What is racism?

[Value Collector]

Is there any evidence exactly what colour the ancient Israelites were?

DNA evidence would be an indicator that could be looked at, also ancient artworks where they depict themselves as being dark skined, but there would be no reason to believe the Israelites were western Europeans.

The popular images of Jesus being a white man didn't show up until centuries later as the artwork and names of characters etc were westernised, John, James, Thomas etc were not the original names of the apostles if you hadn't already guessed.



Here is an ancient mural of Moses,

 

[luutzu]

DNA evidence would be an indicator that could be looked at, also ancient artworks where they depict themselves as being dark skined, but there would be no reason to believe the Israelites were western Europeans.

The popular images of Jesus being a white man didn't show up until centuries later as the artwork and names of characters etc were westernised, John, James, Thomas etc were not the original names of the apostles if you hadn't already guessed.

View attachment 65250

Here is an ancient mural of Moses,

View attachment 65251

Next you're going to tell us the Romans didn't speak with an English accent either.
And I thought only Hollywood do these stuff.

So what were John, James, Thomas in their original? Saul is Paul I take it?

 

[Value Collector]

.

So what were John, James, Thomas in their original? Saul is Paul I take it?

Well no one knows for sure since the original texts weren't written till about 100years after the events, but in the original texts they were as follows.

Y'hochanan = John .
Mattithyahu = Matthew
Ya'aqov = James .
Bar-Tôlmay = Bartholomew
Judah = Jude / Saint Jude .
Yehuda = Judas Iscariot .
Cephas / Kephas = Peter.
Tau'ma = Thomas .
Andrew = Andrew.
Phillip = Phillip .

 

[Knobby22]

Well no one knows for sure since the original texts weren't written till about 100years after the events, but in the original texts they were as follows.

.

Not true.

Mark was written between 55AD and 70AD. The writing is very simple. He was an ordinary man. Note, no genealogy or birth narrative and was written in Greek. In the early Church he is described as mark the Evangelist and it is said he was a friend of St Peter.

Luke on the other hand was written much later by a highly educated man in the 80s or 90s around Asia minor.
Matthew, was also written independently a the same time. In Anticoch or Damascus.
They are both based on Mark.

Some scholars say they were written earlier as they don't mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD70.

John is probably about 100 years old and is quite different.

 

[wayneL]

DNA evidence would be an indicator that could be looked at, also ancient artworks where they depict themselves as being dark skined, but there would be no reason to believe the Israelites were western Europeans.

The popular images of Jesus being a white man didn't show up until centuries later as the artwork and names of characters etc were westernised, John, James, Thomas etc were not the original names of the apostles if you hadn't already guessed.

View attachment 65250

Here is an ancient mural of Moses,

View attachment 65251

Thanks

I was just questioning the assumption there were similar to the folks of today when they could easily have been either darker or lighter.

 

[wayneL]

Next question: How white do you have to be to be white?

What about the Greeks, Spaniards, Southern Italians etc. Are they white?

If so, why aren't the Turks white?

And, in this Orwellian world, can blacks be white? (It certainly seems whites can be black )

If some Indians are Aryan, does that mean they're white, or are white Aryans actually brown?

 

[Value Collector]

Not true.

Mark was written between 55AD and 70AD. The writing is very simple. He was an ordinary man. Note, no genealogy or birth narrative and was written in Greek. In the early Church he is described as mark the Evangelist and it is said he was a friend of St Peter.

Luke on the other hand was written much later by a highly educated man in the 80s or 90s around Asia minor.
Matthew, was also written independently a the same time. In Anticoch or Damascus.
They are both based on Mark.

Some scholars say they were written earlier as they don't mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD70.

John is probably about 100 years old and is quite different.

Some were younger some were older, either way my point holds they were written by anonymous authors decades after the events, so we don't know what the real names of the apostles were or even if they existed.

Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.

that puts it around atleast 40 years after the events were said to have happened, which is a persons life time in those days, could you imagine writing a story about events that happened in the 1970's that had been passed by word of mouth, how accurately would you get names and events recorded.

 

[Value Collector]

Next question: How white do you have to be to be white?

I guess it depends what it is you are describing.

When I say Jesus wasn't white, I mean he most likely didn't look like the western European artworks like this.

 

[wayneL]

Is Spain Western Europe?

 

[Value Collector]

Is Spain Western Europe?

Yep, But I don't think the Jesus or the Israelites were Spanish either, lol.

I don't think there is a need to complicate it, the western European (and that from America etc) artwork show a Jesus with very white skin, it's fair to say that he didn't fit that popular image.

So the host of the news program I linked who claimed Jesus was white, is wrong.

If you listen to the Mormans, the American Indians are Jews, and Jesus traveled to America. So maybe Jesus looked like this.

 

[wayneL]

What I'm trying to get to Tisyou, is - define white. Seems to be a fuzzy line there.

 

[IFocus]

Next question: How white do you have to be to be white?

What about the Greeks, Spaniards, Southern Italians etc. Are they white?

If so, why aren't the Turks white?

And, in this Orwellian world, can blacks be white? (It certainly seems whites can be black )

If some Indians are Aryan, does that mean they're white, or are white Aryans actually brown?

I have heard the Northern Italians talk about the Southerns as blacks they didn't seem to consider them to be white.

 

[SirRumpole]

What I'm trying to get to Tisyou, is - define white. Seems to be a fuzzy line there.

With a lot of mixed race marriages these days there seems to be no dividing line.

There are a lot of people claiming to be of aboriginal descent who look as white as anyone else. There must be some benefits to them doing that.

 

[Value Collector]

What I'm trying to get to Tisyou, is - define white. Seems to be a fuzzy line there.

if I had to define white skin, I would probably say "white skin, is skin which in its natural state has little or no pigment"

Offcourse though, the spectrum of skin colours that exist include probably over a 1000 shades, the closer the last few hundred generations of your ancestors lived to the equator the darker your skin colour will be in general.

Scandinavians for example are very light, they are considered white in almost anyone's opinion, as you move lower eventually the bulk of people would probably be described as olive skin and then darker as you move lower and lower, "races" don't really exist scientifically, we are all the same species, just evolved to suit different amounts of UV light rays.

It's a bit like lining up 100 people, with a anorexic person at one end, and a morbidly obese person at the other, and 98 people in between all with slightly increased weight as you go along, if you asked people to mark where the skinny people end and the optimal weight begins and where the fat people start, you would get all different opinions from everyone, but most would agree the anorexic is skinny and the fatty is over weight.

Trying to draw exact lines gets a bit silly, it's a bit light saying, "tell me the hour that baby become a toddler" or "tell me the hour that the boy became a man"

 

[wayneL]

I thought olives were green? Or black?

Anyway => http://www.labyrinthina.com/did-he-walk-the-americas.html

An Anthropologist, Archaeologist and Geologist who attended the University of Illinois circa 1915, and graduated from UCLA contining graduate studies in Geology and Anthropology, Lucile Taylor-Hansen had a passion. For more then 40 years she collected and compiled a plethora of Native American oral histories recalling a fair-skinned bearded prophet who spoke 1,000 languages, healed the sick, raised the dead and taught in the same words as Jesus.

Remembered by such names as Viracocha in ancient Peru, Kate-Zahl to the Toltec, Tlazoma (Tacoma) to the tribes of the Pacific Northwest, Azoma, Mahnt Azoma and the Morning Star in North American and Mexico, the same legend is recalled throughout the Americas according to tribal lore. Known as the Healer, the Prophet, the Miracle Worker, God of the Dawn Light, the Wind God, the Teacher, and the White-Robed Master, although the names were different, the legends are sung the same: In Polynesia they tell of three great ships that sailed from the West. Moving across the water there appeared a fair-skinned man in a long white garment, brown hair and golden beard. When He reached land the people saw that His robe was dry. Thus they knew He was a God. Scholars ascribe this legend to the 1st century AD. Among the Toltec of central Mexico there lived a Prophet with gray-green eyes and golden sandals. With 12 disciples He taught the people His religion of peace. The Mound Builders of North America told of a great Healer who could raise the dead and heal the sick. He walked among the people, hands raised in blessing. A mysterious cross graced each palm. Such are the stories whispered by the Holy Men and Keepers of the Legend for nearly 2,000 years.

Now I'm not trying to prove he was white or that any of it actually happened. I actually don't care, just testing the assumption he was darker because he was middle eastern. There is a better than good chance he was dark, but who knows.

 

[Value Collector]

I thought olives were green? Or black?
.

Yep, but Africans aren't really black either are they, and American Indians aren't really red, and Asians aren't really yellow. these are just terms were use to try and define slight differences in skin tone. I think you are wrapping yourself around the axles a bit here.

An Anthropologist, Archaeologist and Geologist who attended the University of Illinois circa 1915, and graduated from UCLA contining graduate studies in Geology and Anthropology, Lucile Taylor-Hansen had a passion. For more then 40 years she collected and compiled a plethora of Native American oral histories recalling a fair-skinned bearded prophet who spoke 1,000 languages, healed the sick, raised the dead and taught in the same words as Jesus.

Do you have any other supporting research to back those claims?

Seems like a story the Mormon church would construct to try and give credit to their claims that Jesus Visited America.

Remembered by such names as Viracocha in ancient Peru, Kate-Zahl to the Toltec, Tlazoma (Tacoma) to the tribes of the Pacific Northwest, Azoma, Mahnt Azoma and the Morning Star in North American and Mexico, the same legend is recalled throughout the Americas according to tribal lore. Known as the Healer, the Prophet, the Miracle Worker, God of the Dawn Light, the Wind God, the Teacher, and the White-Robed Master, although the names were different, the legends are sung the same: In Polynesia they tell of three great ships that sailed from the West. Moving across the water there appeared a fair-skinned man in a long white garment, brown hair and golden beard. When He reached land the people saw that His robe was dry. Thus they knew He was a God. Scholars ascribe this legend to the 1st century AD. Among the Toltec of central Mexico there lived a Prophet with gray-green eyes and golden sandals. With 12 disciples He taught the people His religion of peace. The Mound Builders of North America told of a great Healer who could raise the dead and heal the sick. He walked among the people, hands raised in blessing. A mysterious cross graced each palm. Such are the stories whispered by the Holy Men and Keepers of the Legend for nearly 2,000 years.

Again, are you aware of any real evidence for this stuff, where are you getting this from?

There is a better than good chance he was dark, but who knows

There is actually a better than good chance that he didn't exist at all, and this whole discussion might be as silly as us trying to decide the colour pattern of the rainbow serpent. As I have said, if he existed, where are the artworks made of him during his life, the fact we have no art of him until over 100years after his death is a real blow to credibility, such a powerful figure would have inspired art works, where are they?

However there is no reason to believe if he did exist he would have be white, the explaination for that popular image is simply that the people that made those artworks lived in societies of light skinned people and made the images to represent what they saw as being a handsome character.

 

[SirRumpole]

There is actually a better than good chance that he didn't exist at all,

The majority of historians disagree with you, most agree that Jesus existed, although the details of his life are pretty sketchy.

Nevertheless there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][2]:168–173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.[16][nb 8][18][19][20] Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[21][22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

[Value Collector]

The majority of historians disagree with you, most agree that Jesus existed, although the details of his life are pretty sketchy.

that's like saying historians agree Santa existed, because St Nick is a historical figure and the santa character was inspired by him.

The fact is even if the Jesus story was inspired by a real guy, you can't say the bible character "Jesus" existed.

I have done a fair bit of research on the topic, and when they say "Most historians agree jesus existed", the evidence is really, really, really thin, all they can really say is that most likely the story of john the Baptist is somewhat true and there was a baptism, But they are using the Bible as evidence.

There is no evidence outside the bible (that I have heard off) of Jesus. I really want to see some documents or artworks or writings from his enemies etc that came about during his life (not 70 years later), feel free to point me in the direction of where I can find them.

the fact there is nothing from when he was meant to have lived is evidence against him being a real person in my opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

There is no evidence outside the bible (that I have heard off) of Jesus. I really want to see some documents or artworks or writings from his enemies etc that came about during his life (not 70 years later), feel free to point me in the direction of where I can find them.

You might actually try reading the article quoted before being so dismissive.

Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[38] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe.[39] The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[40] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.[39][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]

Classical historian Michael Grant wrote that:

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.[48]

 

[Value Collector]

You might actually try reading the article quoted before being so dismissive.

I have read it before.

You are talking about documents written 80years after Jesus died.

You might actually try reading my post quoted below before being so dismissive.

I really want to see some documents or artworks or writings from his enemies etc that came about during his life (not 70 years later), feel free to point me in the direction of where I can find them.

___________________________________

I will ask you this,

Does / Did Santa Claus exist? (eg, North pole guy, with a toy factory, annual global present delivery, with reindeer, makes lists checks twice, belly like a bowl full of jelly etc)

If the existence of St Nicolas doesn't stop you saying Santa claus is a myth, then even if there was an eccentric Jewish rabbi that inspired the Jesus myth, it shouldn't stop you saying Jesus didn't exist.

----------------------------------

I think you missed the most damning piece of the historical Jesus argument, the scholars are saying that because they think its unlikely Christians would have made up the part where their leader is killed and where their leader submits to john the Baptist, the stories are likely to be true.

That's their strongest piece of evidence, which to me is very weak and not real evidence at all.