphoris and Tiberius.

His small house was short no windows, rough fieldstones packed with feces and mud, dirt floor, lit often with a single oil lamp. Basically living in filth and poverty.

All by our best educated guesses.

 

[Theunis]

When I mention history in this context, I am mentioning knowledge. I am mentioning what we know.


Not what is written or perceived as history, what IS studied and determined as historical, often with different amounts of plausibility. Now when it comes to Jesus, the two basic certainties are baptism by John and crucifixion. beyond that are degrees of less certainty to the point of heavily debated possibilities, with none as certain as the 2 foundational certainties all historical studies use as a base. Less a few oddball historians promoting a mythical origin I do not follow.


What is believed on faith often due to lack of study, does not stand up to what scholars determine is historical.

Apologetic rhetoric, is not historical. It factually does not stand up to knowledge because it is often biased based and not studied in depth. It is meant to persuade readers.

I am rather puzzled; Many atheist say the complete bible is myth and fictional yet it would appear only one of the two events you mentioned were confirmed(?) by Pontius Pilate(?)

 

[outhouse]

Many atheist say the complete bible is myth and fictional

No they do not. Only the uneducated ones blathering ignorance.

yet it would appear only one of the two events you mentioned were confirmed(?) by Pontius Pilate(?)

The biblical portrayal of Pilate is fictitious for many aspects.

Again, we do not read the bible to determine history. We study the text to determine what is and is not historical.

 

[Theunis]

You said -

"Apart from the uncertainty concerning Isaiah's second child Immanuel,..."

There is no uncertainty. It is known and acknowledged.

*

Some references please.
But let it be known that I consider this specific subject as closed. Others speak of the uncertainty so I bow to their greater knowledge on the subject.

. I have only in one specific case regarding a certain nation walked the akhasic record (Book of life) to the turn of time. It took me 25 years to find out why the whiteman was never to know who they are. At this period in time it was no longer of consequence.

 

[outhouse]

. It took me 25 years to find out why the whiteman was never to know who they are.

Pathetic rhetoric, with a touch of racism.

akhasic record

explains everything now

 

[Ingledsva]

Some references please.
But let it be known that I consider this specific subject as closed. Others speak of the uncertainty so I bow to their greater knowledge on the subject.

. I have only in one specific case regarding a certain nation walked the akhasic record (Book of life) to the turn of time. It took me 25 years to find out why the whiteman was never to know who they are. At this period in time it was no longer of consequence.

References? I've already shown this to you by the actual text.

I gave you the CHRISTIAN Strong's number that says Emmanuel is Isaiah's son. H6005.

The article that you posted also said this.

And last you can also look up Emmanuel in the Christian Unger's Bible Encyclopedia, or Dictionary.

As for that last! What? Now we are going into Akashic Records, and Madam Blavatsky?

And where did the white people reference come from???? White Supremacy ideas?

*

 

[psychoslice]

If this man called Jesus did truly existe, then of course no one would know what he looked like, where was the camera back then lol.

 

[Theunis]

No they do not. Only the uneducated ones blathering ignorance.

. I have only in one specific case regarding a certain nation walked the akhasic record (Book of life) to the turn of time. It took me 25 years to find out why the whiteman was never to know who they are. At this period in time it was no longer of consequence.

I wonder myself how this slipped in it was a portion of a reply to outhouse.
So my source differs from yours. You insist yours is correct - so be it

 

[Theunis]

Pathetic rhetoric, with a touch of racism.

ROFL

 

[Theunis]

References? I've already shown this to you by the actual text.

I gave you the CHRISTIAN Strong's number that says Emmanuel is Isaiah's son. H6005.
*

Okay but give me a link to "CHRISTIAN strong's" for I still cannot and could not find it with a Google search.

Added as an edit: In the meantime I have read two different translations "The living Bible - Paraphrased" and the other in my home language; Both indicate that God spoke direct to Isaiah and said to him Immanuel and in the other O Immanuel.

Both allude to a maiden/virgin birth but Isaiah says he entered his wife and when the son was born he was most definitely not named Immanuel!

The following link may throw some light concerning the confusion what Isaiah said and the prophecies concerning the Messiah

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

 

[Tumah]

Actually they knew the correct name was Iēsous, - but could not make the correct sound, - making a guttural - jah -sound on the front.

Later it got changed to the letter J.

I can't figure out why - having the texts - and the correct names - they would just change them.

*

What do you mean by the correct sound being a "guttural jah"? I thought the name Iesous was just a transliteration of the Hebrew "Yeshu".

 

[outhouse]

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

Not a credible site.

Apologetic rhetoric.

 

[Theunis]

Not a credible site.

Apologetic rhetoric.

You are a great and grand font of amusement. Laughter fills my being.
The information was about the biblical texts concerning the coming of Meshac.
Can you perhaps furnish other, in your opinion, more credible sites? Or would you prefer to look up the information in the bible yourself?
Any case tata until tomorrow.

 

[outhouse]

I have repeated to you add nauseam, universities and professors and scholars supply credible information.

Not blogs and forums.

 

[Ingledsva]

What do you mean by the correct sound being a "guttural jah"? I thought the name Iesous was just a transliteration of the Hebrew "Yeshu".

No - no - no.

They couldn't say the correct sound. It came out as a guttural Jah, Thus Iesous - became corrupted to Jahesous - and eventually Jesus.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

1. Okay but give me a link to "CHRISTIAN strong's" for I still cannot and could not find it with a Google search.

Added as an edit: 2. In the meantime I have read two different translations "The living Bible - Paraphrased" and the other in my home language; Both indicate that God spoke direct to Isaiah and said to him Immanuel and in the other O Immanuel.

3. Both allude to a maiden/virgin birth but Isaiah says he entered his wife and when the son was born he was most definitely not named Immanuel!

4. The following link may throw some light concerning the confusion what Isaiah said and the prophecies concerning the Messiah

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

1. http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6005 and http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

2. We have already disused this. One is his name, and the other is a nickname.

3. It does not anywhere say it was his wife! The maiden is the Prophetess he went into. As to Isaiah's son not being called Immanuel - see the Strong's link in umber 1.

4. That site just takes verses and claims they are about Jesus. They do not even attempt to prove such.

*

 

[Tumah]

No - no - no.

They couldn't say the correct sound. It came out as a guttural Jah, Thus Iesous - became corrupted to Jahesous - and eventually Jesus.

*

Oh that's what you mean. I thought you meant the other way, that it was meant to be read jah. Now I got you

 

[Theunis]

1. http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6005 and http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

3. It does not anywhere say it was his wife! The maiden is the Prophetess he went into. As to Isaiah's son not being called Immanuel ....

*

Thanks for the link.
It may not say so in the version of the bible you are quoting, but it sure does so in the two bibles I mentioned.
One source is never sufficient when studying for a degree. Some Universities insist on a minimum of five. I have a twohundred page book by Dr Lyall Watson covering various subjects. He gives 146 references. I of course do not require so many