3 Ratings:

666 - The beast finally identified! Part 2

  • Amithe1
  • uploaded: Jul 11, 2008
  • Hits: 99


  • Lb1259#

    Lb1259 June 28, 2010 10:07:45 AM CEST

    gracias por tu trabajo,amithe1 lb1259

  • Pateriot#

    Pateriot August 4, 2009 1:05:33 PM CEST

    Amithe1, that is true about the depictions of Christ not being accurate. Images of people and even animals were seen as idolatry by the Jews of Jesus' time. The earliest paintings and images of Christ likely originated from Gentile converts to Christianity who held no such aversions to paintings and sculptures. It is highly unlikely that any of them would have ever seen Jesus or even known anyone who had seen him. The earliest images could have come from the second half of the first century and likely in more Hellenized portions of the Roman empire. The images that come to us today of Christ also have been heavily influenced by other Europeans and later times.

  • Amithe1#

    Amithe1 August 15, 2008 1:27:30 AM CEST

    All the pictures and images of Jesus you see today are false. Jesus never did look like that, and He would have forbidden anyone to make images of Him as God hates this.

  • Bitchindude#

    Bitchindude July 12, 2008 4:51:10 PM CEST

    amithe!ur whole arguement is based on the fact we souldn't buy into the depictions of old painter of jesus...but,, u use the paintings of jesus as the basis of ur arguement..seems alittle bewildering to me.

  • Thevspiral#

    Thevspiral July 11, 2008 8:17:38 AM CEST

    They have a good point. When Jesus arose from the dead, he appeared in different form thus the deciples didn't recognize him at first. One deciple, Jesus let touch his wound that was peirced by one of the guards. Oh, it is you! Beware of false prophets and beware of the deceivers. Do you think that Jesus looks like any picture man paints? Nope. He will look nothing like what you thought. That is something the church's DON'T teach.

Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook