Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 5, 2005, 09:53 PM

Not the honkey version pushed by the white people in power?

rickey939 · Dec 5, 2005, 10:10 PM

Sounds hawt.

deomacius · Dec 5, 2005, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Not the honkey version pushed by the white people in power?

rozwado1 · Dec 5, 2005, 10:27 PM

This is all I got:

itistoday · Dec 5, 2005, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Not the honkey version pushed by the white people in power?

Searching google might help you; it brought up lots of results, but I like this one best:

Or maybe this one:

It reminds me of the pictures you see on America's Most Wanted.

(No, I'm not racist, but that was just too easy).

Spliffdaddy · Dec 5, 2005, 10:46 PM

They didn't have 7 megapixel cameras back then, Ca$h.

Reckon you'll have to settle for something with less resolution.

strictlyplaid · Dec 5, 2005, 11:00 PM

Oh, Christ.

Salty · Dec 5, 2005, 11:05 PM

Sorry this is the closest to a camera that they had

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 5, 2005, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

Sorry this is the closest to a camera that they had

Did you catch the thing on national geographic where they proved that the 'shroud' was a fake?

Cubeoid · Dec 5, 2005, 11:17 PM

I'm glad some people are starting to reckognise the truth, Jesus was a black man. At arround the time of Napoleon, when many piaintings were found of him, they were destroyed and replaced with the FAKE blue eyed, white skin Jesus. Jesus was not white, he was black! And black people have always been opressed.

Centauri · Dec 5, 2005, 11:17 PM

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 5, 2005, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

And black people have always been opressed.

Eh.... so have every other color of person. Black people were opressed long before the white devil came to Africa. And white people have been opressed since the beginning of time also. >shrug<

BlueSky · Dec 5, 2005, 11:36 PM

George Bush doesn't care about black Jesus.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 5, 2005, 11:46 PM

Unless black jesus means oil.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Dec 5, 2005, 11:49 PM

This one is pretty cool:

http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/use...d1d7ec723e.jpg

forkies · Dec 6, 2005, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

This one is pretty cool:

http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/use...d1d7ec723e.jpg

nice, a site for minnesotan artists

Railroader · Dec 6, 2005, 12:27 AM

How about images of a Jewish/Black Jesus?

jjlannoo · Dec 6, 2005, 12:30 AM

I think that if there was a God (which there isn't). He would be terribly disappointed that a bunch of people were wasting time arguing on a computer board about how much pigment his son's skin had. LOL

I have wondered in the past that if another species of human had survived. say neanderthals for example. If we would still be picking on each other for stupid things like religion,skin color. Or if we would just pick on them instead.

Cubeoid · Dec 6, 2005, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

How about images of a Jewish/Black Jesus?

Jesus was a black jew.

brapper · Dec 6, 2005, 01:56 AM

this thread be fantastic.

Big Mac · 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Did you catch the thing on national geographic where they proved that the 'shroud' was a fake?

Did they determine by what process it was created? When was it aired? From what I have read, it was an impressive piece no matter what your view on its theological significance may be.

moonmonkey · Dec 6, 2005, 03:32 AM

Modern images of Jesus were based around Alexander the Great and Colonel Sanders

Railroader · Dec 6, 2005, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by jjlannoo

I think that if there was a God (which there isn't). He would be terribly disappointed that a bunch of people were wasting time arguing on a computer board about how much pigment his son's skin had. LOL

I have wondered in the past that if another species of human had survived. say neanderthals for example. If we would still be picking on each other for stupid things like religion,skin color. Or if we would just pick on them instead.

Agreed. (to the bolded part of your post)

Who cares what color/race He was? The fact that He fullfilled prophecy and was born from the line of David is what is important.

Any discussions of any great depth here are simply attempts to incite anger in one group or another.

Doofy · Dec 6, 2005, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Did you catch the thing on national geographic where they proved that the 'shroud' was a fake?

Didn't you catch the news a couple years back where the scientist bods found out that it's a lot older than the "it's a fake" crowd are making out?

Kevin · Dec 6, 2005, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Sorry this is the closest to a camera that they had

And Jesus wasn't black. He was Jewish.

http://www.serve.com/pvbr/Issue_1/specfeat3.htm

They say probably more like...

Which is alot different from the blue eyed Jesus. But more likely the case.

Kevin · Dec 6, 2005, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Didn't you catch the news a couple years back where the scientist bods found out that it's a lot older than the "it's a fake" crowd are making out?

Yeah I Saw that too. It's kinda irrelevant. It's going to do nothing for us.

Doofy · Dec 6, 2005, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah I Saw that too. It's kinda irrelevant. It's going to do nothing for us.

I know. Was just pointing out how selective Rob's information can be sometimes.

rickey939 · Dec 6, 2005, 06:31 AM

Cubeoid · Dec 6, 2005, 06:50 AM

rickey939! No! Ok? No!

forkies · Dec 6, 2005, 08:00 AM

it's a FAKE

- - e r i k - - · Dec 6, 2005, 08:04 AM

Actually this is most likely how Jesus would have looked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RFJesus.jpg

Kevin · Dec 6, 2005, 08:09 AM

Yeah that's a larger picture of the one I posted above.

Also

"The image depicts a hypothetical construction of what someone from Jesus' time and location might have looked like. It is not supposed to be an image of Jesus himself."

MacNStein · Dec 6, 2005, 08:28 AM

One of the more famous images/icons, and my personal favorite.

http://www.trinitystores.com/.php/catalog.php4?image=35

Cubeoid · Dec 6, 2005, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

osiris · Dec 6, 2005, 08:45 AM

Kevin · Dec 6, 2005, 08:47 AM

OMG People from that area 2000 years ago looked like people TODAY from that area!11

That is why this always cracked me up. If you wanna know what Jesus looked like, just look at what most of the Jewish men in the same area look like today.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 6, 2005, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Didn't you catch the news a couple years back where the scientist bods found out that it's a lot older than the "it's a fake" crowd are making out?

Didn't you catch the news that no it isn't? Watch national geographic's the science of the bible. It is a fake, even the face is off. It wouldn't have transferred a face like a photograph if it was indeed draped over somebody's body. It was painted, by hand.

Kevin · Dec 6, 2005, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Didn't you catch the news that no it isn't? Watch national geographic's the science of the bible. It is a fake, even the face is off. It wouldn't have transferred a face like a photograph if it was indeed draped over somebody's body. It was painted, by hand.

Not saying either way Rob. But lets back up our assertions shall we?

Show us some proof. Go ahead. I dare you.

BTW, I would start here

http://www.shroudstory.com/

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 6, 2005, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Did they determine by what process it was created? When was it aired? From what I have read, it was an impressive piece no matter what your view on its theological significance may be.

Yes. A few months back. Eh... sorta. It's impressive to what lengths the church went to get it made, and promoted it. Chances are Leonardo did it, he was pretty down with teh church. But you don't need to be that scientific about it. Draping a cloth over someone's face results in an extremely wide squished image of said face.

Kevin · Dec 6, 2005, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Yes. A few months back. Eh... sorta. It's impressive to what lengths the church went to get it made, and promoted it. Chances are Leonardo did it, he was pretty down with teh church. But you don't need to be that scientific about it. Draping a cloth over someone's face results in an extremely wide squished image of said face.

Rob again, do you have any proof to back up said baseless accusations?

Didn't think so.

wdlove · Dec 6, 2005, 09:10 AM

It doesn't really matter to me. Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Dec 6, 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by wdlove

It doesn't really matter to me. Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

Yours or everyone's?

Kevin · Dec 6, 2005, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Yours or everyone's?

That's up to each person.

teknopimp · Dec 6, 2005, 01:11 PM

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Dec 6, 2005, 01:40 PM

All we need now us a Jesus in a wheelchair with his boyfriend pushing him.

deomacius · Dec 6, 2005, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

All we need now us a Jesus in a wheelchair with his boyfriend pushing him.

You, sir, are intentionally inflammatory.

Eriamjh · Dec 6, 2005, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

Rolling Bones · Dec 6, 2005, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Not the honkey version pushed by the white people in power?

I've got a picture of your wife naked. Want one?

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 6, 2005, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Rob again, do you have any proof to back up said baseless accusations?

Didn't think so.

Dude. You aren't stupid. Imagine a cloth draped over a 3 dimensional object. Say a 'face'. Now imagine that same cloth flattened out. It would NOT look like a normal photograph. Also, watch this show if you can:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...uth/index.html

Episode 3. About the shroud. And davinci. It's OBVIOUSLY a fake. There is just no possible way it could be from Jesus's body, as the image on the shroud is just completely wrong, in all the wrong ways. Chances are, it's an early attempt by DaVinci meddling in PHOTOGRAPHY, as the some of the chemicals present indicate it had some photographic crap in it.

FAAAKKKKKEEEEEEEEEE.

If you want to deny it, go ahead, be ignorant, and be just another dumbass christian who believes in total ********. Science wins, because it deals with logic, not what you want to believe. It has no preconcieved notions.

Kevin · Dec 6, 2005, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Dude. You aren't stupid. Imagine a cloth draped over a 3 dimensional object. Say a 'face'. Now imagine that same cloth flattened out. It would NOT look like a normal photograph. Also, watch this show if you can:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...uth/index.html

Yes, but we are saying stuff has came out SINCE THEN.

Episode 3. About the shroud. And davinci. It's OBVIOUSLY a fake. There is just no possible way it could be from Jesus's body, as the image on the shroud is just completely wrong, in all the wrong ways. Chances are, it's an early attempt by DaVinci meddling in PHOTOGRAPHY, as the some of the chemicals present indicate it had some photographic crap in it.

FAAAKKKKKEEEEEEEEEE.

I am not saying it was Christ. Quit making up arguments out of thin air.

Also, you need to learn the difference between speculation and fact. What you are citing is speculation. But you are treating it as fact.

If you want to deny it, go ahead, be ignorant, and be just another dumbass christian who believes in total ********. Science wins, because it deals with logic, not what you want to believe. It has no preconcieved notions.

Science deal with faith as well.

I am not denying anything. I am saying you have no proof. Just speculation.

That is all.

You simply cannot argue otherwise Rob.

I mean I guess you could. But it would be silly.