Revisionism Jesus Christ

[Santoz]

Was born in the middle east.

Looks like this though.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

He also came from a flipping virgin

 

[Total Power]

Ofcourse how could god not be a tall white man with blue eyes and long hair.

 

[Total Power]

You are so, so wrong.
View attachment 348157

I do not get people like you. Any other opinion than the ones you subscribe to, is either shut down or subject to personal abuse. I have presented evidence in this thread, which is what most historians believe in.

This wall painting, depicting the Healing of the Paralytic, is the earliest known representation of Jesus, dating from about 235 AD. The painting was found in 1921 on the left-hand wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria. It is now part of the Dura Europos collection at the Yale University Gallery of Fine Arts.

This fresco of Christ Among the Apostles is in an arcosolium of the Crypt of Ampliatus in the Catacombs of St. Domitilla in Rome. The Catacombs of Domitilla date from the 2nd through 4th centuries. According to W.F. Volbach, "The extent to which the type of the apostolic group as been developed suggests a 4th-century origin" for this particular fresco.

Jesus' appearance from behind locked doors, by Duccio-di-Buoninsegna - 1308 A.D.



And then....

Modern jesus christ Fair to say he doesnt look very Macedonian/egyptian. More like a Scandinavian model. Have you ever been to Macedonia? i go there every week, he doesnt look very Macedonian. Looking at an aboriginal/white race, you can still tell, the person has aboriginal in him. Modern Jesus has none of Macedonian/egyptian/middle eastern in him. You dont like facts, its not my fault.

Much more here. The oldest paintings of Jesus, none resembled the figure above or that of a Caucasian race, which proves my point. So regardless of you and your "personal theories" , history is actually on my side. You have fallen for the propaganda of the Catholic church. Modern Jesus is quite modern actually. The oldest images show Jesus had black or olive skin colour. However the colour of his skin is absolutely irrelevant, but since this thread is about jesus and this ethnicity i thought i would mention this.

https://churchpop.com/2015/03/09/6-of-the-oldest-images-of-jesus/

 

[Total Power]

That is a cheap debating point - shame on you.

You dont want to hear another opinion, thats not my problem. Atleast i am not abusing anyone. The race issue of jesus is extremely controversial. There is no easy answer to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus

You can argue all you want but my point is still valid

Additional information about Jesus's skin color and hair was provided by Mark Goodacre, a senior lecturer at the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham.[54] Using 3rd-century images from a synagogue—the earliest pictures of Jewish people[62]—Goodacre proposed that Jesus's skin color would have been darker and swarthier than his traditional Western image. He also suggested that he would have had short, curly hair and a short cropped beard.[63] This is also confirmed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul the Apostle states that it is "disgraceful" for a man to have long hair.[64] As Paul allegedly knew many of the disciples and members of Jesus's family, it is unlikely that he would have written such a thing had Jesus had long hair.[63]

Although not literally the face of Jesus,[61] the result of the study determined that Jesus's skin would have been more olive-colored than white,[54] and that he would have most likely looked like a typical Galilean Semite of his day. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify.[63] James H. Charlesworth states Jesus' face was "most likely dark brown and sun-tanned", and his stature "may have been between five feet five [1.65 m] and five feet seven [1.70 m]".[65]

So tell me again how you would know more than the historian themselves?

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Total Power

Mate, don't you know that Jesus was clearly of Scandinavian descent, those Vikings sailed all of the seas. Jesus was obviously a white male.

 

[cannot]

And 400 years before Alexander the Great, Egypt & parts of Israel was ruled by Nubian Kings from the Sudan region, but Egyptians aren't all black skinned now are they?

many jews are black

most of Israeli guys today come from east Europe (unconnected to isreal, when nubian kings were in charge) and only converted to Judaism quite late in history

 

[cannot]

he was self employed i think

 

[Total Power]

many jews are black

most of Israeli guys today come from east Europe (unconnected to isreal, when nubian kings were in charge) and only converted to Judaism quite late in history

True, from the oldest paintings of Jesus christ, this cannot be ruled out that Jesus was actually black. He was born to jewish parents no doubt about that.

 

[Roylion]

many jews are black..

And many are not.

most of Israeli guys today come from east Europe (unconnected to isreal, when nubian kings were in charge)

Most? Try about 35-38% of Israelis.

Jewish genetics suggest that Jews of Eastern European heritage have a significant proportion of Middle Eastern ancestry. A 2006 study found 40% of the current Ashkenazi population are descended matrilineally from just four women that originated in the Middle East in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This was corroborated by a 2014 study, although a 2013 study disputes this, suggesting that Ashkenazi Jews can be traced to women 10-20000 years ago. .
A 2007 study found that Ashkenazi Jews were most closely clustered with Arabic North African populations when compared to Global population, and in the European structure analysis, they share similarities only with Greeks and Southern Italians, reflecting their east Mediterranean origins.

A 2010 study on Jewish ancestry refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry, as two major identified groups – the Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews – shared common ancestors in the Middle East about 2500 years ago.

and only converted to Judaism quite late in history

Please don't bring up the Khazar theory. All of the presently available genetic studies thoroughly debunk the very questionable theory that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire.

 

[Total Power]

Roylion what ethnicity was Jesus according to you assuming he was real (i am not getting into the argument whether he was real or not). Just interested to know your thoughts on this. Do you think he looked like anything like the modern day Jesus we see on tv or magazines?

 

[Roylion]

Roylion what ethnicity was Jesus according to you assuming he was real (i am not getting into the argument whether he was real or not). Just interested to know your thoughts on this. Do you think he looked like anything like the modern day Jesus we see on tv or magazines?

There are no firsthand accounts of Jesus' physical appearance. He was most likely a typical Galilean Semite. For example the Bible (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Gospel accounts are historically totally accurate) records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples (who were largely from Galilee), then he would have been relatively easy to identify from the general population. Paul condemns long hair in men (1 Corinthians) so given that he possibly knew members of Jesus family, it's possible Jesus actually had short hair, which would have probably been dark.

Any depiction of Jesus (e.g. blonde haired, blue eyed) is obviously a reflection of our idealised, mental image, but I see little reason to disbelieve that he was anything other that a typical dark haired, olive skinned Middle Eastern Semite, typical of the region and time.

 

[cannot]

Try about 35-38% of Israelis.

fair point

miht have got mixed up with

85% of the world total jews

Please don't bring up the Khazar theory

sorry but i want to

. All of the presently available genetic studies thoroughly debunk the very questionable theory that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire.

i simply do not believe you

 

[Taylor]

Man made god in his image. It's as simple as that

 

[Roylion]

i simply do not believe you

Because all the available genetic evidence from a variety of scientific studies contradicts your pre-conceived world view?

All of the presently available genetic studies thoroughly debunk the theory that most Ashkenazi Jews trace their roots to the Khazar Kingdom. If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, then present it here. Please don't bother with Arthur Koestler either.

 

[exe ex machina]

 

[exe ex machina]

^^ The Jesus Myth. Just astrological references...sun/son, virgin/virgo, etc

 

[Spitty_the_alpaca]

 

[M Malice]

 

[Present Not Past]

There are no firsthand accounts of Jesus' physical appearance. He was most likely a typical Galilean Semite. For example the Bible (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Gospel accounts are historically totally accurate) records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples (who were largely from Galilee), then he would have been relatively easy to identify from the general population. Paul condemns long hair in men (1 Corinthians) so given that he possibly knew members of Jesus family, it's possible Jesus actually had short hair, which would have probably been dark.

Any depiction of Jesus (e.g. blonde haired, blue eyed) is obviously a reflection of our idealised, mental image, but I see little reason to disbelieve that he was anything other that a typical dark haired, olive skinned Middle Eastern Semite, typical of the region and time.

Wasn't Jesus related to King David through his son Nathan?
There's ample physical descriptions of King David throughout the Old Testament.

 

[Roylion]

Wasn't Jesus related to King David through his son Nathan?

The genealogy of Jesus Christ outlined in Matthew is clearly fictional and is little more than a theological construct (i.e largely if not wholly invented) rather than factual history. Matthew's purportrd genealogy is neatly arranged into three sets of fourteen which is very convenient.The first fourteen is from Abraham to David. The second fourteen spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, such as three consecutive kings of Judah - Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah. These three kings were seen as especially wicked, from the cursed line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah to the third and fourth generation, so of course wouldn't want to be associated with the 'Messiah'. The Davidic line ends with "Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon". The last fourteen, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects the father of Jesus, (Joseph) to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names.

Indeed there are remarkably few names for such a long period.

The total of 42 generations is achieved only by omitting several names, so the choice of three sets of fourteen is deliberate. Fourteen is twice seven symbolizing perfection and covenant, and is also the gematria (numerical value) of the name David.

Matthew and Luke also have vastly different genealogies. 55 generations from Abraham to Jesus in Luke and 42 (14.14.14 as I pointed out above) for Matthew.

Did Matthew leave some of the ancestors of Jesus out? Their motive is also clear - the Gospel writers wanted to demonstrate that Jesus qualified as a Messiah partly because of his descent from King David (as per the so-called 'prophecy').

The Gospel writers invented 'fulfilled prophecies' for Jesus, including his descent from David and it's clear the Gospels were theological constructs.

As recorders of historical truth, including Jesus' supposed descent from David, the Gospels are spectacularly unreliable.

There's ample physical descriptions of King David throughout the Old Testament.

Is there? So? The writers of the Old Testament were contemporaries of David were they? What does this have to do with Jesus, who lived 1,000 years after the purported time of King David?

 

[Crankitup]

The genealogy of Jesus Christ outlined in Matthew is clearly fictional and is little more than a theological construct (i.e largely if not wholly invented) rather than factual history. Matthew's purportrd genealogy is neatly arranged into three sets of fourteen which is very convenient.The first fourteen is from Abraham to David. The second fourteen spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, such as three consecutive kings of Judah - Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah. These three kings were seen as especially wicked, from the cursed line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah to the third and fourth generation, so of course wouldn't want to be associated with the 'Messiah'. The Davidic line ends with "Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon". The last fourteen, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects the father of Jesus, (Joseph) to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names.

Indeed there are remarkably few names for such a long period.

The total of 42 generations is achieved only by omitting several names, so the choice of three sets of fourteen is deliberate. Fourteen is twice seven symbolizing perfection and covenant, and is also the gematria (numerical value) of the name David.

Matthew and Luke also have vastly different genealogies. 55 generations from Abraham to Jesus in Luke and 42 (14.14.14 as I pointed out above) for Matthew.

Did Matthew leave some of the ancestors of Jesus out? Their motive is also clear - the Gospel writers wanted to demonstrate that Jesus qualified as a Messiah partly because of his descent from King David (as per the so-called 'prophecy').

The Gospel writers invented 'fulfilled prophecies' for Jesus, including his descent from David and it's clear the Gospels were theological constructs.

As recorders of historical truth, including Jesus' supposed descent from David, the Gospels are spectacularly unreliable.



Is there? So? The writers of the Old Testament were contemporaries of David were they? What does this have to do with Jesus, who lived 1,000 years after the purported time of King David?

 

[Lebbo73]