• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Christ he's black!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    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".
    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Gibbon View Post
      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!
      Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
        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!
        Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
          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.
          But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by TwoWolves View Post
            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...

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by BABABlackSheep View Post
              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.
              Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

              Comment


                #47
                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.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
                  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.
                  Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by BABABlackSheep View Post
                    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.
                    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                    Originally posted by vetran
                    Urine is quite nourishing

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                      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.
                      'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X