|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:16 am
Alrighty. Real quick, then.
In famous paintings and depictions of Jesus, the man is a brownish-reddish haired white man clad in white robes with a red sash. This is presumably because of the fact that the artists who were responsible for these depictions were white themselves, and lived in mostly white cultures, assuming that the man they accepted as their lord and saviour was so as well.
My question to you: If Jesus did in fact exist, was he white?
Simply relying on the described birthplace of the Christ in the Bible, I'd gander that he was something more of a middle-eastern complexion.
Either way, it's of no consequence to me nor any of you people. Despite his colour, I doubt any of you would think any differently of Jesus, and I'll go on my merry way believing the man never existed.
Thoughts? Discussions? Have at it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:57 pm
of course he wasn't white, because that would make him too much of an oddity. i doubt he had long hair either. he would probably be plain and look like any other Jewish male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:48 pm
True dat. What do you think of those who vehemently insist Jesus was white?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:25 pm
i think they're a little misguided and i question their reasons behind insisting Jesus is white, as if it even matters.
i also question why you don't think Jesus exists, but that's off-topic. (:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:18 am
Why do you doubt he had long hair? He was Nazarene after all, wasn't he?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:31 pm
Se Ga Takai Why do you doubt he had long hair? He was Nazarene after all, wasn't he? i remember reading somewhere that most Jewish men at that time would not have long luscious locks of hair. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:33 pm
i like burnination i also question why you don't think Jesus exists, but that's off-topic. (: Just the lack of evidence put forth that he even existed as a man. Even the census of the time gives no clear answers on the matter. While his existence is falsifiable, there have been no conclusions made either way. Though arguing about that in this guild would be a terrible waste of time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:29 pm
PirateEire i like burnination i also question why you don't think Jesus exists, but that's off-topic. (: Just the lack of evidence put forth that he even existed as a man. Even the census of the time gives no clear answers on the matter. While his existence is falsifiable, there have been no conclusions made either way. Though arguing about that in this guild would be a terrible waste of time... so then i ask what are your opinions on the account of Josephus and Pliny the Younger? granted, Josephus' account has probably some embellishments or wrong interpretation of a probable sarcastic tone, but he's still a highly regarded historian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:40 am
i like burnination Se Ga Takai Why do you doubt he had long hair? He was Nazarene after all, wasn't he? i remember reading somewhere that most Jewish men at that time would not have long luscious locks of hair. *shrug* but Emo Jew and the Jewish Hippy has long luscious locks of Hair. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:51 pm
i like burnination PirateEire i like burnination i also question why you don't think Jesus exists, but that's off-topic. (: Just the lack of evidence put forth that he even existed as a man. Even the census of the time gives no clear answers on the matter. While his existence is falsifiable, there have been no conclusions made either way. Though arguing about that in this guild would be a terrible waste of time... so then i ask what are your opinions on the account of Josephus and Pliny the Younger? granted, Josephus' account has probably some embellishments or wrong interpretation of a probable sarcastic tone, but he's still a highly regarded historian. Highly regarded? To my knowledge, a lot of his writings were tampered with by Christian authors in a later Era. Josephus never knew Jesus--He wrote in a manner that lacked familiarity and insinuated that his sources were hearsay. And I've never heard of Pliny the Younger having anything to do with the historicity of Jesus... He also never knew him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:07 am
PirateEire Highly regarded? To my knowledge, a lot of his writings were tampered with by Christian authors in a later Era. Josephus never knew Jesus--He wrote in a manner that lacked familiarity and insinuated that his sources were hearsay. And I've never heard of Pliny the Younger having anything to do with the historicity of Jesus... He also never knew him. so first yeah, Pliny the Younger really only talks about Christians and makes reference to "Christus". as far as i know the only writing of Josephus that has been called into question is the one concerning Jesus, which i agree with. i wouldn't go as far to say that the entire thing was fabricated by Eusebius or other Christians, but i think that while it was definitely embellished, Josephus did write of Jesus. additionally, in another passage he does make reference to "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christus". maybe this another interpolation. also, the embellished account of Josephus does bear resemblance to a passage in Luke. this could mean that Christians copied that and spiced it up, or both Josephus and Luke share their source (either Mark or the Q document). and even though Josephus never knew Jesus, he would still have access to eyewitness accounts and people who did know Jesus. plus we have less copies of documents concerning Alexander the Great, yet no one questions his historicity. this though includes the Four Gospels, whose reliability i'm sure you'll be quick to dispute. but we're getting off topic. though has that stopped us before? wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:11 am
Was Jesus white?
Highly, highly unlikely.
Unless he was an albino...
In which case he would have been killed as a child for being 'defective'.
Did he have long hair?
As I don't know the religious customs concerning hair of Jewish men, I can''t answer that.
Does it make him look like a hippy?
Sure does.
If he doesn't...
Well...
TOPIC CHANGE
And as to what you two are on about, I's gots no clue. Never heard of either of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:58 am
i like burnination and even though Josephus never knew Jesus, he would still have access to eyewitness accounts and people who did know Jesus. He didn't cite who those people were, however. As far as we are concerned, he could very well have just been exposed to hearsay. There is no way to be sure. Many, even atheists, believe Jesus existed at very least as a man, but the proof of this is far from solid, and there's controversy over possibly forged documents, and sources that have been cherry-picked from (ie census). i like burnination plus we have less copies of documents concerning Alexander the Great, yet no one questions his historicity. Actually, tons of people do. I've heard the validity of his existence called in to question before. Certainly more than I've heard of people disputing Jesus's historicity. i like burnination but we're getting off topic. though has that stopped us before? wink No, never. Jazz And as to what you two are on about, I's gots no clue. Never heard of either of them. Just tossing around a little about the historicity of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:29 pm
Quote: He didn't cite who those people were, however. As far as we are concerned, he could very well have just been exposed to hearsay. my point is though that he's reliable in other areas and is a very important scholar for modern day historians. i mean, outside of the Bible i think (not sure) he's the only one who references Pontius Pilate. and while it's just hearsay, as a historian himself Josephus would've been more careful. maybe i'm just naive, but i don't think he would've included something unless he was sure of it's reliability or the reliability of the witnesses to it. but more importantly, hearsay over a person who is no longer around isn't that unreliable i would think. sometimes that's the best evidence, especially since the general opinion of the people was that Jesus was a false prophet. outside of those that worship him i don't think you're going to find much. Quote: Actually, tons of people do. I've heard the validity of his existence called in to question before. Certainly more than I've heard of people disputing Jesus's historicity. dang. Wikipedia didn't say anything about that! |:<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:07 am
PirateEire i like burnination and even though Josephus never knew Jesus, he would still have access to eyewitness accounts and people who did know Jesus. He didn't cite who those people were, however. As far as we are concerned, he could very well have just been exposed to hearsay. There is no way to be sure. Many, even atheists, believe Jesus existed at very least as a man, but the proof of this is far from solid, and there's controversy over possibly forged documents, and sources that have been cherry-picked from (ie census). i like burnination plus we have less copies of documents concerning Alexander the Great, yet no one questions his historicity. Actually, tons of people do. I've heard the validity of his existence called in to question before. Certainly more than I've heard of people disputing Jesus's historicity. i like burnination but we're getting off topic. though has that stopped us before? wink No, never. Jazz And as to what you two are on about, I's gots no clue. Never heard of either of them. Just tossing around a little about the historicity of Jesus. Cool. Sounds good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
