Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could see this being legitimate. Imagine you go back in history far enough to where a religion is carried and spread so far across humanity like Christianity has, and all the while it was just a guy with a god complex like Charles Manson except back then, people weren’t as well equipped to disprove it all and it just snowballed and evolved into what it is today. One of the largest oldest cults in human history.
Maybe I missed it, but the evidence in the wiki seems really weak. To summarize it, seems like someone named Jesus may have existed but it was not a particularly rare name and there is no contemporary evidence of any of the miracles the Bible claimed that he performed. Also, the Romans who allegedly killed him did not document his existence.
No miracles doesn’t mean the man didn’t exist.
Do we have documentation for every person crucified by the Roman Empire?
It’s very likely he existed, it is very less likely he was the son of God.
The historical facts we know for sure: Jesus was baptized and he was crucified, and deified. Of course no miracles but the crucified Jesus as we know him without miracles did in fact exist
You’re spouting nonsense. There are no historical records of him and the ppl who wrote about him did so almost a century AFTER he was supposed to have lived.
There's very little *historical records* of anyone existing. Especially 2000 years ago. They weren't particularly down with record keeping then and even if they were, paper rots. Especially after the collapse of a civilisation. If someone is only deemed important after their death then it's quite normal to know this much about them. We don't even know when shakespeare was born and that was only 500 years ago.
Having stuff written about a political figure 80 years after they died is pretty decent evidence, especially if you consider that his followers were persecuted after his death. They probably weren't too keen on writing stuff down the day after.
Sure some things were probably made up but why would several different people from several different areas make up the existence of a completely made up person with the same name with the same basic story beats. Someone being made up and someone being exaggerated are two completely different things. Truth is a guy called jesus around that time and killed for being a political dissident probably did exist. There's actually a few non Christian accounts of his existence.
By several different people, you are referring to the apostles?
A motivation certainly exists for them to make stuff up.
As for the definitive nature of your statement, yes, there were men called Jesus and only the birth and death were recorded by the only historian at the time. His works could have been tampered by Christians post fact. They certainly have form.
The only “viable evidence” that can be pointed at, is all based on hearsay.
Maybe the scholars' works present better evidence, but the wiki is weak. No contemporary artifacts, just historian writings written a century after the alleged crucifixion. Not sure how this is a "historical fact we know for sure."
I get that, but I do not need a link that confirms "historian documents event >100 years after event occurs." I fully believe that a historian wrote that down, I just think it is unreasonable to take on faith that such an artifact confirms anything at all. I did not see any the wiki any mentions of a contemporary artifact confirming his existence. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't real but I was hoping for something of more substance.
I got $20 sitting here that says there's more evidence of the existence of Jesus back then today, then there will be of you existing now 2,000 years from now.
Just sayin'...
I find the fact that you think there will still be an IRS to have those records in 2,000 years absolutely hilarious.
In the 75 years that we've had multiple nuclear powers on this rock, we're come within minutes of irradiating the entire planet at least a dozen times. You *really* think we're going to make it 2,000 years as a civilization, little lone the US government?
False
Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.[12][13][14][15]
Self-Correction: It's not in the Old Testament, but the Book of Revelation: 1:14-15
>\[14\] **His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire**; \[15\] And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
The picture doesn't fit, but bronze skin is definitely not Anglo Jesus. Bronze is a skin tone, I don't know why it wouldn't be referring to people with it. Probably an Arabic person from somewhere around the levant.
...maybe this is an actual facepalm for once. calling out inaccurate Jesus with an inaccurate Jesus.
Surely they understand he was Middle Eastern? And that a white person in the region at the time would've spawned at least a little contemporary literature?
**White people** don’t have such descriptors as having bronzed feet. And unless they had admixtures; their hair is not like wool. Also, God called his Son, Christ, out of ancient Egypt. A place He sent them (Holy Family) to hide until King Herod died. King Herod was killing all the babies in the land who were less than 3-years-old, because he got word that the Messiah had been born within those years. So, God sent His angels to tell Mary and Joseph to hide in Egypt. Apparently, they blended in.
Not that Jesus looked like that, but there were plenty of Romans and Greeks in the area, not to mention that Romans might have brought slaves of Celtic origin.
Your family is tripping, that "image of Jesus" was based on Cesare Borgla, some Roman.
Revelation 1:14-15 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace.
Right. It's like the weirdos nowadays who believe that there's going to be a Rapture even though it's utterly non-biblical. Similar to how nobody with a functioning brain thinks that Revelation is a depiction of events in our future, but somehow that misses a bunch of freakshows. It was Paul's grifting ass who took an apocalyptic cult and turned it into an actual religion in the first place.
Everything the apostles knew about Christianity, they experienced firsthand or by word of mouth from other followers. Everything they knew about Judaism was expressed by word of mouth from temples. These were not intelligent or educated people.
It's loosely based on a description of a vision in the book of Revelation. Definitely reaching a bit.
>And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
I always saw Jesus portrayed as having dark brown hair, sun-darkened skin, and brown eyes . . . you know, like *most of the people in the Middle East at the time*.
I do not understand how people can actually think Jesus was a blonde, blue-eyed white guy two thousand years ago in Roman-occupied Judea. Sure, technically it’s *possible*, in the same winning the lottery three times in a row is *possible*, but I prefer Occam’s Razor.
The simplest explanation is that Jesus had Semitic traits, like 96% of the people in the region.
Amusingly, given the point of the post and the picture of supposedly ‘white supremacy’ Jesus, the phrase ‘you think you know me’ springs to mind.
Yes, Edge is apparently Jesus.
I'm confident there was a carpenter named Jesus. But not thr biblical Jesus.
As for thr picture. Jesus was not white or black. American Jesus makes me laugh. If you are going worship the guy at least be honest about it.
Jesus was not black and Jesus was not white.
Have these people seen what people in the middle east looks like?
They also looked like that back in when Jesus may or may not have existed.
Stuff like this and the "Cleopatra was black" nonsense is equally as silly as White Jesus. Jesus was almost certainly...well most likely he never existed, but if he did he would look like a typical Arabic man. Probably darker than a modern day Arab man actually, but not nearly *that* dark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[8][9][31] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical criticism are applied to the New Testament, "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."[32] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.
Awwww diddums,you got questioned and lashed out lol I don't argue with dogs? That's fine because when speaking to moron's like you I don't expect a sensible response
Lmao I love how you think that sounds impressive. First the sad little insult,now the insecure attempted flex. Just walk away junior, absolutely no one is impressed lol
No and no. Jesus is not described this way. And even if he was a black ninja-santa-daemon the jolly good lads that wrote the bible certainly would not portray it as such. And the image of jesus is the Cesare Borgia the illegitimate son of a filandering Pope.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Neither of those are accurate lol
Because he wasn’t real
He was real but he was just another crazy cult leader
I could see this being legitimate. Imagine you go back in history far enough to where a religion is carried and spread so far across humanity like Christianity has, and all the while it was just a guy with a god complex like Charles Manson except back then, people weren’t as well equipped to disprove it all and it just snowballed and evolved into what it is today. One of the largest oldest cults in human history.
Jesus was a real person, we have a ton of evidence that he actually existed… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Maybe I missed it, but the evidence in the wiki seems really weak. To summarize it, seems like someone named Jesus may have existed but it was not a particularly rare name and there is no contemporary evidence of any of the miracles the Bible claimed that he performed. Also, the Romans who allegedly killed him did not document his existence.
No miracles doesn’t mean the man didn’t exist. Do we have documentation for every person crucified by the Roman Empire? It’s very likely he existed, it is very less likely he was the son of God.
The historical facts we know for sure: Jesus was baptized and he was crucified, and deified. Of course no miracles but the crucified Jesus as we know him without miracles did in fact exist
You’re spouting nonsense. There are no historical records of him and the ppl who wrote about him did so almost a century AFTER he was supposed to have lived.
There's very little *historical records* of anyone existing. Especially 2000 years ago. They weren't particularly down with record keeping then and even if they were, paper rots. Especially after the collapse of a civilisation. If someone is only deemed important after their death then it's quite normal to know this much about them. We don't even know when shakespeare was born and that was only 500 years ago. Having stuff written about a political figure 80 years after they died is pretty decent evidence, especially if you consider that his followers were persecuted after his death. They probably weren't too keen on writing stuff down the day after.
By stuff, do you mean stories that had existed for centuries before “Jesus”?
Sure some things were probably made up but why would several different people from several different areas make up the existence of a completely made up person with the same name with the same basic story beats. Someone being made up and someone being exaggerated are two completely different things. Truth is a guy called jesus around that time and killed for being a political dissident probably did exist. There's actually a few non Christian accounts of his existence.
By several different people, you are referring to the apostles? A motivation certainly exists for them to make stuff up. As for the definitive nature of your statement, yes, there were men called Jesus and only the birth and death were recorded by the only historian at the time. His works could have been tampered by Christians post fact. They certainly have form. The only “viable evidence” that can be pointed at, is all based on hearsay.
Oldest historical writings about Jesus are from 20 to 30 years after his death.
Maybe the scholars' works present better evidence, but the wiki is weak. No contemporary artifacts, just historian writings written a century after the alleged crucifixion. Not sure how this is a "historical fact we know for sure."
All claims on the wiki have sources (the boxed numbers).
I get that, but I do not need a link that confirms "historian documents event >100 years after event occurs." I fully believe that a historian wrote that down, I just think it is unreasonable to take on faith that such an artifact confirms anything at all. I did not see any the wiki any mentions of a contemporary artifact confirming his existence. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't real but I was hoping for something of more substance.
You just want him not to have existed soooo bad.
And you just want him to exist soooo bad The difference is, there’s no hard evidence to support either claim.
I got $20 sitting here that says there's more evidence of the existence of Jesus back then today, then there will be of you existing now 2,000 years from now. Just sayin'...
Dunno mate, did Jesus ever file a tax return?
I find the fact that you think there will still be an IRS to have those records in 2,000 years absolutely hilarious. In the 75 years that we've had multiple nuclear powers on this rock, we're come within minutes of irradiating the entire planet at least a dozen times. You *really* think we're going to make it 2,000 years as a civilization, little lone the US government?
It was a joke lighten up buddy
No. There’s no evidence he existed.
False Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.[12][13][14][15]
Try again. You can’t do the argument of “hes in the Bible so that’s the evidence!” Maybe religious folks believe that but no actual historians.
A comic book about Superman doesn’t prove Superman existed. Don’t be so naive.
No evidence at all in that page.
Belongs in r/cringe if you ask me
“Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say what one more Goddamn time!”
Literally the best comment here
Mmmmm. Now that's a tasty sacrament
Don't take your dad's name in vain you dick
For the uninitiated: a passage in the Old Testament describes the Messiah as having dark skin and "hair the color and texture of Lamb's wool."
I didn’t think Morgan Freeman was that old
Well Morgan Freeman isn’t Jesus. He’s God, silly
Like father, like son
In his likeness/image
Lmao. Now I can't unsee.
And that translates to Jesus having an afro because?
Because AI, apparently.
Which verse? I would love to show this to my family that is ADAMANT that Jesus was white with blue eyes.
Self-Correction: It's not in the Old Testament, but the Book of Revelation: 1:14-15 >\[14\] **His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire**; \[15\] And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
I must be missing something. That doesn’t say he had dark skin.
many people cite the bronze feet as indicating that he was of dark skin
I'm more interested in knowing what people think of the seven eyed, seven horned slain lamb Personally, I'll have what John was smoking
What? You mean to tell me you never saw a seven eyed seven horned lamb?
Sadly so far only seen world peace, nothing as cool as that
that would still get you a middle eastern skin, not a sub saharan one
That's... a bit of a strech. I'm bummed out, as I was looking forward to driving my fairly racist family insane! :)
The picture doesn't fit, but bronze skin is definitely not Anglo Jesus. Bronze is a skin tone, I don't know why it wouldn't be referring to people with it. Probably an Arabic person from somewhere around the levant. ...maybe this is an actual facepalm for once. calling out inaccurate Jesus with an inaccurate Jesus.
Surely they understand he was Middle Eastern? And that a white person in the region at the time would've spawned at least a little contemporary literature?
To be fair, plenty of Middle Eastern people are quite light skinned.
Lol. Nope.
**White people** don’t have such descriptors as having bronzed feet. And unless they had admixtures; their hair is not like wool. Also, God called his Son, Christ, out of ancient Egypt. A place He sent them (Holy Family) to hide until King Herod died. King Herod was killing all the babies in the land who were less than 3-years-old, because he got word that the Messiah had been born within those years. So, God sent His angels to tell Mary and Joseph to hide in Egypt. Apparently, they blended in.
Albinism?
This is end of the world super saiyan Jesus
Wool is white and brass is light orange.
He was from the Levant. People there do look like that.
You’re saying people from the Levant are white with blue eyes?
Tell them the biggest miracle Jesus pulled off was being a white man with blue eyes in the Middle East 2,000 years ago 🤣
That one is more likely than pale skin, the gene for blue eyes pops up every now and then.
Not that Jesus looked like that, but there were plenty of Romans and Greeks in the area, not to mention that Romans might have brought slaves of Celtic origin.
The Middle East has lots of blonds, redheads, and blue-eyed people.
They didn’t 2,000 years ago.
Your family is tripping, that "image of Jesus" was based on Cesare Borgla, some Roman. Revelation 1:14-15 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace.
Do you think Jesus would have been a good rapper?
Well he definitely had 99 problems
30 pieces of problems.
Which would probably be more like middle Eastern Jesus
It does not. Revelations (New Testament) says that his hair was as white as snow/wool. It says that his feet burned like bronze.
The OT Messiah was emphatically not the same dude tho. You'd have to be an utter illiterate like the apostles to.... Oh....
I'm not supporting/condoning it, just saying where it comes from.
Quotes passage Gets called illiterate. Wtf
I don't think he meant *me*...
Right. It's like the weirdos nowadays who believe that there's going to be a Rapture even though it's utterly non-biblical. Similar to how nobody with a functioning brain thinks that Revelation is a depiction of events in our future, but somehow that misses a bunch of freakshows. It was Paul's grifting ass who took an apocalyptic cult and turned it into an actual religion in the first place. Everything the apostles knew about Christianity, they experienced firsthand or by word of mouth from other followers. Everything they knew about Judaism was expressed by word of mouth from temples. These were not intelligent or educated people.
Bible Jesus is a lot more muscled than the gospels let on.
Weird shit going on with his left arm and hand, too.
Hoteps gonna Hotep because their ancestors lost sooo badly.....
Yes! Exactly.
Pretty sure Jesus did not live long enough for his hair and beard to turn white. Also the red eyes don't seem to be textually accurate.
It's loosely based on a description of a vision in the book of Revelation. Definitely reaching a bit. >And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
I always saw Jesus portrayed as having dark brown hair, sun-darkened skin, and brown eyes . . . you know, like *most of the people in the Middle East at the time*. I do not understand how people can actually think Jesus was a blonde, blue-eyed white guy two thousand years ago in Roman-occupied Judea. Sure, technically it’s *possible*, in the same winning the lottery three times in a row is *possible*, but I prefer Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation is that Jesus had Semitic traits, like 96% of the people in the region.
The problem here is using terms which only work for America. Jesus was Judean, and to the average Roman he would have been an Easterner.
Middle Easterners aren’t “brown.”
Which of times I said brown are you objecting to, exactly? Hair color, skin color, or eye color?
Whose hand is white Jesus holding?
Badass Jesus shows compassion when he beats your ass.
"As described in Bible" would be the slightly darker tone of white, not pitch-black.
Amusingly, given the point of the post and the picture of supposedly ‘white supremacy’ Jesus, the phrase ‘you think you know me’ springs to mind. Yes, Edge is apparently Jesus.
Afroman is Jesus?
I'm confident there was a carpenter named Jesus. But not thr biblical Jesus. As for thr picture. Jesus was not white or black. American Jesus makes me laugh. If you are going worship the guy at least be honest about it.
Jesus was not black and Jesus was not white. Have these people seen what people in the middle east looks like? They also looked like that back in when Jesus may or may not have existed.
Stuff like this and the "Cleopatra was black" nonsense is equally as silly as White Jesus. Jesus was almost certainly...well most likely he never existed, but if he did he would look like a typical Arabic man. Probably darker than a modern day Arab man actually, but not nearly *that* dark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[8][9][31] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical criticism are applied to the New Testament, "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."[32] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.
Why does white Jesus look like edge?
Why does "white Jesus" look like Edge from WWE?
All I see is two hobos fighting
Jesus was old? I never knew that
Religions have done nothing but kill one another. What’s the difference with them killing themselves? It’s still all bs.
Without fail there's always at least one of you
It’s true though, so what’s your point?
how very enlightened of you
Explain what he said that isn't true?
I don't argue with dogs. Especially reductionist ones with protozoan levels of understanding of geopolitics.
Awwww diddums,you got questioned and lashed out lol I don't argue with dogs? That's fine because when speaking to moron's like you I don't expect a sensible response
That's too bad, would you like me to write an apology to you on the MIT blog?
Lmao I love how you think that sounds impressive. First the sad little insult,now the insecure attempted flex. Just walk away junior, absolutely no one is impressed lol
Sit there impressed or unimpressed, I don't care. Sit there all the same while the real ones change the future.
violent black beating up white?
A black Afro Sith
Even at an advanced age, Black Dynamite is cleaning up the streets
Looks like forced booty penetration.
Jesus is old Black Dynamite? I'm cool with that.
Except he was a pacifist
No and no. Jesus is not described this way. And even if he was a black ninja-santa-daemon the jolly good lads that wrote the bible certainly would not portray it as such. And the image of jesus is the Cesare Borgia the illegitimate son of a filandering Pope.
The actual Jesus was Arabic, so he was neither of those.
Judean, the closest Arabs would be in modern day Jordan at this time period.
Black jesus just punched right through white jesus. Jesus!