Scanner

Pocahontas too.

Bad news for hippies

lol, hippies

WTF T.A.?  What's a 'hippie'?

And if you wear makeup, there is sin and your heart ;)

Fact: Jesus did not actually exist.

You're a retard.

What about his pubic hair?  Was it cropped short, shortly shorn, or just wild and crazy like the afro he might have convincingly had?

What?

Jesus listened to Slayer, had long hair, and smoked dope. His philosophy, which got hijacked by hippies, was originally "be excellent to each other, and kill the poseurs."

Jesus wasn't black either!

There is no evidence what Jesus's hair style was no matter what this guy says. There also is no evidence that there was a guy named Jesus either besides the fictional writtens of the bible.

he was light brown just like everybody else from the region

I don't know about his hair, but I hear that Jesus was famous for his nails.

Dr. Jack Hyles theory is wrong. True, the haircut style of the day for men was short. The hairstyle was implemented by The Romans. Ceasar commanded this haircut of his soilders because it was more hygenic, gave the Romans a certain conformity and  stature, as well as more safe (shorter hair is harder to grab a hold of during battle).With that said, Jesus was from Nazareth and under Nazareen law as well as custom in Nazareth, men had to wear their hair long.

DillerVF... you are a moron, no notable scholar will deny that Jesus was a real person and that he was sentenced to die by crucifixion for treason.

Plenty of people will debate his "Son of God" status, however.

Jesus was a UFO!!!

Jesus was not a UFO.  He was a man who was the son of God and was killed for our tasty sausages.

Nuke all the Gay Whales for Christ!!!

Luke, your comment left me hanging for a bit, but then I got the point. You're a very sharp guy, even if your comment may have left some readers a bit cross. Next time, you may want to hammer your point in a bit more.

Jesus was a white, latin, bastard child, the result of spiked kool-aid, and who's extortionist empire is fundamental to the basis of white supremicism.

How many of you, especially the americans, have had "swiriling angels" and other drunken perceptions while being drugged and raped by a (literal transltion) man who's skin was more white than any neighbour.

Also known as the roman praetor responsible later for the massacres of children upon advancing in rank.

White Powder!

Hair smair, the main issue is weither or not he built Hotrods.

Fact:  As every true historian knows: Jesus was a man of fashion, changing his locks to meet current fads.

20 BC -Permed and luxurious

22 BC -Dreaded and dyed

24 BC -Shaved bald

27 BC -Afro with Pic

Considering that it is highly, highly unlikely that Jesus was real I find the whole thing amusing.

Site gone, here's the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.geocities.com/.../Shorthair.html

Does it really matter if his hair was long or short? either way, it plainly stated in the dead sea scrolls that Jesus had a pompodour

Jesus was an alien from Planet X in which he will return on December 21, 2012... REPENT NOW!!!!!!

My Children, I had no hair due to a bad case of Alopecia.

He was a Rabbi or Teacher...they wore their hair long. Those that cut it short were Roman sympathisers or employees, like Judas. The short-haired men were targets of disdain and physical harassment.  Had Jesus had short hair, you would have had a lot of comment about it and its implications in the letters.  He was a political hot potato among the Clergy because he was a popular teacher, and the resistance movement did invite his participation.  He had long hair.  BTW the Romans had short hair to prevent lice...and it became a fashion symbol of the Soldier/Citizen.

jesus built my car

it's a love affair

mainly jesus and my hot rod

Gotta love all the "Jesus doesn't exist" comments.  You should check out Roman historical docs sometime.

Fact: If Jesus did exist (Not possible) then Jesus was a jew.

Fact: If Jesus did exist (Not possible) then Jesus was Not White. He was probably Olived skinned

Fact: There is no God.

I thought Jesus had a Jewfro.

A strange thing about these comments is that most of them are Anti-Christ, Anti-Jesus, Anti-Christian and even mock Christ. If these same comments were made about Mohammed or Islam there would be riots in the streets, heads would roll, blood would be in the streets. Christ was not like that. Christ came here as eternal salvation for all men and his message was simplistic and basic: 1.) God is love 2.)Love your neighbors AND love your enemies. 3.) No man comes to the father but by Christ. 4.) Repent. All of you that mock Christ, I pray that you come to the realization that Christ would never mock you. His message was simple, of love, tolerance and peace. You decide whether you accept it or not. You may not believe in God, but God believes in you.

Jesus MIGHT BE A UFO. What would you think if you saw him in the sky? Here's the lyrics to Larry Norman's song (UFO) about Jesus. Larry Norman is the Father of Christian Rock. Think about it.

UFO:

He's an unidentified flying object.

You will see Him in the air.

He's an unidentified flying object.

You will drop your hands and stare.

You will be afraid to tell your neighbor.

He might think that it's not true.

But when they open up the morning paper.

You will know they've seen Him too.

He will come back like He promised.

With the price already paid.

He will gather up his followers.

And take them all away.

He's an unidentified flying object.

He will sweep down from the sky.

He's an unidentified flying object.

And some will sleep, but will not die.

He's an unidentified flying object.

Coming back to take you home.

He's an unidentified flying object.

He will roll away your stone.

And if there's life on other planets.

I'm sure that He must know.

And He's been there once already.

And has died to save their souls.

Open discussion in a religion article?

That's a tazing.

thestagnant.blogspot.com

What about Samson? Did Dr. Jack that that one into speculation? He had incredible strength, and his only weakness was his long hair. If it was cut, he would lost all his strength, and that was his downfall. Kudos to all you long haired hippies out there. Rock it for Samson!

Jesus most certainly did exist, and probably had some tasty dreads.

Well, there's at least three Roman sources to suggest a historical Jesus.  Hmmm, can't remember them off the top of my head.  Anyway.  The historicity of Christ isn't what is generally challenged, it's the Divinity.

Hey B England - This is for you!

Mohammad didnt exist, he was a hippie.  Mohammad built my hotrod. Mohammad frequently changed his fashionable hairstyles.  Islam is a UFO.

Awright, let's get our popcorn and watch the riots and blook in the streets!

B. England, EAT A BAG OF C@*K$, see thats the best part of bieng american/anti-religous... i can say that, AND i don't have to be sorry... you would, but i have true freedom.

"No man comes to the father but by Christ" ...yea so tell me again how this statement has only ONE meaning? because SCIENCE usually has ONE meaning for each satement/idea/theory... in fact ALSWAYS, thats why it's fact.

so be the slave of faith built on lies. because "god" is always watching, so be a good little christian, and pray for my soul.

- future president of th USA

B. England, the reason that these statements are insulting is because this is the internet i.e. Not real life, and through the gift of internet obscurity, we can all take off our fake masks of decency we are forced to wear in public and reveal the monsters we truly are. Sure, people might cry and be upset when a natural catastrophe occurs (such as the tidal wave. But in private? Many crack jokes and think all the tragedy is funny. (I knew a woman about a year ago who donated $100 to a charity for that disaster, but was laughing about it 10 minutes later. The internet (which grants us the ability to be cruel to people without responsibility) is therefore, more than any other force in the universe (it has evolved into a force by now) even more so than SCIENCE ITSELF, the ultimate, irrefutable proof that a loving God does not exist (although I suspect that Jehovah is no kind and loving God, since he does share similarities with an obscure Sumerian god of Vengence, who was an outcast of the gods.)

(Come to think of it, Abraham was exiled from Sumerian society for high crimes, and formed a pact with an outcast God, essentially becoming the father of Abrahamic religions, known for being exiled from wherever they live; The Muslims from the middle east, the Jews from Israel multiple times, and the Christians from their holy lands)

Breaking the law, raiding other people's lands, justifying rape/civil disobedience/slavery through holy works to the law, moral selectivity, and war-mongering, only to be broken up/exiled again. And of course, all this junk about following tradition. Here's a family tradition for you;

Like father (Abraham) like son, huh?

It was the Bodhidharma that said something along the way that monks who shaved their heads in reverence to the Buddha were fools who didn't understand the teachings.

It is a little known fact that Jesus was actually Indian (from Bombay in fact).  He was also what we now call a 'little person' measuring a mere 3"11.  Also, he was NOT gay, as commonly assumed, but bi-sexual, with a particular fetish for amputee's feet.  Also, he was bald...

Hope this clears up any problems..

Josephus is/was a noted Roman historian.  He among others verify the existence of a man who wwe call Jesus, they also verify his death by crucifixion.  

To paraphrase CS Lewis (who also existed!)  he was either a liar, (ie lying about His divinity) or a loonie or a lying loonie.  The political and religious powers of the time didn't seem to think that a mere liar or loonie was that threatening to their existence, which leaves one more... maybe He was just telling the truth.

So the question of His divinity (ie Son of God status) is what may be embraced or doubted.

In doing so you must also answer the repurcussions of your choice.  Are you threatened by it and therefore doomed as per the historical teaching, or do you choose to embrace it ?

Oh wow, an omnipotent being cares about the way you look. Sheer genious. /sarcasm

Fact: Jesus is alive.

I have him chained up in a dungeon in my basement. I picked him up hitchhiking from Illinois to Delaware. I guess you can say I found Jesus...

...And now he is my sex slave.

Sorry Red, the Josephus passage that supposedly confirms Jesus' historicity is strongly suspected of being a forgery. Simply put, there is no reliable verification that Jesus ever existed -- and plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that all of the "scriptures" about him are pure mythology.

FACT: Nobody cares....

T Paine, I think you'll find that it's the 'Christian' stuff in the writings of Josephus that is under scrutiny, that is, the description of Jesus being the Christ.  Not the actual words, paraphrase here... now there was this guy called Jesus.

Also I agree that alot has been doubted by the Catholic church scholars because Jesus is described by Josephus as the brother of James. This would upset the Catholic applecart as Mary, according to them, remained a virgin her entire life.  Other Bible scholars and (most) Protestants, however, don't have a problem with Jesus having brother(s) and/or sisters.

Red, you're an idiot

Obviously, the whole 'Christian stuff'passage in Josephus was inserted after the fact...

plan and simple, there is no mention of Jesus among his contemporaries

grow up, losers

Clearly, Jesus was a hick.  Hell, he was his own father!

Most of the people mocking Christ in this thread are displaying the true content of their character.

Anybody who would make ignorant, mocking, anonymous comments on the internet regarding the most significant person in world history, whom millions worship, ought to seriously examine their life.

They had also better hope that they're right regarding Christ.  God is love, but he is also holy and will pour out his wrath on those who remain in their sins by not accepting the atoning work of Christ.

Atheists are among all people the most to be pitied.  They'll never find out that their atheism is right.  If they die and there is no God then they will never know.  If they die and the God of the Bible does exist then they will find out they were wrong and will have an eternity apart from this God that they spent their whole lives trying to avoid.

The Bible wasn't around when he was (if) walking around so I doubt he knew it says long hair is shameful. What a load of crap.

James, the most significant person in history is Muhammad - just so ya know.

Keep your faith to yourself.

Also, isn't the part about long hair in the same book as putting to death anyone working on the Sabbath? Just curious..

The popular hair style at the time was the Ceaser cut. This would fit him well since he was a Jew and had curly hair.

Aside from this it is not allowed according to dueteronomy for a man to shave only "the corners of his beard" referring to the sideburns. This is why Hacidic jews have long payesses (those curly sideburns). This was because at the time Moses wrote it the priests of Daggon all wore long braided goatees and Moses wanted the people to look different.

Jesus most likely looked like your modern Hacidic Jew but without the funny hat.

Fact! I have pored over the bible countless times and after over 30 in depth readings the only way I could tie it all together was with a huge dose of LSD!

Then it all made perfect sense and God spoke to me about the purple strange.

Oy vey! Who gives a rodent's rear end? Its all a bunch of crap anyway! Jesus MAY have been a real person, who MAY have been a teacher, whose exploits, IF real, CERTAINLY got blown out of proportion and way, WAY too many suckers (SHEEP) have, for centuries, based their sad, pathetic little lives on a book written by nameless, faceless, anonymous losers whose aim was to control the public, take their money, and make them cowtow to the THE CHURCH. In this day and age, with the advances of science, which has found NO VERIFIABLE PROOF of anything in that ridiculous book, not to mention the outdatedness of its attitudes towards women, children, other religions and on and on, how people can continue to follow it's arcane doctrine is beyond me.

Oh, and he was a blond surfer dude. Looked like Kato Kaelin.

James, I will point out the same thing I pointed out to B. England; People are truly horrid monsters on the internet. You know that Reverend/Father you follow? He may be a decent enough person in private, but I'm sure there are plenty of Men of the Cloth who are not true to their supposed principles (no matter how authentic they seem in public) and spend their days as internet bullys, or hackers, or online scam artists.

Oh, and the arguement you spoke of, that atheists had better be right, i.e. "Pascal's Wager"? The philosophy that we should believe in God even if it doesn't make much sense for the sake of salvation in case we are wrong? There is an inherent flaw in this arguement of Pascal's; it fails to realize the implications of personal devotion to God.

Take two Christians, for example. One is a believer, but is lax in his devotion and obedience to God (this isn't to say that he isn't a loyal Christian, he just has flaws) but nonetheless believes because he wants to go to heaven. Meanwhile, take another Christian. Her devotion to daily prayer, following the bible to the word, and her unconditional love to God regardless of his judgement (even if he were to pick her up and cast her needlessly into hell) not for the sake of her salvation, but unconditionally, is a true beacon of piety.

Lining these two Christians up next to each other, who's going to heaven and who is not? The believer who simply desires his own salvation (selfish) or the true believer who believes unconditionally (selfless?) Even if both are going to heaven (since this is an arguement of the wager's logic, let's explore this logical possibility too) who's reward will be meager, and who truly glorious?

To me, this arguement doesn't matter as much as the original one I made to B. England. (And this one proves how much of a monster Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah is if he does indeed exist.) Abrahamic religions are all outcast religions. They have been since Sumerian times. Imagine the world as a large game of Religious musical chairs with only one round, if the visual aid assists you. Abraham and his dread god didn't get a seat. If this seems confusing, the proof is in the pudding. The ancient world was made up of primarily independent city-states in the Middle East and Europe (with the occasional ruling empire, such as the rules of the Pharoahs, Sargon, Alexander, the Romans, Hammurabi, and such) while the Far east was Fratcured in a similar fashion; the only true empires over there were the mongolian empire, the Chinese government, and much later on a unified Japan. While there was violence and war, as at any time, things were fairly functional and stable in these places, and even the poor and the slaves didn't have it as bad as in recent centuries.

When Judaism popped up, their god (remember, this is the same god who preached of peace) told them to kill, rape, and pillage in the Middle East in order to take the holy lands. If these lands were theirs in the first place, wouldn't they have found (most of) the people they left behind when they went to Egypt practicing their faith upon their return, much to their delighted surprise? And when Christianity went to Europe and took over, did they not kill off nonbelievers (think Champlain and his 3,000 person lineup of beheaded who refused to convert. The next day, the remaining pagans, when asked, converted not out of faith but of fear) and burn female scholars and sages as witches? (ADMISSION: Misogyny and homophobia in Christianity started with Paul and his teachings, previously in it's very earliest days the church ordained female priestesses and blessed several homosexual unions)? And didn't the Fundamentalist Muslims conquer large tracts of Northern africa and smaller portions of present day Pakistan with similar tactics? (ADMISSION: Once conquered, and until the holy wars, Jews and Christians could live and practice in Muslim territory if they tithed the Islamic Mosques as well as their own)

The Far East realized the dangers these religions posed and forbid them from spreading into their territories until they caved to military pressure from the west.

Nowadays, even though these religions teach tolerance and preach nonviolence that they claim is no longer part of their doctrine, do we still not see psycho's who kill adulterers, abortion doctors and gays?

Now with all these arguements in consideration, why do you suppose the other "heathen" religions didn't cause as many problems? This is because they have their own indigenous lands of origin. (One of the primary reasons other religions pay so little attention to their land in scripture is because they are secure in owning it de facto) Meanwhile, the Western Trinity (my nickname for the Abrahamic religions) waste so much ink preaching about "your lands" or "taking land" or "inhereting land." You have no land! And like any atheistic ruler with no land, you want more, hence the Western Trinities tendency toward violent domination of believers and unbelievers, as well as the attempts to force beliefs upon their respective governments. When have you heard of a Hindu telling the US that we should ban eating beef because cows are holy? You never have! And that's a major spiritual belief of Hinduism!

My thesis, simply, is this. An outcast God (why call him God if he is not omnipotent enough to make or get his own peacefully, or at least through direct and apparent divine wrath? Of all the Deital acts of violence and instantaneous genocide, his spiritual weakness is real estate, and he is powerless against the Banks and Landlords!) and outcast people (Followers of the western trinity who bring pain more than benefit wherever their nomadic dread god commands they go to conquer next) feel inadaquate in the world, so they have to conquer the world to prove their worth, such as how some people force upon others in real life their "Reputation Penis" (Force other to acknowledge them as better through use of hostile and malicious reminders, bragging, and power) or online through their online equivalent, the dreaded "E-penis"

(On a final note, I used the word penis because they are the ultimate source of personal-selfworth inadaquacies and might explain the male divinity of thje westen trinity.)

Frankly who cares wether Jesus existed and the way he used his hair?

James, I will point out the same thing I pointed out to B. England; People are truly horrid monsters on the internet. You know that Reverend/Father you follow? He may be a decent enough person in private, but I'm sure there are plenty of Men of the Cloth who are not true to their supposed principles (no matter how authentic they seem in public) and spend their days as internet bullies, or hackers, or online scam artists.

Oh, and the arguement you spoke of, that atheists had better be right, i.e. "Pascal's Wager"? The philosophy that we should believe in God even if it doesn't make much sense for the sake of salvation in case we are wrong? There is an inherent flaw in this arguement of Pascal's; it fails to realize the implications of personal devotion to God.

Take two Christians, for example. One is a believer, but is lax in his devotion and obedience to God (this isn't to say that he isn't a loyal Christian, he just has flaws) but nonetheless believes because he wants to go to heaven. Meanwhile, take another Christian. Her devotion to daily prayer, following the bible to the word, and her unconditional love to God regardless of his judgement (even if he were to pick her up and cast her needlessly into hell) not for the sake of her salvation, but unconditionally, is a true beacon of piety.

Lining these two Christians up next to each other, who's going to heaven and who is not? The believer who simply desires his own salvation (selfish) or the true believer who believes unconditionally (selfless?) Even if both are going to heaven (since this is an arguement of the wager's logic, let's explore this logical possibility too) who's reward will be meager, and who truly glorious?

To me, this arguement doesn't matter as much as the original one I made to B. England. (And this one proves how much of a monster Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah is if he does indeed exist.) Abrahamic religions are all outcast religions. They have been since Sumerian times. Imagine the world as a large game of Religious musical chairs with only one round, if the visual aid assists you. Abraham and his dread god didn't get a seat. If this seems confusing, the proof is in the pudding. The ancient world was made up of primarily independent city-states in the Middle East and Europe (with the occasional ruling empire, such as the rules of the Pharoahs, Sargon, Alexander, the Romans, Hammurabi, and such) while the Far east was Fratcured in a similar fashion; the only true empires over there were the mongolian empire, the Chinese government, and much later on a unified Japan. While there was violence and war, as at any time, things were fairly functional and stable in these places, and even the poor and the slaves didn't have it as bad as in recent centuries.

When Judaism popped up, their god (remember, this is the same god who preached of peace) told them to kill, rape, and pillage in the Middle East in order to take the holy lands. If these lands were theirs in the first place, wouldn't they have found (most of) the people they left behind when they went to Egypt practicing their faith upon their return, much to their delighted surprise? And when Christianity went to Europe and took over, did they not kill off nonbelievers (think Champlain and his 3,000 person lineup of beheaded who refused to convert. The next day, the remaining pagans, when asked, converted not out of faith but of fear) and burn female scholars and sages as witches? (ADMISSION: Misogyny and homophobia in Christianity started with Paul and his teachings, previously in it's very earliest days the church ordained female priestesses and blessed several homosexual unions)? And didn't the Fundamentalist Muslims conquer large tracts of Northern africa and smaller portions of present day Pakistan with similar tactics? (ADMISSION: Once conquered, and until the holy wars, Jews and Christians could live and practice in Muslim territory if they tithed the Islamic Mosques as well as their own)

The Far East realized the dangers these religions posed and forbid them from spreading into their territories until they caved to military pressure from the west.

Nowadays, even though these religions teach tolerance and preach nonviolence that they claim is no longer part of their doctrine, do we still not see psycho's who kill adulterers, abortion doctors and gays?

Now with all these arguements in consideration, why do you suppose the other "heathen" religions didn't cause as many problems? This is because they have their own indigenous lands of origin. (One of the primary reasons other religions pay so little attention to their land in scripture is because they are secure in owning it de facto) Meanwhile, the Western Trinity (my nickname for the Abrahamic religions) waste so much ink preaching about "your lands" or "taking land" or "inhereting land." You have no land! And like any atheistic ruler with no land, you want more, hence the Western Trinities tendency toward violent domination of believers and unbelievers, as well as the attempts to force beliefs upon their respective governments. When have you heard of a Hindu telling the US that we should ban eating beef because cows are holy? You never have! And that's a major spiritual belief of Hinduism!

My thesis, simply, is this. An outcast God (why call him God if he is not omnipotent enough to make or get his own peacefully, or at least through direct and apparent divine wrath? Of all the Deital acts of violence and instantaneous genocide, his spiritual weakness is real estate, and he is powerless against the Banks and Landlords!) and outcast people (Followers of the western trinity who bring pain more than benefit wherever their nomadic dread god commands they go to conquer next) feel inadaquate in the world, so they have to conquer the world to prove their worth, such as how some people force upon others in real life their Reputation (Force other to acknowledge them as better through use of hostile and malicious reminders, bragging, and power) or online through their online equivalent, the dreaded "E-reputation"