So is this Jesus Christ?

"

bilbobeastlybaggins wrote:

This is from multiple roman and Jewish historical documents.

Source? Dates?

I bet you have sources dating only 50+ years after the "facts". Find me a roman/jewish document describing such event the day/week/year it happened please. Protip: you can t because most of those "proof" are fabricated decades/centuries after they are supposed to have happened.

"

Head_Less wrote:

"

bilbobeastlybaggins wrote:

This is from multiple roman and Jewish historical documents.

Source? Dates?

I bet you have sources dating only 50+ years after the "facts". Find me a roman/jewish document describing such event the day/week/year it happened please. Protip: you can t because most of those "proof" are fabricated decades/centuries after they are supposed to have happened.

Why would Roman historians renowned for there hate of the Jews fabricate anything? The very fact that they even acknowledge these events to be true 30 years later is amazing. And of course there are the first hand accounts in the Bible itself .

"

bilbobeastlybaggins wrote:

"

Head_Less wrote:

"

bilbobeastlybaggins wrote:

This is from multiple roman and Jewish historical documents.

Source? Dates?

I bet you have sources dating only 50+ years after the "facts". Find me a roman/jewish document describing such event the day/week/year it happened please. Protip: you can t because most of those "proof" are fabricated decades/centuries after they are supposed to have happened.

Why would Roman historians renowned for there hate of the Jews fabricate anything? The very fact that they even acknowledge these events to be true 30 years later is amazing. And of course there are the first hand accounts in the Bible itself .

-Romans believed Pluto and neptune were real .They wrote about them and worshiped them. Do you think Pluto and neptune were real because Romans wrote about them?

-Christians believers come in their empire and refuse to worship the emperor. Romans just discovered about jesus by those imported migrants.

-Romans in Isreal during jesus life never wrote ANYTHING about him at all. First roman to write about jesus is... Flavius Joseph born jewish 6 years after jesus death, and he wrote about him...20 years after his death.

-find me source, dates about any roman document talking about jesus from the time he was living /less than 10 years after his death.

-Bible account does not count, those are not neutral sources. Also most of those who wrote about the new testament did it years after his death.

Sooo to reply to OP...

No. It is not.

It is a card using saintly imagery, as well as familiar imagery of more holy figures, in order to better convey the corruption that is going on. It's a common tactic when trying to convey specific feelings and sensations by working off of what is familiar while attempting to convey something new.

In this case, it's using the idea of what is 'holy' to certain perceptions in order to better convey the corruption of Wraeclast. It is not demeaning or insulting holy figures, but rather acknowledging the power said figures have within art and literature and using them to try and better convey an idea in a different medium - belief is irrelevant in this case, as whether one believes or does not, it's hard to deny the power of faith itself and the imprint it has left on history (art, history, music, literature in general, really).

Thus, the card's art, the conveyance, the words. They wanted to give forth the image of holiness, and the fat pockets of those that preyed on belief. Is it Jesus? No. Were some of the elements of the card inspired by the art in order to better show piety and humility? Likely.

I have a feeling this falls on deaf ears, however, considering the nature of the arguments that went into debating religion and even seeming to berate people for linking Life of Brian, which is hilariously apt for this thread at this point, but still.

The answer is no, unless Jesus is chillin' in Wraeclast.

And if that's the case, man, do I have a lot of questions.

this thread is quite entertaining/interesting if you decide to simply ignore the OP.

Peace,

-Boem-

I was thinking of this from a medieval/early renaissance art perspective (and I would really like to hear from an expert because I'm not though I did take a course on the subject).

If you look at it from that PoV, the figure in the background, the corrupt one, is the true villain whereas the figure in the foreground is him, not anyone else. It is showing the 2 hypocritical faces of this same villain. The foreground shows him as he presents himself to people; a poor saint, in need of food and gold. In background, he is in true form.

We don't know if this is true unless the card creator steps forward and verifies or denies but if you look at art of the period they did paint things like this.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

...If you look at it from that PoV, the figure in the background, the corrupt one, is the true villain whereas the figure in the foreground is him, not anyone else. It is showing the 2 hypocritical faces of this same villain. The foreground shows him as he presents himself to people; a poor saint, in need of food and gold. In background, he is in true form. ...

Oh huh! That one's an interesting perspective and it would cover the duality that the card gives, the two faces, two orbs... That honestly seems very likely in retrospect.

Thanks for sharing that!

I still say Bilbobeastlybaggins is trolling us all. He has still not acknowledged the fact that the card makes absolutely ZERO reference to Jesus Christ, instead using generic "saintly" imagery, common throughout art history. He WANTS it to be an attack on Christianity, so he has an excuse to come here and proselytize. The fact remains that Jesus doesn't exist in the fictional universe of PoE, so unless you want to argue about that, then this entire discussion is absolutely pointless.

I don't wanna read the whole thread. Has Richard Carrier been mentioned yet? Watch on of his debates on youtube. Without endorsing everything he has to say, Carrier gives a pretty good synopsis in any one of his debates as to the implausibility of historicity claims.

"

bilbobeastlybaggins wrote:

your opinion is just like everyone else's but to the point of the OP - it is not Jesus on the Div card.