If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Religious scholar Reza Aslan tells the world Megyn Kelly was only half right- Jesus is not white, but Christ is. Well, that clears that up   (rawstory.com) divider line 297
    More: Followup, Reza Aslan, Megyn Kelly, Jesus Christ, theologies, teachings of Jesus, Hindu deities  
•       •       •

3987 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2013 at 6:24 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-13 02:56:03 PM
This is the only thread submission today on this story that has at least put forth an accurate take.

/not subby
 
2013-12-13 02:58:10 PM
Any bets on how many "he doesn't have a degree in religious studies so can't be a religious scholar" derp era we get on this thread.
 
2013-12-13 03:03:27 PM
Bill O'Reilly = expert on Western religions
Reza Aslan != expert on Western religions

Study it out.
 
2013-12-13 03:07:48 PM
"As everybody knows, before Roman Orthodoxy, there were a thousand different kinds of Christianity," Aslan said. "It could mean whatever you wanted it to mean.

shiat, that's no different than now.

If you're a blond, blue-eyed, white suburbanite woman, then God is a blond, blue-eyed suburbanite

The fact that there's a word missing from the end of that sentence is the subject of an entirely different book.
 
2013-12-13 03:11:03 PM
Fox News sucks. There, I said it.
 
2013-12-13 03:13:58 PM
That is actually a pretty sober and wise take on this whole nontroversy.

And since the point is outrage for outrage's sake, I expect the reaction to it will be further outrage.
 
2013-12-13 03:28:00 PM
He can't be a religious scholar because he's an imaginary lion from Narnia!
 
2013-12-13 03:32:45 PM
Aslan's left nut is smarter than the entire staff at Fox News combined.
 
2013-12-13 03:35:07 PM
Well he lived in the middle east, so my guess is he was probably, oh I don't know, middle eastern?
 
2013-12-13 03:36:17 PM

mrshowrules: Aslan's left nut is smarter than the entire staff at Fox News combined.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-13 03:43:58 PM
I know that in China, they've combined the Mary and Child (Madonna) motif with the Buddhist bodhisattva Guanyin to create this:

www.onmarkproductions.com
www.ancienttreasures.com
www.jonathantan.org
 
2013-12-13 03:47:40 PM
Christ is a title, not a name
 
2013-12-13 03:49:15 PM

cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name


FTA: "What I just described is Jesus. What Megan Kelly described is the Christ - and they're different people," Aslan said. "In other words, the Christ can be whatever you want him to be."

I think he's using it right.
 
2013-12-13 04:00:19 PM
That's actually a really smart way of looking at it.
 
2013-12-13 04:16:07 PM

RexTalionis: cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name

FTA: "What I just described is Jesus. What Megan Kelly described is the Christ - and they're different people," Aslan said. "In other words, the Christ can be whatever you want him to be."
 in referenc
I think he's using it right.

e to your post, there

Yes, he is. It's for the benefit of people like subby and good Xtians who believe that's his last name.

Also in reference to your post, there is the theory that Jesus went east and turned to Buddhism before going home and spreading it.

But we are having a civilised, decent and intelligent conversation here. That's not allowed on Fark.
 
2013-12-13 05:05:53 PM

gilgigamesh: That is actually a pretty sober and wise take on this whole nontroversy.

And since the point is outrage for outrage's sake, I expect the reaction to it will be further outrage.


Well, it's green, so, yeah.
 
2013-12-13 05:08:08 PM

gilgigamesh: That is actually a pretty sober and wise take on this whole nontroversy.

And since the point is outrage for outrage's sake, I expect the reaction to it will be further outrage.


Reza Aslan has done some good work tracing the roots of Fundamentalist movements--Christian, Jewish and Islamic. His How to Win a Cosmic War is a brilliant piece.
 
2013-12-13 05:15:51 PM
Has John Stossel weighed in yet? I keep my options open until I hear his witty and brilliant take on the day's latest poutrage
 
2013-12-13 05:25:03 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-13 05:25:14 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Has John Stossel weighed in yet? I keep my options open until I hear his witty and brilliant take on the day's latest poutrage


Jesus didn't have a 70s porn 'stache, but Christ did.
 
2013-12-13 05:27:46 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Has John Stossel weighed in yet? I keep my options open until I hear his witty and brilliant take on the day's latest poutrage

i100.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-13 05:29:25 PM
I'd like to hear Ted Nugent's thoughts on this subject.
 
2013-12-13 06:00:10 PM

vernonFL: Peter von Nostrand: Has John Stossel weighed in yet? I keep my options open until I hear his witty and brilliant take on the day's latest poutrage

Jesus didn't have a 70s porn 'stache, but Christ did.


You always knew it was party time when the "Free Mustache Rides" shirt got broken out
 
2013-12-13 06:03:58 PM
His dad was white so there is at least even odds Jesus is white.
 
IP
2013-12-13 06:07:39 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Fox News sucks. There, I said it.

 
2013-12-13 06:15:51 PM

gilgigamesh: That is actually a pretty sober and wise take on this whole nontroversy.

And since the point is outrage for outrage's sake, I expect the reaction to it will be further outrage.


We were supposed to be outraged?

This whole time I've just been mocking with derision.

I've been doing it all wrong. Is there some RSS feed or something I can follow that will prevent me from further embarrassment?
 
2013-12-13 06:30:26 PM
The big question here isn't what color this Christ fellow is :

Its why in the fark did Megyn say that?!?!?

I mean, wtf?
 
2013-12-13 06:30:30 PM
You know who else was white?

ROB REINER!
 
2013-12-13 06:32:22 PM
Jesus was Swedish:

content.internetvideoarchive.com

And he played chess with Death and drank Elsinore beer.
Nø kidding.  He ønce bit my sister.
 
2013-12-13 06:33:18 PM

DirkValentine: The big question here isn't what color this Christ fellow is :

Its why in the fark did Megyn say that?!?!?

I mean, wtf?


She knows her audience wants to hear that Jesus is a white dude?
 
2013-12-13 06:34:08 PM

EvilEgg: His dad was white so there is at least even odds Jesus is white.


mimg.ugo.com
 
2013-12-13 06:38:00 PM

DirkValentine: The big question here isn't what color this Christ fellow is :

Its why in the fark did Megyn say that?!?!?

I mean, wtf?


She's supposed to clarify her statements on her show tonight.
 
2013-12-13 06:39:32 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DirkValentine: The big question here isn't what color this Christ fellow is :

Its why in the fark did Megyn say that?!?!?

I mean, wtf?

She's supposed to clarify her statements on her show tonight.


yes, that's right.  I can't WAIT to hear this.
 
2013-12-13 06:40:09 PM

cretinbob: Also in reference to your post, there is the theory that Jesus went east and turned to Buddhism before going home and spreading it.


And Yoga and Kung Fu. Can't forget those.

I love that book so much, I think it's about time for another re-read.
 
2013-12-13 06:40:14 PM

syrynxx: I'd like to hear Ted Nugent's thoughts on this subject.


Jesus was a white, draft dodging pants shiatter.
 
2013-12-13 06:40:15 PM
I think somebody would've noted it at the time if two swarthy Palestinian parents gave birth to a blond, blue-eyed white kid.

That would've literally been rarer than another messiah being born.
 
2013-12-13 06:40:18 PM
I would like to see Megyn interview Pope Frank and ask his thoughts on the subject. I imagine she would leave with the imprint of his oxfords on her butt
 
2013-12-13 06:42:25 PM

DirkValentine: She's supposed to clarify her statements on her show tonight.

yes, that's right.  I can't WAIT to hear this.


I'm sure there's going to be a lot of crying about how liberals are being mean, using their facts and historical data to bully her.
 
2013-12-13 06:42:57 PM

DirkValentine: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DirkValentine: The big question here isn't what color this Christ fellow is :

Its why in the fark did Megyn say that?!?!?

I mean, wtf?

She's supposed to clarify her statements on her show tonight.

yes, that's right.  I can't WAIT to hear this.


Overzealous staffer misspoke out of context.
 
2013-12-13 06:43:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DirkValentine: The big question here isn't what color this Christ fellow is :

Its why in the fark did Megyn say that?!?!?

I mean, wtf?

She knows her audience wants to hear that Jesus is a white dude?


Yeah, that's the easy answer but she's proven herself to not be stupid.  Sure, she works at fox at promotes their bullshiat, but that was a really, really weird statement.    Like, outside the bounds of what i would expect from her.   O'Reilly style.
 
2013-12-13 06:46:39 PM

Arachnophobe: cretinbob: Also in reference to your post, there is the theory that Jesus went east and turned to Buddhism before going home and spreading it.

And Yoga and Kung Fu. Can't forget those.

I love that book so much, I think it's about time for another re-read.


Agreed. Big fan of most of his work.
 
2013-12-13 06:48:08 PM
Well, Lemmy is white, so therefore God is white. And British. And FARKING METAL!
 
2013-12-13 06:48:57 PM

DirkValentine: Yeah, that's the easy answer but she's proven herself to not be stupid.  Sure, she works at fox at promotes their bullshiat, but that was a really, really weird statement.    Like, outside the bounds of what i would expect from her.   O'Reilly style.


If she's faking it, she wont last.

It's not enough to just go to Republican Church on Sundays, if you don't truly believe the Republican Religion in your heart of hearts, the derp won't flow through you, it will destroy you.
 
2013-12-13 06:51:08 PM

EvilEgg: His dad was white so there is at least even odds Jesus is white.


That was nicely done.  Nicely done indeed.
 
2013-12-13 06:52:03 PM

Arachnophobe: cretinbob: Also in reference to your post, there is the theory that Jesus went east and turned to Buddhism before going home and spreading it.

And Yoga and Kung Fu. Can't forget those.

I love that book so much, I think it's about time for another re-read.


Not sure what book that was, but here's an interview with the real guy.

http://vimeo.com/6674005
 
2013-12-13 06:52:36 PM
She's a Doobie Brothers fan but she's always getting the lyrics wrong.
 
2013-12-13 06:53:19 PM

impaler: DirkValentine: Yeah, that's the easy answer but she's proven herself to not be stupid.  Sure, she works at fox at promotes their bullshiat, but that was a really, really weird statement.    Like, outside the bounds of what i would expect from her.   O'Reilly style.

If she's faking it, she wont last.

It's not enough to just go to Republican Church on Sundays, if you don't truly believe the Republican Religion in your heart of hearts, the derp won't flow through you, it will destroy you.


I don't know, man.  I honestly don't pay any attention to Fox outside of links about it but what I have seen tells me there are some serious sociopathic grifters that are there specifically b/c they have critical thinking skills and the ability to disown their soul and use them for the forces of evil.

Aaaaand then there's Fox and Friends.  You can't explain that.
 
2013-12-13 06:56:29 PM

impaler: DirkValentine: She's supposed to clarify her statements on her show tonight.

yes, that's right.  I can't WAIT to hear this.

I'm sure there's going to be a lot of crying about how liberals are being mean, using their facts and historical data to bully her.


She'll use Aslan's explanation.
 
2013-12-13 06:56:29 PM
Jesus was white, because English was only spoken by white people back then, morans.
 
2013-12-13 06:58:04 PM

DirkValentine: It's not enough to just go to Republican Church on Sundays, if you don't truly believe the Republican Religion in your heart of hearts, the derp won't flow through you, it will destroy you.

I don't know, man.  I honestly don't pay any attention to Fox outside of links about it but what I have seen tells me there are some serious sociopathic grifters that are there specifically b/c they have critical thinking skills and the ability to disown their soul and use them for the forces of evil.


You make a good point. You don't have to be a true believer, as long as you're a sociopath or don't have a soul.

These people make up the priestly class of the Republican Religion.
 
2013-12-13 06:58:38 PM
Jesus was an extraterrestrial.
 
2013-12-13 06:59:09 PM

EvilEgg: His dad was white so there is at least even odds Jesus is white.


I thought God was Alanis Morissette
 
2013-12-13 07:01:33 PM
Th paragraph near the end where he says Kelly is right because Jesus is perceived the way the believer "perceives humanity" is gold. He is saying, right there, that Kelly is racist. She perceives humanity as white. Bu that is where I disagree with him. I think he has mistaken the incarnation of "humanity" with the incarnation of "mercy" for one's own, local problems.

But the racism he pins her with in that paragraph is precious.
 
2013-12-13 07:03:15 PM

impaler: DirkValentine: It's not enough to just go to Republican Church on Sundays, if you don't truly believe the Republican Religion in your heart of hearts, the derp won't flow through you, it will destroy you.

I don't know, man.  I honestly don't pay any attention to Fox outside of links about it but what I have seen tells me there are some serious sociopathic grifters that are there specifically b/c they have critical thinking skills and the ability to disown their soul and use them for the forces of evil.

You make a good point. You don't have to be a true believer, as long as you're a sociopath or don't have a soul.

These people make up the priestly class of the Republican Religion.


I laughed and cried inside.  So farking true.
 
2013-12-13 07:03:50 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Th paragraph near the end where he says Kelly is right because Jesus is perceived the way the believer "perceives humanity" is gold. He is saying, right there, that Kelly is racist. She perceives humanity as white. Bu that is where I disagree with him. I think he has mistaken the incarnation of "humanity" with the incarnation of "mercy" for one's own, local problems.

But the racism he pins her with in that paragraph is precious.


"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

- Rand Paul
 
2013-12-13 07:05:32 PM

EvilEgg: His dad was white so there is at least even odds Jesus is white.


static.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-13 07:08:32 PM

Amish Tech Support: Jesus was an extraterrestrial.


and he built my hotrod.

/wamma lamma ding  dong
 
2013-12-13 07:12:26 PM
"Historical" Jesus can be any color you want, too, because the guy was apocryphal.
 
2013-12-13 07:12:42 PM

George Babbitt: This is the only thread submission today on this story that has at least put forth an accurate take.

/not subby


In my view, that should automatically disqualify it from being greenlit. Accuracy is rarely if ever funny.
 
2013-12-13 07:14:21 PM
Jesus as the Reincarnation of Mithra The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version.
Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century.
The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:
.
Identical Life Experiences
1. Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

3. Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

4. The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

5. Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

6. Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

7. Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

8. In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

9. He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

10. McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

11. Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

12. The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Revelation 22:16)
 
2013-12-13 07:15:14 PM
Believable.  Distinct possibility that he may have had dark red (auburn?) hair as well.  Persians had a fair amount of red hair back in the day and are totally obsessed with it nowadays.  Blue eyes? Doubt it.
We keep saying typical Jew-type ignoring the fact that the Jews believe that Christ has yet to walk the face of the earth.  Saw some place that Christ (Isa) may have fallen in lineage as being one of the last prophets of Muslim faith.  Word is he was a minor player but seemed to have gained a small following for believing in peaceful settlement and criticism of the fatwa.
 
2013-12-13 07:15:59 PM
The notion makes no sense. Race had not yet been invented in the 1st century.
 
2013-12-13 07:16:41 PM

gilgigamesh: That is actually a pretty sober and wise take on this whole nontroversy.

And since the point is outrage for outrage's sake, I expect the reaction to it will be further outrage.


Actually it is a good take on it. He even points out that Jesus actually ISN'T white.

Of course "nontroversey" is as inaccurate as his statement is. This IS an issue, since she's claiming something that's not true on a new network that purports to be fair, balanced and accurate. SO yeah, it's still an issue.
 
2013-12-13 07:18:54 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Th paragraph near the end where he says Kelly is right because Jesus is perceived the way the believer "perceives humanity" is gold. He is saying, right there, that Kelly is racist. She perceives humanity as white. Bu that is where I disagree with him. I think he has mistaken the incarnation of "humanity" with the incarnation of "mercy" for one's own, local problems.

But the racism he pins her with in that paragraph is precious.


No- he doesn't peg her as racist. Just as a white woman. Christ is as the perceiver.

I am no religious expert but even my southern baptist upbringing and a few freshmen level "religions of man" classes taught me that Jesus looked a lot more like Yasar Arafat than Dolph Lundgren.

What if Jesus were a ginger? An anth class I took way back when stated red hair was common in the mid east centuries ago. Still found in Afghanistan and parts of Asia/caucuses.
 
2013-12-13 07:20:03 PM
Yeah, but is Santa still white?  This is important!
 
2013-12-13 07:21:20 PM

cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name


Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?
 
2013-12-13 07:23:54 PM
Of course Jesus was white, the whole area was just teeming with white dudes 2000 years ago: Peter, Paul, Mary, Matthew, Mark, John, Thomas, Simon, Peter, another Mary, Luke, and on and on. I mean if they weren't white they would have had names like Yosef, Miriam, Yeshua, and the like instead.
 
2013-12-13 07:24:50 PM

Hobodeluxe: Jesus as the Reincarnation of Mithra The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version.
Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century.
The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:
.
Identical Life Experiences
1. Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

3. Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

4. The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to ha ...


~~ Dec. 25 since the weather would not have permitted" shepherds watching over their flocks in the fields at night.
~~Second, Jesus' parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke 2:1-4) Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.

We celebrate his birth on the 25th to erase pagan celebrations- probably in honor of Mithra-- and make Christianity more palitable the same time.  Christ more likely born Spring to late Fall
 
2013-12-13 07:26:25 PM
Being born on Nov 22 would not make me Rodney Dangerfield.
 
2013-12-13 07:26:29 PM
Jesus probably existed. We have less evidence for other historical figures existing. It's not a stretch that a doomsday carpenter rabbi was preaching interesting ideas in the 1st Century CE and pissed off both the local religious authorities and the Roman actual authorities. It's also not inconceivable that Saul decided to take over the movement because of ambition and completely changed the character, message, and tone of the movement to appeal to non-Jews.

Walking on water, healing the dead, etc, all made-up crap from other religions and movements.
 
2013-12-13 07:27:00 PM
"and they're different people," Aslan said. "In other words, the Christ can be whatever you want him to be."

I regret reading the article now. This is one partially true statement being responded to by another partially true statement. Jesus is the name given at birth. Christ literally means "the anointed one" which is to say the one recognized by the people as the Messiah. So rather than saying "Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ" we shorten it to "Jesus Christ".

But this does not mean that Christ can be whoever one wants him to be. That is the wrong logical leap. While it is true that the Christ can be seen as the "social dimension" as opposed to Jesus the "personal dimension" or "historical dimension" the concept of "the Christ" or "the Messiah" had a specific meaning in Palestine at that time.  The phrase "the Christ" is not a symbolic empty vessel that one can project whatever current cultural constructs one wants on to. This is not to say that people do in fact engage in such projection; it is to say that it is both historically inaccurate and theologically unsound to do so. Asian should not be encouraging this misguided behavior.
 
2013-12-13 07:31:53 PM

Hobodeluxe: Jesus as the Reincarnation of Mithra The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version.
Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century.
The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:
.
Identical Life Experiences
1. Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

3. Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

4. The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to ha ...


I don't see a bull getting stung in the balls by a scorpion in there anywhere...
 
2013-12-13 07:33:52 PM
I would figure that anyone with the name "Aslan," would know that Jesus Christ is really a lion.

/get in the car
 
2013-12-13 07:34:16 PM

RussianPooper: cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name

Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?


Hallowed.  You know, "Hallowed be thy name."
 
2013-12-13 07:35:19 PM

DigitalCoffee: Of course Jesus was white, the whole area was just teeming with white dudes 2000 years ago: Peter, Paul, Mary,


And Puff the Magic dragon was the --- never mind.
 
2013-12-13 07:36:21 PM

RussianPooper: cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name

Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?


It's not your Western Roman Alphabet "H.", though it does have it's roots in a Latinization of the original Greek translation. It's short for Hella, which is an obscure dialect of a language known as "Oaklandish".

"Hella" means "Awesome", "wicked", "cool", "dope", "dank", and "all things to all people."
 
2013-12-13 07:41:14 PM
scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-12-13 07:43:19 PM

worlddan: "and they're different people," Aslan said. "In other words, the Christ can be whatever you want him to be."

I regret reading the article now. This is one partially true statement being responded to by another partially true statement. Jesus is the name given at birth. Christ literally means "the anointed one" which is to say the one recognized by the people as the Messiah. So rather than saying "Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ" we shorten it to "Jesus Christ".

But this does not mean that Christ can be whoever one wants him to be. That is the wrong logical leap. While it is true that the Christ can be seen as the "social dimension" as opposed to Jesus the "personal dimension" or "historical dimension" the concept of "the Christ" or "the Messiah" had a specific meaning in Palestine at that time.  The phrase "the Christ" is not a symbolic empty vessel that one can project whatever current cultural constructs one wants on to. This is not to say that people do in fact engage in such projection; it is to say that it is both historically inaccurate and theologically unsound to do so. Asian should not be encouraging this misguided behavior.


You regret reading the article because you disagree? So the hierarchy of religious scholars is-
Tied for 2nd- fox news gal and aslan reza and in first place worlddan?

Thanks for enlightening us- Buddha
 
2013-12-13 07:43:52 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I think somebody would've noted it at the time if two swarthy Palestinian parents gave birth to a blond, blue-eyed white kid.

That would've literally been rarer than another messiah being born.


Well it is true that some Romans were blondies, some even with red hair (alll sorts of them named things like Rufus, Ahenobarbus, Albus, Aurelius, Flavius, etc)  So it's entirely possible that a local girl with some wandering merchants and soldiers in her family tree could throw a blond messiah if she hooked up with a legionary out on the town.

I always figured Jesus was a lil' bastard, but Joseph raised him right.
 
2013-12-13 07:44:41 PM
Maybe...

www.dvdtalk.com

...depends on what you think about the 'Holy Trinity'.
 
2013-12-13 07:45:31 PM

tinyarena: EvilEgg: His dad was white so there is at least even odds Jesus is white.

[mimg.ugo.com image 250x150]


Wait until she learns that Santa is a homicidal robot.
 
2013-12-13 07:45:59 PM

paidhima: RussianPooper: cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name

Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?

Hallowed.  You know, "Hallowed be thy name."


Howard be thy name
 
2013-12-13 07:50:13 PM
So when is her show on? 9? I want to know what kind of crap she tries to spin.
 
2013-12-13 07:55:37 PM
"To put it in the simplest way possible, he would've looked like me," said Aslan, an Iranian-American Muslim.

Jesus drove a white BMW?
 
2013-12-13 07:56:03 PM

paidhima: RussianPooper: cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name

Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?


It stands for Harold as in: Our Father, who art in Heaven, Harold be thy name
 
2013-12-13 07:56:57 PM

smellysocksnshoes: .

You regret reading the article because you disagree? So the hierarchy of religious scholars is-
Tied for 2nd- fox news gal and aslan reza and in first place worlddan?

Thanks for enlightening us- Buddha


I disagree because as matter of historical fact he is wrong. When Jesus was born the phrase "the Christ" had a specific and clear meaning. It did not mean anything that one wanted it to mean, which is his argument. It meant something quite specific. Indeed, much of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was written precisely to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth met the definition of "the Christ" that people at that time were expecting/desiring to see. It would come as big news to citizen in zero AD that "the Christ" meant anything one wanted it to mean.
 
2013-12-13 07:57:06 PM
Jon Stewart's take on this was pretty awesome last night.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdkGA_rgHRY
 
2013-12-13 07:57:45 PM
Perhaps a little insight from Mr Huey Freeman might help Mrs Kelly out on this whole "Jesus is white" thing (probably uncensored and NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzcKxnhBog

Oh yeah, and she should know that "Santa is a biatch-ass nubian" ;)


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-13 08:00:48 PM

worlddan: I disagree because as matter of historical fact he is wrong. When Jesus was born the phrase "the Christ" had a specific and clear meaning. It did not mean anything that one wanted it to mean, which is his argument. It meant something quite specific. Indeed, much of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was written precisely to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth met the definition of "the Christ" that people at that time were expecting/desiring to see. It would come as big news to citizen in zero AD that "the Christ" meant anything one wanted it to mean.


It's just a semantic difference. Aslan means Jesus "the guy" versus Christ "the magical parts."
 
2013-12-13 08:00:50 PM
I honestly believe that Megyn Kelly is definitely a Conservative, but she doesn't always believe the bullshiat she has to peddle, and this is one of those instances where she overreached trying to pay the lip service she is required to.

If anything, it seems to me she is aware the average FOX News viewer believes some cartoonish bullshiat.  The whole thing is so bizarre. It's like she felt required to jump into a mud puddle.
 
2013-12-13 08:01:38 PM
As usual, the real irony here is what Kelly said just before she made the big statements everyone's jumping on her for:

"You can't just change what you're not comfortable with."

This, from a mouthpiece for a network for a movement that's trying to erase Thomas Jefferson's real accomplishments from history because they either weren't made in the name of Almighty God...or worse, against the name of Almighty God.
 
2013-12-13 08:03:39 PM

Zerochance: I honestly believe that Megyn Kelly is definitely a Conservative, but she doesn't always believe the bullshiat she has to peddle, and this is one of those instances where she overreached trying to pay the lip service she is required to.

If anything, it seems to me she is aware the average FOX News viewer believes some cartoonish bullshiat.  The whole thing is so bizarre. It's like she felt required to jump into a mud puddle.


Yep, that's about my take on it.
 
2013-12-13 08:04:17 PM

PanicMan: That's actually a really smart way of looking at it.


Everything is a "smart way of looking at it" if it confirms your pre-existing belief.  However, the statements of Aslan are completely wrong.

FTA:  "If you're Chinese, then God is a Chinese man. If you're Middle Eastern, then God is a Middle Eastern man. If you're a blond, blue-eyed, white suburbanite woman, then God is a blond, blue-eyed suburbanite," Aslan said.

Corrected Statement:  "If you're Chinese, then God is God and if you think God is Chinese then you are wrong.  If you're Middle Eastern, then God is God and if you think God is a Middle Eastern man, you're also wrong.  If you're a blond, blue-eyed white suburbanite woman, then God is God, not a blond, blue-eyed suburbanite.  If you define God as being in your image, you're doing it backwards."

The essential direction given by the Bible is "learn God's ways and do them."  That is too demanding for the vast, vast majority of people ("'Thou shalt not lie'?  Really?  I think that's um...a metaphor.  Yeah."), so the re-define "God" until their God suits their ordinary self-serving desires.  However, God remains the same no matter what picture you paint.  Adopting the lax thinking of people like Kelly and Aslan is just going to get you killed when Ps. 37:9, 10 rolls around.
 
2013-12-13 08:04:57 PM

RussianPooper: cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name

Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?


Stands for Hussein, like all of the chosen ones.
 
2013-12-13 08:06:07 PM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Maybe...

[www.dvdtalk.com image 400x234]

...depends on what you think about the 'Holy Trinity'.


I thought I was the only one here who remembered that film.
 
2013-12-13 08:09:19 PM

grokca: RussianPooper: cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name

Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?

Stands for Hussein, like all of the chosen ones.



Hebe?
 
2013-12-13 08:15:37 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Jesus probably existed. We have less evidence for other historical figures existing. It's not a stretch that a doomsday carpenter rabbi was preaching interesting ideas in the 1st Century CE and pissed off both the local religious authorities and the Roman actual authorities. It's also not inconceivable that Saul decided to take over the movement because of ambition and completely changed the character, message, and tone of the movement to appeal to non-Jews.

Walking on water, healing the dead, etc, all made-up crap from other religions and movements.


Probably metaphors anyhow.  Damned metaphors.
 
2013-12-13 08:16:54 PM

worlddan: smellysocksnshoes: .

You regret reading the article because you disagree? So the hierarchy of religious scholars is-
Tied for 2nd- fox news gal and aslan reza and in first place worlddan?

Thanks for enlightening us- Buddha

I disagree because as matter of historical fact he is wrong. When Jesus was born the phrase "the Christ" had a specific and clear meaning. It did not mean anything that one wanted it to mean, which is his argument. It meant something quite specific. Indeed, much of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was written precisely to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth met the definition of "the Christ" that people at that time were expecting/desiring to see. It would come as big news to citizen in zero AD that "the Christ" meant anything one wanted it to mean.


Yes.  "Somebody wasted some perfectly good olive oil by dumping it on your noggin".  There had already been several of them before, including King David and Cyrus the Great.  Hell, John Ashcroft is the Crisco Christ.  Double Hell: I've had extra virgin slapped on my head; I am white; ergo, Christ is white!

Also, if it was so precise and clear, four dudes would not have had to use up a middling-large BP spill worth of ink to explain it to all and sundry.  If you have to say 'take these seven passages from different parts of the Hebrew Scripture, treat them as if they were all written at the same time by the same person (despite sometimes being written centuries apart), now pretty much ignore the plain meanings of half the words, and substitute some dodgy variants I have come up with, then squint at them until I finish beaning you over the head with this mallet" it is not clear.  If you have to do all of that four different goddamn times with slightly different-sized mallets - and the vast majority of the people who are steeped in the passages you are quoting still think you are delusional* - it is glaringly not specific and not clear.

* And, in fact, the majority of people willing to accept your spin are those who have not one bloody iota of a clue about what your word means
 
2013-12-13 08:17:58 PM
I've always believed that Christianity has more to do with Paul and his work in Rome than it ever had to do with Jesus.
 
2013-12-13 08:19:40 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: It's just a semantic difference. Aslan means Jesus "the guy" versus Christ "the magical parts."


It is not semantics because in Jesus Christ "the word was made flesh and dwelt among us." In Jesus "the guy" and Christ "the magical bits" are one and the same thing. That is the definition of incarnation. Jesus is God incarnate. It can sometimes be useful for the purposes of theological clarity to talk about those two aspects as if they were different things but one of the dangers of doing that is to fall into the trap of treating such differences as mere word play.

The Jews of 0 AD had a clear and specific definition of what those "magical bits" were and not any old magical bits were going to do. Not any person could be the Christ no more than the Christ could be any person. There was only one Christ: Jesus. No one is forced to believe that but anyone who doesn't is not Christian in any traditional understanding of that word.
 
2013-12-13 08:19:44 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: She's a Doobie Brothers fan but she's always getting the lyrics wrong.


i1160.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-13 08:20:11 PM

smellysocksnshoes: What if Jesus were a ginger? An anth class I took way back when stated red hair was common in the mid east centuries ago. Still found in Afghanistan and parts of Asia/caucuses.


Of course Jesus was a ginger. Even death couldn't stand the guy for longer than 3 days.
 
2013-12-13 08:26:39 PM

Uzzah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: She's a Doobie Brothers fan but she's always getting the lyrics wrong.

[i1160.photobucket.com image 300x188]


I don't care what they may say....
 
2013-12-13 08:27:50 PM

worlddan: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: It's just a semantic difference. Aslan means Jesus "the guy" versus Christ "the magical parts."

It is not semantics because in Jesus Christ "the word was made flesh and dwelt among us." In Jesus "the guy" and Christ "the magical bits" are one and the same thing. That is the definition of incarnation. Jesus is God incarnate. It can sometimes be useful for the purposes of theological clarity to talk about those two aspects as if they were different things but one of the dangers of doing that is to fall into the trap of treating such differences as mere word play.

The Jews of 0 AD had a clear and specific definition of what those "magical bits" were and not any old magical bits were going to do. Not any person could be the Christ no more than the Christ could be any person. There was only one Christ: Jesus. No one is forced to believe that but anyone who doesn't is not Christian in any traditional understanding of that word.


I see you are both ignorant of what Messiah, i.e the word the Greeks meant by Christos, actually means in Judaism, and ignorant of the varied and different takes on the nature of Christ espoused by Christians both throughout the world and throughout time.
 
2013-12-13 08:33:18 PM

phalamir: it is glaringly not specific and not clear.


Actually, this doesn't prove what you think it proves but the opposite. Asian writes, "As everybody knows, before Roman Orthodoxy, there were a thousand different kinds of Christianity," Well, exactly. This doesn't mean that that the definition of the "the Christ" was not clear, however. it simply means that people were running amok and lots of people were using Christ's name to mean whatever they wanted it to mean.

The whole and entire purpose of Roman Orthodoxy was to bring clarity and stop the very nonsense that Asian is trying to promote. That is why the Church held all its various councils: to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Your claim is nothing more than blaming the victim. Here you have all these retards in the first few centuries AD running around taking advantage of the gullible by selling dog meat under the sign of mutton and your conclusion from this truth is that not that everything is dog meat (atheism) but that everything is mutton (Christ is the "great whatever"). Jesus H. Christ. In the end if you believe that Christ is the "great whatever" then obviously any attempts to bring clarity to the situation by demonstrating that the term means something specific are null and void to begin with.
 
2013-12-13 08:35:10 PM

phalamir: I see you are both ignorant of what Messiah, i.e the word the Greeks meant by Christos, actually means in Judaism, and ignorant of the varied and different takes on the nature of Christ espoused by Christians both throughout the world and throughout time.


The person who calls someone "ignorant" without anything to back it up is the ignorant one.
 
2013-12-13 08:38:40 PM
I for one am looking forward to FoxNews' regurgitation of this story at least 3 more times by 2020.
 
2013-12-13 08:38:49 PM

smellysocksnshoes: Bennie Crabtree: Th paragraph near the end where he says Kelly is right because Jesus is perceived the way the believer "perceives humanity" is gold. He is saying, right there, that Kelly is racist. She perceives humanity as white. Bu that is where I disagree with him. I think he has mistaken the incarnation of "humanity" with the incarnation of "mercy" for one's own, local problems.

But the racism he pins her with in that paragraph is precious.

No- he doesn't peg her as racist. Just as a white woman. Christ is as the perceiver.

I am no religious expert but even my southern baptist upbringing and a few freshmen level "religions of man" classes taught me that Jesus looked a lot more like Yasar Arafat than Dolph Lundgren.

What if Jesus were a ginger? An anth class I took way back when stated red hair was common in the mid east centuries ago. Still found in Afghanistan and parts of Asia/caucuses.


Oh no.  No. It's one thing to perceive Christ in her image. Totally understandable for her to identify with depictions and a mental image of Christ as a white guy. Blond, even.  But she took it a step further and said that Christ being white is a historical fact. Thus, she delegitimized anyone else's privilege to see Christ in their own image too. So, she places disproportionate emphasis on Christ's race to the exclusion of Christ's message of essential brotherhood (as would be realized by the understanding that we all see Christ in our own images and that it is equally necessary for each person to do it).

She's a racist and this was clear evidence that it isn't even superficial racism; it informs that part of her which she likely recognizes as her deepest, most Godly part.
 
2013-12-13 08:39:14 PM

worlddan: Asian should not be encouraging this misguided behavior.


I don't think he's in the business of encouraging any religious belief, just commenting on and explaining them.

I agree his phrasing is kind of odd. He's pegging a real concept onto an anachronistic reading of "Jesus Christ", as you say. It is simply incorrect to say they refer to two separate people, any more than "Barack" and "the President" refer to separate people.
 
2013-12-13 08:39:40 PM

worlddan: The whole and entire purpose of Roman Orthodoxy was to bring clarity and stop the very nonsense that Asian is trying to promote. That is why the Church held all its various councils: to sort the wheat from the chaff.


Does that hold true today? Eastern Orthodox still have the claim to the right Christ?
 
2013-12-13 08:40:02 PM

worlddan: George Babbitt: This is the only thread submission today on this story that has at least put forth an accurate take.

/not subby

In my view, that should automatically disqualify it from being greenlit. Accuracy is rarely if ever funny.


The other ones were funny if you tilted your head, but they were all wrong in their info.
 
2013-12-13 08:40:07 PM

clowncar on fire: Being born on Nov 22 would not make me Rodney Dangerfield.


I'd say you were more likely to be my wife, but I set her up with a "partygirl69" for a username and I haven't seen it used once.
 
2013-12-13 08:43:36 PM
Also, how the hell did we get this far without somebody posting this?

www.popularmechanics.com

I dunno, if you saw that guy on the street would you call him "white"? Probably. But Anglo-Saxon Jesus he ain't.
 
2013-12-13 08:46:46 PM
yoknyamdabale.files.wordpress.com

Brother from another mother.
 
2013-12-13 08:48:39 PM

Hobodeluxe: Jesus as the Reincarnation of Mithra The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version.
Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century.
The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:
.
Identical Life Experiences
1. Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

3. Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

4. The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to ha ...


I won't go into too much detail, but that copypasta is not exactly accurate. For one thing, Mithras mythology is not really well-known, since all that is known is mostly from vague statues and carvings.

For example, #1 is completely and utterly false. There is no evidence that he was born December 25th and he was born from a rock.

For #2, every "messiah" performs miracles and is a great teacher. The "12 disciples" is only used because there is 1 carving where he was surrounded by 12 people. That is it. There is other ones where there are other numbers.

#3. he was never ever ever called that.

I could go on and on, but for more info: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/the-myth-of-the-myth-o f -mithras-t488.html

FWD: FWD: FWD: emails aren't always true for atheists, too.

And yes, I am atheist.
 
2013-12-13 08:55:39 PM

Churchill2004: Also, how the hell did we get this far without somebody posting this?

[www.popularmechanics.com image 300x300]

I dunno, if you saw that guy on the street would you call him "white"? Probably. But Anglo-Saxon Jesus he ain't.


If we are going to do this, we might as well also list off all the verses of the bible which describe what Jesus looked like?

1. Isaiah 53:2b "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
2.(see #1)
3.(see #1)
4.(see #1)
5.(see #1)
6.(see #1)
7.(see #1)
8.(see #1)
9.(see #1)

Well, you get the point.
 
2013-12-13 08:55:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: So when is her show on? 9? I want to know what kind of crap she tries to spin.


No. Higher ratings will only encourage the saying of more stupid shiat.
 
2013-12-13 08:57:04 PM

FloydA: He can't be a religious scholar because he's an imaginary lion from Narnia!


But wan't the lion from Narnia was Jesus.. so he'd like totally know what race he is and OMG he farking he says "To put it in the simplest way possible, he would've looked like me,"  Reza Aslan is trying to tell us he is farking JESUS! I mean he farking King Solomoned this white Jesus thing. If this isn't some biblical shiat, i don't know what is.

WHOA!


 
2013-12-13 09:00:21 PM

George Babbitt: Churchill2004: Also, how the hell did we get this far without somebody posting this?

[www.popularmechanics.com image 300x300]

I dunno, if you saw that guy on the street would you call him "white"? Probably. But Anglo-Saxon Jesus he ain't.

If we are going to do this, we might as well also list off all the verses of the bible which describe what Jesus looked like?

1. Isaiah 53:2b "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
2.(see #1)
3.(see #1)
4.(see #1)
5.(see #1)
6.(see #1)
7.(see #1)
8.(see #1)
9.(see #1)

Well, you get the point.


I thought there was something from Revelation about him having curly hair, but maybe that's just to point up some symbolism about lambs/shepherds/sacrifices.
 
2013-12-13 09:00:23 PM
I have an autographed picture of Jesus that proves he was white.
And if he wasn't, then why is the Bible written in American?
You can't explain that.
 
2013-12-13 09:02:53 PM
Basically:

If cows believed in God, God would be a cow.

Your religion is a mirror representation of your values, not the other way around.
 
2013-12-13 09:04:40 PM

simplicimus: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Maybe...

[www.dvdtalk.com image 400x234]

...depends on what you think about the 'Holy Trinity'.

I thought I was the only one here who remembered that film.


The genius apple didn't fall far from the gawddam genius apple tree...
 
2013-12-13 09:05:05 PM
Cesare Borgia was white, so in that sense she's correct.
 
2013-12-13 09:05:46 PM

Ishkur: Basically:

If cows believed in God, God would be a cow.

Your religion is a mirror representation of your values, not the other way around.


So are Hindus cows or are cows Hindu?
 
2013-12-13 09:09:22 PM
Megyn Kelly just did her clarification. It was a boring set, a lot of the old favorites being trotted out. She was joking and nobody can take a joke. It's a national firestorm stirred up by the liberal media to attack Fox News. You're the real race baiter for pointing out my racism. Also "the jury is still out" on whether Jesus had to wear sunblock at the beach.
 
2013-12-13 09:10:13 PM
pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-12-13 09:10:55 PM

Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th


Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.
 
2013-12-13 09:12:20 PM

kbronsito: So are Hindus cows or are cows Hindu?


That's a factoid. The Hindus don't worship cows any more than any other culture do.
 
2013-12-13 09:13:12 PM

Arachnophobe: cretinbob: Also in reference to your post, there is the theory that Jesus went east and turned to Buddhism before going home and spreading it.

And Yoga and Kung Fu. Can't forget those.

I love that book so much, I think it's about time for another re-read.


That book is one of the best ones I've ever read. Someone on a forumboard suggested it and once I read it, I thanked them profusely. I still think it's one of the funniest books I've read.
 
2013-12-13 09:15:24 PM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: simplicimus: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Maybe...

[www.dvdtalk.com image 400x234]

...depends on what you think about the 'Holy Trinity'.

I thought I was the only one here who remembered that film.

The genius apple didn't fall far from the gawddam genius apple tree...


 I'm on my way to Jerusalem to be an actor/singer. It is written that the Agent Morris awaits me.
 
2013-12-13 09:16:44 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: She was joking and nobody can take a joke.


She really didn't say that did she?

The only people laughing at it where the people in The Daily Show audience.
 
2013-12-13 09:19:07 PM

Prophet of Loss: [yoknyamdabale.files.wordpress.com image 381x480]

Brother from another mother.


front-free.com
 
2013-12-13 09:19:50 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Also "the jury is still out" on whether Jesus had to wear sunblock at the beach.


*Snerk* Because this is a question that can totally be answered, if scholars just read the Bible hard enough.
 
2013-12-13 09:20:10 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Megyn Kelly just did her clarification. It was a boring set, a lot of the old favorites being trotted out. She was joking and nobody can take a joke. It's a national firestorm stirred up by the liberal media to attack Fox News. You're the real race baiter for pointing out my racism. Also "the jury is still out" on whether Jesus had to wear sunblock at the beach.


The Great Rush, hallowed be his name, taught her well.
 
2013-12-13 09:21:13 PM
Youze guys really want to play this game? Not one sentence in all four gospels starts, "When Jesus' workday was ended..."

Take credit for him all you like. Even their legendary *imaginary* messiah was a bum, right in their own words. Does it really matter what color he supposedly was?
 
2013-12-13 09:23:49 PM

Githerax: PanicMan: That's actually a really smart way of looking at it.

Everything is a "smart way of looking at it" if it confirms your pre-existing belief.  However, the statements of Aslan are completely wrong.

FTA:  "If you're Chinese, then God is a Chinese man. If you're Middle Eastern, then God is a Middle Eastern man. If you're a blond, blue-eyed, white suburbanite woman, then God is a blond, blue-eyed suburbanite," Aslan said.

Corrected Statement:  "If you're Chinese, then God is God and if you think God is Chinese then you are wrong.  If you're Middle Eastern, then God is God and if you think God is a Middle Eastern man, you're also wrong.  If you're a blond, blue-eyed white suburbanite woman, then God is God, not a blond, blue-eyed suburbanite.  If you define God as being in your image, you're doing it backwards."

The essential direction given by the Bible is "learn God's ways and do them."  That is too demanding for the vast, vast majority of people ("'Thou shalt not lie'?  Really?  I think that's um...a metaphor.  Yeah."), so the re-define "God" until their God suits their ordinary self-serving desires.  However, God remains the same no matter what picture you paint.  Adopting the lax thinking of people like Kelly and Aslan is just going to get you killed when Ps. 37:9, 10 rolls around.


If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. - Voltaire
 
2013-12-13 09:25:39 PM

impaler: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: She was joking and nobody can take a joke.

She really didn't say that did she?

The only people laughing at it where the people in The Daily Show audience.


She was making a cheeky comment about a "tongue-in-cheek article," or something along those lines.

It was a weird pseudo-retraction/explanation.
 
2013-12-13 09:27:05 PM
The only reason Christ was put upon the cross was because big government took away his concealed sword permit.
 
2013-12-13 09:27:38 PM

Bonzo_1116: George Babbitt: Churchill2004: Also, how the hell did we get this far without somebody posting this?

[www.popularmechanics.com image 300x300]

I dunno, if you saw that guy on the street would you call him "white"? Probably. But Anglo-Saxon Jesus he ain't.

If we are going to do this, we might as well also list off all the verses of the bible which describe what Jesus looked like?

1. Isaiah 53:2b "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
2.(see #1)
3.(see #1)
4.(see #1)
5.(see #1)
6.(see #1)
7.(see #1)
8.(see #1)
9.(see #1)

Well, you get the point.

I thought there was something from Revelation about him having curly hair, but maybe that's just to point up some symbolism about lambs/shepherds/sacrifices.


That would be describing his glorified/heavenly/incorruptible body and not the human form which he delivered his ministry with.
 
2013-12-13 09:34:51 PM
Jesus is just alright, with me.

Christ can kiss my ass.
 
2013-12-13 09:37:30 PM

Fart_Machine: Yeah, but is Santa still white?  This is important!


I'm pretty sure Santa is white.

Jesus was probably pretty brown.
 
2013-12-13 09:38:38 PM
There is no such thing as a white race. There is Negroid (sub-Saharan Africa); Mongoloid (east Asia, Russia west of the Urals, indigenous people of North and South America); Australoid (Australia and parts of Melanesia), and Caucasoid (North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Indian subcontinent, western Russia).

Jesus was Caucasian but he definitely wasn't white.
 
2013-12-13 09:40:26 PM

catmandu: There is no such thing as a white race. There is Negroid (sub-Saharan Africa); Mongoloid (east Asia, Russia west of the Urals, indigenous people of North and South America); Australoid (Australia and parts of Melanesia), and Caucasoid (North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Indian subcontinent, western Russia).

Jesus was Caucasian but he definitely wasn't white.


Good stuff.
 
2013-12-13 09:41:17 PM

ghare: I'm pretty sure Santa is white.


Depends on which Santa you're dealing with. Saint Nicholas was a third and fourth century Turkish guy.

Fat, white Santa with the hat was invented by Coca Cola in the thirties.
 
2013-12-13 09:49:47 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ghare: I'm pretty sure Santa is white.

Depends on which Santa you're dealing with. Saint Nicholas was a third and fourth century Turkish guy.

Fat, white Santa with the hat was invented by Coca Cola in the thirties.



Greek actually.

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ghare: I'm pretty sure Santa is white.

Depends on which Santa you're dealing with. Saint Nicholas was a third and fourth century Turkish guy.

Fat, white Santa with the hat was invented by Coca Cola in the thirties.


~~Christian bishop and gift giver Saint Nicholas.  Actually Germanic with references to Odin. Makes him pasty white.
 
2013-12-13 09:52:01 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ghare: I'm pretty sure Santa is white.

Depends on which Santa you're dealing with. Saint Nicholas was a third and fourth century Turkish guy.


My Santa lives at the North Pole so if he didn't start out white, he definitely lightened up over the centuries.
 
2013-12-13 09:54:51 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Fat, white Santa with the hat was invented by Coca Cola in the thirties.


Nope
 
2013-12-13 10:04:07 PM
Oh lawd, are we going to give every story figure ethnic makeovers ala blacula?

images.wikia.com
/ interested in how they plan to convert snow white
 
2013-12-13 10:10:17 PM

super_grass: Oh lawd, are we going to give every story figure ethnic makeovers ala blacula?


Megyn Kelly seems to think we should.
 
2013-12-13 10:12:08 PM

kbronsito: FloydA: He can't be a religious scholar because he's an imaginary lion from Narnia!

But wan't the lion from Narnia was Jesus.. so he'd like totally know what race he is and OMG he farking he says "To put it in the simplest way possible, he would've looked like me,"  Reza Aslan is trying to tell us he is farking JESUS! I mean he farking King Solomoned this white Jesus thing. If this isn't some biblical shiat, i don't know what is.

WHOA!


Came for the colossal wisdom. Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-12-13 10:17:44 PM

capn' fun: I've always believed that Christianity has more to do with Paul and his work in Rome than it ever had to do with Jesus.


Well, partially. There were plenty of apocalyptic preachers and rabbis in 1st Century Judea and environs; Apollonius of Syddon was one. He multiplied food, walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead and preached of the coming end times. So why are there "christians" and not "apollonians"? Because Jesus of Nazareth had something in his message that Apollonius didn't. Something about his life and death spoke to his followers and made them go out and spread his gospel that wasn't present in the word of other apocalyptic preachers who lived and died during the same period.

It had to be something MORE than just a made-up story that Paul of Tarsus invented, or one of those other preachers would have succeeded. There were others. Paul picked Jesus's story to tell. So there was something about it that was unique. What was it? Who knows. Something, though.
 
2013-12-13 10:21:53 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ghare: I'm pretty sure Santa is white.

Depends on which Santa you're dealing with. Saint Nicholas was a third and fourth century Turkish guy.

Fat, white Santa with the hat was invented by Coca Cola in the thirties.



Sinterklaas was white.
 
2013-12-13 10:22:10 PM
FTFA: "When you look at, for instance, the painting from the United States, what you see is a blonde and blue-eyed Jesus," he said. "When you look at the painting from Guatemala, what you see are Jesus and Mary as migrant farm workers. I don't mean they look like migrant farm workers; I mean they are migrant farm workers. When you look at the painting from China, Jesus and Mary are Chinese, literally Chinese. When you look at the painting from Thailand, Jesus and Mary are blue, as though they are Hindu gods."

i.imgur.com


BLACK JESUS APPROVES.
 
2013-12-13 10:23:44 PM

Holfax: Prophet of Loss: [yoknyamdabale.files.wordpress.com image 381x480]

Brother from another mother.

[front-free.com image 200x198]


Great minds think alike and all that.
 
2013-12-13 10:24:38 PM

catmandu: There is no such thing as a white race. There is Negroid (sub-Saharan Africa); Mongoloid (east Asia, Russia west of the Urals, indigenous people of North and South America); Australoid (Australia and parts of Melanesia), and Caucasoid (North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Indian subcontinent, western Russia).


You've obviously never seen a picture of Mitt Romney.
 
2013-12-13 10:26:49 PM

cretinbob: Also in reference to your post, there is the theory that Jesus went east and turned to Buddhism before going home and spreading it.


i.imgur.com 

Or Hindu. While making very Protestant criticisms of it over time and pissing off the Vedic priests there as well.
 
2013-12-13 10:28:06 PM

super_grass: Oh lawd, are we going to give every story figure ethnic makeovers ala blacula?

[images.wikia.com image 850x637]
/ interested in how they plan to convert snow white



Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs
 
2013-12-13 10:30:17 PM

Hobodeluxe: Jesus as the Reincarnation of Mithra The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version.
Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century.
The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:
.
Identical Life Experiences
1. Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

3. Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

4. The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to ha ...


Not trying to be a prick. But a lot of that 'Jesus is a copy of other religions' has been going around for a while and a lot of it isn't true. The Egyptian links have been debunked by actual Egyptians. Mithra was never resurrected, and he was made from a rock not born to a virgin. The older versions of Mithra have no similarities to Jesus. Those didn't show up until the first or second century A.D. (after Jesus was born). This post doesn't mean in any way the Christian Bible is correct or represents one true religion. But, if you think something is bullshiat, the answer to disproving it isn't more bullshiat.
 
2013-12-13 10:34:03 PM
Also, the whole 'Jesus being White' shiat is bullshiat.  Jesus was Middle Eastern.  I'm sure if 95% of so called 'devout Christ followers' were on a plane and Jesus boarded and sat next to them they would be rapidly pushing the 'stewardess assistance' button screaming 'Terrorist'.
 
2013-12-13 10:36:02 PM

Gyrfalcon: capn' fun: I've always believed that Christianity has more to do with Paul and his work in Rome than it ever had to do with Jesus.

Well, partially. There were plenty of apocalyptic preachers and rabbis in 1st Century Judea and environs; Apollonius of Syddon was one. He multiplied food, walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead and preached of the coming end times. So why are there "christians" and not "apollonians"? Because Jesus of Nazareth had something in his message that Apollonius didn't. Something about his life and death spoke to his followers and made them go out and spread his gospel that wasn't present in the word of other apocalyptic preachers who lived and died during the same period.

It had to be something MORE than just a made-up story that Paul of Tarsus invented, or one of those other preachers would have succeeded. There were others. Paul picked Jesus's story to tell. So there was something about it that was unique. What was it? Who knows. Something, though.


Not necessarily.  Jesus could have just been the lucky one.  Think of all the bands out there.  Now think of the ones that made it big.  Some of those are because they are more talented than the masses.  But we all know that some just get it by dumb luck - they were the ones playing the house when the scout happened by.  Or, in evolution, sometimes the winner isn't the best, but the one that didn't get killed.  You can be the most advanced super-uber-chickadee of all time - but if Mama gets snagged by a hawk three days after you break shell, Doofus McCrappygenes in the next nest over is going to be impregnating the next generation of hot chicks.

Jesus is a sort of chicken and the egg situation.  Obviously he won out in the Crazy Middle Eastern Preacher Sweepstakes.  But so much has been lost from that period - either through records being destroyed or records never being written in the first place - that we don't know.  Add to that the fol-de-rol we know got added into his legend in the early centuries CE, and we can't say definitively why he won.  Did he have the It Factor?  Or did it come from adding in some other dude's story?  Or did the addition plus some inherent Jesus-trope make a power combo?  No clue.  We can say their was a sort of Thunderdome of Crazy Semetic Preachers at the time, and Jesus pops out as the winner a hundred years or so later, but the interim is sort of a black box.
 
2013-12-13 10:41:21 PM

i.telegraph.co.uk

R.I.P. Jesus

 
2013-12-13 10:42:06 PM

catmandu: There is no such thing as a white race. There is Negroid (sub-Saharan Africa); Mongoloid (east Asia, Russia west of the Urals, indigenous people of North and South America); Australoid (Australia and parts of Melanesia), and Caucasoid (North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Indian subcontinent, western Russia).

Jesus was Caucasian but he definitely wasn't white.


I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's a bit obsolete understanding of things.
 
2013-12-13 10:51:01 PM
The Jesus-was-a-white-man brigade will not accept Aslan's argument bc he's basically telling them Xity is made up, and varies according to the culture it's in.

Doesn't tally with their world view that Real Xity is pure inalterable Truth handed down by God direct to their preachers.

(Look inside the KJV - it says "Approved" - what more evidence do you need?)
 
2013-12-13 10:53:02 PM
img802.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-13 10:54:41 PM
1. There is no "historical" Jesus. There's no evidence of Jesus' existence outside of the Bible that isn't apocryphal.

2. There IS a historical Saint Nicholas, and he was Caucasian (Greek, actually). This means there's more historical evidence of the existence of Santa Claus than there is for Jesus.

3. Megyn Kelly is a vapid asshole who has only gotten this far because she had standard blonde-girl good looks.

4. Numbered lists make Bill O'Reilly twitchy.
 
2013-12-13 10:54:51 PM
I think everybody misunderstood.  She wasn't talking about Jesus of Nazareth, she was talking about her true savior, Jeezus.

stumblingthroughtheology.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-13 10:55:56 PM

catmandu: There is no such thing as a white race. There is Negroid (sub-Saharan Africa); Mongoloid (east Asia, Russia west of the Urals, indigenous people of North and South America); Australoid (Australia and parts of Melanesia), and Caucasoid (North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Indian subcontinent, western Russia).

Jesus was Caucasian but he definitely wasn't white.


1853 telegraphed, it's for you.
 
2013-12-13 11:01:41 PM
The peculiar spelling of her name always reads as ob-gyn to me. Mental picture of her in the stirrups.
 
2013-12-13 11:04:23 PM
www.addictinginfo.org
 
2013-12-13 11:05:11 PM
Isa on a popsicle stick what is this biatches problem.
 
2013-12-13 11:05:54 PM

RussianPooper: cretinbob: Christ is a title, not a name

Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?


Because Harold be his name.
 
2013-12-13 11:06:54 PM

RussianPooper: Oh yeah, then why is his middle name "H."?


It's short for "haploid".
 
2013-12-13 11:11:42 PM

ZeroCorpse: 1. There is no "historical" Jesus. There's no evidence of Jesus' existence outside of the Bible that isn't apocryphal.

2. There IS a historical Saint Nicholas, and he was Caucasian (Greek, actually). This means there's more historical evidence of the existence of Santa Claus than there is for Jesus.

3. Megyn Kelly is a vapid asshole who has only gotten this far because she had standard blonde-girl good looks.

4. Numbered lists make Bill O'Reilly twitchy.


Preface: I am an atheist

However, Jesus, the human being, more than likely existed according to biblical scholars and historians. The details of his life, as described in the bible, are likely way off, but the man existed. Prophets were a dime a dozen back then, so it isn't shocking there wasn't more written about him.

See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Existence

Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).
 
2013-12-13 11:21:56 PM
Palestinians often look as white as any Mediterranean people. Close enough for me. The problem is that "white" is very broad.
 
2013-12-13 11:31:46 PM
Jesus is the Vonage guy img.fark.net
 
2013-12-13 11:32:48 PM
In other words, the Christ can be whatever you want him to be.

Religion's "Get out of Jail Free" card.
We made this shiat up, so we can change it to whatever we want.
 
2013-12-13 11:36:58 PM
Everybody knows that Jesus was African-American.
 
2013-12-13 11:39:06 PM
I RTFA. I love how conservatives, always fall to "I'm the real victim here" mentality.  No Megyn, you just said something stupid and people are calling you on it.  You acting defensive just shows that you had another agenda other than "doing it for the kids".

I think Jon Stewart summed it up best when he said "Who is she speaking to?  A child sophisticated enough to be watching a news program at 10pm, yet still believes that Santa Claus is real, and is racist enough to be freaked out at the thought that he might not be white."
 
2013-12-13 11:44:29 PM

Aldon: I RTFA. I love how conservatives, always fall to "I'm the real victim here" mentality.  No Megyn, you just said something stupid and people are calling you on it.  You acting defensive just shows that you had another agenda other than "doing it for the kids".

I think Jon Stewart summed it up best when he said "Who is she speaking to?  A child sophisticated enough to be watching a news program at 10pm, yet still believes that Santa Claus is real, and is racist enough to be freaked out at the thought that he might not be white."


I don't think she had an agenda. She's just stupid and narrow-minded.
 
2013-12-13 11:46:58 PM
She is hot.  All is forgiven.
 
2013-12-13 11:48:34 PM

bigsteve3OOO: She is hot.  All is forgiven.


And this sums up literally all of Fox News viewer opinions.
 
2013-12-13 11:49:45 PM

George Babbitt: Churchill2004: Also, how the hell did we get this far without somebody posting this?

[www.popularmechanics.com image 300x300]

I dunno, if you saw that guy on the street would you call him "white"? Probably. But Anglo-Saxon Jesus he ain't.

If we are going to do this, we might as well also list off all the verses of the bible which describe what Jesus looked like?

1. Isaiah 53:2b "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
2.(see #1)
3.(see #1)
4.(see #1)
5.(see #1)
6.(see #1)
7.(see #1)
8.(see #1)
9.(see #1)

Well, you get the point.


no, i don't...  what the fark does isaiah have to do with jesus?
 
2013-12-13 11:50:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: She is hot.  All is forgiven.

And this sums up literally all of Fox News viewer opinions.


Hey if the blonde with bolt-ons thinks it's true, it must be.
 
2013-12-13 11:51:56 PM

whatshisname: Aldon: I RTFA. I love how conservatives, always fall to "I'm the real victim here" mentality.  No Megyn, you just said something stupid and people are calling you on it.  You acting defensive just shows that you had another agenda other than "doing it for the kids".

I think Jon Stewart summed it up best when he said "Who is she speaking to?  A child sophisticated enough to be watching a news program at 10pm, yet still believes that Santa Claus is real, and is racist enough to be freaked out at the thought that he might not be white."

I don't think she had an agenda. She's just stupid and narrow-minded.


Frankly she is probably one of the smartest people on Fox news (I know, not saying much) so personally I think this is something she has actually thought about.  It was not a slip (her reaction to the comments about it afterwards reflect that as well).  Her agenda might be personal, political or something else, I really don't know.  It is obvious though that a non-white fictional character named Santa Claus really rocks her world view for some reason.
 
2013-12-13 11:52:19 PM

cynicalminion: George Babbitt: Churchill2004: Also, how the hell did we get this far without somebody posting this?

[www.popularmechanics.com image 300x300]

I dunno, if you saw that guy on the street would you call him "white"? Probably. But Anglo-Saxon Jesus he ain't.

If we are going to do this, we might as well also list off all the verses of the bible which describe what Jesus looked like?

1. Isaiah 53:2b "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
2.(see #1)
3.(see #1)
4.(see #1)
5.(see #1)
6.(see #1)
7.(see #1)
8.(see #1)
9.(see #1)

Well, you get the point.

no, i don't...  what the fark does isaiah have to do with jesus?


Atheists are funny when they talk religion.  Pay them no mind.
 
2013-12-13 11:54:34 PM
She needs to lay off the Coca Cola
 
2013-12-13 11:54:58 PM
 
2013-12-13 11:56:00 PM

cynicalminion: George Babbitt: Churchill2004: Also, how the hell did we get this far without somebody posting this?

[www.popularmechanics.com image 300x300]

I dunno, if you saw that guy on the street would you call him "white"? Probably. But Anglo-Saxon Jesus he ain't.

If we are going to do this, we might as well also list off all the verses of the bible which describe what Jesus looked like?

1. Isaiah 53:2b "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
2.(see #1)
3.(see #1)
4.(see #1)
5.(see #1)
6.(see #1)
7.(see #1)
8.(see #1)
9.(see #1)

Well, you get the point.

no, i don't...  what the fark does isaiah have to do with jesus?


Most of the stuff used by Christians to say Jesus is the Messiah comes from Isaiah
 
2013-12-13 11:57:10 PM

real_headhoncho: super_grass: Oh lawd, are we going to give every story figure ethnic makeovers ala blacula?

[images.wikia.com image 850x637]
/ interested in how they plan to convert snow white


Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs


I would watch this new movement unfold for the hilarious amount of unintentional racial humor alone.
 
2013-12-14 12:00:15 AM

phalamir: cynicalminion: George Babbitt: Churchill2004: Also, how the hell did we get this far without somebody posting this?

[www.popularmechanics.com image 300x300]

I dunno, if you saw that guy on the street would you call him "white"? Probably. But Anglo-Saxon Jesus he ain't.

If we are going to do this, we might as well also list off all the verses of the bible which describe what Jesus looked like?

1. Isaiah 53:2b "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
2.(see #1)
3.(see #1)
4.(see #1)
5.(see #1)
6.(see #1)
7.(see #1)
8.(see #1)
9.(see #1)

Well, you get the point.

no, i don't...  what the fark does isaiah have to do with jesus?

Most of the stuff used by Christians to say Jesus is the Messiah comes from Isaiah


ok, so that's scripture stuff at best, has nothing to do with what he looks like...
 
2013-12-14 12:00:50 AM

Aldon: whatshisname: Aldon: I RTFA. I love how conservatives, always fall to "I'm the real victim here" mentality.  No Megyn, you just said something stupid and people are calling you on it.  You acting defensive just shows that you had another agenda other than "doing it for the kids".

I think Jon Stewart summed it up best when he said "Who is she speaking to?  A child sophisticated enough to be watching a news program at 10pm, yet still believes that Santa Claus is real, and is racist enough to be freaked out at the thought that he might not be white."

I don't think she had an agenda. She's just stupid and narrow-minded.

Frankly she is probably one of the smartest people on Fox news (I know, not saying much) so personally I think this is something she has actually thought about.  It was not a slip (her reaction to the comments about it afterwards reflect that as well).  Her agenda might be personal, political or something else, I really don't know.  It is obvious though that a non-white fictional character named Santa Claus really rocks her world view for some reason.


Thanks. If she's the best and brightest FOX has, my opinion of them might just have dropped a bit. I'll admit, I've given the network about 7 minutes of my attention in my life but that was enough to make sure it wasn't for me.
 
2013-12-14 12:01:18 AM

NobleHam: Palestinians often look as white as any Mediterranean people. Close enough for me. The problem is that "white" is very broad.


No, the problem is that "white" is a purely (post-)colonial, modern category.  Before about 1600, nobody would have been called "white."  They would have been called a Spaniard, an Englishman, a Turk, a Saracen, a Roman, an Ethiopian, an Italian, an Ottoman, etc., etc., etc. . . . but never "white."  It's a designation that doesn't make any sense whatsoever in a first-century context.
 
2013-12-14 12:02:15 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: She needs to lay off the Coca Cola


C-O-L-A cola...

/wait what?
 
2013-12-14 12:03:22 AM
And if you replace a vowel in a common name with a "y", you have to have had brain-damaged parents.
 
2013-12-14 12:03:49 AM

ZeroCorpse: 1. There is no "historical" Jesus. There's no evidence of Jesus' existence outside of the Bible that isn't apocryphal.

2. There IS a historical Saint Nicholas, and he was Caucasian (Greek, actually). This means there's more historical evidence of the existence of Santa Claus than there is for Jesus.

3. Megyn Kelly is a vapid asshole who has only gotten this far because she had standard blonde-girl good looks.

4. Numbered lists make Bill O'Reilly twitchy.


There's no evidence of anyone else's existence from back then, either, except for a very few Emperors and nobility. Does that mean they didn't exist either? ;)

St. Nicholas was from Anatolia in what is now Turkey, not Greece. He's not "Santa Claus" by a long shot, and the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.
 
2013-12-14 12:05:13 AM

Summoner101: EvilEgg: His dad was white so there is at least even odds Jesus is white.

I thought God was Alanis Morissette


You know what pissed me off about that movie? I rather liked the concept that the voice of God was unbearable to mortals, but there was absolutely no reason to have Alanis wail like a goddamn highlands banshee at the end. They should have shot the scene the same but had her lean in and whisper. Kevin Smith has absolutely no sense of subtlety.

/Okay, tangent over.
 
2013-12-14 12:05:26 AM

cynicalminion: ok, so that's scripture stuff at best, has nothing to do with what he looks like...


If you have something other than scripture accurately describing what Jesus looked like, I would really, really like to see it.

Seriously, I need a dissertation topic.
 
2013-12-14 12:06:00 AM

whatshisname: Aldon: whatshisname: Aldon: I RTFA. I love how conservatives, always fall to "I'm the real victim here" mentality.  No Megyn, you just said something stupid and people are calling you on it.  You acting defensive just shows that you had another agenda other than "doing it for the kids".

I think Jon Stewart summed it up best when he said "Who is she speaking to?  A child sophisticated enough to be watching a news program at 10pm, yet still believes that Santa Claus is real, and is racist enough to be freaked out at the thought that he might not be white."

I don't think she had an agenda. She's just stupid and narrow-minded.

Frankly she is probably one of the smartest people on Fox news (I know, not saying much) so personally I think this is something she has actually thought about.  It was not a slip (her reaction to the comments about it afterwards reflect that as well).  Her agenda might be personal, political or something else, I really don't know.  It is obvious though that a non-white fictional character named Santa Claus really rocks her world view for some reason.

Thanks. If she's the best and brightlondest FOX has, my opinion of them might just have dropped a bit. I'll admit, I've given the network about 7 minutes of my attention in my life but that was enough to make sure it wasn't for me.

 
2013-12-14 12:07:21 AM

Gyrfalcon: the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.


How so?
 
2013-12-14 12:10:43 AM

Hickory-smoked: Summoner101: EvilEgg: His dad was white so there is at least even odds Jesus is white.

I thought God was Alanis Morissette

You know what pissed me off about that movie? I rather liked the concept that the voice of God was unbearable to mortals, but there was absolutely no reason to have Alanis wail like a goddamn highlands banshee at the end. They should have shot the scene the same but had her lean in and whisper. Kevin Smith has absolutely no sense of subtlety.

/Okay, tangent over.


were you not paying attention in the conference room?

/huggleston is a way better loki...  but since i grew up watching the voyage of the mimi... i'll give assflex the benefit of the doubt for bats vs soup
 
2013-12-14 12:12:17 AM

The Name: Gyrfalcon: the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

How so?


stop being stupid on purpose...
 
2013-12-14 12:13:44 AM

machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).


I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".
 
2013-12-14 12:18:42 AM

cynicalminion: The Name: Gyrfalcon: the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

How so?

stop being stupid on purpose...


If you knew anything about Early Christianity/Late Antiquity, you'd know that we would know nothing about some early saints if we did not take into account anecdotes of their lives written decades after their deaths.  Ever heard of Prudentius?  Pope Damasus?  Eusebius of Caesarea?

No?  Then shut the fark up.
 
2013-12-14 12:21:20 AM
img.photobucket.com

At some point you grow up and stop caring about religion to where you don't bother debating it. Mock, talk about religious people about anything else, practice the Socratic method on them, but not debate. I've been waiting for a chance to cross the Socratic with Penn Jillette's "Do you expect me to believe that?" but it just hasn't happened.
 
2013-12-14 12:22:19 AM

Gyrfalcon: There's no evidence of anyone else's existence from back then, either, except for a very few Emperors and nobility. Does that mean they didn't exist either? ;)

St. Nicholas was from Anatolia in what is now Turkey, not Greece. He's not "Santa Claus" by a long shot, and the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.


I don't think he was arguing that the historical documentation for that person was particularly strong - only that it was stronger than what we've got for Jesus, which it undoubtedly is.
 
2013-12-14 12:24:52 AM

Biological Ali: One can one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".


True, but nobody's resorting to Tacitus to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was indisputably a real person and a miracle worker.  They're just saying that people were indeed talking about Jesus when Tacitus was around.
 
2013-12-14 12:25:41 AM

Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can (do what with?)one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".


holy bleeding fark,
 
2013-12-14 12:27:16 AM

The Name: cynicalminion: The Name: Gyrfalcon: the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

How so?

stop being stupid on purpose...

If you knew anything about Early Christianity/Late Antiquity, you'd know that we would know nothing about some early saints if we did not take into account anecdotes of their lives written decades after their deaths.  Ever heard of Prudentius?  Pope Damasus?  Eusebius of Caesarea?

No?  Then shut the fark up.


oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...
 
2013-12-14 12:29:00 AM

cynicalminion: holy bleeding fark,


cynicalminion: oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...


Are you feeling alright?
 
2013-12-14 12:29:33 AM

Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".


Well, you gotta remember, there wasn't much written record about anyone back then (minus emperors and nobles). The fact they were even talking about that Jesus guy in the first century is pretty significant for his actually existing. "Prophets" were a dime a dozen back then, basically like priests/ministers/rabbis/etc nowadays, possibly even more common.

If historians that get paid to study that crap say he existed, I say he existed.
 
2013-12-14 12:30:35 AM

cynicalminion: Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can (do what with?)one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".

holy bleeding fark,


Lol.  Somebody thinks there were newspaper reporters, archives, youtube and NSA records in the first century.

Let me give you a hint:  If we had to throw out every historical figure for whom there are no contemporary records, we'd have to throw out about three-quarters of ancient history.
 
2013-12-14 12:31:31 AM

cynicalminion: oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...


Trolling?  Bring it on, Peter Brown.
 
2013-12-14 12:38:19 AM

catmandu: There is no such thing as a white race. There is Negroid (sub-Saharan Africa); Mongoloid (east Asia, Russia west of the Urals, indigenous people of North and South America); Australoid (Australia and parts of Melanesia), and Caucasoid (North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Indian subcontinent, western Russia).

Jesus was Caucasian but he definitely wasn't white.


Maybe a few other options.

openipub.com
 
2013-12-14 12:40:11 AM

Biological Ali: cynicalminion: holy bleeding fark,

cynicalminion: oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...

Are you feeling alright?


i hate organized religion...  i was raised in the lutheran church, and i don't automatically assume that anyone's beliefs are wrong.  quanyin is pretty awesome.  but if the catholics can say hail mary, i can pray to quanyin so they get the ave maria version...

so yeah, i'm alright about the praying, but i wish more people WOULD be okay about that...without labels
 
2013-12-14 12:43:02 AM

machoprogrammer: Well, you gotta remember, there wasn't much written record about anyone back then (minus emperors and nobles). The fact they were even talking about that Jesus guy in the first century is pretty significant for his actually existing. "Prophets" were a dime a dozen back then, basically like priests/ministers/rabbis/etc nowadays, possibly even more common.

If historians that get paid to study that crap say he existed, I say he existed.


Well, we can say that it's more likely he existed if the name is mentioned (even in hearsay) than if it wasn't mentioned, but it's much harder to go on and infer that it's therefore more likely he existed than not - the latter is actually a completely different question.

Though in some sense, one could argue that someone like that had to have existed (even if Tacitus and Suetonius were off in their specific mentions) because at the end of the day, the Christians were a cult who we know for a fact existed, and this cult would have almost certainly had at least one leader figure. So if we lower the bar for "Christ" to simply whoever led that cult over a certain period of time, then yeah, we're quite plausibly talking about at least one actual person.

The only problem is, that's about as far as we can go without devolving into complete guesswork, hearsay and essentially fanfiction, since this person - even if we grant that he existed - seems to have been seems to have been not particularly interesting or important or noteworthy in his time, and as such we have no contemporary record of anything he did or anything that happened to him.
 
2013-12-14 12:43:12 AM

Biological Ali: Gyrfalcon: There's no evidence of anyone else's existence from back then, either, except for a very few Emperors and nobility. Does that mean they didn't exist either? ;)

St. Nicholas was from Anatolia in what is now Turkey, not Greece. He's not "Santa Claus" by a long shot, and the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

I don't think he was arguing that the historical documentation for that person was particularly strong - only that it was stronger than what we've got for Jesus, which it undoubtedly is.


Why? If you exclude the Bible--which for some reason everyone insists must be done--then we're still left with the Apocrypha that all mention Jesus. So then we exclude those too, in order that there be no evidence of Jesus, and then the anti-Jesus arguers say See! There's no evidence Jesus existed!

The problem is, by the same criteria, there's almost no evidence that ANYONE existed in the first century AD, outside of some Roman emperors, whose existence can't be disputed because they left behind inscriptions in everlasting stone, and on coins; and some chroniclers like Cassius Dio and Seutonius who were lucky enough to be copied later by Renaissance scribes.

But then there's no real evidence that, for instance, St. Nicholas of Myra existed either. He was--allegedly--a 4th Century monk from Asia Minor who saved either one, two, or three girls from prostitution by throwing money over the wall of the nunnery where they were confined. He also--allegedly--brought three young boys back to life after they'd been murdered and pickled by a cannibalistic butcher, multiplied wheat and supposedly his bones ooze a sweet-smelling ichor every year on the anniversary of his death. Now, there are bones supposed to be his in a church in Italy, that somehow survived the sacking of a town in Greece by Moslems in 1071. According to Tradition, PhD, they're still his. Are they? Who knows?

My only point in all this is, we just don't KNOW any of this. There was probably a Bishop Nicholas of Myra, since a person named Nicholas of Myra was summoned to the 325 Council of Nicea by Constantine. Did he do any of the rest of that stuff? Probably not. Was there probably a man named Jesus who preached apocalyptic visions in 1st Century Judea? Probably, because we have a lot of documents written by followers of followers of his that indicate somebody by that name was preaching then. Did he do any of the rest of the stuff they claimed he did? Probably not. But the insistence that there must be documentation is asinine, because there isn't documentation of ANYBODY who wasn't Roman nobility back then.

Hell, there isn't any proof Nero was such a bad guy, because most of the evidence comes from Seutonius, who by his own admission hated Nero, and could have fabricated a lot of his stories. Dio took some of his material from Seutonius--and hearsay isn't admissible in court. Was Nero a depraved fiend? Who knows? The documentation we have says it was--but how reliable is it? Suppose that two thousand years from now, the only evidence of, say, Barack Obama's Presidency came from surviving archives of the Free Republic website. How would anyone know otherwise?
 
2013-12-14 12:49:32 AM

Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Well, you gotta remember, there wasn't much written record about anyone back then (minus emperors and nobles). The fact they were even talking about that Jesus guy in the first century is pretty significant for his actually existing. "Prophets" were a dime a dozen back then, basically like priests/ministers/rabbis/etc nowadays, possibly even more common.

If historians that get paid to study that crap say he existed, I say he existed.

Well, we can say that it's more likely he existed if the name is mentioned (even in hearsay) than if it wasn't mentioned, but it's much harder to go on and infer that it's therefore more likely he existed than not - the latter is actually a completely different question.

Though in some sense, one could argue that someone like that had to have existed (even if Tacitus and Suetonius were off in their specific mentions) because at the end of the day, the Christians were a cult who we know for a fact existed, and this cult would have almost certainly had at least one leader figure. So if we lower the bar for "Christ" to simply whoever led that cult over a certain period of time, then yeah, we're quite plausibly talking about at least one actual person.

The only problem is, that's about as far as we can go without devolving into complete guesswork, hearsay and essentially fanfiction, since this person - even if we grant that he existed - seems to have been seems to have been not particularly interesting or important or noteworthy in his time, and as such we have no contemporary record of anything he did or anything that happened to him.


I basically agree with this, but as a professional matter I guess I have to take it a bit further.  When I'm writing about St. Martin's exorcisms in a term paper for my advisor, I don't say, "Sulpicius Severus claims that Martin performed exorcisms, but modern science is able to prove that exorcism actually isn't possible and is more likely a product of . . ." No, I just say, "Martin performed exorcisms."  Because that's what the people at the time believed, and as far as historians are concerned, that's all that really matters as far as analyzing fifth-century ideas about religion is concerned.
 
2013-12-14 12:50:03 AM

The Name: cynicalminion: Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can (do what with?)one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".

holy bleeding fark,

Lol.  Somebody thinks there were newspaper reporters, archives, youtube and NSA records in the first century.

Let me give you a hint:  If we had to throw out every historical figure for whom there are no contemporary records, we'd have to throw out about three-quarters of ancient history.


yeah, you're probably right, but those historical figures probably didn't start a religion, did they?

oh wait, didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?
 
2013-12-14 12:50:42 AM
"Jesus was a white man, too, but you know it's like we have... he was a historical figure, that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa..."

No, Megyn was not talking about the broader conception of a messiah known as Christ because she makes a specific claim as to Jesus being a historical figure within the context of saying change should not occur simply if someone feels uncomfortable. What she does not say is his being white was a verifiable fact, but this is a strong implication we cannot change the historical fact of Jesus, which previously stated by her is his being white. Aslan is intelligent and knowledgeable, and I imagine he was using this stupid statement by Megyn to get in a provocative and worthwhile comment on the current state of Christianity, but I think he gave her the best possible interpretation and ignored a significant statement which coincided with her original one decried as stupid.
 
2013-12-14 12:52:49 AM

cynicalminion: didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?


Indeed, he did, which doesn't help your point very much.
 
2013-12-14 12:56:16 AM

cynicalminion: oh wait, didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?


He had some Romans in the 4th Century BC who compiled all of the scraps and wrote their own history to suit their politics. Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.
 
2013-12-14 12:56:30 AM
If there was a Jesus, he was definitely not African-American.
 
2013-12-14 12:57:07 AM

Gyrfalcon: Biological Ali: Gyrfalcon: There's no evidence of anyone else's existence from back then, either, except for a very few Emperors and nobility. Does that mean they didn't exist either? ;)

St. Nicholas was from Anatolia in what is now Turkey, not Greece. He's not "Santa Claus" by a long shot, and the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

I don't think he was arguing that the historical documentation for that person was particularly strong - only that it was stronger than what we've got for Jesus, which it undoubtedly is.

Why? If you exclude the Bible--which for some reason everyone insists must be done--then we're still left with the Apocrypha that all mention Jesus. So then we exclude those too, in order that there be no evidence of Jesus, and then the anti-Jesus arguers say See! There's no evidence Jesus existed!

The problem is, by the same criteria, there's almost no evidence that ANYONE existed in the first century AD, outside of some Roman emperors, whose existence can't be disputed because they left behind inscriptions in everlasting stone, and on coins; and some chroniclers like Cassius Dio and Seutonius who were lucky enough to be copied later by Renaissance scribes.

But then there's no real evidence that, for instance, St. Nicholas of Myra existed either. He was--allegedly--a 4th Century monk from Asia Minor who saved either one, two, or three girls from prostitution by throwing money over the wall of the nunnery where they were confined. He also--allegedly--brought three young boys back to life after they'd been murdered and pickled by a cannibalistic butcher, multiplied wheat and supposedly his bones ooze a sweet-smelling ichor every year on the anniversary of his death. Now, there are bones supposed to be his in a church in Italy, that somehow survived the sacking of a town in Gre ...


now i remember why you're in happy pink.
 
2013-12-14 12:57:47 AM

whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.


Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.
 
2013-12-14 12:59:37 AM

The Name: I basically agree with this, but as a professional matter I guess I have to take it a bit further. When I'm writing about St. Martin's exorcisms in a term paper for my advisor, I don't say, "Sulpicius Severus claims that Martin performed exorcisms, but modern science is able to prove that exorcism actually isn't possible and is more likely a product of . . ." No, I just say, "Martin performed exorcisms." Because that's what the people at the time believed, and as far as historians are concerned, that's all that really matters as far as analyzing fifth-century ideas about religion is concerned.


Well, something like an exorcism typically (as I understand it, anyway) also involves a ritual component that can verifiably be said to have happened, without ascribing any magical qualities to it. It's perfectly fine to say that someone reportedly performed exorcisms, with the understanding that you're really only referring to the rituals involved.
 
2013-12-14 01:01:22 AM

The Name: cynicalminion: didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?

Indeed, he did, which doesn't help your point very much.


oops, yeah it does.
 
2013-12-14 01:03:48 AM

The Name: whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.

Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.


Fine. I'll stick with what's supported by the evidence.
 
2013-12-14 01:05:10 AM

Biological Ali: The Name: I basically agree with this, but as a professional matter I guess I have to take it a bit further. When I'm writing about St. Martin's exorcisms in a term paper for my advisor, I don't say, "Sulpicius Severus claims that Martin performed exorcisms, but modern science is able to prove that exorcism actually isn't possible and is more likely a product of . . ." No, I just say, "Martin performed exorcisms." Because that's what the people at the time believed, and as far as historians are concerned, that's all that really matters as far as analyzing fifth-century ideas about religion is concerned.

Well, something like an exorcism typically (as I understand it, anyway) also involves a ritual component that can verifiably be said to have happened, without ascribing any magical qualities to it. It's perfectly fine to say that someone reportedly performed exorcisms, with the understanding that you're really only referring to the rituals involved.


You're absolutely right about exorcisms.  That's just the first kind of miracle that came to mind.  Perhaps Gregory of Tours could provide examples of more inexplicable miracles.
 
2013-12-14 01:06:03 AM

whatshisname: The Name: whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.

Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.

Fine. I'll stick with what's supported by the evidence.


stick with what's supported by your peanut butter
 
2013-12-14 01:06:43 AM

cynicalminion: Biological Ali: cynicalminion: holy bleeding fark,

cynicalminion: oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...

Are you feeling alright?

i hate organized religion...  i was raised in the lutheran church, and i don't automatically assume that anyone's beliefs are wrong.  quanyin is pretty awesome.  but if the catholics can say hail mary, i can pray to quanyin so they get the ave maria version...

so yeah, i'm alright about the praying, but i wish more people WOULD be okay about that...without labels


I'm not a fan of religion myself, organized or otherwise. Honestly, I'm just a little confused as to why you've (apparently) taken issue with both me and The Name, seeing as the two of us were essentially arguing against each other at the time. I'm still not sure exactly whose side you're on here.
 
2013-12-14 01:07:26 AM

whatshisname: The Name: whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.

Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.

Fine. I'll stick with what's supported by the evidence.


Okay, then don't venture beyond the sixteenth century when talking about history. Go off and do some physics or something.

cynicalminion: The Name: cynicalminion: didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?

Indeed, he did, which doesn't help your point very much.

oops, yeah it does.


Go on . . .
 
2013-12-14 01:08:58 AM

cynicalminion: whatshisname: The Name: whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.

Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.

Fine. I'll stick with what's supported by the evidence.

stick with what's supported by your peanut butter


Are you still going on about your Apostles? They were myths too.
 
2013-12-14 01:11:33 AM

whatshisname: Are you still going on about your Apostles? They were myths too.


Okay, so now, by your own criteria, most of the emperors didn't exist.  You want to take this all the way up to some of the earliest presidents?
 
2013-12-14 01:16:20 AM

The Name: whatshisname: Are you still going on about your Apostles? They were myths too.

Okay, so now, by your own criteria, most of the emperors didn't exist.  You want to take this all the way up to some of the earliest presidents?


Go for it
 
2013-12-14 01:16:31 AM
pretty sure malcolm mcdowell will take care of that thanks
 
2013-12-14 01:22:38 AM

PanicMan: That's actually a really smart way of looking at it.


Yup. This guy seems to have a solid head on his shoulders.
 
2013-12-14 01:22:49 AM

whatshisname: The Name: whatshisname: Are you still going on about your Apostles? They were myths too.

Okay, so now, by your own criteria, most of the emperors didn't exist.  You want to take this all the way up to some of the earliest presidents?

Go for it


Well, you might be shocked to know that some of Lincoln's peccadillos weren't revealed until *gasp* AFTER HE HAD BEEN KILLED!

HOW COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED?!  HE WAS DEAD!!!!1  THOSE THINGS COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED!!!!1
 
2013-12-14 01:47:45 AM
Jesus may have well looked like he could've been Yasser Arafat's cousin. Now, imagine saying that on a Fox News show.
 
2013-12-14 01:52:37 AM

Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.


you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.
 
2013-12-14 01:57:06 AM

Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.


Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.
 
2013-12-14 02:01:09 AM

The Name: you know what "date" they're starting from.


It also helps if they excel at astronomical observations and left behind lots of them, as the Persians did. Their observations are so well done it's possible to figure out to the day when they were made. Which actually came in handy in working out an Old Testament story of all things.
 
2013-12-14 02:02:14 AM

The Name: Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.

Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.


that's all just deflection imo. the date isn't that important. my point was the number of similarities in the two stories. there are others too. not just Mithras and Jesus who share a lot of common threads.
 
2013-12-14 02:09:10 AM

Hobodeluxe: The Name: Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.

Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.

that's all just deflection imo. the date isn't that important. my point was the number of similarities in the two stories. there are others too. not just Mithras and Jesus who share a lot of common threads.


Yeah, but you're not taking into account the extremely, and I mean really unimaginably, conservative mindset of ancient society.  If you couldn't trace your prophet, real or fictional, to some preexisting tradition, then his teachings were as good as dead.  The fact that Jesus and Mithras share a birthday doesn't mean that Jesus was fictional, just that his adherents were savvy enough to link him to a more ancient tradition.
 
2013-12-14 02:16:01 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: Jesus probably existed. We have less evidence for other historical figures existing


Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.

The historical documentation for Zeus descending from the heavens to have sex with random women as a goose is overwhelming compared to the "evidence" for a single historical Jesus, for context.
 
2013-12-14 02:22:03 AM

Jim_Callahan: Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.


Uh, yeah, that doesn't at all describe the textual record for the historical Jesus.  We have papyrus fragments of the gospels that predate 400 CE.
 
2013-12-14 02:25:24 AM

The Name: Hobodeluxe: The Name: Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.

Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.

that's all just deflection imo. the date isn't that important. my point was the number of similarities in the two stories. there are others too. not just Mithras and Jesus who share a lot of common threads.

Yeah, but you're not taking into account the extremely, and I mean really unimaginably, conservative mindset of ancient society.  If you couldn't trace your prophet, real or fictional, to some preexisting tradition, then his teachings were as good as dead.  The fact that Jesus and Mithras share a birthday doesn't mean that Jesus was fictional, just that his adherents were savvy enough to link him to a more ancient tradition.


thumbs4.ebaystatic.com
 
2013-12-14 02:30:52 AM

The Name: Jim_Callahan: Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.

Uh, yeah, that doesn't at all describe the textual record for the historical Jesus.  We have papyrus fragments of the gospels that predate 400 CE.


The gospels aren't records, they're religious myths, though.  Other historical figures have actual third-party confirmation, not one dude telling a story.  We're back to the "on par with the evidence of Zeus swan-based escapades" there.

// I use 400 because that's when it was all assembled and pushed together, and the sotries of half a dozen variant mythologies were squeezed together into one person.  Some of the fragments used go back well beyond 1 CE, that's actually one of the amusing failures of consistency to use to mess with literalists.
 
2013-12-14 02:40:07 AM

Jim_Callahan: The Name: Jim_Callahan: Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.

Uh, yeah, that doesn't at all describe the textual record for the historical Jesus.  We have papyrus fragments of the gospels that predate 400 CE.

The gospels aren't records, they're religious myths, though.


In the ancient world, those count as historical records.

Other historical figures have actual third-party confirmation, not one dude telling a story.  We're back to the "on par with the evidence of Zeus swan-based escapades" there.

We have at least four dudes telling a story.  Well, at least four different religious communities telling a story.

// I use 400 because that's when it was all assembled and pushed together, and the sotries of half a dozen variant mythologies were squeezed together into one person.  Some of the fragments used go back well beyond 1 CE, that's actually one of the amusing failures of consistency to use to mess with literalists.

The canon of the NT was established at the Council of Nicaea only 300 years after the death of Jesus.  I don't know where you're getting 400 from.
 
2013-12-14 03:15:37 AM

The Name: The canon of the NT was established at the Council of Nicaea only 300 years after the death of Jesus.


yeah but the council wasn't there to poke holes in the myth. only to define what fit into their ideology and what didn't.
 
2013-12-14 03:20:28 AM

Hobodeluxe: you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.


Sure, but there's no confirmation that either of them did any of that -- different cultures calculated solstices differently, and all of them were off by some degrees owing to the unsophisticated measuring skills of the time period. You are guessing and playing loosey-goosey with language translations.

Once again, don't post Zeitgeist bullshiat.
 
2013-12-14 03:30:14 AM

The Name: The fact that Jesus and Mithras share a birthday doesn't mean that Jesus was fictional, j


Jesus was absolutely positively not born in December. You wouldn't find shepherds with their flocks in the fields in December in that part of the world. He was born quite possibly in the spring or possibly late summer.

Jim_Callahan: not one dude telling a story


The Gospels are the words of four distinct authors, one of whom, the author of Luke, says right up front he's writing at someone else's request ie he's writing a commissioned work. Also there's a particular trait the Gospels don't share with fictional tales, an utter lack of biographical detail. In fictional tales you find out all sorts of things about the main characters. With the Gospels, well why bother with details when anyone can go down the street and hear them from someone? Also it's come to pass that a lot of what people say about Jesus isn't even in the Gospels, like that he grew up dirt poor. Indeed if Luke is right, then he grew up far from poor.
 
2013-12-14 03:36:54 AM

WhyteRaven74: The Name: The fact that Jesus and Mithras share a birthday doesn't mean that Jesus was fictional, j

Jesus was absolutely positively not born in December. You wouldn't find shepherds with their flocks in the fields in December in that part of the world. He was born quite possibly in the spring or possibly late summer.


Yeah, that was my point.  Not born in December, but made to have been born in December to fit with the Mithras myth.  Again, not proof that he didn't exist.
 
2013-12-14 03:37:58 AM

Ishkur: and all of them were off by some degrees owing to the unsophisticated measuring skills of the time period.


The ancients were far better at making calendars then many people realize. The Egyptians worked out a solar year is 365 days, over 4 thousand years ago. The Persians had a calendar that was as accurate as anything we have. It doesn't actually take much to make a reliable calender. Just watch the moon and stars or watch the shadows the sun casts when it's at its high point each day and watch where it rises and sets on the horizon. And if you really want to nail things down, do both. Though which type of calendar, solar or lunar, was preferred or most used depended on what people did. Since a solar calendar was far better suited to working out when the Nile would flood, the Egyptians ran with it.
 
2013-12-14 03:51:19 AM

The Name: r, but made to have been born in December to fit with the Mithras myth.


Well there's that, plus the Romans eventually had Sol Invictus on December 25th, which would work just as well for shifting Jesus' birthday. The real fun is working out just when and why his birthday was shifted. The oldest writing we have of possible birth dates for Jesus' birthday, mucks things up by listing all of the ones that were considered at the time, roughly 200 CE. December 25 is not among the dates offered it should be noted. The first concrete record listing December 25th is well over a century later.
 
2013-12-14 03:57:19 AM

Hobodeluxe: my point was the number of similarities in the two stories.


There are none. What you posted was bullshiat.

First, you must distinguish whether you are speaking of the Persian Mithras in Zoroastrianism or the Roman Mithras (more Greek, really) of the Mithraic mysteries. The second is just a western bastardization of the former, but it's important to make the distinction that they almost refer to two separate people involved in two separate religions.

The Persian Mithras has nothing to do with Jesus. Was Jesus born from a rock? Did Jesus slaughter a bull? Did Jesus share banquets with other gods? Did Jesus always wear a Phrygian cap? Did Jesus have the head of a lion and was entwined by a serpent with the snake's head resting on the lion's head, and did he have four wings (that's right: Mithras wasn't even farking human)? Did Jesus always carry two keys and have a scepter in his hand? Did Jesus restrict membership into his esoteric cult to men only?

The Persian festival of natalis Invicti, held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and was by no means specifically referring to Mithras at all. People did not worship Mithras on that day. The Mithraic Mysteries (Roman) had no public ceremonies at all that can be verified. In the Zoroastrian calendar, the sixteenth day of the month and the seventh month of the year are dedicated to Mithra.

There's not a whole lot we know or understand about Mithraism because most of it was run like a secret society, like gnosticism. But the one glaring feature of Mithras worship, and this is shown everywhere there is evidence of it, is Mithras wrestling with and defeating a bull. There are statues everywhere about it and Roman writers talk a lot about it. This had a profound effect on Anatolian Greeks who concocted the myth of Perseus fighting the Minotaur in Crete (who were descended from the Minoan pre-Hellenistic civilization who literally invented the sport of bull leaping and bull fighting).

None of this has anything to do with Jesus or Christianity. A bull doesn't factor anywhere in Christian myth and lore. And when Christianity became the dominant power in the Empire, it saw all rival religions as enemies, including Arianism, Gnosticism, and yes, even Mithraism, and wiped them out in the 4th and 5th centuries.

There's more, but... oh, never mind. I'm tired. I'm going to bed.
 
2013-12-14 03:58:07 AM

WhyteRaven74: The Name: r, but made to have been born in December to fit with the Mithras myth.

Well there's that, plus the Romans eventually had Sol Invictus on December 25th, which would work just as well for shifting Jesus' birthday. The real fun is working out just when and why his birthday was shifted. The oldest writing we have of possible birth dates for Jesus' birthday, mucks things up by listing all of the ones that were considered at the time, roughly 200 CE. December 25 is not among the dates offered it should be noted. The first concrete record listing December 25th is well over a century later.


Never heard that before, but I believe it.  At the end of the day, though, I don't think it's a huge deal.  The ancients didn't care much about figuring out a person's exact day of birth or death, and they were happy to put the ceremonial commemoration on any day of the calendar that was free.  As precise as they were about their astronomical observations, they were really easy-going about every other calendrical matter.
 
2013-12-14 03:59:49 AM

WhyteRaven74: The ancients were far better at making calendars then many people realize. The Egyptians worked out a solar year is 365 days, over 4 thousand years ago. The Persians had a calendar that was as accurate as anything we have. It doesn't actually take much to make a reliable calender. Just watch the moon and stars or watch the shadows the sun casts when it's at its high point each day and watch where it rises and sets on the horizon. And if you really want to nail things down, do both. Though which type of calendar, solar or lunar, was preferred or most used depended on what people did. Since a solar calendar was far better suited to working out when the Nile would flood, the Egyptians ran with it.


Right, so if they're all so awesomely accurate at measuring the Solstice, why did they celebrate it on December 25 which was wrong?
 
2013-12-14 04:06:12 AM

Ishkur: Right, so if they're all so awesomely accurate at measuring the Solstice, why did they celebrate it on December 25 which was wrong?


Because that was the date for which the ceremony had been established from time immemorial.  The poebl celebrated on that day, and the astrologers marked a different day as the actual solstice.  And somehow the sky didn't fall.
 
2013-12-14 04:06:31 AM

The Name: NobleHam: Palestinians often look as white as any Mediterranean people. Close enough for me. The problem is that "white" is very broad.

No, the problem is that "white" is a purely (post-)colonial, modern category.  Before about 1600, nobody would have been called "white."  They would have been called a Spaniard, an Englishman, a Turk, a Saracen, a Roman, an Ethiopian, an Italian, an Ottoman, etc., etc., etc. . . . but never "white."  It's a designation that doesn't make any sense whatsoever in a first-century context.


Yeah. That's my point. Back then no one would have been called white, now it's a category with a vague and broad definition which encompasses Nords, Slavs, Gauls and Mediterraneans. Back then, no one would have been called black or Asian either. Saying whether Santa or Jesus is white relies on very recent definitions of ethnicity, and if we're going to deal with those definitions, I'd say you either have to include Santa and Jesus as white, or exclude most Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek and Turkish.
 
2013-12-14 04:27:06 AM
i1301.photobucket.comSorry I'm late.
Seasonal frivolities, etc. etc.
 
2013-12-14 04:44:46 AM

clowncar on fire: Believable.  Distinct possibility that he may have had dark red (auburn?) hair as well.  Persians had a fair amount of red hair back in the day and are totally obsessed with it nowadays.  Blue eyes? Doubt it.
We keep saying typical Jew-type ignoring the fact that the Jews believe that Christ has yet to walk the face of the earth.  Saw some place that Christ (Isa) may have fallen in lineage as being one of the last prophets of Muslim faith.  Word is he was a minor player but seemed to have gained a small following for believing in peaceful settlement and criticism of the fatwa.


If there was indeed a historical Jesus, why would you think he would be Persian?
 
2013-12-14 04:54:10 AM

Ishkur: why did they celebrate it on December 25 which was wrong?


They celebrated it on December 25th according to the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian calendar, which is what we use.
 
2013-12-14 04:59:10 AM

The Name: Never heard that before, but I believe it.


The early document listing the various dates was written by Clement of Alexandria round about 200 CE.
 
2013-12-14 05:01:18 AM

Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.

Sure, but there's no confirmation that either of them did any of that -- different cultures calculated solstices differently, and all of them were off by some degrees owing to the unsophisticated measuring skills of the time period. You are guessing and playing loosey-goosey with language translations.

Once again, don't post Zeitgeist bullshiat


Don't tell me what to post and what not to post. I'm not the one purporting to believe any of them hold any more weight than the other. it's all myth and legend as far as I'm concerned. you're picking at nits. they both used the winter solstice as a reference point for for establishing a date of birth. they're both wrong because they're both bullshiat
 
2013-12-14 05:09:09 AM

Hobodeluxe: . they both used the winter solstice as a reference point for for establishing a date of birt


The winter solstice for Jesus wasn't settled upon for 300 years. For Mithras it was always the day. And Mithras wasn't the only sun deity celebrated on December 25th, the Romans eventually had Sol Invictus on the 25th. As for why Jesus' birthday got moved, likely scenario is a calendar issue. Early Christians looking at Jesus' birth had some issues with the old Jewish calendar, so to set things up, they moved Jesus' birth to where things were more to their liking.
 
2013-12-14 05:30:15 AM

All2morrowsparTs: Amish Tech Support: Jesus was an extraterrestrial.

and he built my hotrod.

/wamma lamma ding  dong


Don't forget he drives a Dodge.
 
2013-12-14 05:48:33 AM

Hobodeluxe: Don't tell me what to post and what not to post. I'm not the one purporting to believe any of them hold any more weight than the other. it's all myth and legend as far as I'm concerned. you're picking at nits. they both used the winter solstice as a reference point for for establishing a date of birth. they're both wrong because they're both bullshiat


Fine, but don't come in here claiming that one is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other. If there were a dozen popular religions, cults and cultural customs back in the day and ALL of them had Dec. 25 as a great time feast holiday solstice event thingy, then chances are Christianity was going to have one too, irrespective of the recognition of any others.
 
2013-12-14 06:16:16 AM

Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Don't tell me what to post and what not to post. I'm not the one purporting to believe any of them hold any more weight than the other. it's all myth and legend as far as I'm concerned. you're picking at nits. they both used the winter solstice as a reference point for for establishing a date of birth. they're both wrong because they're both bullshiat

Fine, but don't come in here claiming that one is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other. If there were a dozen popular religions, cults and cultural customs back in the day and ALL of them had Dec. 25 as a great time feast holiday solstice event thingy, then chances are Christianity was going to have one too, irrespective of the recognition of any others.


that was just one of several similarities in the legends of both. it was the totality of all that information that makes it more than just coincidental. one is derived from the other imo.
 
2013-12-14 06:18:36 AM
This thread makes me wanna

i65.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-14 06:35:04 AM

Hobodeluxe: that was just one of several similarities in the legends of both. it was the totality of all that information that makes it more than just coincidental


That I sufficiently debunked. Okay.

Hobodeluxe: one is derived from the other imo.


Listen, Christianity is full of a whole bunch of unbelievable bullshiat and a lot of its customs and traditions are indeed ripped off from other popular festivals and rituals of the day. But the Mithras origin is not one of them (or, at least, not all of it and not to any degree of certainty). In fact, Christianity openly despised the Mithraic mysteries and went to great lengths to expel it off the face of the Earth. Mithras would be the last place the Christians would have gotten the Christ mythology from.

There is enough crap about the religion to debunk that you don't have to go out of your way to make shiat up.
 
2013-12-14 06:49:27 AM

WhyteRaven74: Ishkur: why did they celebrate it on December 25 which was wrong?

They celebrated it on December 25th according to the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian calendar, which is what we use.


Russian orthodoxy still uses the Julian calendar for holidays. Right now, Christmas is on January 7th (Gregorian) and will gradually shift further away from the "new" December 25th. That is one advantage of working here. I get "my" Christmas off from work and "their" Christmas. fark yeah, two Christmases
 
2013-12-14 07:50:07 AM
Garth Ennis' take on Jesus, Antichrist, etc.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-14 09:21:13 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: She's a Doobie Brothers fan but she's always getting the lyrics wrong.


Thinking Jeses was white is what a fool believes.
 
2013-12-14 09:48:21 AM

Jim_Callahan: PC LOAD LETTER: Jesus probably existed. We have less evidence for other historical figures existing

Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.

The historical documentation for Zeus descending from the heavens to have sex with random women as a goose is overwhelming compared to the "evidence" for a single historical Jesus, for context.


You do realize that Herodotus is the oldest source of information for large numbers of Greek historical folks, right? In fact until Diogenes Laertius, it was the only source of information for many of the folks mentioned in Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Why are we holding Jesus to a more strict standard?
 
2013-12-14 09:51:46 AM

worlddan: The Jews of 0 AD had a clear and specific definition of what those "magical bits" were and not any old magical bits were going to do. Not any person could be the Christ no more than the Christ could be any person. There was only one Christ: Jesus. No one is forced to believe that but anyone who doesn't is not Christian in any traditional understanding of that word.


Lol.  I can't let this pass without comment.  The Jews of 0 AD and of today have a clear and specific definition of the Messiah, and Jesus doesn't fit it.  So, if you're conflating "Christ" with the Jewish Messiah, then Jesus certainly wasn't the "only one Christ."  Christians believe that, but that's why they're Christians and not Jews.
 
2013-12-14 10:10:10 AM
The Easter Bunny is always depicted as a white rabbit. Is he really white? Was the original Easter Bunny white or is this a construct of paternalistic Western white hegemonistic culture? Inquiring minds don't give a shiat.
 
2013-12-14 10:16:15 AM

Jim_Callahan: The gospels aren't records, they're religious myths, though. Other historical figures have actual third-party confirmation, not one dude telling a story. We're back to the "on par with the evidence of Zeus swan-based escapades" there.


Herodotus treats Hercules as a real person. As I said, Herodotus was the sole source of information for much of what we know about various people he mentions. So, since he uses Hercules, who is of divine birth and has done supernatural feats, as real, where does this leave the Gospels?
 
2013-12-14 10:24:40 AM

Hobodeluxe: The Name: Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.

Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.

that's all just deflection imo. the date isn't that important. my point was the number of similarities in the two stories. there are others too. not just Mithras and Jesus who share a lot of common threads.


Except the majority of that Mithras copy-paste is total bullshiat and makes up a lot of stuff about Mithras.
 
2013-12-14 11:11:56 AM
 When I first read the headline I thought it was saying Jesus was half-white.
that would have either be some industrial strength derp, or nuclear level trolling.
 
2013-12-14 11:19:00 AM

Hollie Maea: catmandu: There is no such thing as a white race. There is Negroid (sub-Saharan Africa); Mongoloid (east Asia, Russia west of the Urals, indigenous people of North and South America); Australoid (Australia and parts of Melanesia), and Caucasoid (North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Indian subcontinent, western Russia).

Jesus was Caucasian but he definitely wasn't white.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's a bit obsolete understanding of things.


Nope, it is still the accepted anthropological way of categorizing humans, just ask any forensic anthropologist.

Sociological is a whole different can of worms.
 
2013-12-14 11:26:02 AM

simplicimus: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: simplicimus: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Maybe...

[www.dvdtalk.com image 400x234]

...depends on what you think about the 'Holy Trinity'.

I thought I was the only one here who remembered that film.

The genius apple didn't fall far from the gawddam genius apple tree...

 I'm on my way to Jerusalem to be an actor/singer. It is written that the Agent Morris awaits me.


For us, 'I can crawl again!' was a catchphrase/joke after every damn accident/disaster/hospitalization/doctor's visit/recovery for years.
 
2013-12-14 11:33:20 AM
In America, Jesus is green.
And looks suspiciously like Ben Franklin.
 
2013-12-14 11:53:57 AM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: simplicimus: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: simplicimus: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Maybe...

[www.dvdtalk.com image 400x234]

...depends on what you think about the 'Holy Trinity'.

I thought I was the only one here who remembered that film.

The genius apple didn't fall far from the gawddam genius apple tree...

 I'm on my way to Jerusalem to be an actor/singer. It is written that the Agent Morris awaits me.

For us, 'I can crawl again!' was a catchphrase/joke after every damn accident/disaster/hospitalization/doctor's visit/recovery for years.


I was checking IMDB and saw that Robert Downey Jr. had an uncredited appearance in his father's movie.
 
2013-12-14 12:48:25 PM

Ambivalence: Any bets on how many "he doesn't have a degree in religious studies so can't be a religious scholar" derp era we get on this thread.


It would appear there were none, which is good considering he has a bachelor's in religions and a masters of theological studies from Harvard. Hell his PhD is in sociology, but it covers the history of religion. Anyone arguing he doesn't have a degree in religious studies is pretty far wrong.
 
2013-12-14 01:45:28 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: You do realize that Herodotus is the oldest source of information for large numbers of Greek historical folks, right? In fact until Diogenes Laertius, it was the only source of information for many of the folks mentioned in Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Why are we holding Jesus to a more strict standard?


Yeah! Why are we holding the son of God to a higher standard?

We're not. Those philosophers may not have existed wither, and if they didn't it changes very little because no one is literally worshiping them as God.
 
2013-12-14 01:46:19 PM

impaler: Those philosophers may not have existed either,


FTFM
 
2013-12-14 01:49:12 PM

redmid17: Ambivalence: Any bets on how many "he doesn't have a degree in religious studies so can't be a religious scholar" derp era we get on this thread.

It would appear there were none, which is good considering he has a bachelor's in religions and a masters of theological studies from Harvard. Hell his PhD is in sociology, but it covers the history of religion. Anyone arguing he doesn't have a degree in religious studies is pretty far wrong.


If you're unfamiliar why Ambivalence said that, it's because right-wingers said just that.
Link
 
2013-12-14 02:28:26 PM

impaler: PC LOAD LETTER: You do realize that Herodotus is the oldest source of information for large numbers of Greek historical folks, right? In fact until Diogenes Laertius, it was the only source of information for many of the folks mentioned in Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Why are we holding Jesus to a more strict standard?

Yeah! Why are we holding the son of God to a higher standard?

We're not. Those philosophers may not have existed wither, and if they didn't it changes very little because no one is literally worshiping them as God.


See my comment about Hercules above. I don't care if people worship people as gods or not, and that has zero bearing on if they actually existed as normal humans. Saints are demigods who perform magic, miracles, and witchcraft on behalf of the gods for all intents and purposes. We don't doubt that St. Patrick existed.
 
2013-12-14 02:53:20 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: See my comment about Hercules above. I don't care if people worship people as gods or not, and that has zero bearing on if they actually existed as normal humans. Saints are demigods who perform magic, miracles, and witchcraft on behalf of the gods for all intents and purposes. We don't doubt that St. Patrick existed.


Link
 
2013-12-14 03:13:43 PM

impaler: PC LOAD LETTER: See my comment about Hercules above. I don't care if people worship people as gods or not, and that has zero bearing on if they actually existed as normal humans. Saints are demigods who perform magic, miracles, and witchcraft on behalf of the gods for all intents and purposes. We don't doubt that St. Patrick existed.

Link


There's a reason I don't use Socrates for my examples, and that's it. Again, Hercules was treated as real by Herodotus. And that goes to the fact that Herodotus is the only source of information--written long after the people he wrote about lived, mind you--that we have on many people he mentions. That's a big reason Diogenes Laertius isn't considered a reliable source, but we don't deny that people exist simply because Herodotus thought Hercules was real. Or do we start considering the possibility that Hercules was actually real, which has been floated before and I have no problem considering. King Arthur was one or several of a bunch of late-Roman-empire warlords in Brittania from what many have postulated. Ancient sources are horrible evidence for many of the reasons that that link says, yet, again, we do not apply the same standard to Saints or other demigods evenly. Why?

I get that some of my fellow Atheists want Jesus to simply NOT EXIST. It's a special kind of burial of religion that I appreciate. But I have a very specific view on religious events: they were mundane and boring and people were easily fooled by natural phenomena, were on drugs or drunk, or thought mental illness was dialogue with the Gods--see Abraham hearing voices to kill his son and the descriptions of Mohammed listening to "god", namely the voices in his head, as the descriptions of him were that he was listening to silence. I would much rather say "yeah, Jesus probably existed, but let's not get crazy here".
 
2013-12-14 03:52:39 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: I get that some of my fellow Atheists want Jesus to simply NOT EXIST.


This has nothing to do with what Atheists (or anybody else) "want". I myself am an atheist and I used to be convinced that a guy called Jesus actually existed - because that was what the consensus seemed to be - right up until I ended up studying the actual history of the relevant region and time period.

The fact that there's no contemporary documentation at all - as in, literally none - really is a big deal. We have terms for stories like this, which are based on nothing more than hearsay from decades after the events are purported to have happened - we call them "folklore". This isn't to say that all folklore is necessarily false - some or even all of a given story may be true, but the evidence for it may simply not have survived. Nonetheless, it's quite distinct from events that we consider to be actual history.
 
2013-12-14 05:41:19 PM

Biological Ali: PC LOAD LETTER: I get that some of my fellow Atheists want Jesus to simply NOT EXIST.

This has nothing to do with what Atheists (or anybody else) "want". I myself am an atheist and I used to be convinced that a guy called Jesus actually existed - because that was what the consensus seemed to be - right up until I ended up studying the actual history of the relevant region and time period.

The fact that there's no contemporary documentation at all - as in, literally none - really is a big deal. We have terms for stories like this, which are based on nothing more than hearsay from decades after the events are purported to have happened - we call them "folklore". This isn't to say that all folklore is necessarily false - some or even all of a given story may be true, but the evidence for it may simply not have survived. Nonetheless, it's quite distinct from events that we consider to be actual history.


I'm an Atheist who believes that Jesus the man may or may not have been real.

Sort of the Schrodinger's Cat of Gods.

He's only real if we can pop out of a TARDIS and observe him, kind of thing.

But whether there was a real man who was the kernel of truth inside the mythos or whether he was made up of whole cloth entirely, some of which was recycled from previous beliefs and stories, is rather moot.

Debatable, fun to speculate on but ultimately unimportant.

Unless, of course, you are a certain type of literalist believer in which case it's The. Most Important. Thing. Evah.
 
2013-12-14 06:01:59 PM

Biological Ali: PC LOAD LETTER: I get that some of my fellow Atheists want Jesus to simply NOT EXIST.

This has nothing to do with what Atheists (or anybody else) "want". I myself am an atheist and I used to be convinced that a guy called Jesus actually existed - because that was what the consensus seemed to be - right up until I ended up studying the actual history of the relevant region and time period.

The fact that there's no contemporary documentation at all - as in, literally none - really is a big deal. We have terms for stories like this, which are based on nothing more than hearsay from decades after the events are purported to have happened - we call them "folklore". This isn't to say that all folklore is necessarily false - some or even all of a given story may be true, but the evidence for it may simply not have survived. Nonetheless, it's quite distinct from events that we consider to be actual history.


If people only exist if there are contemporary accounts of them, we have to throw out large swaths of history around the world. Must of proto-dynastic Egypt and early middle-eastern history is based on later accounts or things like the carving of a single mace head that may or may not belong to a King Scorpion. We know the Iliad and the Odessey exist, but they were written down long after Homer existed, and there are zero contemporary accounts of Homer, or even evidence that those works were written by a single individual, let alone a specifically blind man. Troy was considered mythical until it (or what we believe is it) was dug up. We can never be sure of ancient sources for information, and ancient history is very hard stuff once you start looking for primary sources. But we can take a good guess as to the likelihood of something being true, even after the fact. Reject the supernatural, keep the mundane. Jesus, sure. Christ, no.
 
2013-12-14 09:55:06 PM

Phil Clinton: Not trying to be a prick. But a lot of that 'Jesus is a copy of other religions' has been going around for a while and a lot of it isn't true. The Egyptian links have been debunked by actual Egyptians. Mithra was never resurrected, and he was made from a rock not born to a virgin. The older versions of Mithra have no similarities to Jesus. Those didn't show up until the first or second century A.D. (after Jesus was born). This post doesn't mean in any way the Christian Bible is correct or represents one true religion. But, if you think something is bullshiat, the answer to disproving it isn't more bullshiat.


I was amused when someone tried to tell me that Horus was "born of a virgin on December 25 and laid in a manger," because some link to a new-age web page said so.
 
2013-12-14 11:47:12 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: If people only exist if there are contemporary accounts of them, we have to throw out large swaths of history around the world.


I don't know how you get from what I said to "throw out large swaths of history around the world". Recognizing something as folklore rather than fact doesn't mean you've "thrown it out" - it means you've acknowledged the actual nature of the information and you've got a more accurate sense of the likelihood of it being true.
 
2013-12-15 12:26:46 AM
In his book, "Did Jesus Exist?", Bart Ehrman lays out some good reasons to accept that a preacher named Jesus (Yeshua, whatever) existed in 1st-century Palestine. There is, however, no reason to think he was magic.
 
2013-12-15 02:17:57 AM

The Name: cynicalminion: Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can (do what with?)one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".

holy bleeding fark,

Lol.  Somebody thinks there were newspaper reporters, archives, youtube and NSA records in the first century.

Let me give you a hint:  If we had to throw out every historical figure for whom there are no contemporary records, we'd have to throw out about three-quarters of ancient history.



To all of you arguing about Tacitus, do you know what this is?
www.jesusneverexisted.com

It's a special photograph taken of the word "christianos" from the earliest known manuscript of Tacitus's Annals. Scholars had long wondered why the "ri" was in a different style than the same letter pair elsewhere in the document, why the dot on the "i" was so exaggerated (almost a diagonal hyphen), and why there was that gap between it and the long "s" ("ſ" ← that is not an "f"!).

Then ultraviolet light was used to cause the parchment (skin) to fluoresce and show the presence of older ink that had been erased and overwritten. The "i" was originally an "e", making the word "chreſtianoſ" ("chrestianos" ― literally, "the good people" or "the goody-goodies"), not "chriſtianoſ" ("christianos" ― "Christians"). This photo was taken using the ultraviolet light.

Someone deliberately altered that manuscript centuries ago to change "goody-goodies" into "Christians."


Ishkur: WhyteRaven74: The ancients were far better at making calendars then many people realize. The Egyptians worked out a solar year is 365 days, over 4 thousand years ago. The Persians had a calendar that was as accurate as anything we have. It doesn't actually take much to make a reliable calender. Just watch the moon and stars or watch the shadows the sun casts when it's at its high point each day and watch where it rises and sets on the horizon. And if you really want to nail things down, do both. Though which type of calendar, solar or lunar, was preferred or most used depended on what people did. Since a solar calendar was far better suited to working out when the Nile would flood, the Egyptians ran with it.

Right, so if they're all so awesomely accurate at measuring the Solstice, why did they celebrate it on December 25 which was wrong?


The Name: Because that was the date for which the ceremony had been established from time immemorial. The poebl celebrated on that day, and the astrologers marked a different day as the actual solstice. And somehow the sky didn't fall.


WhyteRaven74: They celebrated it on December 25th according to the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian calendar, which is what we use.


Both of you are wrong. The answer to Ishkur's question is much simpler: it wasn't the Solstice itself that they were celebrating (why would they? It was the day when the Sun was at its apparent weakest!), but rather the first day when it became obvious that the Solstice was over, that the Sun was coming back, that the light was rallying against the darkness and would eventually overcome it (on the Vernal Equinox). That day is December 25 (as converted to the modern Gregorian calendar from whatever calendar was in use), the first day that people could see the days starting to get longer again, four days after the actual Solstice.

As summer turns into autumn which turns into winter, the Sun keeps moving south, and since its path through the sky is tilted south (as seen from the Northern Hemisphere) from the perpendicular at an angle equal to the latitude of location, the further south it goes, the shorter its path through the sky. It looked as if the Sun would eventually "fall off" the south end of the sky, never to be seen again. Darkness would prevail.

Until the Solstice. As that approached, the Sun's southward retreat slowed, then stopped. For about a week, from about three days before to about three days after the actual Solstice, the Sun appeared not to move much, if any, rising and setting in about the same places as viewed from any given place on the ground. Indeed, the very name "Solstice" literally means, "the Sun stands still."

And then, on December 25, the miracle happens: the Sun actually moves north! Just a bit, but it's noticeable! Its sky-path was longer than it had been the previous week! The day was actually longer than it had been! The Sun was coming back! The Rebirth of the Unconquered Sun (Dies Natali Sol Invictus)! In following days, it will move further and further north, getting longer still.

That's what they were celebrating.
 
Displayed 297 of 297 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report