Hunky Jesus Posters... Is This Right Or Wrong

[arwalden]

http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=218029

[Dookus]

1. Now if they had THOSE

pictures in my church, I might still be a christian today.

[arwalden]

2. Where's The Scantily Clad Buxom Woman?

These do remind me of historical romance book covers.

[Dookus]

5. Praise be to Fabio

[arwalden]

7. "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus"

[Heddi]

51. :dying of laughter:

That's the greatest post exchange in the history of message boards!

[CanuckAmok]

105. Mary Magdalene in a stained-glass scene with Chaisy Laine, perhaps?

satin togas all around!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. The Dark Skin Jesus Is Historically Correct

but I doubt he found time to hit the gym....

[Dookus]

6. I dunno

I've seen a lot of Jews in my time, and most of them didn't look African. Not to say that Jesus was blond, but I doubt he was black, either.

[zeemike]

60. Not correct

He was a Jew and there are descriptions of him as having blue eyes and golden colored hair from documents of the Roman empire.
I believe that the image on the shroud of Turin is an accurate portrayal of what he looked like.

[Dookus]

61. No

there are no contemporary Roman documents even mentioning Jesus, much less describing him.

[zeemike]

62. Have you ever heard of the Archco volumes?

My memory is poor because I read them over 30 years ago, but I suppose they have been discredited by now as is the case with anything that speaks to the past.

[Dookus]

64. No, I haven't

and Google doesn't turn up anything either.

But I've read a lot on the subject and there are no contemporary records that Jesus even existed, much less records describing his appearance.

None. Zip. Nada. The closest is Josephus' (now generally agreed to be a forgery) mention of CHRISTIANS. And even that was not contemporary to Jesus.

Edit: Sorry, I was mistaken, somewhat. It was Tacitus, who 70 years after Jesus supposedly died, referred to Christians in Rome. Josephus referred to Jesus himself, although it is still widely considered to be a forgery, AND was 60 years after Jesus' supposed death.

[zeemike]

65. Well I know I read it

My memory is not so bad that I imagined it
Let me see if I can find it and I will get back to you.
But these were supposed to be in the Vatican archives.

[zeemike]

70. Found it

I knew I had not imagined it. Here is what I foound.

In 1887, Rev. W. D. Mahan published a book entitled The Archko Volume. It is the results of his search for 1st century documents. Research took him to the Vatican in Rome and to the Jewish Talmuds in Constantinople, Turkey. Among many other writings he located a letter written on a papyrus scroll to Caesar from Pontius Pilate, dated about 31 A.D.. What follows is truly awesome if the documents here turn out to have been really written by Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, Herod and others.

There is also a unique, delightful, investigative report by the Sanhedrim following the "Angelic Ruckus" in Bethlehem the night of Christ's birth. Apparaently all of Bethlehem was aware and the "Singing from the Skies" and light shows would not let anyone sleep that night. It would be nonsense to believe Pontius Pilate never wrote about any of this "Jesus thing" to his Caesar, or that Caiaphas never reported to the Sanhedrim, or that the Senhedrim would not investigate Bethlehem. I found the physical description of Jesus by both Pilot and the old man who lived on the Road to Bethany to be what I imagine the "man" in the Shroud of Turin looks like. Romans & Jews were meticulous document keepers--so why can't these be real? Why haven't scholars demanded they be tested?

These documents show Pilate in so much awe of Jesus (which I suspected from Scripture) that Pontius Pilate could very well have died a Christian. Likewise: after the resurrection, Caiaphis appears so shaken - he too may have become a Christian and may have resigned from the Sanhedrim with a guilty conscience. Beware: some have claimed these documents are a forgery. See some serious questions about the authenticity of these documents here. I just don't think so - you will have to make up your own mind. Nothing I read in these documents either contradicts, adds or subtracts to my firm belief that Jesus is the Son of God.

[Dookus]

76. OK

I googled it with the right spelling. It's a late 19th century hoax. One chapter was lifted almost verbatim from Ben Hur.

[zeemike]

84. I was sure it had been discredited

Almost every thing that disagrees with scholarly version has to be or a lot of smart people would be embarrassed.
But I take everything with a grain of salt, even what the smart people tell me is true.

[Dookus]

86. oh, I see

people reject this fake book (with a chapter lifted verbatim from a popular novel) out of fear of embarassment.

I find that notion silly. Western Society has been predominantly christian for almost 2000 years. Yet it's the big bad atheists who actually control everything :eyes:

[zeemike]

91. Don't put words in my mouth

Atheist do not control everything. I am just saying that people in positions of authority and that includes the religious as well as the secular have a vested interest in maintaining there authority.

[Dookus]

92. And none of that

even begins to address the hoax that is the Archko Volume.

[zeemike]

95. That is not something that you or I personally know

We accept the word of the experts and we accept that they are fair and balanced because they say they are like fox news. So it is faith that you have that leads you to believe what you cannot know for yourself.

[Dookus]

97. nonsense

There's no reason whatsoever to believe the Archko documents are genuine, and in fact, there's plenty of evidence that they are not. It is not a faith-based position.

It's a tired old argument that believers use all the time - that non-belief is just as much faith as belief, and it's a bogus argument. Do you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, faeries and hobgoblins? Vampires, werewolves and pixies? Is it "faith" to believe they don't exist? If so, you reject the idea that we can know anything at all, and while it may be philosophically satisfying, it's ultimately a paralytic worldview.

[zeemike]

100. Time for one more

No I am saying that you have no personal knowledge that it was a hoax, and so you put faith in the someone that told you it was.
If you had researched it yourself, or known the man that wrote the book and saw for yourself that he hoaxed it then it would be a justified belief, justified by the facts of your own personal experience.
But you must put your faith in the debunker, which I would guess is someone you don't even know. That is faith, the belief in something without personal knowledge.

[Dookus]

101. well

I've never seen Pluto with my own eyes... should I doubt its existence? I never saw Abraham Lincoln with my own eyes... is it reasonable to doubt his existence?

The evidence that the Archko library is a fraud is much greater than the evidence that Jesus even existed.

[OnionPatch]

63. Yeah, well, my Hispanic friend

thinks I'm a blond. This can't be true.... I use medium brown no. 247!

[zeemike]

74. I know what you mean

I have brown hair and red beard and they think I am blond.

[Dookus]

66. As to the Shroud of Turin

how would a 14th Century artisan know what Jesus looked like?

[zeemike]

73. There is more to that story than I have time for

But the truth of it has yet to bve found.

[Dookus]

78. the overwhelming evidence

points to it being a middle-ages creation. Even the Catholic Church doesn't claim it to be the burial shroud of Jesus.

seriously, this issue has been cleared up to the satisfaction of all except the most credulous.

[zeemike]

81. No No No

The only evidence that points to a 14th century creation is carbon 14 test that may have been flawed.
No one has ever explained how a 14th century art master knew how to produce a negative image 600 years be for photography was discovered, or why they would have done so.
And no one has explained how it's three dimensional characteristics were created so that only modern tech could find it.
And even the scientist agree it was not painted on the cloth.

[Dookus]

83. No

there is much more evidence than that. Pigment HAS been found on the cloth. Also, the 3-D aspect is wrong for the face and the head. You have to REALLY want to believe it's real to ignore all the evidence. Further, it doesn't match the biblical stories of how Jesus' body was prepared (the gospels claim a separate cloth wrapped the head).

[zeemike]

87. Can you give me that biblical reference?

And the color is in the fiber itself not painted on the outside.
And plant pollen that only occur in the middle east was found on the shroud. Did the artist put that there too?

[Dookus]

88. sure

Book of John:

Jhn 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Jhn 19:41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

Jhn 19:42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation ; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Jhn 20:1 The first of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Jhn 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

Jhn 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

Jhn 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

Jhn 20:5 And he stooping down, , saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

Jhn 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

Jhn 20: 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.


As to the pollen, you can read a good skeptical analysis with lots of sub-links at http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

Also, I have not claimed that the cloth wasn't produced in the Middle East. It's possible for the cloth to have been made there, but I doubt it.

On edit: here's an excerpt from an article discussing the pollen:

Also, the claims of pollen supposedly found on the Shroud allegedly indicating that the Shroud was manufactured in the Middle East before the eighth century have been discredited as "fraud" and "junk science." The person who originally claimed to have found the pollen on the Shroud, Max Frei, has been accused of "sleight of hand" in reporting that pollen samples he took from living plants were subsequently found on the Shroud. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Paranormal Claims (CSICOP) basically determines that Max Frei's "find" is an out-and-out fraud:

"POLLENS: It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged 'Hitler Diaries' genuine. Frei's tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset since similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had comparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the 'lead' (or end), rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud. (See Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Summer 1994 pp. 379-385.)"

Researcher Mark Thompson says of the pollen:

"One thing that is well known to botanists is that the range within which many wild plants grow contracts under pressure from agriculture, civilization, industry and climate changes, and can expand due to the inadvertent or deliberate transport of seeds in cargo along trade routes.

"These shroud researchers asserted (using a database that covered only Israel, it seems, along with other available reports of the plant's range, which I presume to be reliable for the sake of argument) that Z. dumosum grows only in Israel, Syria and the Sinai peninsula.

"What I was working on before the likely fraud by Max Frei was pointed out here, is that Z. dumosum may have grown throughout the Middle East along the Mediterranean coast clear up into Byzantium and Constantinople during the 8th century. Other species of Zygophyllaceae grow throughout that range, from Turkey and Greece even into India and clear around the Mediterranean into the Levant and Northern Africa (including the related notorious hallucinogenic Soma/Haoma candidate plant Peganum harmala).

"So, the statement that 'As Zygophyllum dumosum grows only in Israel, Jordan, and Sinai, its appearance helps to definitively limit the shroud’s place of origin' seemed worth questioning, especially due to climate changes and population pressures in the region over the last 1100 years. . . .

"Another source of suspicion was that the odd appearance of vague flower images on the shroud are 'explained' in one of these papers as due to 'corona discharge.' This was also quite far-fetched, since corona discharge is more related to Kirlian photography than the residue of pressed flowers. Unless one insists that the Shroud and any enfolded bouquets were struck by Divine Lightning or something - an entertaining notion worthy of Steven Spielberg I suppose, but hardly likely."

The conclusion here is that the pollen does not only grow in the "Holy Land" and that other arguments are metaphysical, not scientific.

[zeemike]

94. Did it occur to you

That the napkin was first placed on the head and then the body was wrapped completely in the shroud? And that is why the reference to it being in a different place?
And this is not the first time that people that claim unpopular (among the ones that know) things are personally attacked. You see it all the time in politics.

[libhill]

69. What documents?

Frankly, I don't believe the guy ever existed, so posts like this one have no effect on me. To my knowledge, there is no direct mention of Jesus in any contemporary document, just a few vague references in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus. And the reference in Josephus is generally believed to be a later insertion by Christian theologians.

[zeemike]

75. in that case

you have no dog in this fight.
But I would point out this thing.
It has been said that the bible itself has been added to so much by the copping over the last 2000 years that none of it can be believed. However the Dead Sea scrolls has cast doubt on that theory because their is virtually no difference in the text of the fragments found and the King James version of our modern bible. But of course if you start with the idea that it is all false that would not matter to you at all.

[Dookus]

77. Why is it any worse

than starting with the proposition that it's all true? You were duped by the Archko Volume... why is credulity a more meaningful default position than skepticism?

[zeemike]

79. It is not, it is the same

Starting with any bias is a mistake.
I was not duped by anyone but take things at there face value and base my conclusion on all the evidence th at presents itself in my life.
And the evidence in MY life says that it is true.

[Dookus]

80. The evidence in your life

says the Archko volume is true? How does that work exactly? What evidence?

Pages and pages of it are lifted directly from a 19th Century novel.

Honestly, how can you believe that it's real, and still stay that "starting with any bias is a mistake"? Even Christian websites admit it's a fake.

[zeemike]

82. No

Not that the Archo volume is true, but that Jesus was a real man and lived and did the things that are said of him.
Actually the best pro trail of what I think Jesus was all about was a book of fiction (although I think Khalil Galbraith drank of knowledge that we could not understand and so his fiction may be more real than our fact) and that book is called Jesus The Son of Man written I believe in 1929 by Kahlil Galbraith. I hope I spelled that right.
It is a beautify written book that you should read sometime, even if you believe it is fiction.

[Dookus]

85. I think you mean Kahlil Gibran

And I doubt I'll read it. Despite what true believers think, I don't reject Jesus' divinity out of ignorance or stubbornness. I used to be a Christian. Now I'm not. I learned more about the subject and realized there's no evidence whatsoever that he did the things attributed to him, and learned that resurrected, virgin-born messiahs were a dime a dozen 2000 years ago.

[zeemike]

89. That is funny

I used to be an atheist and now I am not.
But I am not claiming Jesus divinity, but I do consider myself a follower of the teachings of Jesus, and we are all god as he taught.
But so it goes, we all have our path to follow. And my path through this life gave me incontrovertible evidence that it is true, but I cannot transfer it to you or anyone else. Nor is it necessary for me to do so.

[Dookus]

90. I guess

we just have different definitions of the word "evidence".

[zeemike]

96. For me

Life experience is my best evidence.
But I have to hit the sack now but I have enjoyed this civil and interesting conversation about a very difficult subject.

[Dookus]

98. thanks...

goodnight.

But I will say that one's life experience is just about the WORST type of evidence available. We are prone to delusions, errors, false pattern-recognition, hoaxes, lies, and a host of other things that can fool us.

We are extremely gullible beings. Using our own personal experience is really not very reliable. When I was 5, I was 100% convinced that my own "personal experience" proved the existence of Santa Claus.

[zeemike]

99. Goodnight

And I do understand what you are saying.
But that is why the truth is so hard to find because it is like a needle in a haystack of lies.
But that does not mean that one day when your are rolling around in the hay that an needle may not just stick you in the ass. And when it happens you know it is not just another straw of hay.

[truthspeaker]

115. two misconceptions in your post:

(1) No one claims the bible has been "added to so much by the copping over the last 2000 years that none of it can be believed".

The origins of the Catholic Bible can be traced to the 4th Century AD when it was assembled by Catholic church officials, and we have a good record of what was changed since then (not much). And we also have a good idea when the Protestant Bible was assembled, and we know when it was translated into English.

Where doubt comes in is in the 2-300 years before the church assembled what we now call the Bible. What New Testament writings did they leave out? Who wrote the various parts of the New Testament and when, and were they edited or changed later?

There are also issues of translation from Hebrew (Old Testament) to Greek to Latin, and Greek and Aramaic (New Testament) to Latin.

(2)The Dead Sea Scrolls do not match anything in the New Testament; they were written around the time Jesus lived, 40+ years before the earliest parts of what would be the New Testament were written. Some of the writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Old Testament; or rather, the Jewish Pentateuch and Torah, some of which were included in the Old Testament.

[zeemike]

117. My point was

That the Torah was accurately copied over the 2000 years as proved by the Dead Sea Scrolls and so there is evidence that accurate copping was in fact done at least in this case.

[truthspeaker]

112. Even Romans didn't have golden hair or blue eyes; Jews certainly didn't

I doubt very much that Jesus was of Northern European origin.

[DenverDem]

4. Mary Magdeline is down with these.

He was a carpenter. They are in good shape from carrying around beams and shit.

[lapfog_1]

27. Especially those "cross beams"...

sorry, couldn't help myself.

Jesus was a Jew, none of those show a Jewish looking male from
the region. Very few, if any, depictions of Jesus make him look
Jewish. I wonder what will happen if freepers actually do
get "raptured"... how will they like Jesus that teaches tolerance
and love and looks like a Jew from the middle east?

[ablbodyed]

34. actually>>>>

the stereotypical Jew that we think of is completely different from what those who lived in Judea 2000 years ago would have looked like.
They are not the same ethnic stock. Just as present-day Italians have very little Roman blood. There's been just too much migration and movement of peoples to draw a direct line back that far. What we perceive as Jewishness is of European or perhaps far western-Asian origin. The Jews of earlier times probably would have been darker-skinned. Dreadlocks, I don't know about them.

[starroute]

71. Not true

DNA studies show that most people in Europe are direct descendents of the people who lived in those same places thousands of years ago. Even when there were migrations that affected languages and cultures, they didn't have much impact genetically. For example, Irish is a Celtic language, but the Irish people have no Celtic blood. Instead, they're most closely related to the Basques -- and secondily to the Berbers, who brought agriculture from North Africa to Western Europe 7000 year ago.

European Jews are a slightly different case, because they're mostly descended in the male line from Middle Eastern forefathers but in the female line from local European women. The Jews of 2000 years ago probably looked more like present-day Palestinians than anything else.

(If anyone cares, about 40% of male Jews -- especially the Cohens -- are of Y chromosome type J2, which probably originated in Kurdistan and is considered typically Semitic. Others are are of type G2, which is also Middle Eastern, or E3b, which probably originated in Arabia.

Only a minority of Jewish men are of non-Middle Eastern DNA types. Some are R1a1, which is typical of Eastern Europeans. And oddly enough, about 5% are Q3, which arose in Central Asia and is dominant among Native Americans.)

[politicat]

46. Actually, we have no idea what a 1st century jew would look like.

There have been 2000 years of interbreeding, whether intended or not. There's a reason that Judaism descends matrilineally.

He was probably not a blond, blue-eyed Nordic type like my Sacred Heart picture had, but there's textual evidence in the bible somewhere that Jesus had kinky, black hair.

Pcat

[libhill]

72. They'll

probably think that it's a fake rapture, somehow sponsored by Clinton and his pecker.

[Droopy]

8. You know it just occurred to me

I've never seen a depiction of Jesus that wasn't attractive. I wonder if he was an ugly guy.

[Dookus]

10. Read

Gore Vidal's "Live from Golgotha" in which jesus is a fat gay man.

[Philostopher]

31. Don't recall chapter and verse ...

but I got enough religion in my youth to know there's a verse buried in there somewhere with the phrase 'not a comely man' in it, describing Jesus. It wouldn't be the 'greatest story ever told' if the only reason people followed Christ was the bitchin' abs, would it?

[JVS]

38. Feast your eyes on this then

or this

Here is another not too attractive Christ

[arwalden]

39. Looks Like A Slasher Movie Promo!

[JVS]

41. It's all about the suffering

[arwalden]

45. Oh, Pooh... I Don't Care About That

I like the hunky beefcake pecs and abs pictures better.

-- Allen

[JVS]

47. I might point out that decisions about proper Iconography...

are usually made by a church. Especially in the golden age of Christ pictures 500 AD-- 1700 AD an artist would probably answer to the local bishop for making pictures with beefcake pecs and abs

[arwalden]

48. I Find That Easy To Believe.

Good thing we don't have such censorship now. We don't, do we? Right?

-- Allen

[JVS]

52. Remember the feces Madonna?

[arwalden]

54. Nope... But I Like Some Of Her Earlier Songs

[JVS]

56. The picture of Mary that was made of feces that Giuliani had taken down...

at the museum in NYC.

[arwalden]

58. Not My Cup O' Tea...

I've never been a big follower of excrement and urine artwork. I think people should make such decisions for themselves rather than have decisions made on their behalf by government officials.

[pagerbear]

68. Actually, it was elephant poo

I don't remember the artist, and I'm certainly no expert, but I recall reading in an article at the time (as usual I have no source) that among tribal some tribal cultures the use of animal poo is symbolic or ceremonial.

[CanuckAmok]

106. Oh, how I've missed you! N/T!

[arwalden]

110. :-)

Thanks, old friend.

[JVS]

44. I got them all here

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/religiousstudies/mschmalz/cathlinks.htm

[pagerbear]

43. Ouch!

[pagerbear]

9. "Take, eat--this is my body, given for you"

[SoDesuKa]

12. God Will Get You

I like it, but God won't.

[arwalden]

13. You Will Surely Burn In Hell

(if there was one)

But hubba, hubba! Grwoof! Daddy!

-- Allen

[SmileyBoy]

14. LOL!!!

He he he

[Duncan Grant]

11. 16th century hunky Jesus by an artist named "Sodoma" (no joke)!

This is one of the greatest moments of irony in art history, imho! :evilgrin:

[arwalden]

17. Gaa-a-a-a-y! So gay.

[Duncan Grant]

23. He didn't get that name by accident!

He earned it, by God! (elbow, elbow)

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. Welp, I think it would get a few more "sinners" into church if that

was looking down on them every Sunday! :hi:

[DemWitch]

16. Long hair...

beard and stache... <fanning self> see nothing wrong at all with it...

[ronnykmarshall]

18. Woof!

That's some fine lookin' Jesus-si.

[ScreamingMeemie]

19. I forgot the one on the upper right hand side kind of looks like MrG...

Perhaps I am married to the Messiah?!? ;)

[arwalden]

22. I've Seen His Photo... And You're Correct... He Does Look Similar

and his name even sounds like "Jesus"...

[ScreamingMeemie]

26. Now, if we could just get his hair grown out a little bit....

:hi:

[arwalden]

29. He's So Hot... You're So Lucky

-- Allen (wiping drool off my keyboard)

(You don't mind if perfect strangers lust for your hubby, do you?)

[ScreamingMeemie]

30. Nahhh. Not at all. I do it every day of my life! And I look at it as a

compliment to my taste. If MrG should ever tire of me, I'll give him your number...as long as I get the toaster! ;)

[arwalden]

33. Toaster? Hell... You Get A Whole New Price-Is-Right Kitchen Makeover!!

:-)

[ScreamingMeemie]

Oh wow!!! I need a new kitchen!!

:7

[Fridays Child]

20. If Jesus walked a lot and did carpentry...

...he would probably have been in pretty good shape, don't you think? :shrug:

[SoDesuKa]

21. Jesus Looks Like Mike Piazza

Jesus looks like Mike Piazza, who by the way, is not gay (he says).


Mike Piazza


Come to think of it, the Mets NY symbol could be a stylized crown of thorns . . .

[arwalden]

24. For The Folks Who Voted "It's Wrong".... Why?

What's wrong about it?

-- Allen

[arwalden]

108. Sigh. Oh Well.

[Bronco69]

25. I'll bet Jesus got cruised a lot in his day.

I don't think it's a sin to cruise is it? Well, except for that lust in your heart stuff. :-)

[arwalden]

28. Nothing Wrong With Cruising.

-- Allen

BRIAN: Who cured you?

EX-LEPER: Jesus did, sir. I was hopping along, minding my own business. All of a sudden, up he comes. Cures me. One minute I'm a leper with a trade, next minute my livelihood's gone. Not so much as a by your leave. 'You're cured mate.' Bloody do-gooder.

[Amaya]

32. Jesussssssssssssss!

[JVS]

35. Since when was Jesus tied to the cross? They used nails

And where is the blood.

Making Christ all hunky and alluring is as bad a giving Buddha stretch marks.

[arwalden]

42. Look Closely At His Right Palm... You'll See A Spike And Blood

the left hand is cropped out of the image. It's just not gruesome bright red dripping down to his armpits blood.

-- Allen

[pagerbear]

36. Well, since I'm already going to Hell....

[arwalden]

37. What? I Don't Get It.

What?

-- Allen

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

103. Another bad Jesus pic took place when...

I was at Rutgers. One of the student newspapers ran a cover picture of "Jesus Fucking Christ." Well, it was exactly that. My roommate and I thought it was funny and had it up on our wall. The newspaper almost got shut down and well, it was hard explaining it to my CATHOLIC mom when she came to visit. I'm pretty sure the above photo was in the paper somewhere too.

[Paramita]

40. If it has to do with Jesus, it has to be part of the right

[zeemike]

55. You are wrong

If Jesus was alive today he would be here at DU. He was very liberal and a true progressive.
And there is nothing wrong with portraying Jesus as a physical specimen because he was. He was described as being a head taller than most men of his time and was so powerful that no one challenged him when he turned over the money changers tables at the temple and drove them away with a whip.
And by the way all the women loved him and that included the wives of the Romans.

[gmoney]

49. Body By Jesus, and Cruciflex

Years ago, I think National Lampoon or Spy Magazine did a parody of the old Soloflex workout machine with Jesus nailed to the crossbar... very well done.

Someone has had a similar inspiration and made a little video. Lacks the sophistication of the original, but not without its charms

http://www.charged.com/Cruciflexhi.html

[arwalden]

53. Complete With 80's Porn Music In The Background

Very clever... a little rough around the edges... but as you say, it does have it's own charm.

-- Allen

[politicat]

50. They look like they belong on light S&M erotica covers.

Ooo, tie me up, tie me down, Mary!!

They're far too pretty for me. Xtianity is not a pretty religion.

Pcat.

[hyphenate]

57. I guess little Christian teenage girls

Need to have some fantasies about their "hero," huh? Put them up in the convent while they're at it!

Less premarital sex, a lot more "self-love" along the way, with those on the wall!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

59. He was a carpenter so he had to be buff

[ForrestGump]

67. They called him King: it's the Passion of the

Elvis.

[Nevernose]

93. This is wrong on so many levels

I don't care how the voting's going.

Creepy. Really, really creepy.

[Lasira]

102. I'm a little creeped out

by Bondage Jesus in the lower left.

[Swamp Rat]

104. Jesus was certainly dark skinned, but he also had an afro.

[SarahB]

107. It's better than those reminiscent of early 70's Woody Allen movies.

Yikes, was that a lightening bolt I just felt? I used to teach Sunday school. How bad am I?

[noonwitch]

111. I far prefer the "Good Shepard" image to the bloody crucifixion stuff

It's a much nicer image, and it's more about his message than his bloody death.

[qb]

109. They're advertising to attract more "Brides of Christ" nt

[terrya]

113. The only problem is, you don't see His lower body development.

I know He's been working on his quads and hams....

[jukes]

114. whatever

blows a xian's skirt up.


all i know is, if he existed, he sure as fuck was no whitebread.

[mopaul]

116. I do like the S & M angle on the first 3

what if jesus was really a girl?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

118. Jesus is so dreamy...

Every good,little Christian teenie-bopper is going to want one these pics to pin up on their wall.

hehehe

These pictures are too funny.

[MissMillie]

119. He was a carpenter, after all

it only stands that they man would have built some muscles.

[Bertha Venation]

120. nice to see Jesus depicted with dark skin

but he was no more African than he was caucasian.

But I suppose they can't paint any pictures of an Arab-looking Messiah. Why, that would just send the wrong message to all those little kids being trained to hunt down the terrists.