Topic: Jesus was black
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 years ago #100,744
the earliest portraits of him portray him as a black man with kinky hair.
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #1,136,766
cool
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,767
He was some kind of non-white semite clearly, but I'm not sure if he'd be properly classified as "black" (to the extent that these racial terms even make any sense).
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,768
But what good does this do when there are no surviving portraits of him during his life? Everyone is just guessing, really. Though I do agree with Fake Anon he probably* did not have European features.
* I say "probably" because we can't rule out that Jesus wasn't actually the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera, in which case he would have looked half-European.
* I say "probably" because we can't rule out that Jesus wasn't actually the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera, in which case he would have looked half-European.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 17 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,776
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Ehhh. From your own source:
> The name Abdes means "servant of God" (Latinate form of Aramaic Ebed) and suggests that Pantera had a generally Semitic or specifically Jewish background.
So he would still have been fully Semitic.
Regardless, the earliest claim that this guy was Jesus' father is from the 2nd century. So a minimum of 60 years after Jesus' death. Not very credible.
Ehhh. From your own source:
> The name Abdes means "servant of God" (Latinate form of Aramaic Ebed) and suggests that Pantera had a generally Semitic or specifically Jewish background.
So he would still have been fully Semitic.
Regardless, the earliest claim that this guy was Jesus' father is from the 2nd century. So a minimum of 60 years after Jesus' death. Not very credible.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,778
@1,136,768 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
There are always loads of fun alternate theories about Jesus' parents. It's a quite literal illustration of the saying "Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan." The most likely possibility is that something approximating the biblical story is true, i.e. Jesus was a dude born in Roman occupied Palestine to Jewish parents.
There are always loads of fun alternate theories about Jesus' parents. It's a quite literal illustration of the saying "Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan." The most likely possibility is that something approximating the biblical story is true, i.e. Jesus was a dude born in Roman occupied Palestine to Jewish parents.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,780
@1,136,776 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
> So a minimum of 60 years after Jesus' death. Not very credible.
Is there really much credible information about Jesus from his life?
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
What do you think the odds are that Jesus never existed? That is, the whole thing is basically a fabrication?
> So a minimum of 60 years after Jesus' death. Not very credible.
Is there really much credible information about Jesus from his life?
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
What do you think the odds are that Jesus never existed? That is, the whole thing is basically a fabrication?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,782
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I think pretty slim. Paul's epistles were written within 30 years of Jesus' death and refer to Christ's second coming. It wuld be pretty historically unusual for those letters to refer to someone who never existed. Do I think he was the messiah, or that the supernatural events alleged to have happened actually happened? No, I'm a secular jew. I do think the person about whom these supernatural claims are made did exist though.
I think pretty slim. Paul's epistles were written within 30 years of Jesus' death and refer to Christ's second coming. It wuld be pretty historically unusual for those letters to refer to someone who never existed. Do I think he was the messiah, or that the supernatural events alleged to have happened actually happened? No, I'm a secular jew. I do think the person about whom these supernatural claims are made did exist though.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,783
let's turn "may Jesus curse your fig tree" into a common saying
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,789
Regarding the discussion ITT, I actually kind of... Enjoy that aspect of the Bible and Jesus. It being so long ago, from a time we have relatively scant records from, gives it all a compelling and mysterious feeling. The best we can say is that someone like Jesus probably existed. After that, it's lots of inference and speculation. The Bible is itself riddled with demonstrable and probable historical inaccuracies, so extracting legitimate historical insights from it can sometimes be difficult.
The criterion of embarrassment, for a example, is quite an interesting thought. It certainly sounds logical. But, at the same time, we don't actually know if it fully reflects the truth. It's just an educated guess that arose due to a lack of concrete information.
A video game I like, Kenshi, is also vague and leaves its lore largely open to speculation. You can at best make only broad inferences about its earliest history, but that in turn makes it much more interesting and compels players to think about and discuss it.
I think that if I was a sci-fi or fantasy writer, I'd definitely write a world where the lore is similarly mysterious and open to speculation. I thoroughly enjoy it as a storytelling method.
The criterion of embarrassment, for a example, is quite an interesting thought. It certainly sounds logical. But, at the same time, we don't actually know if it fully reflects the truth. It's just an educated guess that arose due to a lack of concrete information.
A video game I like, Kenshi, is also vague and leaves its lore largely open to speculation. You can at best make only broad inferences about its earliest history, but that in turn makes it much more interesting and compels players to think about and discuss it.
I think that if I was a sci-fi or fantasy writer, I'd definitely write a world where the lore is similarly mysterious and open to speculation. I thoroughly enjoy it as a storytelling method.
(Edited 10 minutes later.)
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,791
One of the earliest.chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,793
@1,136,780 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> Is there really much credible information about Jesus from his life?
There are Roman administrative-type records of his life/death.
> What do you think the odds are that Jesus never existed? That is, the whole thing is basically a fabrication?
Highly unlikely.
> Is there really much credible information about Jesus from his life?
There are Roman administrative-type records of his life/death.
> What do you think the odds are that Jesus never existed? That is, the whole thing is basically a fabrication?
Highly unlikely.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,794
@1,136,791 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
Source? Reverse google image search just comes up with tabloid shit.
Source? Reverse google image search just comes up with tabloid shit.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,802
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,804
Shawn King was on twitter today advocating for the removal of any iconography depriving Jesus as a “white” man from churches because it’s a symbol of oppression according to him
He’s a dumb fuck grifter who rips people off and a white guy who somehow escaped the Rachel Dolezal treatment
He’s a dumb fuck grifter who rips people off and a white guy who somehow escaped the Rachel Dolezal treatment
Anonymous H double-posted this 5 years ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,805
There is a long beautiful history of people depicting Jesus looking familiar to their place and culture. Jesus is not about race, and saying to tear down depictions that occur in a European-dominant context is as racist as removing them from any cultureAnonymous H triple-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,806
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,809
@1,136,805 (H)What? It's just a fact that Jesus wasn't white.
I mean I'm not advocating for the removal of any depictions of Jesus as any race, that's absurd too.
@1,136,802 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
Can you link a source? Like i said, a reverse image search only comes up with tabloids.
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 6 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,844
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,849
dw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,851
@1,136,809 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Unilad is an important source for any self-respecting historian tbh
Unilad is an important source for any self-respecting historian tbh
blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 46 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,853
@1,136,809 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
> It's just a fact that Jesus wasn't white
It's just a highly probable opinion, he could have been blue with green spots for all we know
> It's just a fact that Jesus wasn't white
It's just a highly probable opinion, he could have been blue with green spots for all we know
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,857
Most of the greatest religious figures weren't white lol. Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad (pbuh).
jodie !foster2PAQ replied with this 5 years ago, 21 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,863
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 8 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,975
Historical Jesus didn't exist.
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 43 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,978
@previous (M)
> Historical Jesus didn't exist.
Disputing the historicity of Jesus is as accepted by as many so called experts as young earth creationism is
The christ myth theory is total bunk
> Historical Jesus didn't exist.
Disputing the historicity of Jesus is as accepted by as many so called experts as young earth creationism is
The christ myth theory is total bunk
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,979
Anonymous M replied with this 5 years ago, 2 days later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,137,550
@1,136,978 (H)
> > Historical Jesus didn't exist.
>
> Disputing the historicity of Jesus is as accepted by as many so called experts as young earth creationism is
>
> The christ myth theory is total bunk
I don't know about that. The arguments put forward by people like Richard Carrier make a great deal of sense.
> > Historical Jesus didn't exist.
>
> Disputing the historicity of Jesus is as accepted by as many so called experts as young earth creationism is
>
> The christ myth theory is total bunk
I don't know about that. The arguments put forward by people like Richard Carrier make a great deal of sense.