Biblical Ethnicities
Think about this. What ethnicity/race are most people from the Middle East? Whatever you said, it was not caucasian. Jews of Middle Eastern descent exhibit self similar physical traits, as do Arabs, Palestinians, and really, any other group classified as Middle Eastern. Who remembers that Jesus himself was a Middle Eastern Jew? And died a Jew? He did die a Jew, you know. He did not convert to Christianity. It didn't exist. And what do Middle Eastern Jews look like? Nothing like this photo. So, I would argue that this picture of Jesus is a fallacy, as are all caucasian depictions of the man. An outright lie, propagated on a vast European caucasian majority to ease the spread of Christianity through a pagan Europe. Through very simple reasoning processes, one can reasonably conclude that Jesus was, more than likely, close in appearance to the modern day Arab. Shocking, but even in the Bible, it says that his hair was akin to sheep's wool. What caucasian man has naturally (sorry) nappy hair? Here is another interesting disparity. Moses, depicted as a wisened old man with a flowing gray beard in most Christian lore, married an Ethiopian woman. It is laughable that his Jewish children with any of his wives were caucasian. This manipulation of Biblical history relies on the masses to turn a blind eye to these inconsistencies, but with the importance of ethnicity/race becoming more and more evident (despite our misguided efforts at bridging the gaps) these facts are hard to ignore. Ignorance is bliss for most Sunday church goers, but this is indeed disturbing news for those who live and breathe the church. What lies come next? And what's more, these were lies told simply for convenience, to pacify the ignorant, and to goad them into accepting Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior. I ask, what else is a lie? What situational truth is there in the Bible? How do we separate this truth from fiction? I will not be taken by a religion that seeks to hide its own origins. Christianity must come to terms with this, and admit the possibility, or more accurately, the probability, that Jesus was either Middle Eastern or African. It would not diminish the teachings of the church, and in my eyes, and the eyes of all intellectuals, it may actually increase the overall credibility of Christianity. I'm agnostic, not apathetic.-The Captain
Rating:4.86
Comments
-
16fuck jesus
Posted 4 months ago | Report -
17I'm a Christian, and I agree with you. It's only logical to concluce what you concluded, and it pisses me off when some Christians get really offended when someone suggests that Jesus wasn't white. Well ... He wasn't! Sorry! That doesn't change the fact that He's the Savior. I wish people would get that. But I liked reading this--Like I said, you're definitely right.
Posted 4 months ago | Report -
18Great post, Captain. All I'd say is, expecting truth and historical fact in any religion is going to lead to disappointment. People believe in what they know, or are taught, or are brainwashed to, or what their families or friends think. Sadly most people fail to think for themselves, and accept the myths and fairy tales that have been around since man came down from the trees and started talking.
Posted 4 months ago | Report -
19i second everything 17 said. also in a mostly unrelated aside you think Christians react badly when you say that Jesus wasn't white. How about when you mention to white people in general that humans started off in Africa and spread from there. talk about the shit hitting the fan lol
Posted 4 months ago | Report -
20You have a very, very good point there.
Posted 2 months ago | Report