Nilesh.org Notes on technology and everything else

Physical / Biological Anthropology - which explores how various groups of humans adapted over time to different climates, altitudes, environmental conditions, etc. providing us with the diversity we see today, human growth and development, nutrition, genetics, etc. Yes, I'm aware of anthropological theories, but most of those adaptations took place over hundreds of thousands of years. Things were certainly not that different 2000 years ago. Too short a time in the grand history of man. Do you believe that in ancient times, the only people in India were dark skinned Dravidians. I do believe history on this. If I were to question history, I would have to prove that too. Going by history they assumed Jews were dark skinned. I must be an abomination. I'm a fair-skinned Dravidian. ;) Seriously, I can accept your general categorisation of skin colour being predicted with higher probability. However, the colour of the eyes and especially the shape of the face vary a lot. Because the Bible said contradictory things Hehe, you're telling that to an atheist? ;) Visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for a BIG list. :D

Madman said: Given the differences in the faces of people in a country, how is this anything close to reliable? There is an answer to this - Physical / Biological Anthropology - which explores how various groups of humans adapted over time to different climates, altitudes, environmental conditions, etc. providing us with the diversity we see today, human growth and development, nutrition, genetics, etc. It is a science. The methods used to arrive to certain conclusions can be debated though. Once again, did Jewish people at the time all have similar face shape, colour of eyes and skin? Not bloody likely. Do you believe that in ancient times, the only people in India were dark skinned Dravidians. I do believe history on this. If I were to question history, I would have to prove that too. Going by history they assumed Jews were dark skinned. Ah, but Jesus wasn't considered a regular "man", was he? That could be his excuse ya, but only an outlaw could be excused for the disgrace because he is already disgraced, not the case with God's messenger. why should you then suspect the truthfulness of how the Bible describes Jesus Because the Bible said contradictory things(of Jesus looking like his description and of the disgrace). That creates an element of disbelief on this point. Although it doesn't mean that the whole Bible is wrong. http://tinyurl.com/3ydf Hehe :-D

Oh, the research methods in this are soooooo dodgy. For starters: "It isn't the face of Jesus, because we're not working with the skull of Jesus, but it is the departure point for considering what Jesus would have looked like," ... "Neave and a team of researchers started with an Israeli skull dating back to the 1st century." So... they picked up the skull of an arbitrary person living in the 1st century, whose only link to Jesus is that he was a Jew? Does that mean all Jews looked alike at that time? Given the differences in the faces of people in a country, how is this anything close to reliable? "They then used computer programs, clay, simulated skin and their knowledge about the Jewish people of the time to determine the shape of the face, and color of eyes and skin." Once again, did Jewish people at the time all have similar face shape, colour of eyes and skin? Not bloody likely. "In the New Testament, "would Paul (one of the apostles) have written, 'If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him' if Jesus Christ had had long hair?" the article speculates. " Ah, but Jesus wasn't considered a regular "man", was he? That could be his excuse. ;) I'm no expert on the Bible, and I don't know if any part of the Bible describes Jesus's facial features in detail. If it does, however, and you are believing the words of Paul, and hence believing what the Bible says, why should you then suspect the truthfulness of how the Bible describes Jesus? (Just playing devil's advocate, of course.) Seeing that we're into wild speculation, I believe that Jesus may have looked like this: http://tinyurl.com/3ydf After all, he is described as a "messiah" in certain circles.

Oye Nilesh, I will get this movie on a HDD and then you can watch it. It is amazingly hilarious. Made by an Indie production house called View Askew. From the mad people who produced other stud movies like Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Clerks, Mallrats and Chasing Amy, this one is a must watch for all humor loving junta.. Love Dhar

Incidentally, Rufus the 13th Apostle in the movie Dogma (one hell of a movie), calls Jesus a Nigga. And the Buddy Christ that Cardinal Glick designed in the movie, looks pretty similar. Check out the Buddy Christ at http://www.rootshell.be/~dhar/Pics/buddy.jpg and tell me what you think :)) -Dhar

Dhar, that statuette looks more modern than anything. A frenchie, a thumbs up sign and looks like he is doing a little jig! He seems only a Buddy, nowhere near Christ. :-)

i think his nose looks a bit like mine ^^

well, one thing it does is to roundly refute the authencity of the much-celebrated Shroud of Turin.

Jesus was a Dravidian....