Was Jesus black or white?

[JamesPresto]

Well what do you think? Also what about Santa? They are both portrayed to be white, but who really knows?

[snaggle]

Jesus was probably neither.

Most likely he looked either Greek or Arab.

[Cain]

How does the common joke go about Jesus being black?

He liked Gospel, called everyone "brother," couldn't get a fair trial, and had no permanent street adress.

[Willy Wonka]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030414/gallery/jesus_zoom.jpg

That is a computer rendition of what people who were born in his time, in his area looked like.

The computer-generated image of what Christ might have looked like that was created for the program — a swarthy, coarse, vacant-eyed, short-haired man — has dismayed believers and non-believers since it was released at the end of March.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030414/jesus.html

[SithDrummer]

Originally posted by Cain
How does the common joke go about Jesus being black?

He liked Gospel, called everyone "brother," couldn't get a fair trial, and had no permanent street address.

rofl, that's a good one

[MindFlare]

Wow wonka. Thats pretty interesting. I don't think anyone has Jesus pegged.

Santa...I'd say he's white becuase Im white. I like to associate a fairy tale character as being the same race as me. Bigotry? Neh...But Im sure if I was raised to think Santa was black, I would. *shrug*

[Willy Wonka]

Santa is a completley different issue then Jesus was alive. I am not gonna do any looking up as I am tired, but I swear I read somewhere that there is proof a man named Jesus lived was, crucified etc.

Santa is not real. He can be whatever you want him to be. Oh sorry Lich, just kidding we know Santa is real. Good night Lich. :)

[Insolence]

wonkas right though. I've read that before too.

[Tone-Loc]

I saw that special on the Discovery channel. I thought it was well done.

Of course, taking on the case from the Televangelist POV, this computer model is based on the average "naturally" conceived and born men of the time. How can a computer determine what the immaculently conceived offspring of an all-powerful deity would look like? Hmmmm? Answer that you heathen computer nerds!!! :p

[Famine-]

That is a computer rendition of what people who were born in his time, in his area looked like.

Taliban Jesus. That pic looks like a terrorrist mug shot.

[PointMan]

Though most everyone, including scholars, believe Jesus was a real person, there has been no hard evidence proving it.

[Obituary]

Though most everyone, including scholars, believe Jesus was a real person, there has been no hard evidence proving it.
What kind of hard evidence did you expect to have been found? His burial raps had been found in His tomb. Other than that the only thing we have is historical evidence.

The New Testament contains twenty-seven separate documents which were written in the first century A.D. The writings contain the story of the life of Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian church. Now obviously if thats all there was that wouldn't be much proof considering non-Christians think the entire Bible was made up. There are others who have reported the existence of Jesus in their writings that were non-Christians during that time.

The information below was taken from Josh McDowell's "Answers to Tough Questions skeptics ask about the Christian faith":

The existence of Jesus is recorded by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who was born in A.D. 37. Also, Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 112), a Roman historian, writing about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus Christ and the existence of Christians in Rome (Annals, XV, 44). Tacitus, elsewhere in his "Histories", refers to Christianity when alluding to the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This has been preserved by Sulpicius Severus (Chronicles, 30:6).

There are other references to Jesus or His followers, such as the Roman historian, Seutonius (A.D. 120) in "Life of Claudius" (A.D. 112) in his Epistles, X, 96.

[othell]

Originally posted by Obituary
His burial raps had been found in His tomb.

Please tell me you're not referring to the Shroud of Turin.

[Tripwire]

Originally posted by snaggle
Jesus was probably neither.

Most likely he looked either Greek or Arab.

Most likely that's true.

This is where I sort of agree with the Islam law of painting faces of Biblical characters to being a sin, we have no clue who they looked like, so what right do we in conceptually creating them in our own image?

I think that the Jesus stand-alone portrats are wrong, and its best not to have one in a church or home, because I don't believe he looked like any of those. I have no clue what he did look like, so I think it's best to put a dark circle on portrat faces and imagine what he looked like for myself.

However, paintings like DaVinci's "The Last Supper" are cool with me because they speak way more powerful tones than just saying "This is what Jesus looked like in my own opinion."

Santa was real, the original Santa was St. Nicholas of Myra. He probably looked Mediterranean.

[Willy Wonka]

Originally posted by skifly
Santa was real, the original Santa was St. Nicholas of Myra. He probably looked Mediterranean.

St Nicholas of Myra was real. Santa Claus is not. Big diff :)

[Moniker]

I just called up Jesus and he told me he was Mexican.

[Repair Man]

Originally posted by Moniker
I just called up Jesus and he told me he was Mexican.

Maybe that lady who saw Jesus in her taco was on to something..

[MindFlare]

Originally posted by Lich
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

I believe in Santa as much as I believe in christianity. They are both the same, they are both products created by man to control the stupid and weak and to pacify little kids.

Yes...because all Christians are stupid and weak. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Cain
How does the common joke go about Jesus being black?

He liked Gospel, called everyone "brother," couldn't get a fair trial, and had no permanent street adress.

rofl

[Willy Wonka]

Originally posted by Lich
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

LOL

Just teasing the catacombs star.

[Obituary]

Please tell me you're not referring to the Shroud of Turin.

Heh, nope. I have never even heard of the Shroud of Turin till you mentioned it in your post. I had to do a search on it to find out what it was.

[Acharne]

Well, basically you are referring to the Shroud of Turin, as it is the only thing (at least that I've ever heard of) that has been proclaimed as "The Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ".

[PointMan]

Originally posted by Obituary
What kind of hard evidence did you expect to have been found? His burial raps had been found in His tomb. Other than that the only thing we have is historical evidence.

The New Testament contains twenty-seven separate documents which were written in the first century A.D. The writings contain the story of the life of Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian church. Now obviously if thats all there was that wouldn't be much proof considering non-Christians think the entire Bible was made up. There are others who have reported the existence of Jesus in their writings that were non-Christians during that time.

The information below was taken from Josh McDowell's "Answers to Tough Questions skeptics ask about the Christian faith":

The existence of Jesus is recorded by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who was born in A.D. 37. Also, Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 112), a Roman historian, writing about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus Christ and the existence of Christians in Rome (Annals, XV, 44). Tacitus, elsewhere in his "Histories", refers to Christianity when alluding to the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This has been preserved by Sulpicius Severus (Chronicles, 30:6).

There are other references to Jesus or His followers, such as the Roman historian, Seutonius (A.D. 120) in "Life of Claudius" (A.D. 112) in his Epistles, X, 96.

All those references you cited are exactly why "most everyone, including scholars, believe Jesus was a real person", but they are not considered hard evidence. As far as I know, Jesus' tomb has never been found, nor has that shroud ever been proven to be his.

What hard evidence do I EXPECT to have been found? None neccesarily, I was just stating a fact. And fyi, I also believe Jesus was a real person.

-PointMan

[[RiCE]cancer]

All those references you cited are exactly why "most everyone, including scholars, believe Jesus was a real person", but they are not considered hard evidence.

Or better yet, most scholars agree all of those "references" (especially Josephus') are forgeries. There is not a single reliable record pertaining to Jesus that was written during his supposed life time.

[SithDrummer]

Originally posted by Lich
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

I believe in Santa as much as I believe in christianity. They are both the same, they are both products created by man to control the stupid and weak and to pacify little kids.

Yes, and lots of people are willing to die for their belief in Santa Claus, especially those that knew him. :rolleyes: :D

[Obituary]

All those references you cited are exactly why "most everyone, including scholars, believe Jesus was a real person", but they are not considered hard evidence.

Correct, which is why i said in my last post that it was the only thing we have is historical evidence. I personally don't need hard evidence to believe in different things in life. The funny thing is when I made my statement of "His burial raps had been found in His tomb", I wasn't even implying of the Shroud of Turin, because I had no knowledge of such a thing. My meaning behind that statement was only to say that after Jesus had risen that was the only thing left behind. I can see now though that I wasn't clear about that and it sounds as if that is hard proof that Jesus existed, sorry about the confusion there.

[Sleepy Mexican]

Santa probably has black reindeer.

[crz]

Originally posted by [RiCE]cancer
Or better yet, most scholars agree all of those "references" (especially Josephus') are forgeries. There is not a single reliable record pertaining to Jesus that was written during his supposed life time.

theres also probably no real record of your great great great grandfather's cousin who had no children ever existing other than your family tree (easily forgeable), did he not exist either (hypothetically assuming you have one)? and last i checked few religions have ever come out of your alleged great great great grandfather's cousin either, i dont think he existed.

[larcain]

You may be able to find a few quotes from some historian who doesn't WANT there to be a historical Jesus to give credence to what you say, but for the most part, historians DO THINK those references, including Josephus to be genuine.

[[RiCE]cancer]

You may be able to find a few quotes from some historian who doesn't WANT there to be a historical Jesus to give credence to what you say, but for the most part, historians DO THINK those references, including Josephus to be genuine.

No, they don't.

Most biblical scholars agree the "Testimonium Flavianum" (the one paragraph Josephus' supposedly wrote about Jesus) is, in fact, a forgery.

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.

The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.

Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:


About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.

Forgery or not, it was still written in 90 AD. There isn't a single record referring to Jesus that was written during his (supposed) lifetime.

Which brings us to:

theres also probably no real record of your great great great grandfather's cousin who had no children ever existing other than your family tree (easily forgeable), did he not exist either (hypothetically assuming you have one)? and last i checked few religions have ever come out of your alleged great great great grandfather's cousin either, i dont think he existed.

No, but nobody ever claimed my great great great grandfather's cousin rose from the dead, turned water into wine, healed the diseased, or performed other amazing tasks. For someone as powerful, important, miraculous, and well-known as Jesus, you'd think there'd be some writings about him that were written during his time. There aren't.

Besides, I'd never claim Jesus didn't exist. Maybe he did (although there's really no evidence to suggest as much). What I don't believe is that he performed the magnificent feats ascribed to him in the Bible.

[Willy Wonka]

Originally posted by [RiCE]cancer

Besides, I'd never claim Jesus didn't exist. Maybe he did (although there's really no evidence to suggest as much). What I don't believe is that he performed the magnificent feats ascribed to him in the Bible.

Isn't that what the mini debate has become? Was there a man named Jesus born from Mary and Joseph? I knew this was getting confused but that was my point when I first said it. There was a man. His religion, skils, miracles etc. were not the issue.

:)

[crz]

Originally posted by [RiCE]cancer
There is not a single reliable record pertaining to Jesus that was written during his supposed life time.

so what are you trying to prove with that statement then cancer? clearly you must be trying to prove that there was no Jesus, otherwise why say something like that, as opposed to simply "he didnt do all those miracles".

and since www.infidels.org is clearly the most unbiased source you can find cancer, ill now proceed to quote the bible. at least try to make an attempt at something thats not from a site that specifically tries to prove a nontheistic worldview.

[[RiCE]cancer]

so what are you trying to prove with that statement then cancer? clearly you must be trying to prove that there was no Jesus, otherwise why say something like that, as opposed to simply "he didnt do all those miracles".

Well of course such a statement would point to there having been no Jesus, but it's not really an absolute affirmation. It is pretty good evidence he didn't perform "miracles" though.

and since www.infidels.org is clearly the most unbiased source you can find cancer, ill now proceed to quote the bible. at least try to make an attempt at something thats not from a site that specifically tries to prove a nontheistic worldview.

Actually, when you see someone provide a link to www.infidels.org it is most likely not a link to something that infidels.org wrote themselves. They keep a massive library of papers/essays/debates that include both theistic and nontheistic viewpoints. The page I linked to was an unbiased study. It's easier to search the infidels database than the whole internet.

[crz]

so youre not quite sure if there was a Jesus or not but you want to prove that no one has proof that there was? do you have a real point with a stance like that?

[Corsair]

It is impossible to prove that someone did NOT exist 2 thousand years ago. It is extremely difficult to prove that a specific person DID exist 2 thousand years ago. Neither side will ever convince the other.

Now if you were gonna start a religion, would you start it with a giant lie and try to convince people it happened, or would it be easier to start with a real live guy and just 'stretch the truth'?

[snaggle]

Originally posted by Corsair
It is impossible to prove that someone did NOT exist 2 thousand years ago. It is extremely difficult to prove that a specific person DID exist 2 thousand years ago. Neither side will ever convince the other.

Now if you were gonna start a religion, would you start it with a giant lie and try to convince people it happened, or would it be easier to start with a real live guy and just 'stretch the truth'?

The easiest way is to start with a real live guy and tell the truth...but you don't want to hear about that...and I know Cancer is just itching to "tear me apart" with his sources...

[adamantium]

Snaggle, please use your infamous ability to kill this thread. I am tired of it.

[snaggle]

It only works in other forums...in this one...my powers have no effect. I think it's all the self importantness...it just screams "MUST REPLY!" out of every thread.

[adamantium]

Damn. <3 anyway :D.

Originally posted by Corsair

Now if you were gonna start a religion, would you start it with a giant lie and try to convince people it happened, or would it be easier to start with a real live guy and just 'stretch the truth'?

It would probably be most successful if it was about a real-live guy that could do really amazing things. Looks like that's what happened.

I'm pretty sure there is historical proof that the apostles existed. I really don't think they would go around knowingly risking their lives to talk about an imaginary person.

[Famine-]

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I believe in Santa as much as I believe in christianity. They are both the same, they are both products created by man to control the stupid and weak and to pacify little kids. Lich

ROFL Lich. We share to many of the same views about society. Holla at me.

[[RiCE]cancer]

The easiest way is to start with a real live guy and tell the truth...but you don't want to hear about that...and I know Cancer is just itching to "tear me apart" with his sources...

No, if you have any information on Jesus that wasn't written 90-500 years after his lifetime, do share it.

It would probably be most successful if it was about a real-live guy that could do really amazing things. Looks like that's what happened.

We can't go around judging religions by their success. Islam is bigger than Christianity. It must be the true religion.

Again, if the things Jesus did were so amazing, how come not a single person that lived during his lifetime wrote about them?

Please don't think that Christianity's current popularity has always been true. Way back when, it was a pathetic cult-like group struggling to sustain itself. (Un)luckily, someone managed to convert Constantinople, head of the Roman empire, who promptly began to spread it. If that hadn't happened there might be a total of seven Christians today. To say that Jesus did amazing things because there are so many believers today is misguided in infinitely many ways.

I'm pretty sure there is historical proof that the apostles existed. I really don't think they would go around knowingly risking their lives to talk about an imaginary person.

Yes, the apostles existed. (However, most people don't know that the apostles did NOT write the gospels. Mark did NOT write Mark, Matthew did NOT write Matthew, etc)

By this same logic there are hundreds of religious figures that really existed. Many more people went around risking their lives talking about Mohammed than Jesus. Why would they bother if they didn't have good reason to believe his message was true? Same with Buddha. Same with Paganism. Same with every religion, ever. There are always whackos who will die for whatever crazy thing they believe in. Especially 2000 years ago.

I'm not trying to argue that Jesus never existed, I'm only pointing out there's an extreme lack of evidence for all of the stuff he did. All writings of him appear at the very earliest around 100 AD (and thats if you include the obviously forged Josephus passage). From there, you can easily watch the story evolve and become more and more amazing every time. In one gospel account, there are a couple of boys or a guard at the tomb. In another, they're angels. In one Jesus appears to a group of people. In another, he appears to 500 people. I remember a while ago some skeptic was running a challenge for anyone to turn all of the information in the four gospels into one coherent narrative. No one won the prize. The story has just been embellished and exaggerated so much there's really no reason to believe a single word of it.

[Famine-]

First guy: I found a rock which had red on it and said wow, what a nice rock.

Next guy: He found a red stone that shined with the glory of ages.

NextNextGuy: Yo that readyrock was the shit had me fucked up for ages.

See how easy it is to change a story as it gets passed on, thats your oh so holy bible. A collection of stories about a time passed on. Subject to interpretation. Its amazing you question your peers about sex, drugs, hacking and silly shit. But never chose to question why you think the way you do, live the way you do or believe what you do.

Originally posted by [RiCE]cancer
No, if you have any information on Jesus that wasn't written 90-500 years after his lifetime, do share it.




Yes, the apostles existed. (However, most people don't know that the apostles did NOT write the gospels. Mark did NOT write Mark, Matthew did NOT write Matthew, etc)



Where did you get this?

[[RiCE]cancer]

It's pretty widely accepted among "bible-scholars". I'd be surprised if you could even find a Christian website claiming that Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke actually wrote their respective books. They were all written quite a while after the apostles were long dead. It's why you'll sometimes notice people say "the author of Matthew" instead of just "Matthew".

[Obituary]

It's pretty widely accepted among "bible-scholars". I'd be surprised if you could even find a Christian website claiming that Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke actually wrote their respective books. They were all written quite a while after the apostles were long dead. It's why you'll sometimes notice people say "the author of Matthew" instead of just "Matthew".

That has got to be one of the most foolish statements I have heard yet. It doesn't suprise me at all though, but, I would like for you to give the names of these so called "bible scholars" that you speak of.

[larcain]

Most scholars DO think Mark was written by Mark. Fact is, Mark was the first of the Gospels written (and a great number of scholars are re-estimating the dates of the new testament books to be some time before 70 A.D.), though there is theoretically the book "X" that was supposedly written first. For reasons other than arguing with you, and I can make a case, I believe there are reasons to believe the ALL of the new testament had to be written before that date.
Unless you look at the German liberal Biblical scholars of the 19th century, you aren't going to find a large quantity of Biblical scholars that agree with your assertions.

[SithDrummer]

Originally posted by skifly
It would probably be most successful if it was about a real-live guy that could do really amazing things. Looks like that's what happened.

I'm pretty sure there is historical proof that the apostles existed. I really don't think they would go around knowingly risking their lives to talk about an imaginary person.

once again, skifly reads my mind.
do you think that these guys would allow themselves to be martyred for a lie they themselves created, or even just played along with?

[4est]

One of the silliest aspects of christianity is that the "SON OF GOD" does not even have a recorded birthday. You would think somebody would have recorded that minor detail. Christmas is celebrated on a pegan god's birthday. Why? As a POLITICAL move to pull some power away from the pegan holiday and a political opponent who followed him. Plus,Easter can be traced back to old fertility celebrations.

[LostCause]

Jesus is said to be white only because of the Roman Catholic church. They wanted their savior to be white. They created the images of how we currently depict Jesus.

[GzA]

So Jesus was a black jew? I would assume he looked more like Lenny Kravitz then that pic.

[k9black`]

didnt they have a cloth ro seomthing when he wiped his face off? anyways on that cloth his face seemed much longer than that