It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why isnt Jesus, an Arab?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
It would probably be difficult or impossible to find a true "Aramaic Jew" of the time ethnically today.


Not true. They have very restrictive marriage laws, so they are less "mongrel" than the rest of us. Children of a Jew who married a non-Jew could not be considered Jewish (and Judaism didn't encourage converts.)




posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Yes, but not all Semites are Arab.


I didn't say "all Semites are Arab." I said Arabs are Semites too.


The Koran's knowledge of Jesus's life is second hand at best coming from Christian sources in the first place.


I didn't realize Muhammad was Christian. Thanks for that input.


[edit on 4-2-2007 by DJMessiah]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
I didn't say "all Semites are Arab." I said Arabs are Semites too.


That is correct, others were lumping all Semitic groups as Arab. That is plainly not the case.



I didn't realize Muhammad was Christian. Thanks for that input.



Just making the point that Muhammad's knowledge of Jesus is many centuries removed from the actual events and second hand and that's being generous. I never said he was a Christian, don't pick a fight where there is none.

I think most people are in agreement that many of the Semitic groups in the region intermingled their respective bloodlines via the conquests of various groups of other various groups, that's why many look similar.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
They have very restrictive marriage laws, so they are less "mongrel" than the rest of us.

I know this is the way it use to be...
...nowadays isn't there a higher percentage of Jewish people marrying outside their faith? I wish I could find newer statistics, but here's something:

External Source

"It is true that most Jews have accepted intermarriage as inevitable. Indeed, the National Jewish Population Study of 1990 has found that a majority of new Jewish marriages are now intermarriages."

www.slate.com...

Sounds "mongrel-ish" to me.


[edit on 4-2-2007 by rocknroll]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Just making the point that Muhammad's knowledge of Jesus is many centuries removed from the actual events and second hand and that's being generous.


He was a prophet, his teachings had been directly from God. When he saw Jesus and Moses, it was from his own ascension into heaven, not what someone had told him.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by pavil
Just making the point that Muhammad's knowledge of Jesus is many centuries removed from the actual events and second hand and that's being generous.


He was a prophet, his teachings had been directly from God. When he saw Jesus and Moses, it was from his own ascension into heaven, not what someone had told him.



Although I don't normally ridicule for beliefs....come on man. This thread is about how some people are sick of the 'Jesus was white' trip, and want to know why he isn't portrayed in art as he should ethnically (semetic).

It's not about halluacintions from dellusional war mongerers in caves (Muhammad).



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the hebrews back then looked nothing like the hebrews of today

ancient hebrews looked different, actually, the looked like THIS



Madness, actually, that "sculpture" that is in that picture is a rendition of what some contemporary thinkers believe Jesus looked like..



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Although I don't normally ridicule for beliefs....come on man. This thread is about how some people are sick of the 'Jesus was white' trip, and want to know why he isn't portrayed in art as he should ethnically (semetic).


Indeed, which is why I gave Islam's take on his depiction.


It's not about halluacintions from dellusional war mongerers in caves (Muhammad).


A failed attempt at trolling, I see. Do some research and you will see that he only defended himself in wars, never being the offender. The purpose of this site is to deny ignorance, not perpetuate it with hate.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
listen up, bible school is in session.

When God warned Noah of the flood and to prepare an Ark, Noah built it with the assistance of his 3 sons, for Noah was an older man of his time.

When it was time to float the Ark (when the deluge ensued) he brought his 3 sons, along with their wives, inside the boat. Their name from youngest to oldest were Ham, Shem, Japheth.

Japheth had a bunch of sons who became the patriarchs of various European, Eurasian, and Asian peoples. He was known as having a fair complection If im not mistaken, and was referred to as 'the elder'.

Shem had a bunch of sons who became the patriarchs of various Middle Eastern and West Asian peoples. Abraham was of Shem's line. His two sons Isaac and Ishmael were of Shem's line as well; Isaac was from Shem on his fathers side, and from Shem on his mother's side, while Ishmael's mother was Egyptian and thus a descendant of Ham, the youngest son of Noah. He was the middle child, Shem. The term Semitic comes from Shemitic with the H removed.

Ham had a bunch of sons who became patriarchs of various African peoples, as well as disputibly the people of the southern Arabian peninsula (Yemen, Qatar). He was known for his dark skin, darker than the other 2. Ishmael, the patriach of Arab people, had a mother of Hamitic descent, while having a father of Shemitic descent. Some argue Egyptians were Shemitic not Hamitic, if this is true then Arabs are equally "Semitic" to Jews.

So, if we are assuming this is the basis for what an Arab "is" , and what an ethnic jew "is", then they are just about the same ethnicity and look very similar. The jews of the bible, including Yeshua/Jesus, were Shemitic and thus medium tan complexion. Present day Israelites are 90% Ashkenazi, which is a Japhetic ethnicity derived from Ashkenaz, the son of Japheth. this term is used to refer to Eastern European Jews.. such as those killed in the genocide of the holocaust. Thus there is some legitimacy by the Arab claim that present day Israelites are not of that land and are therefore occupying. But its not about the ethnicity, rather the religon itself now, and it doesnt matter where your people came from, all that matters is your faith. So i disagree with that Arab opinion.

As for Yeshua/Jesus, he was from what we now call The West Bank, a Palestinian territory, thus Arabs are living there. Many places of today's world are populated by entire groups of people who aren't even originally from that land; take USA and Canada, as well as Australia and New Zealand for example. So, theres no way of knowing for sure if he was of pure Jewish line, from those who were exiled and returned or who escaped the exile and subsequent persecution, OR of Samaritan line, those peoples who lived surrounding the Jews before the Babylonian exile. With the Jews that escaped the exile, the samaritans restarted daily worship and sacrifices at temple mount in a very similar fashion to the original jews but not the same nonetheless. When they exiled jews returned from babylonia, they made these samaritans remove themselves from theirn priestly positions and took over their rightful places at the temple. He is said to be of David's bloodline, if this is correct then he'd be of the exiled jewish line, the 'old jewish ethnic bloodline' that barely exists today.

Jesus couldve very well been from either line, exiled jew or samaritan psuedo-jew. Both are Shemitic thus nearly identical in appearance to todays Arab population. So from a strictly ethnic standpoint, Jesus was indeed much closer looking appearance wise to modern day Arabs as opposed to modern day Israelites, but this is because 90% of todays modern Israelite jews are Ashkenazi, thus of whole or partial european descent.

[edit on 2/5/2007 by runetang]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
I think his appearance is completely relevant.

Consider a few hypothetical examples:

If Jesus had been black and had always been pictured that way, do you think that African-Americans would have suffered so much violence and segregation in the US? Would there have had to be a civil rights movement at all?

If Jesus had been Arabic and had always been pictured that way, do you think we would handle Iraq the same way we are now? Would we have tortured the detainees at Guantanamo?

Jesus' message was indeed important, but a stained-glass picture could be worth a thousand messages.


If people actually listened to his message you think there would be slavery in the U.S. or a war in Iraq?

I think not.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
If people actually listened to his message you think there would be slavery in the U.S. or a war in Iraq?

I think not.


i disagree
if you read the rest of the bible (the parts that aren't directly quoted from jesus) the book endoreses slavery and war
hell, it endorses divinly inspired genocide



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
If people actually listened to his message you think there would be slavery in the U.S. or a war in Iraq?
I think not.


That's my point. "His message" isn't being received. This message could be so much more potent if combined with an appropriate symbol (a more accurate portrayal of Jesus).

I think it's time that we stopped creating GOD in our image.

There will still be those who use the violent portions of the Christian Bible to justify their violent acts, but it is my opinion that a consistent portrayal of a non-caucasian Jesus would lead to more acceptance of diversity and would lend more meaning to the verse, "Love thy neighbor ..."



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

i disagree
if you read the rest of the bible (the parts that aren't directly quoted from jesus) the book endoreses slavery and war
hell, it endorses divinly inspired genocide


While that's all good and true...I believe they meant only meant Jesus' message, not the entire bible. Jesus' was mostly of passifism and peace. He used a little violence w/ metaphors, but he was more of a hippy than anything.


If we were to follow the actually bible to a T, I think we'd be extinct right now



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Indeed, which is why I gave Islam's take on his depiction.


Unless Muhammad had a time machine, I'm pretty sure he never saw any of the other prophets.
Jesus was 600 yrs. before, and Moses, some 2000 yrs. before (or something near that mark)



A failed attempt at trolling, I see. Do some research and you will see that he only defended himself in wars, never being the offender. The purpose of this site is to deny ignorance, not perpetuate it with hate.


Whether he instigated them or not, he was still dellusional.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Unless Muhammad had a time machine, I'm pretty sure he never saw any of the other prophets.


Look up the Mi’raj from Masjid al-Aqsa. It details his ascension to heaven and him meeting Jesus and describing his features.


Whether he instigated them or not, he was still dellusional.


Right, just as is said about every prophet. Rather than posting your opinion as fact, show some proof of him being delusional and explain how he performed miracles.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by DJMessiah]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
While a lot of people are saying Jesus looked like an Arab, how come nobody is saying Arabs look pretty much like they are Hebrew? Point is, all the Semitic people in the region share more in looks then they do not share.
I think we all can agree that unless he took on a out of region look, Jesus looked pretty much like others in his surroundings, ie he looked similar to most in the region, light brown to dark brown skin and probably dark hair with the typical facial hair of the times. That is not to say he might have looked different, but most records we have do not describe him as looking out of the ordinary at the time.

I wasn't trying to dis Islam, just mentioning that of the big three monotheist religions, Islam is the youngest. It most definitely was influenced by the other two more because of it's relative youth. Just as you could say that Christianity has been influenced by Judaism.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Hello. I am new here but have been reading this thread and find it very interesting. I hope I can join in.
Satan, the deciever, would like us to believe all sorts of things. One, that Jesus was white, pitifully pale in fact, had long scraggly hair and was a weak man.
Of course, we know better because of where he was born as well as the tradition of the times. First, he was a carpenter. How many weak and pale capenters do you know? They are tan, buff and anything but weak. I suspect Jesus was the same. Further, the tradition of the time was that long hair was for women! Jewish teachers (rabbis) had short hair with long curls for "sideburns." It is possible that Jesus had these curls. He was a teacher as he was called over and over again throughout the New Testament. Probably later on he just had short hair. But, Satan would like us to think of Jesus as a weakling and that is why we see Him depicted as such.
Another deception is how Satan himself would look. Do we really think that he is ugly, monstrous...having a pitchfork and tail? Hardly! Who would follow something that looked like that. Satan/Lucifer was an angel of God who got a bit too big for his britches, so to speak. As an angel he was beautiful. Satan and, I believe, the Antichrist was, is, will be....beautiful. He will be tempting, good looking, intelligent....all the things that we would admire in a leader. That is how he is able to decieve us all. Think about it. Those things in life that are "bad" for us that we do anyway...they aren't ugly or distasteful (usually). They are tasty, give us a pleasant feeling, etc. Only after we experience these things do we realize their true nature. The same goes for Satan, I think.
Remember that Jesus was of the House of David. This is interesting because Mary was NOT of that line. Joseph was! Mary was an Essene.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidtamer
Hello. I am new here but have been reading this thread and find it very interesting. I hope I can join in.


Welcome to the ATS family. Of course you can join in. This forum is free for anyone to post



Satan, the deciever, would like us to believe all sorts of things. One, that Jesus was white, pitifully pale in fact, had long scraggly hair and was a weak man.


I would have to say you're right in that there is deception about Jesus being a white male, but I would say that it's man's deception not the devil's that caused this image. Through out the Renaissance in particular, art work depicting Jesus was made to look like the people who lived in the region of the artist. This is why so many art depictions of him make him look as if he is Italian. If you look at art work in other times, including the Anglo-Saxon period, Jesus is made to look completely like a white man, with blond straight hair, blue eyes, and pale skin. This too was his depiction based on the people's facial and bodily features in the area of the artist. Even today, his depictions have changed, more drastically too I might add. Some art work even incorporates feminine features to him, like high cheek bones, plucked eye brows, rosy cheeks, permed hair with highlights, such as:




Of course, we know better because of where he was born as well as the tradition of the times.


You're right about this. He followed Jewish law, including maintaining short hair. The Bible states that Jesus had hair like wool, so if he had short hair like wool, it would be like most Middle Eastern people today.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Look up the Mi’raj from Masjid al-Aqsa. It details his ascension to heaven and him meeting Jesus and describing his features.


Just because it's talked about, doesn't mean it happened.



Right, just as is said about every prophet. Rather than posting your opinion as fact, show some proof of him being delusional and explain how he performed miracles.


Why should I prove a negative? You prove that his miracles were actually done. Or any prophet's mircales were actually done. And prove how he talked to dead people. And prove that he met God (and prove God while you're at it). Anyone can claim a vision. There's no proof needed for anyone to believe. It's ludicrous.

Again, visions have NOTHING to do with how Jesus looked. It's up to the people who were there around him and were with him at the time he lived to give us that info. Whether it be through art oe written description.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidtamer
Satan, the deciever, would like us to believe all sorts of things. One, that Jesus was white, pitifully pale in fact, had long scraggly hair and was a weak man.


I'm pretty sure Artists aren't Satan. Even though some may seem as such




Of course, we know better because of where he was born as well as the tradition of the times. First, he was a carpenter.


Well, 'hand-worker'. But I'm sure carpentry was one of his jobs among others.



How many weak and pale capenters do you know? They are tan, buff and anything but weak. I suspect Jesus was the same.


Probably. Except for that whole, missing piece of his life in the bible. Which many scholars believed he traveled during that time. not really getting buff so to speak.



Further, the tradition of the time was that long hair was for women! Jewish teachers (rabbis) had short hair with long curls for "sideburns." It is possible that Jesus had these curls. He was a teacher as he was called over and over again throughout the New Testament. Probably later on he just had short hair. But, Satan would like us to think of Jesus as a weakling and that is why we see Him depicted as such.


Again, Satan (if there was a satan) doesn't inhabit artists. Artists paint what they know. And the artists were Eurpean and knew plenty of whie people.



Another deception is how Satan himself would look. Do we really think that he is ugly, monstrous...having a pitchfork and tail? Hardly! Who would follow something that looked like that. Satan/Lucifer was an angel of God who got a bit too big for his britches, so to speak. As an angel he was beautiful. Satan and, I believe, the Antichrist was, is, will be....beautiful. He will be tempting, good looking, intelligent....all the things that we would admire in a leader. That is how he is able to decieve us all. Think about it. Those things in life that are "bad" for us that we do anyway...they aren't ugly or distasteful (usually). They are tasty, give us a pleasant feeling, etc. Only after we experience these things do we realize their true nature. The same goes for Satan, I think.


I won't even touch that. Your view of a satan and an antichrist are flawed. I suggest you read your bible again.



Remember that Jesus was of the House of David. This is interesting because Mary was NOT of that line. Joseph was! Mary was an Essene.


Where does it say Mary was an Essene?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join