Comments on: Condom Jesus too ‘deviant’ for Deviant Art

By: charles palma

charles palma — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:06:25 +0000

Its not only Jesus who's crucified.

By: Baal's Bum

Baal's Bum — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:25:17 +0000

I gotta use that pic somewhere !!!

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 19 May 2009 08:26:46 +0000

Just shows that it's not just the repressed Christians that are terrified of sex and sexuality…

'Ah, no! An ERECT penis! It's obscene!!!!' Not alot of hope for future generations or for a fun night if we're all so scared of erections.

By: William Harwood

William Harwood — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:57:35 +0000

The equation of san greal with sang real was blown out of the water when Robert Price showed that grail myths preceded Christianity. The modern depiction of Jesus on charnel house windows is based on the Mandylion, a cloth that first appeared in 525 CE, and could only have been painted after all unflattering references to Jesus had been expurgated from Josephus and replaced by Christian interpolations. Prior to that date, four centuries of Christian apologists did not dispute the accuracy of Josephus's description of Jesus, and themselves described him as "not even of honest human shape."

By: William Harwood

William Harwood — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:33:39 +0000

Robert Eisler wrote at a time when legitimate biblical criticism was in its infancy, and the term "serious scholars" was applied to theologians, best defined as blind men in a dark room searching for a black cat that is not there — and finding it. The only persons recognized as serious biblical scholars today are unanimous that religion is a product of the human imagination, and that very awareness still causes theologians to denigrate them in a desperate attempt to pass themselves (theologians) off as scholars. Theologians are to scholars what astrologers are to astronomers. Eisler is assuredly NOT regarded as discredited by persons with the competence to make such an evaluation.

By: barriejohn

barriejohn — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:55:55 +0000

I did actually read it all when I was an evangelical, desperately clutching at straws in a futile effort to prop up my belief in the Jesus of the Bible! Unfortunately, I am not qualilfied myself to judge the validity of these "writings of Josephus", but I am only too aware of their very controversial nature, and this was one of the factors which led me to the conclusion that conventional Christianity was all bunkum! (The Dead Sea Scrolls were another nail in the coffin of the Jesus of the Gospels as far as I was concerned, despite the arguments of the sainted Prof. Bruce et al, but that`s another story.) Maybe Josephus did really write these words, but there seems so much doubt about their authenticity amongst serious scholars that I could not personally have any confidence in them now,

By: remigius

remigius — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:42:57 +0000

Jesus, you twat.

You're meant to have a miraculous resURRECTION!

By: remigius

remigius — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:51:45 +0000

Dr Harwood. I first came across this so called 'hunchbacked' Jesus many years ago whilst researching for a paper on the possible connection between Herod Philip and The Baptist. I am still unable to accurately source such a document. Whilst I am in possession of the Whiston English translation of Josephus, and have access through University libraries of all other sources, I am still at a loss as to the origin of the quote.

I did try to source Eisler, but as the original text of the only copy I could locate was in German, I met a dead end. I realise that the quote may come from the 'Halosis' of the fall of Jerusalem, in the original hebrew, rather than greek or latin text, but as no copy seems to survive, except in the Eisler text, I am at a loss.

I would be most grateful if you would point me in the direction of the source of the quote so that I may continue with my futile pursuit of a link between H Phil and J the B

Thanks Dr H!

By: Buffy

Buffy — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:19:10 +0000

Intriguing picture and it is a great swipe against Pope Nazi. But it clearly violates DA standards outside of silly "don't piss off the religious whackos" so I can't fault them for yanking it.

By: DILLIGAF

DILLIGAF — Sun, 17 May 2009 19:00:52 +0000

The Diviant Site also mentions a whole lot of other things they object to:

" 1. to upload, post, or otherwise transmit any material that is obscene, offensive, blasphemous, pornographic, unlawful, threatening, menacing, abusive, harmful, an invasion of privacy or publicity rights, defamatory, libelous, vulgar, illegal or otherwise objectionable"

For some reason they include blasphemy in the list..
If art can't be offensive or "otherwise objectionable", we all might as well resign ourselves to nothing but Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light.

Perhaps it's time they changed their Website name.