Reply to: Christ he's black!

[d000hg]

You'd imagine slightly less than average in the looks department as he doesn't appear to get much poontang in the book.

He did have prostitutes literally throwing themselves at him.

36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and reclined at table. 37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment.

(Basically, a prostitute poured perfrume over him and started rubbing her hair over him and kissing him)

[darmstadt]

Probably more than the average IT contractor though

You'd imagine slightly less than average in the looks department as he doesn't appear to get much poontang in the book.

Sent from my 5g carrier pigeon

[northernladuk]

Jesus was a pretty unremarkable guy to look at, according to the bible. Very few characters get a physical description, a bit like in most books.

You'd imagine slightly less than average in the looks department as he doesn't appear to get much poontang in the book.

[d000hg]

Strange that. A book written to appeal to millions of potential followers of multi-races misses out a key part of the description of the main character.

Obviously its a true story though...

Jesus was a pretty unremarkable guy to look at, according to the bible. Very few characters get a physical description, a bit like in most books.

[vetran]

Cards on table, I am one of those "silly" religious people.

I liked the quote in the article that "It's as factually correct as Jesus being White" - that's certainly true.

But portraying Jesus as Afro-Caribbean is exactly the same as him being "European" Caucasian.

The pessimist in me says the church will do anything to try get people back in.

Not any more silly than being a football supporter. Being an Atheist is a choice too, You may well be smiling when St Peter closes the gates on me! But I personally doubt it as is my right.

Point is that mediaeval Europeans who mostly had no scientific training or experience of travelling decided to paint Jesus in their own image (as per the bible) hence a white Jesus. Now with the benefit of hindsight and science some bad actors are accusing everyone of racism, its all a bit sad.

As posted there are also paintings of a Black & Oriental Jesus which could be shared, but Europe has some of the oldest traditions of drawing him.

[Scoobos]

Cards on table, I am one of those "silly" religious people.

I liked the quote in the article that "It's as factually correct as Jesus being White" - that's certainly true.

But portraying Jesus as Afro-Caribbean is exactly the same as him being "European" Caucasian.

The pessimist in me says the church will do anything to try get people back in.

I second Two Wolves - the book very carefully doesn't mention appearance.

[NotAllThere]

A book written to appeal to millions of potential followers of multi-races

It wasn't written for that purpose, so that should resolve your puzzlement.

[BABABlackSheep]

The middle east now is nothing like in the time of Jesus. The Arab expansion of the middle ages rewrote a lot. Galilean people of the time would have looked much like Southern Italians. Jesus spent all day in the sun walking to ministry so would have been weathered and tanned. The new testament never describes him - which is odd for any book about a person.

Strange that. A book written to appeal to millions of potential followers of multi-races misses out a key part of the description of the main character.

Obviously its a true story though...

[Gibbon]

Not part of protestant creed - it's refuted* by the fact the Bible says James was Jesus' brother. The existence of other siblings is also mentioned.



* See, used it correctly there. I can be taught!

Its ambiguous as he could have been a step brother from an earlier marriage as could the others, none of it really makes sense and current theologies are a long way from the pre-Constantinian days when many versions abounded. Catholics burnt books and Protestants destroyed art, all as bad as each other. A wiser man was Symmachus who tried to reason with the increasingly intolerant Christians, that each man should be free to find for himself the universal truth. My only real gripe with religion is when it becomes politicised and informs policy. Otherwise each to their own.

[vetran]

Not part of protestant creed - it's refuted* by the fact the Bible says James was Jesus' brother. The existence of other siblings is also mentioned.



* See, used it correctly there. I can be taught!

I suppose the son of God can have a half brother!

[NotAllThere]

Actually the ancients had little problem with Gods impregnating young virgins, the biggest problem was how Mary remained a perpetual virgin,

Not part of protestant creed - it's refuted* by the fact the Bible says James was Jesus' brother. The existence of other siblings is also mentioned.



* See, used it correctly there. I can be taught!

[NotAllThere]

Rebutted is the word you are looking for, not refuted.

I stand corrected. You are right.

Although refute can mean contradict/deny. "I absolutely refute the charge that I never know what I'm talking about".

[Gibbon]

Rebutted is the word you are looking for, not refuted.

But it seems an unlikely story to me, with no obvious basis. More likely than God being the father of course, which is a ridiculous narrative. Less likely than the father being Joseph the carpenter.

Actually the ancients had little problem with Gods impregnating young virgins, the biggest problem was how Mary remained a perpetual virgin, this was one of the objections of Volsanius writing to St Augustine in the early 5th Century. Also another twist in the orthodox nicene creed, Jesus is God so he was his own 'father'.

[LondonManc]

Others allege that it's just one woman's lie that got waaay out of hand.

[Old Greg]

Celsum asserted that. Origen refuted it. Celsum wrote in the 2nd Century, so his word doesn't particulary carry more weight than other witnesses from that time. But people believe what they like and use the "reliable" sources they prefer. Personally, if I find Crossan supports it, it's probably not true. YMMV.

Rebutted is the word you are looking for, not refuted.

But it seems an unlikely story to me, with no obvious basis. More likely than God being the father of course, which is a ridiculous narrative. Less likely than the father being Joseph the carpenter.