Is there any known image of the real Jesus Christ? (mind=blown, gtfih)

[masterfulsky]

inb4 did you know jesus looked like other jews

damn potter above me

[KingSWRV]

Jesus was invented generations after his supposed life and death by the earliest Christians; by the apostle Paul and crew and was based on John the Baptist who died for being Christian at the hands of the Romans and similarly baptized people and had a following.

There was no actual guy going around doing (or even pretending to do) miracles named Jesus of Nazareth that the Bible based it on, it was a 100% fabrication.

The reason we know is because there are official records at the time that talk about mundane details like thefts and crimes in the city on a routine basis of record keeping but they never talked about Jesus and his whole uprising. Which if it was even half as hype as it was written in the Bible, they would have reported it in those said records.

They just completely made it up later and ran with it.

So to even care what race a fake person meant to be a symbolic figure for a society of religious people is pointless.

who cares what the depiction is?

[hairydinkbrah]

wait, there were no cameras before the 19th century?

Mind = blown again.

[hairydinkbrah]

Jesus was invented generations after his supposed life and death by the earliest Christians; by the apostle Paul and crew and was based on John the Baptist who died for being Christian at the hands of the Romans and similarly baptized people and had a following.

There was no actual guy going around doing (or even pretending to do) miracles named Jesus of Nazareth that the Bible based it on, it was a 100% fabrication.

The reason we know is because there are official records at the time that talk about mundane details like thefts and crimes in the city on a routine basis of record keeping but they never talked about Jesus and his whole uprising. Which if it was even half as hype as it was written in the Bible, they would have reported it in those said records.

They just completely made it up later and ran with it.

So to even care what race a fake person meant to be a symbolic figure for a society of religious people is pointless.

who cares what the depiction is?

Jesus is the most well known human figure in the history of mankind.

If you were even slightly ambitious and hungry for power, and wanted to go down in history like I do, you would appreciate how a poorly fabricated myth is going to be remembered for as long as humanity exists, while the humans who are the real leaders and contributors to society are either forgotten or extremely unappreciated in today's times

[hairydinkbrah]

Basically this.

The modern depiction of Jesus is inaccurate, he was from the middle east, and would have had darker skin most assume.

But that's typical ignorance of the west, they also call Cristobal Colombo "Christpher Columbus". lmfao.

Yes, but the point is that there are paintings that depict this jewish, dark skinned middle eastern jesus, but they're hidden in the Vatican catacombs

[giskbe]

[MinisterOfLust]

lol @ thinking jesus was real

Wot?

[Deathstroke]

I still was under the impression to this day that Jesus was a real person, who walked the earth and had followers. It's whether he was who he says he is that is up for debate. Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe he existed in some form, and doesn't history even record when he lived, and what about when he died (2016 years ago?).

[Kwace]

After I saw a blue eyed Jesus...

I stopped going to church

[KingSWRV]

After I saw a blue eyed Jesus...

I stopped going to church

Thats racist...

[bbsitum]

They didn't have digital cameras back then and he wasn't big shoot for someone sculpt him.

[TheFuarkingBoss]

[Hagakure31]

I still was under the impression to this day that Jesus was a real person, who walked the earth and had followers. It's whether he was who he says he is that is up for debate. Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe he existed in some form, and doesn't history even record when he lived, and what about when he died (2016 years ago?).

he was crucified around 30~ AD so a little less than 2016 years ago


it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, at all. If it did it would be mentioned in the NT.. what mattered was his message.

[mot1ve]

damnit.. on reload..

mirin'

[Deathstroke]

he was crucified around 30~ AD so a little less than 2016 years ago


it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, at all. If it did it would be mentioned in the NT.. what mattered was his message.

Thanks, in the end we'll all know the truth.

[KingSWRV]

I still was under the impression to this day that Jesus was a real person, who walked the earth and had followers. It's whether he was who he says he is that is up for debate. Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe he existed in some form, and doesn't history even record when he lived, and what about when he died (2016 years ago?).

No, the events of the New Testament such as Mathew, Mark, Luke, John were all written a few generations after ~30 A.D. (when Jesus supposedly died and came back to life and went to heaven) many lifetimes later when there was nobody alive anymore who lived in the same time of Jesus to deny what they were writing and mythologizing.

Since there was no internet or record on the contrary, they just made up whatever they wanted. There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good. This was common in scholarly communities.

This is why the Jews hate Christians, because they snatched up their mythology and said Jesus was the Messiah from the Old Testament prophecy but it was just made up to push their own brand of religion. This is why Jews say that jesus wasn't the real messiah. They never authorized it.

It was all Paul and the Christians hustling people with a whole new flavor or religion, one that was even more effective and advanced and viral. (Just believe in Jesus who died for you sins and you have everlasting life + plus poor people are more holier than rich people)

Most of the actual books are not even the actual apostles because almost all of them were illiterate. St Paul was the most prolific New Testament author. Many of the New Testament books are forgeries and were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

[RobElite]

I seriously don't get why people believe in god. You don't even know what he looks like among other things.

[therealistwat]

No, the events of the New Testament such as Mathew, Mark, Luke, John were all written a few generations after ~30 A.D. (when Jesus supposedly died and came back to life and went to heaven) many lifetimes later when there was nobody alive anymore who lived in the same time of Jesus to deny what they were writing and mythologizing.

Since there was no internet or record on the contrary, they just made up whatever they wanted. There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good. This was common in scholarly communities.

This is why the Jews hate Christians, because they snatched up their mythology and said Jesus was the Messiah from the Old Testament prophecy but it was just made up to push their own brand of religion. This is why Jews say that jesus wasn't the real messiah. They never authorized it.

It was all Paul and the Christians hustling people with a whole new flavor or religion, one that was even more effective and advanced and viral. (Just believe in Jesus who died for you sins and you have everlasting life + plus poor people are more holier than rich people)

Most of the actual books are not even the actual apostles because almost all of them were illiterate. St Paul was the most prolific New Testament author. Many of the New Testament books are forgeries and were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

Where can I find info about this? This kinda makes sense. Been reading on how mystery cults start, Zoroastrianism, and Canaanite stuff lately

[KingSWRV]

Where can I find info about this? This kinda makes sense. Been reading on how mystery cults start, Zoroastrianism, and Canaanite stuff lately

Its all over the place. Just search whatever question you have and make sure its not a quack source.

[bbsitum]

I seriously don't get why people believe in god. You don't even know what he looks like among other things.

They have right to believe same like you to not. Nothing is not explained so far. Life, Dead, Gravity, end of space, begining of time.

[alphafreak]

Jesus was invented generations after his supposed life and death by the earliest Christians; by the apostle Paul and crew and was based on John the Baptist who died for being Christian at the hands of the Romans and similarly baptized people and had a following.

There was no actual guy going around doing (or even pretending to do) miracles named Jesus of Nazareth that the Bible based it on, it was a 100% fabrication.

The reason we know is because there are official records at the time that talk about mundane details like thefts and crimes in the city on a routine basis of record keeping but they never talked about Jesus and his whole uprising. Which if it was even half as hype as it was written in the Bible, they would have reported it in those said records.

They just completely made it up later and ran with it.

So to even care what race a fake person meant to be a symbolic figure for a society of religious people is pointless.

who cares what the depiction is?

Prove em wrong this was recorded by Tacitus the roman historian.


Either human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.

As you see he is talking about christ being crucified by pontius pilate around the same time that the bible says so.

[Minifere]

Funny, Westerners never thought that Jesus lived in the Middle East. He would have a Bedouin features, not a "pale white" Western features.

Like this:

[JoocyKent69]

Jesus was black yo

if he was then there would be videos of him over at world starhiphop fighting romans or something, and there isnt, so he's not black.

[KingSWRV]

Prove em wrong this was recorded by Tacitus the roman historian.


Either human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.

As you see he is talking about christ being crucified by pontius pilate around the same time that the bible says so.

Written sometime after 117 AD, Tacitus' claim is that same type of second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. No historical evidence exists that Nero persecuted Christians--Nero did persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was confused. There was certainly not a "great crowd" of Christians in Rome around 60 C.E., as Tacitus put it, and, most damning, the term "Christian" was not even in use in the first century. No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus. In fact, it appears almost word-for-word in the fourth-century writings of Sulpicius Severus, where it is mixed with other obvious myths. Citing Tacitus, therefore, is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus.

Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known which adds to the indicators of forgery.

Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

[MusicProducer]

Is this YIAMSOMBODY?

[flexnation]

No, the events of the New Testament such as Mathew, Mark, Luke, John were all written a few generations after ~30 A.D. (when Jesus supposedly died and came back to life and went to heaven) many lifetimes later when there was nobody alive anymore who lived in the same time of Jesus to deny what they were writing and mythologizing.

Since there was no internet or record on the contrary, they just made up whatever they wanted. There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good. This was common in scholarly communities.

This is why the Jews hate Christians, because they snatched up their mythology and said Jesus was the Messiah from the Old Testament prophecy but it was just made up to push their own brand of religion. This is why Jews say that jesus wasn't the real messiah. They never authorized it.

It was all Paul and the Christians hustling people with a whole new flavor or religion, one that was even more effective and advanced and viral. (Just believe in Jesus who died for you sins and you have everlasting life + plus poor people are more holier than rich people)

Most of the actual books are not even the actual apostles because almost all of them were illiterate. St Paul was the most prolific New Testament author. Many of the New Testament books are forgeries and were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

The easiest gospel, Mark, is dated to 70AD. 40 Years after Jesus' death which isnt enough time for eye witnesses to have all died by then. A legend could not have risen in that short of time because there would still be people who were eyewitnesses alive to call out the bull shyt.

Even if the gospels aren't reliable, it doesnt matter. Pauls letters and life/ministry as well as the other apostles life and ministry is enough. The earliest document we have is 1st Corinthians 15 which has been dated to within 10 years of Jesus' death. Again, hardly enough time for everyone who was there to be "long gone."

What was Pauls agenda btw? He was a high ranking jew who was persecuting christians. Why would he give up his position their and become a christian preaching about Jesus' death and resurrection? To gain a following? To be immortalized? If he wasn't 100% convinced that Jesus was who he said who he was then Paul was a fuking potato and died for a lie. He was beat, run out of cities, and killed for a lie which makes zero sense.

Btw, the "Since there was no internet or record on the contrary, they just made up whatever they wanted" might be the dumbest thing i have ever seen argued. Ever. Like seriously think about the implications of that thought. Brb fuk history before the interwebz it cant be confirmed derp.

[KingSWRV]

The easiest gospel, Mark, is dated to 70AD. 40 Years after Jesus' death which isnt enough time for eye witnesses to have all died by then. A legend could not have risen in that short of time because there would still be people who were eyewitnesses alive to call out the bull shyt.

Even if the gospels aren't reliable, it doesnt matter. Pauls letters and life/ministry as well as the other apostles life and ministry is enough. The earliest document we have is 1st Corinthians 15 which has been dated to within 10 years of Jesus' death. Again, hardly enough time for everyone who was there to be "long gone."

What was Pauls agenda btw? He was a high ranking jew who was persecuting christians. Why would he give up his position their and become a christian preaching about Jesus' death and resurrection? To gain a following? To be immortalized? If he wasn't 100% convinced that Jesus was who he said who he was then Paul was a fuking potato and died for a lie. He was beat, run out of cities, and killed for a lie which makes zero sense.

Btw, the "Since there was no internet or record on the contrary, they just made up whatever they wanted" might be the dumbest thing i have ever seen argued. Ever. Like seriously think about the implications of that thought. Brb fuk history before the interwebz it cant be confirmed derp.

lol that made little sense.

You realize the max lifespan was 30 years around that time right? The majority of the new testament was written 100-300 years later with 70AD being a stretch and best case scenario of estimation. Also nobody, including Christians, actually used the term Christian any time before 100AD, ever.

You give a lot of credibility to a historical time when reading and writing was super rare. You cant even comprehend how easy it was for the few smart influential people to deceive the uneducated and raw masses easily at will.

Even Pauls supposed letter of contemplation written from his cell before he was beheaded is a well know forgery written by someone completely different years later.

[Jorge0886]

The easiest gospel, Mark, is dated to 70AD. 40 Years after Jesus' death which isnt enough time for eye witnesses to have all died by then. A legend could not have risen in that short of time because there would still be people who were eyewitnesses alive to call out the bull shyt.

Even if the gospels aren't reliable, it doesnt matter. Pauls letters and life/ministry as well as the other apostles life and ministry is enough. The earliest document we have is 1st Corinthians 15 which has been dated to within 10 years of Jesus' death. Again, hardly enough time for everyone who was there to be "long gone."

What was Pauls agenda btw? He was a high ranking jew who was persecuting christians. Why would he give up his position their and become a christian preaching about Jesus' death and resurrection? To gain a following? To be immortalized? If he wasn't 100% convinced that Jesus was who he said who he was then Paul was a fuking potato and died for a lie. He was beat, run out of cities, and killed for a lie which makes zero sense.

Btw, the "Since there was no internet or record on the contrary, they just made up whatever they wanted" might be the dumbest thing i have ever seen argued. Ever. Like seriously think about the implications of that thought. Brb fuk history before the interwebz it cant be confirmed derp.

Don't worry, he's a massive derp, and speaks like a true jew

[KingSWRV]

Don't worry, he's a massive derp, and speaks like a true jew

yo what did you just call me?????

[Jorge0886]

yo what did you just call me?????

calm down, 'ma lord

edit: actually I mistook your av for another poster, basically identical avs, LOL. Sorry for calling you a derp, but you still post like a jew O_o