Race is all that matters to the modern left.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(02-05-2023 07:25 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 10:18 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  In fact there is more evidence and proof of Jesus and more written about him than anyone in all of antiquity.

I believe in Jesus' existence, but this isn't true. There are plenty of people from Antiquity (kings, queens, conquerors, etc.) whose lives were extensively more documented. If we're going to speak about religious figures, Muhammad's adulthood, conquests, and the spread of Islam were recorded to the point we know exactly where he's buried.

But yes, most historians believe Jesus was real.

Nice try.

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-imp...ry-2013-12

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/20/147062501...e%20tower.

Quote:Some 15,000 books have been written about Lincoln — more books, says Tetreault, than have been written about any other person in world history, with the exception of Jesus Christ. 
I wonder how many of those books and historical records were destroyed.

It's also a well known fact that much of the original source material was destroyed.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Race is a social construct. If you really want to know it’s ethnicity [and tribe] that mattered the most to people

(02-04-2023 09:59 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  And if he didn't have a race why is he depicted mostly as a 1960s middle class lookin white hippie? I'm seriously asking, I'm not versed in the Bible but apparently some here are. Was the race of Jesus ever biblically mentioned? And, if so, where?.... and if not why in his pics is he a white guy? Because it's all just made up BS?

He was black. Black history month and all...

Boy...was I stupid.

I read the title and thought, was this some sort of race of humans testing their endurance probably with a religious theme?

(02-04-2023 10:41 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Did a quick internet search of Bible references to jesus's appearance. Here's the consensus...

Jesus had wooly hair

Jesus had bronze skin

Jesus was not pleasant to look at

Anything else?

I guess you're trying to bait us into the HE WAS WHITE nonsense.

We non-liberals don't spend our days looking at people as to what color they are.

Tigercity is one of Memphis' finest race baiters. Let him play in his filthy cat box.

...what racisss do.

Only a liberal clown would make an issue of what “race” Jesus Christ was.

A perfect thread to illustrate the lunacy of leftists.

(02-05-2023 08:41 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 10:41 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Did a quick internet search of Bible references to jesus's appearance. Here's the consensus...

Jesus had wooly hair

Jesus had bronze skin

Jesus was not pleasant to look at

Anything else?

I guess you're trying to bait us into the HE WAS WHITE nonsense.

We non-liberals don't spend our days looking at people as to what color they are.

Geez quit being so paranoid. I'm not trying to make you say Jesus was white. I'm simply asking the biblical scholars here if there are any references to jesus's appearance. I found the one above which seems to conform more to some of the depictions of Jesus created by the Ethiopians. In addition to that, non-jewish Europeans probably looked around at themselves when they were depicting images of Jesus. For example, look at the Statue of David. David was almost certainly circumcised yet Donatello's David shows plenty of foreskin. (Michelangelo's David looks like it's not circumcised but it's weiner is so small it's hard to tell) Pictures of Jesus as a baby never show circumcision.

I've also seen folks here saying that there was no doubt that Jesus was an actual person. Outside of the true believers are there any references to Jesus that came from those who did not follow Jesus? For example, mentions of the claims of his miracles by Roman non-believers etc?

I know this is a bit controversial, but the reason why Jesus was depicted as white in much art work is that he probably was:

Consider:
Gen. 25:25 - “And the first came out red, hairy all over like a skin; and she called his name Esau”. This was Jacob / Israel’s twin brother. He has the same genes, so it would make sense these characteristics would show up in his progeny.

1 Samuel (or 1 Kings Septuagint) 16:12 - “And he sent and fetched him: and he was ruddy, with beauty of eyes, and very goodly to behold.” This is the description of David as a lad. Ruddy is taken to mean red, his eyes stood out as unusually striking, just as many red heads of Keltic descent have green or blue eyes.

Jesus’s genealogy is traced back on both his step father’s side (Mathew ch.1) and maybe most importantly his mother’s side (Luke ch.3). They both lead back to David. If his forefathers were obedient they would have only married fellow Israelites and more than likely mostly Judeans (since Judah was divided from the rest of Israel after Solomon’s reign), as an educated hypothesis there was likely a lot of marriages in this family within the royal stock of David as in the case of Joseph and Mary which I believe was no coincidence, there by keeping the blood line pure and unmingled with the people of the nation as was often the case post exile. This detail helps establish the astonishment of Nathaniel when Jesus saw coming on the road and said to him: “See, truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” (John 1:47).

In a round-a-bout way I’m establishing that Jesus was what we may call “white” who probably/possibly had similar features as David.

There was a historical source that I heard, I don’t remember if it was Josephus, Pliney or someone else that described Jesus as having blue eyes. I have not seen it for myself, but perhaps someone else has and can confirm it.

You may also find the video series “100 proofs the Israelites were white” of interest if you wish to do research: https://www.bitchute.com/video/2RabSYFLFinx/
This video covers 10 proofs and is nearly 2 hours, you can find the other videos that cover the rest on the same channel, but I don’t feel like digging it out.

The race subject was not that important to me and I get the sense that the OP was not sincere in his question. I will add that no matter the race, the usual european artist depictions are not accurate in that they show Jesus with a smooth face and a bit on the lean side. As was the custom and part of the Law of Moses, Israelites were to keep a beard. Jesus also worked as a carpenter probably since the time he could pick up a hammer and saw, it would be logical that he had some muscle.

(02-05-2023 08:29 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:59 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  And if he didn't have a race why is he depicted mostly as a 1960s middle class lookin white hippie? I'm seriously asking, I'm not versed in the Bible but apparently some here are. Was the race of Jesus ever biblically mentioned? And, if so, where?.... and if not why in his pics is he a white guy? Because it's all just made up BS?

He was black. Black history month and all...

Bingo! That's the answer TC was looking for.

(02-05-2023 10:20 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I know this is a bit controversial, but the reason why Jesus was depicted as white in much art work is that he probably was:

Consider:
Gen. 25:25 - “And the first came out red, hairy all over like a skin; and she called his name Esau”. This was Jacob / Israel’s twin brother. He has the same genes, so it would make sense these characteristics would show up in his progeny.

1 Samuel (or 1 Kings Septuagint) 16:12 - “And he sent and fetched him: and he was ruddy, with beauty of eyes, and very goodly to behold.” This is the description of David as a lad. Ruddy is taken to mean red, his eyes stood out as unusually striking, just as many red heads of Keltic descent have green or blue eyes.

Jesus’s genealogy is traced back on both his step father’s side (Mathew ch.1) and maybe most importantly his mother’s side (Luke ch.3). They both lead back to David. If his forefathers were obedient they would have only married fellow Israelites and more than likely mostly Judeans (since Judah was divided from the rest of Israel after Solomon’s reign), as an educated hypothesis there was likely a lot of marriages in this family within the royal stock of David as in the case of Joseph and Mary which I believe was no coincidence, there by keeping the blood line pure and unmingled with the people of the nation as was often the case post exile. This detail helps establish the astonishment of Nathaniel when Jesus saw coming on the road and said to him: “See, truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” (John 1:47).

In a round-a-bout way I’m establishing that Jesus was what we may call “white” who probably/possibly had similar features as David.

There was a historical source that I heard, I don’t remember if it was Josephus, Pliney or someone else that described Jesus as having blue eyes. I have not seen it for myself, but perhaps someone else has and can confirm it.

You may also find the video series “100 proofs the Israelites were white” of interest if you wish to do research: https://www.bitchute.com/video/2RabSYFLFinx/
This video covers 10 proofs and is nearly 2 hours, you can find the other videos that cover the rest on the same channel, but I don’t feel like digging it out.

The race subject was not that important to me and I get the sense that the OP was not sincere in his question. I will add that no matter the race, the usual european artist depictions are not accurate in that they show Jesus with a smooth face and a bit on the lean side. As was the custom and part of the Law of Moses, Israelites were to keep a beard. Jesus also worked as a carpenter probably since the time he could pick up a hammer and saw, it would be logical that he had some muscle.

Rightly so. +3

It makes no difference what race he was. The important thing is what he taught.

(02-04-2023 09:59 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  And if he didn't have a race why is he depicted mostly as a 1960s middle class lookin white hippie? I'm seriously asking, I'm not versed in the Bible but apparently some here are. Was the race of Jesus ever biblically mentioned? And, if so, where?.... and if not why in his pics is he a white guy? Because it's all just made up BS?

A lot of insight & wisdom in this clip… hopefully, this helps.

(02-05-2023 08:25 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  Books are not necessarily historical records. I have no doubt Jesus is the most written about figure in history, but I can write a book about Him and it doesn't mean anything.

99% of records from Antiquity are gone, but there are references to primary sources and primary resources which still exist. In fact, we can thank religion (specifically Monks and Islamic scribes) to have saved what little records we have. For example, we have a treaty document which Monks saved with Muhammad's hand-print:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad

Jesus was definitely real, but all I'm saying is that we have better records - from the period they lived or soon afterwards - of other people from Antiquity. We can't say there is more evidence and proof of Jesus than anyone else from Antiquity.

Why in the world would you think that link about Muhammad is relevant to any of this at all in any context?

Almost no one denies Muhammad was a real person, and most Christians believe he wrote the koran. He lived almost 700 years after Christ in the middle ages, we have way more still surviving writings from that period than the time of Christ.

No one ever argues Muhammad did not exist, but secular leftists constantly argue the Biblical Jesus did not exist and openly mock those who believe he existed. In fact most leftist flat out believe his supposed non existence historically to be a well known fact. Most of them are totally ignorant of the fact that secular historians universally agree Jesus was a real person, crucified by Pilate and the Gospel say and worshiped by 1st century Christians as the risen Savior.

No one is arguing books about Him from 1000 or 2000 years later are evidence for him, that is silly and not the context of what was being said.

When it comes to actual written manuscripts and documents from the 1st and 2nd century concerning Jesus, YES there is massive number of surviving documents, letters and manuscripts that verify the authenticity of Christ and the Gospels and from first hand witness accounts of his life, words and teachings than almost anyone else from antiquity.

(02-05-2023 10:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  I've also seen folks here saying that there was no doubt that Jesus was an actual person. Outside of the true believers are there any references to Jesus that came from those who did not follow Jesus? For example, mentions of the claims of his miracles by Roman non-believers etc?

With all due respect TC, you really are a massive idiot.

Do you not understand what the word "secular" means?

We have already illustrated and proven to you that SECULAR historians universally agree Jesus was a real person. Yet here you are still asking is there any non Christian based evidence.

Yes moron, that is what secular historians base their work on. That is how they come to their conclusions. There is so much secular non Christian documentation of Jesus that they universally agree he was real and only the most fringe loons still deny it.

(02-05-2023 06:44 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Guessing if Jesus looked substantially different than those in the middle east he interacted with would have expected a jew to look like, it probably would have been mentioned at least once in the texts. That said, we'll never know for sure.

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

And the middle east was a crossroads. The Jews only kept partly to themselves. It was a very mixed group of people. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks (Philistines were probably Greek hundreds of years before Alexander's armies), Romans, all moved people into the area.

(02-05-2023 08:19 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Race is a social construct. If you really want to know it’s ethnicity [and tribe] that mattered the most to people

Exactly. There is more genetic variation within Africa than there is between Swedes and Chinese.

If I was a non-believer, I would at least believe he was a real person. There were other people at his time claiming they were the Messiah & martyrd. These people's existence isn't questioned by anyone.. So why should we question Jesus's existence as a real person? If Jesus wasn't a real person, they should have attached their fables to one of these other false Messiah's.

There is surviving documentation of secular historians & Christian critics. They did not question Christians origins as a sect of Judaism that worshipped a man who taught them & did magic & that he was martyrd.

Early Christian critics focused on the philosophy of the beliefs conflicting w/ how they understood the world, like why would he come to poor Jews & not the elite, he shouldn't have appeared to women b/c their testimony doesn't mean anything, his miracles were not by his divinity but sorcery, how he came was not how the Jews thought the Messiah would come, etc.

In regards to his physical appearance, there's a prophecy in the Old Testament - I think either Isaiah or Jeremiah - about the Savior's appearance. It describes him as not being beautiful. If you're not a believer, that doesn't mean anything to you, but for us believers it'd be describing Jesus. When I see these classical beautiful paintings of Jesus, I see not his race as wrong like the OP does, but I think his physical beauty is being exaggerated.

(02-05-2023 07:25 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 10:18 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  In fact there is more evidence and proof of Jesus and more written about him than anyone in all of antiquity.

I believe in Jesus' existence, but this isn't true. There are plenty of people from Antiquity (kings, queens, conquerors, etc.) whose lives were extensively more documented. If we're going to speak about religious figures, Muhammad's adulthood, conquests, and the spread of Islam were recorded to the point we know exactly where he's buried.

But yes, most historians believe Jesus was real.

I have a minor in History and it well accepted by everyone in World History that there is more written about Jesus than any other person. We are not just talking about his life and time on earth but the countless volumes of history recorded after his departure. He is also the most well known figure in history throughout the world.

I had a Philosophy professor that stated as far as men Jesus was the greatest Philosopher of all time. I respond that’s because he wasn’t a man. It didn’t win me any points in that class.