This is a good development but it will change the next generation mentality with the way they see each other but for us we know the BIAFROWNS

An indian friend of mine shared this on his timeline..
..Lol

cc: lalasticala

As i dey here with my Little Sister......My name na Laide from Ibadan

Some sharp guys na bedroom sure pass ooo

wetin man no go see for Naija

This not new now....

ReOSUNize people too ooo

Smoke weed

Everyone knows what Jesus looks like. He is the most painted figure in all of Western art, recognised everywhere as having long hair and a beard, a long robe with long sleeves (often white) and a mantle (often blue).


Jesus is so familiar that he can be recognised on pancakes or pieces of toast.
But did he really look like this?
Probably not.

In fact this familiar image of Jesus actually comes from the Byzantine era, from the 4th Century onwards, and Byzantine representations of Jesus were symbolic - they were all about meaning, not historical accuracy.

They were based on the image of an enthroned emperor, as we see in the altar mosaic of the Santa Pudenziana church in Rome.

Jesus is dressed in a gold toga. He is the heavenly ruler of all the world, familiar from the famous statue of long-haired and bearded Olympian Zeus on a throne - a statue so well-known that the Roman Emperor Augustus had a copy of himself made in the same style (without the godly long hair and beard).


Byzantine artists, looking to show Christ's heavenly rule as cosmic King, invented him as a younger version of Zeus. What has happened over time is that this visualisation of heavenly Christ - today sometimes remade along hippie lines - has become our standard model of the early Jesus.


So what did Jesus really look like?
Let's go from head to toe.


1. Hair and beard
When early Christians were not showing Christ as heavenly ruler, they showed Jesus as an actual man like any other: beardless and short-haired
But perhaps, as a kind of wandering sage, Jesus would have had a beard, for the simple reason that he did not go to barbers.

General scruffiness and a beard were thought to differentiate a philosopher (who was thinking of higher things) from everyone else. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus considered it "appropriate according to Nature".


Otherwise, in the 1st Century Graeco-Roman world, being clean-shaven and short-haired was considered absolutely essential. A great mane of luxuriant hair and a beard was a godly feature, not replicated in male fashion. Even a philosopher kept his hair fairly short.


A beard was not distinctive of being a Jew in antiquity. In fact, one of the problems for oppressors of Jews at different times was identifying them when they looked like everyone else (a point made in the book of Maccabees). However, images of Jewish men on Judaea Capta coins, issued by Rome after the capture of Jerusalem in 70AD, indicate captive men who are bearded.

So Jesus, as a philosopher with the "natural" look, might well have had a short beard, like the men depicted on Judaea Capta coinage, but his hair was probably not very long.

If he had had even slightly long hair, we would expect some reaction. Jewish men who had unkempt beards and were slightly long-haired were immediately identifiable as men who had taken a Nazirite vow. This meant they would dedicate themselves to God for a period of time, not drink wine or cut their hair - and at the end of this period they would shave their heads in a special ceremony in the temple in Jerusalem (as described in Acts chapter 21, verse 24).

But Jesus did not keep a Nazirite vow, because he is often found drinking wine - his critics accuse him of drinking far, far too much of it (Matthew chapter 11, verse 19). If he had had long hair, and looked like a Nazirite, we would expect some comment on the discrepancy between how he appeared and what he was doing - the problem would be that he was drinking wine at all.


2. Clothing
At the time of Jesus, wealthy men donned long robes for special occasions, to show off their high status in public. In one of Jesus's teachings, he says, "Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes ( stolai ), and to have salutations in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at banquets" (Mark chapter 12, verses 38-39).

The sayings of Jesus are generally considered the more accurate parts of the Gospels, so from this we can assume that Jesus really did not wear such robes.


Overall a man in Jesus's world would wear a knee-length tunic, a chiton, and a woman an ankle-length one, and if you swapped these around it was a statement. Thus, in the 2nd Century Acts of Paul and Thecla, when Thecla, a woman, dons a short (male) tunic it is a bit of a shock. These tunics would often have coloured bands running from the shoulder to the hem and were woven as one piece.

On top of the tunic you would wear a mantle, a
himation, and we know that Jesus wore one of these because this is what a woman touched when she wanted to be healed by him (see, for example, Mark chapter 5, verse 27). A mantle was a large piece of woollen material, though it was not very thick and for warmth you would want to wear two.

A himation, which could be worn in various ways, like a wrap, would hang down past the knees and could completely cover the short tunic. (Certain ascetic philosophers even wore a large himation without the tunic, leaving their upper right torso bare, but that is another story.)
Power and prestige were indicated by the quality, size and colour of these mantles. Purple and certain types of blue indicated grandeur and esteem. These were royal colours because the dyes used to make them were very rare and expensive.


But colours could also indicate something else. The historian Josephus describes the Zealots (a Jewish group who wanted to push the Romans out of Judaea) as a bunch of murderous transvestites who donned "dyed mantles" - chlanidia - indicating that they were women's wear. This suggests that real men, unless they were of the highest status, should wear undyed clothing.


Jesus did not wear white, however. This was distinctive, requiring bleaching or chalking, and in Judaea it was associated with a group called the Essenes - who followed a strict interpretation of Jewish law. The difference between Jesus's clothing and bright, white clothing, is described in Mark chapter 9, when three apostles accompany Jesus to a mountain to pray and he begins to radiate light. Mark recounts that Jesus's himatia (in the plural the word may mean "clothing" or "clothes" rather than specifically "mantles" began "glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them".

Before his transfiguration, therefore, Jesus is presented by Mark as an ordinary man, wearing ordinary clothes, in this case undyed wool, the material you would send to a fuller.


We are told more about Jesus's clothing during his execution, when the Roman soldiers divide his himatia (in this case the word probably refers to two mantles) into four shares (see John chapter 19, verse 23). One of these was probably a tallith, or Jewish prayer shawl. This mantle with tassels ( tzitzith) is specifically referred to by Jesus in Matthew chapter 23, verse 5. This was a lightweight himation, traditionally made of undyed creamy-coloured woollen material, and it probably had some kind of an indigo stripe or threading.


3. Feet
On his feet, Jesus would have worn sandals. Everyone wore sandals. In the desert caves close to the Dead Sea and Masada, sandals from the time of Jesus have come to light, so we can see exactly what they were like. They were very simple, with the soles made of thick pieces of leather sewn together, and the upper parts made of straps of leather going through the toes.



4. Features

And what about Jesus's facial features? They were Jewish. That Jesus was a Jew (or Judaean) is certain in that it is found repeated in diverse literature, including in the letters of Paul. And, as the Letter to the Hebrews states: "It is clear that our Lord was descended from Judah." So how do we imagine a Jew at this time, a man "about 30 years of age when he began," according to Luke chapter 3?

In 2001 forensic anthropologist Richard Neave created a model of a Galilean man for a BBC documentary, Son of God, working on the basis of an actual skull found in the region. He did not claim it was Jesus's face. It was simply meant to prompt people to consider Jesus as being a man of his time and place, since we are never told he looked distinctive.


For all that may be done with modelling on ancient bones, I think the closest correspondence to what Jesus really looked like is found in the depiction of Moses on the walls of the 3rd Century synagogue of Dura-Europos, since it shows how a Jewish sage was imagined in the Graeco-Roman world. Moses is imagined in undyed clothing, and in fact his one mantle is a tallith, since in the Dura image of Moses parting the Red Sea one can see tassels (tzitzith) at the corners. At any rate, this image is far more correct as a basis for imagining the historical Jesus than the adaptations of the Byzantine Jesus that have become standard: he's short-haired and with a slight beard, and he's wearing a short tunic, with short sleeves, and a himation.
Joan Taylor is professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London and the author of The Essenes, the Scrolls and the Dead Sea.



Merry Christmas to you all on NAIRALAND

adaweezy:
Emma... Are you using simple server...??

no...

I prefer TVC Sha. .


Congrats

Sorry i think it is happening, i can't access Punch web here or is this how CBN foreign Policy will start affecting us because to renew one of my web domain hosted by a foreign company don dey make me think ooo

Happy Married Life

I concur

Isreal can also list Nigeria as a Jewish Nation or India should list us as a Buddhist Nation na dem sabi how will that stop me from knowing the God I serve......

Happy Birthday to Best Performing President.


If you are in Support click nothing If you are not click lash me

God will soon expose dem begger called bloggers

Tolexander:
I don't know why this good-for-nothing woman is being given attention!

She has been struggling for attention in the past, she is just ceasing this opportunity to gain traffic and attention to herself and blog.

She is a popular blogger...... Don't say nonsense linda will answer her soon when she is through with her papers for presentation

and this made fp...... Oga ooo

I no many Naijarians will start freezing dem sperm nah

So Linda ikeji has EP's like this, when the news broke that a popular female blogger got 240M from #Dasukigates loots many quickly jump into conclusion that it is Linda, Na Linda all over Forums and the Social media which clears the doubt that linda is the best while others they follow.

Wait Linda Ikeji has been blogging for a while now and she has been getting paid for running ads on her blog so buying an estate of #550 or #800 million to me means nothing at least she is not like many Nigerians that chop every profits they make from any runs.

Popular female Blogger who reside in Lagos might be someone you guys don't even think of but because she does not flaunt her wealth like linda's sister does with her belongings on Instagram. Grow Up Naijarians


Go Linda, Your enemies will kill themselves

nobilis:


Cool.
I don't want to go deeply into it but let me just give a sketch.
Everyone knows that slander and libel are criminal offences.
But before the cyber crime act came into play, there was no specific punishment meant for it.

What Jonathan's Cyber Crime Act did was to specify the type of punishment to be meted out to someone found guilty of a cyber crime.

Jonathan's cyber crime act never said a person must be very sure of what he was saying before saying it. It never said you should get an affidavit before making a statement on social media. In other words, you're free to say whatever u want to say but if it brought against you, in a court of law, that what you said is false, then you shall be jailed or fined.

This is equivalent to the Social Media Act of the UK and the Defamation Laws of the US.

Now, this Social media bill prohibits you from writing anything without an affidavit. If, for example, you're an eye witness to an event, u're not allowed to report it without an affidavit. If u have a piece of news to report and the court refuses to give you an affidavit, u dare not report it.

Do not forget that journalism isn't only about writing happening or past events. Journalism is also allowed to make speculations about the future. Journalism is also allowed to make extrapolations. Journalism is also allowed to make guesses. It is these things that force the people concerned to come out and clarify issues.

It is that way everywhere in the world. In no sane country has anybody been asked to get an affidavit before making a post.

Are you cleared now?

Hmmmmm....... Oga oo

LIST OF SOME THINGS NIGERIANS SEARCH ON GOOGLE. 1) My pastor says I have a spiritual husband, please how do I divorce him ? . 2) How do I increase my manhood size? . 3) How do I browse for free? . 4) How do I borrow credit without paying? . 5) I want to make money without working, how? . 6) How do I know a virgin? . 7) How can I make call without recharge card? . 8. How can I sell my kidney? . 9) My Husband is cheating on me,what do I do? . 10 how do I increase my buttocks? . 11) My wife is having dreams of me cheating.. Am scared please, What do I do? . 12) Why do men cheat? . 13) How do I increase my breasts size? . 14 How do I hack a Facebook account? . 15) My husband is impotent and I need a baby..what do I do? . 16. Latest News on Biafra?.17. When would Buhari visit Nigeria? . 18. How do I make Buharis daughter zahra marry me? . 19. Why do women cheat on good men? . 20. How can I find a sugar mummy? . 21. How can I make a girl fall in love with me without spending? . 22. How do I steal Linda Ikeji's blog?

nobilis:
Cyber crime act and Social Media Bill are not the same thing. The Cyber Crime Act is almost equivalent to the Social media act in UK.

Read the text of this Social Media bill and you will understand that.

Can you make things clearer?

Billygee2u:
really?I hope you are not trying deceive yourself? or are you APC member?

Thank God you can make research yourself.......

SHOCKER OF ALL SHOCKERS!!! :THE MAIN PROVISION OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA GAG BILL HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ENACTED AS PART OF CYBER CRIME LAW BY JONATHAN GOVT SINCE MAY 15TH, 2015!
While we are all fighting and fretting about the proposed social media bill we actually need to be fighting for the REPEAL or amendment of S. 24 of the CYBER CRIME BILL OF 2015 ALREADY signed into law by President Jonathan Goodluck in May 15 just before he handed over.
Believe it or not, section 24 of the Cyber Crime Law is actually much worse than the Social Media Bill we are all shouting about.
Here is what S 24 of the CYBER CRIME ACT which is already LAW says: 'Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer that is 1. Grossly offensive, Indecency graphic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causes any such message or matter to be sent or b. knows to be false for the purpose of causing ANNOYANCE INCONVENIENCE, DANGER, OBSTRUCTION, INJURY, CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION, ENMITY, HATRED, ILL WILL OR NEEDLESS ANXIETY to another or who causes such message to be sent commits an offense under this Act and shall on conviction be fined not more than N7, 000,000 or imprisonment for 3years or both.
My people this CYBER CRIME ACT is 5 times worse than the proposed Social Media Bill o and we need to be focusing on that one too for an ammendment or repeal of this section 24
As a matter of fact one journalist is already being tried under the the CYBER CRIME LAW as we speak: Seun Oloketuyi.

Nigerian Made

Sorry did you say LESFriend or Best Friend

Ribadu. ...God knows best

keep on #VIVIANGIST

No tribal war..... Just keep updating us on the end time report overthere,hope you get a JOB soon