Throughout history jesus was a white man
LifeWasted21
Posts: 149
so the rest of you can all just go to hell.
Im kidding of course. Why is this? he has been painted, portrayed as a white man since the beginning of this crazy fairy tale.
im stilling trying to decide what i believe in but the older I get, the more i think its a big goddamn conspiracy to rule people. There I said it. Jesus would not have even been white? Am i wrong about this?
maybe i can believe in jesus as a good man and thats it.
Im kidding of course. Why is this? he has been painted, portrayed as a white man since the beginning of this crazy fairy tale.
im stilling trying to decide what i believe in but the older I get, the more i think its a big goddamn conspiracy to rule people. There I said it. Jesus would not have even been white? Am i wrong about this?
maybe i can believe in jesus as a good man and thats it.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Well... should he have existed and coming where he came from, he would have been a bit 'tanned'.. dearie me... he might have even looked... I'm saying it.... a bit... 'arab' :eek:
LIKE MICKEY MOUSE!
its so that every believer can truly have his own image of his PERSONAL
God...( this is not that crazy )
naděje umírá poslední
naděje umírá poslední
Damn... and I thought he looked like this http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2003-03-11/ae_feat-1.jpg
or this http://www.sebastianbach.com/archives/jcsp1.jpg
Jesus would indeed not have been white, he would have looked like a Middle Eastern person. But the fact is in Africa Jesus is mostly portrayed as a black man, in Latin America Jesus is often portrayed as a Hispanic.
I think his skin colour isn't important at all, I think his message is important.
naděje umírá poslední
Talk about a shock, I thought he looked like this: Jesus
naděje umírá poslední
"Using archaeological and anatomical science rather than artistic interpretation makes this the most accurate likeness ever created," Jean Claude Gragard, producer of the BBC documentary "Son of God," told The London Times. Gragard used the same image last year in his series.
What a joke! There is no archaeological or anatomical science with which to reconstruct Jesus because there is absolutely no historical evidence that ever existed, outside of the Bible. And the Bible isn't evidence. It was written 50 - 100 years after his supposed existence.
:eek: That's one scary Jesus!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What the bloody hell are you talking about?
Did you even read the rest?
naděje umírá poslední
Yep.... I think I like Collin's better... Bach to do what he does best.....
Is it Collin's Southpark Jesus you prefer, or the "anatomical science" one that's got Byrnzie up in arms?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Would you care to explain what your gripe is?
So they took an Israeli face and then constructed their Jesus around what they figured a Jew looked like in that time. Anyone could have done the same. You must admit it's a bit pathetic. I'm not having a go at you. I'm having ago at these arseholes who are being paid to produce this crap.
What a joke! There is no archaeological or anatomical science with which to reconstruct Jesus because there is absolutely no historical evidence that ever existed, outside of the Bible. And the Bible isn't evidence. It was written 50 - 100 years after his supposed existence.
Are you saying there is absolutely no archaeological and anatomical evidence of people of Jesus' time?
And if you are saying that there is no proof that Jesus ever existed (even then this imagine would still be closer to the imagine we all know, even though it would be of a fictional character), I have to ask why do you think he didn't exist? I'm not talking about Jesus the miracle man, but about the historical Jesus?
naděje umírá poslední
Not that you asked, but I'll admit it! I think it's interesting how people gobble up anything that remotely resembles science--throw in a couple of "technical" words, too, and apparently it sells magazines!
And this is not to discount Collin's point, where Jesus doesn't look like that medium-brown haired pale-skinned guy we like to imagine here in North America. Or that Jesus resembled a Jewish man of olden times.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's one thing to produce a waxwork head resembling someone from the 1st century A.D. It's another thing to even pretend to recreate what one particular individual may have looked like based on zero evidence.
As far me not thinking that the historical Jesus didn't exist, I'm merely pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence to support the belief that he did, either archaelogical or otherwise. No written account of the time mentions his name.
Neave emphasizes that his re-creation is simply that of an adult man who lived in the same place and at the same time as Jesus. As might well be expected, not everyone agrees. Forensic depictions are not an exact science, cautions Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz. The details in a face follow the soft tissue above the muscle, and it is here where forensic artists differ widely in technique. Galloway points out that some artists pay more attention to the subtle differences in such details as the distance between the bottom of the nose and the mouth. And the most recognizable features of the face--the folds of the eyes, structure of the nose and shape of the mouth--are left to the artist. "In some cases the resemblance between the reconstruction and the actual individual can be uncanny," says Galloway. "But in others there may be more resemblance with the other work of the same artist." Despite this reservation, she reaches one conclusion that is inescapable to almost everyone who has ever seen Neave's Jesus. "This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1
I disagree but I'm not going to elaborate on it.
naděje umírá poslední
actually that is only true among white people... you may want to research Jesus likenesses in other cultures.. you may be suprized
thats exactly my point thought. If jesus was the son of god, and he existed, then he was a real being. His color should not be maniuplated to fit anothers religious views. If he existed he existed. If he existed then he would have been of arab color, not white.
Thus, i just dont believe it.
And if anything, the historical Jesus was Semitic. Caucasian, in other worlds. Pale white, no, same basic race, yes.
In other words, because we manipulate and imagine Jesus' image to fit our own views does not in of itself indicate he did not exist.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Or, alternatively, his likeness simply reflects the views of different groups of believers, like other people have already pointed out.
it doesn't matter what color Jesus was.