Atheist Nexus Logo

I'm impressed!  The last time I saw photos of Jesus, he had long flowing locks.  Damn hippie!  Tonight I came home to this circular:

Almost trendy!  At least it's not a mullet!  

Jesus has really cleaned up his act.  A goatee would be better, but hey, this is 2013 and full facial hair is in again.  Plus, it's nicely trimmed, if full.

I remember reading somewhere, Jesus didn't really have the Tiny Tim hair style anyway.  Something about, being a carpenter, the long hair was in danger of getting caught in his band saw or power drill and then he would need to miracle himself.

Not sure of his ethnicity - Alsatian maybe?  

Well, at least everyone is smiling.  They all have nice white teeth, too!  Another of Jesus miracles, detailed in the book of Crest.

Then there's the 6-pack abs.  How did he get those?  Must be the fishing.  Hard work hauling in those nets.  I haven't had abs like those since I was 33.

Probably not the response the mysterious visitors wanted.  I wish they were here so I could discuss "Brad Pitt Jesus" with them.  He's much sexier than he was before his make-over.

Maybe next time.  I always think of the best thing to say hours, even days, later anyway.

Views: 2858

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hey, Jesus, I'll come with you if you let me do that thing you like. Wow. 

Nice pictures here of Jesus from a modern day viewpoint right out of the JW literature. Maybe they thought "looking normal" would appeal to todays youth.

BTW, remember that Paul's writings say that a man should not have long hair, and that this was shameful to him? Yet, there are gospel writings and Old Testament writings that say Jesus would be unshaven and have long hair. What could this contradiction possibly mean?

1. It means that Paul never knew or met Jesus, and that our modern day gospels were not known or in circulation at the time of Paul's writings.

2. It also means that Paul, who knew the ancient writings very well, did not associate any of the passages to "Jesus or Messiah" like all the modern Christians do today.

This makes modern Bible beliefs and practices something that came straight out of 323 AD while the Christian wants to claim that Paul wrote close to a third of the New Testament. Just another proof of the MYTH of the 66 books being ONE. It just isn't so. The Bible is a Frankenstein.

Note also that Paul said we would know all things more clearly "when that which is perfect has come." The Church of Christ says this is talking about the Bible. Yeah, that just makes so much sense.

There is also the question as to whether "Jesus" was supposed to be a Nazarite or a Nazarene.

I have read that there was no town, village, hamlet called "Nazareth" anywhere in that little postage stamp of a country during the time of Augustus or his successor (Tiberius?).

On the other hand, a Nazarite was a member of a cult that didn't believe in "Samson."....among other things.

The unknown authors of the New Testicle were trying to match the "Jesus Tale" with so-called prophecies from the old one, and they weren't very good at Hebrew writings, history or geography (or anything else)....they were writing propaganda/advertising.  And the committees that "translated" the KJV and later editions were/are even worse.

I think Sampson's belief in no haircuts explains the invention of luggage.  To carry large amounts of shampoo and hair dryers.  That's why it's called Samsonite.

They were going to call it "Nazarite" but it sounded too much like Nazalite and people thought it was for sinus problems.

Well, whatever he was, or wasn't, his followers are as annoying as post-Nazarine drip.  If not more so.

his followers are as annoying as post-Nazarine drip

That's cute!

Like Samson you brought the house down with that one.

Yes, and then my JW aunt told me about people like Simon Zealoteus. That was his name. Zealoteus. Well, how about Simon the Zealot?

It's interesting this topic has been resurrected.  Sort of like.....   let me see.....

Dammit!  It was on the tip of my tongue, and now I just can't remember!

There is a serious point to all this: every generation and every denomination has seen fit to revise Chrsitianity to suit its needs and the current morality. The first to do this was Saint Paul, who changed Jesus's message of how to live a good life into a prescription for getting into heaven. The philosopher Kierkegaard put it plainly enough:

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of  the original proclamation of Christ"


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service