Color of the Cross - Black JC

[mykalberta]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...=Entertainment

Who cares what colour he was - all that matters in a person(s) life are his/her actions or non actions.

Now to this interesting atricle and the reasons for the movie...

Amazingly the claim for making this was because:

"in America he is almost always white, like the fair-haired savior painted by Leonardo Da Vinci in "The Last Supper" in 1495."

http://www.census.gov/

"White American, 70.4%, or about 210.3 million, (the definition of White includes people of European, North African, West Asian, and Central Asian (e.g., Turkic) ancestry; and Hispanic people who are White or reported "some other race" in the 2000 census)"

With 7/10 "Americans" being "white" more than 8/10 before 1950's why would a corporation intent on producing shareholder value depict Jesus as something that likely isnt aimed at the majority of the population. 13.4% or the people is a large number, but if you are selling a product you better aim a bit higher than that.

Its likely 2/10 "whites" will see this movie for either of the following reasons:

(1)They think of themsleves as politically correct.
(2)They cant stand this movie is being made so will go see it to critisize every last second of it.
(3)They are religious and would go to see it because the only really good religious movie ever made was Charlton Heston in Moses (title?).

That means at most this movie is going to get 4/10 of the population so expect to see B JC commercials on right of centre TV (if CBS and FOX even allow them).

I will not be seing it, not becuse JC is black, but because paying $20 to see a move about the last 48 hours of his life when a descent one has already been done doesnt appeal to me and my sky-high mortgage. Had this movie been about why some believe JC was black then I would see it, I have always wondered the reasoning behind them mentioning that fact in Malcom X (I got their reasons but they seemed more racially motivated then factual)(great movie, the scene where they are all marching as one was amazing).

MYK

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...=Entertainment

Who cares what colour he was - all that matters in a person(s) life are his/her actions or non actions.

Now to this interesting atricle and the reasons for the movie...

Amazingly the claim for making this was because:

"in America he is almost always white, like the fair-haired savior painted by Leonardo Da Vinci in "The Last Supper" in 1495."

That's not really the claim for making it. Your link shows that quote as from a professor in Boston talking about how different nations depict Christ in different skin colours.

The claim for making it should come from the filmaker himself who says:
"The message is that colour, a coloured Jesus Christ, doesn't matter," he says. "That's why the movie is important. When you have one prevailing image out there, it suggests colour does matter."

So really, he's saying the same thing as you. Colour doesn't matter.
I guess the reaction to the film will prove whether it does or not.

[Burninator]

In all common sense it doesn't really make sense that Jesus would have been white considering he was born in the middle east.

[Cheese]

Black White Pink or Orange...doesnt matter what color they pick...its all a figment of someones VIVID imagination. The main reason no one can agree on color, size, girth, sex or hair color is because there is nothing...NADA...ZIPPO to even suggest there was a JC in the first place.
IF there was proof we would have no doubts, no guessing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Burninator

In all common sense it doesn't really make sense that Jesus would have been white considering he was born in the middle east.

Yeah I always thought it was kind of odd that he was painted to look like an Irishman.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Burninator

In all common sense it doesn't really make sense that Jesus would have been white considering he was born in the middle east.

exactly..but it also means he probably didn't look like Samuel L. Jackson, right? He probably looked like Bin Laden. How's that for some controversy.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Igottago

exactly..but it also means he probably didn't look like Samuel L. Jackson, right?

"I have had it with all these mother****ing tax collectors at this mother****ing temple!"

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

"I have had it with all these mother****ing tax collectors at this mother****ing temple!"

Ok that was pretty friggin hilarious

[Calgaryborn]

The argument that there is no proof that Jesus existed is silly. The New Testament has 27 books. Most of these were letters by people who not only claimed to have seen Jesus before His death but also after His resurrection. Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark, John and Luke all wrote about their experiences with Jesus. Their letters are all written in the common Greek dialect of the time and region. The style of the individual writers can be detected in their letters. The four gospels were obviously written independently of one another as the details of the different events and even the words of Jesus differ slightly with each teller. Just like if four people witnessed an accident you would get different bits of information from each of them and from that get a fuller picture of the events.

The twelve apostles along with at least 500 hundred others lived hard lives and died mostly cruel deaths without ever recanting the reality of both Jesus' life and resurrection. We have writings from contemporaries who testify to this. Compare that to Mormonism : I heard once that 4 of the 12 witnesses to Joseph Smith's golden tablets recanted before their death. At least one was excommunicated for it.

If their is no evidence for a historical Jesus then there is no evidence for a historical Socrates or Josephus or any number of other historical figures. What do you need video tape? It wasn't until the last twenty years or so that some Jews have began to deny the historical existence of Jesus. They of course have denied that He was the Christ all along. This change of tactic allows them to disregard the accounts of His life and how He fulfilled all the prophetic requirements of the Messiah.

Jesus looked like a Jew. It says in the Bible that their was nothing in His appearance that would attract folks to Him. He would have looked like an ordinary Jew without any feature that would have drawn attention to Himself. Jesus also would have had short hair as was the custom of the time. He also would have looked like someone who had worked for a living. He was after all a carpenters step-son who didn't start His short[3.5 years] ministry until He was 30 years old.

[SpitFire40]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Black White Pink or Orange...doesnt matter what color they pick...its all a figment of someones VIVID imagination. The main reason no one can agree on color, size, girth, sex or hair color is because there is nothing...NADA...ZIPPO to even suggest there was a JC in the first place.
IF there was proof we would have no doubts, no guessing.

Cheese, let me join... I want to be Kiprusoffarian. Please!

Only smoke on gamedays!

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The argument that there is no proof that Jesus existed is silly. The New Testament has 27 books. Most of these were letters by people who not only claimed to have seen Jesus before His death but also after His resurrection. Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark, John and Luke all wrote about their experiences with Jesus. Their letters are all written in the common Greek dialect of the time and region. The style of the individual writers can be detected in their letters. The four gospels were obviously written independently of one another as the details of the different events and even the words of Jesus differ slightly with each teller. Just like if four people witnessed an accident you would get different bits of information from each of them and from that get a fuller picture of the events.

The twelve apostles along with at least 500 hundred others lived hard lives and died mostly cruel deaths without ever recanting the reality of both Jesus' life and resurrection. We have writings from contemporaries who testify to this. Compare that to Mormonism : I heard once that 4 of the 12 witnesses to Joseph Smith's golden tablets recanted before their death. At least one was excommunicated for it.

If their is no evidence for a historical Jesus then there is no evidence for a historical Socrates or Josephus or any number of other historical figures. What do you need video tape? It wasn't until the last twenty years or so that some Jews have began to deny the historical existence of Jesus. They of course have denied that He was the Christ all along. This change of tactic allows them to disregard the accounts of His life and how He fulfilled all the prophetic requirements of the Messiah.

Jesus looked like a Jew. It says in the Bible that their was nothing in His appearance that would attract folks to Him. He would have looked like an ordinary Jew without any feature that would have drawn attention to Himself. Jesus also would have had short hair as was the custom of the time. He also would have looked like someone who had worked for a living. He was after all a carpenters step-son who didn't start His short[3.5 years] ministry until He was 30 years old.

I don't want to really get into this because I don't have enough of a background on biblical study, but I've read in many places that Greek scholars added to and edited the bible to increase continuity. If this is true couldn't the gospels be edited so they are similar in recollection in Jesus' life?

[Cheese]

Excuse CalgaryBornAgain...he has only read one book...

The Jesus Puzzle

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.


Did Jesus Exist?



During the 60-70 years it took for the Gospels to be composed, the original story went through a growth period that began with the unadorned idea that Jesus, like Grandma, had "died and gone to heaven" and ended with a fantastic narrative produced by a later generation of believers that included earthquakes, angels, an eclipse, a resuscitated corpse, and a spectacular bodily ascension into the clouds.
The earliest Christians believed in the "spiritual" resurrection of Jesus. The story evolved over time into a "bodily" resurrection.

When examining artifacts from the past, historians assume that nature worked back then as it does today; otherwise, anything goes. American patriot Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, asked: "Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie."

Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

[the_hound]

The 1st words you will read inside the bible: "King James VERSION"

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Jesus looked like a Jew.

Yeah, but exactly does that mean? The Ashkanazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi all vary greatly in appearance from one another, so it's impossible to base any concept of the appearance of Jesus on modern day Jewish populations. Thanks partially to intermarriage, the Ashkanazi (around 80% of the global Jewish population) bear a great visual similarity to the central europeans, the sephardi (around 17%) to latin europeans and caucasian north africans, and the mizrahi (3%) to arabs. While Jesus may have looked like a typical Jew, it's very difficult to construct exactly what a typical Jew would have looked like 2000 years ago. There isn't a single Jewish population that has remained ethnographically pure over the last 2000 years.

[pope04]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Jesus looked like a Jew.

Whoopi Goldberg is a Jew.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by pope04

Whoopi Goldberg is a Jew.

So was Sammy Davis Jr.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by pope04

Whoopi Goldberg is a Jew.

Originally Posted by Cheese

So was Sammy Davis Jr.

Go to Adam Sandler's website and listen to the Hanukah Song (versions 1-3) for a complete listing.

[Cheese]

Removed cuz Im terrible with graphics

[Ayrahb]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, but exactly does that mean? The Ashkanazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi all vary greatly in appearance from one another, so it's impossible to base any concept of the appearance of Jesus on modern day Jewish populations. Thanks partially to intermarriage, the Ashkanazi (around 80% of the global Jewish population) bear a great visual similarity to the central europeans, the sephardi (around 17%) to latin europeans and caucasian north africans, and the mizrahi (3%) to arabs. While Jesus may have looked like a typical Jew, it's very difficult to construct exactly what a typical Jew would have looked like 2000 years ago. There isn't a single Jewish population that has remained ethnographically pure over the last 2000 years.

And then there are the Ethiopian Jews.

[FlamingLonghorn]

I am more intrigued by Blacula!