User Panel
|
Why does this surprise anyone? He was an Arab Jew.
He’s also my Lord, and savior. |
|
|
|
Quoted: There is also the fact that Anatolia was Greek prior to the Turkish invasion and that the Turks that invaded were a fairly small group. Meaning that the "Turks" of Turkey have more in common genetically with Greeks and mainland Europeans than they do with the Turks of Central Asia. View Quote There's an easy way to find out. |
|
Lol I grew up in a Hispanic Catholic family. Jesus looked just like that in everything I've seen.
Wait til my grandma finds out he didn't speak Spanish |
|
|
|
For thousands of years we have been worshiping a man connected to us via spirit and a book, not a photo.
We know his hair was somewhere between blonde and black, his skin somewhere between pale and charcoal black. We don’t care. |
|
Quoted: I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing-- or even if you are. Humans, as you have stated, dogs. Or horses. Or cows. Or anything else that has "breeds" and variations of characteristics. At the same time, we DO see those variations of characteristics across humans of different geographical regions. We observe this. So, you are correct that we aren't dogs, but the same genetic principles apply. No "kennel club" established those principles and no one created a "breed standard." Yet, the science is there. Everyone in agricultural science understands this. We just find offense applying that same principle to ourselves. Or perhaps, we fear where that rabbit hole goes, and would rather pretend that in this case, "it is different." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @Bohr_Adam Forgive my anthropology classes. When I went through college, we were taught that the three basic sub-divisions of race were "Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid"-- and every other variation resulted from some deviation or admixture of those primaries. I'm quite certain that there is likely more developments to that viewpoint, and if I were in that field I would likely be up to speed on them. As it is, my choice of term from the framework that I drew from seemed to be adequate for my point. Which is PC-bullshit. We can't have an intelligent discussion on anything in academia as long as it is clouded with PC ideology. Oddly enough, race exists when we discuss BLM or when we discuss "institutional racism"-- or when those anthropologists' employers give preference or penalties to applicants attempting to enroll based on their race. They are asking us to ignore what we actually see in practice. It amazes me that we see a complete disconnect when discussing humans and any other living organism. We all know that all dogs are the same species. However, no one disputes that there are different breeds with different characteristics. Now, replace the word "breed" with the word "race." Across the world, we see expression of different traits just as we see different expression of traits in practically every higher form of life. You are arguing with a strawman. The 18th century idea of race involved three (later 4) separate lines of evolution that only more recently began interbreeding. Recognizing that this is I correct does not mean that population groups do not share traits in common. It does, however, dismiss the idea hat there is a "pure" breed/race standard, and anything else is "mixed." That, is absurd. Humans are not dogs. There is no kennel club, let alone a magical point in history, dictating breed standards. I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing-- or even if you are. Humans, as you have stated, dogs. Or horses. Or cows. Or anything else that has "breeds" and variations of characteristics. At the same time, we DO see those variations of characteristics across humans of different geographical regions. We observe this. So, you are correct that we aren't dogs, but the same genetic principles apply. No "kennel club" established those principles and no one created a "breed standard." Yet, the science is there. Everyone in agricultural science understands this. We just find offense applying that same principle to ourselves. Or perhaps, we fear where that rabbit hole goes, and would rather pretend that in this case, "it is different." Nobody has ever claimed there aren't variations across humans. That is not what "race" came to mean when the "scientific" concept of "race" was being hashed out in the late 19th century. Race implied lines of demarcation that do not exist. Race theory led to assumptions that Arabs looked different from Scandinavians due to interbreeding with other "races," and weren't a "pure" race. In reality, it makes every bit as 'fun sense or consider "Arabs" their own race as it does "Slavs," or "Germans." It's arbitrary line drawing, originally rooted in a flawed hypothesis about the history of the species. It led to some grievous errors in actual genetic relationships due to assumptions about that history, lumping people like the Laplanders and Finns as "Mongoloid." Regardless, Semitic peoples were generally identified as a subgroup ("stock") under the larger "Caucasians," separate from "Aryans." It's that "Aryan stock" label that most arfcommers seem to cling to when they think "Caucasian." This is the only way it makes sense in the context of this thread, for example, as semites are otherwise Caucasian, and that image in the OP was clearly not "Mongoloid," or "Negroid," (though, using 19h century race theory, some might have reason to argue it shows a man of "mixed" versus "pure" race). Anthropology went through a process similar to what Jordan Peterson talks about with modern social scientists as they obsess over "intersectionality." Eventually, Anthropology acknowledged that there was only one human race, with a nearly infinite # of always overlapping, over time and space, population groups. In the same way, eventually these Marxist inspired social scientists obsessing over discrimination by group identity are bound to eventually start seeing so many near-infinite mixes of variables as to treat people as individuals again, not as oppressor group versus oppressed group. |
|
Quoted: I've always thought that CK had a strong middle eastern look to him, and that his "real" momma might be lying (or guessing?) I hope he sees this picture and comes to a similar conclusion, it would be entertaining. View Quote He’s probably black Italian/Sicilian. The nsfw True Romance scene is very close. Click To View Spoiler Contains racial slurs which may not be appropriate to play at work. True Romance - The Sicilian Scene in HD |
|
Quoted: Not sure why you posted those in this thread, but I'm not complaining. View Quote I get distracted looking at chicks around the world Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
I saw one of these compilations once, made according to several written descriptions.
The result was more round faced, tightly curled hair (like an afro), and a more Mediterranean skin tone. I'm sure these compilations aren't new, and a few could be found on the interwebs. |
|
Quoted: is They also made a fourth for Native Americans. Someone posted some old ass shit that put us as the "fourth race". They were badly drawn caricatures of everyone except white people. Probably from a eugenics textbook. Breaking 7.8 billion people down into four piles based on imaginary lines drawn on maps is dumb. People here love to cling to that shit though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Australians were my "later 4." The discovery of DNA was the nail in the coffin for that way of thinking, as genomes got mapped, just about every assumption from that era was thrown upside down. But, people cling to it for their own reasons. And, meant to type "19th" century... 18th century was still very limuch a concept of race equating to ethno-linguistic group. The lumbers started lumping much later. They also made a fourth for Native Americans. Someone posted some old ass shit that put us as the "fourth race". They were badly drawn caricatures of everyone except white people. Probably from a eugenics textbook. Breaking 7.8 billion people down into four piles based on imaginary lines drawn on maps is dumb. People here love to cling to that shit though. If you can find that post, would love to read it. I have. A pretty good digital collection of stuff from that era, it's fascinating to read. My favorite is the "Dictionary of Races and People" which the INS compiled in 1910. It's a classic example of a bureaucracy tasked to enforce rules that made no sense, but trying it's damndest to make sense of them. It's in many ways similar to the ATF finding itself needing to rule on what is a handgun versus a short barreled rifle. |
|
|
Quoted: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/459941/A7E22E3D-ADD7-4DC0-B6A8-E840DA78CD0A_jpe-1520150.JPG View Quote That was a funny show. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: We know what Satan looks like. https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/obama1.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=642 View Quote I never really saw the match there. I always thought the satan actor looked more like Frank Langella. |
|
Quoted: There's an easy way to find out. View Quote Some info although just 1 location https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083616/#!po=0.793651 |
|
|
|
Quoted: I get distracted looking at chicks around the world View Quote I Could Love About a Million Girls |
|
View Quote Yeah I’m like the 3rd guy who gets killed by the chick in the bathtub in the Frankie Goes to Hollywood video “Pleasure Dome” Attached File Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Welcome To The Pleasuredome |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I get distracted looking at chicks around the world https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J4Ai3kNkI4 Wow. That's some seriously old school Simpsons. |
|
Quoted: Add it to the pile. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/d5/6c/d1d56c4f01b8a3c7c0d11b2ce7286828.jpg Hint: It doesn't matter... View Quote The dude from the BeeGees? |
|
|
Good lord, why is this controversial
Yes, that's probably pretty close to what Jesus looked like. |
|
Quoted: If you can find that post, would love to read it. I have. A pretty good digital collection of stuff from that era, it's fascinating to read. My favorite is the "Dictionary of Races and People" which the INS compiled in 1910. It's a classic example of a bureaucracy tasked to enforce rules that made no sense, but trying it's damndest to make sense of them. It's in many ways similar to the ATF finding itself needing to rule on what is a handgun versus a short barreled rifle. View Quote I tried finding it using a few terms but no luck so far It looked like it had to have been made in the 30s, which was the pinnacle of knowledge about our species to some here. |
|
Quoted: I find it bizarre that leftists revel in the belief that Christian's would be surprized their savior was not lilly white. I'm a heathen, but I know and love a lot of Christians. I can't think of one that would freak out that their master would look middle eastern. View Quote They are upset that Christians aren't freaking out so they have to lie and say they are in order to try to create a tift... It's all about trolling Christians and it isn't working so like most autists and sociopaths they have to insist it is anyway... If you can't win run around and insist you did regardless of the score. |
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Doesn't bother me at all. Why would someone from the middle east, prior to significant inter-regional travel, be a white guy? https://akiane.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Prince-of-Peace-hi-res.jpg View Quote Is that Eddie Rabbitt? |
|
I don't have any skin in the Jesus game nor do I care what he looks like. However, the middle east was not always filled with Arabs. It was filled with Greeks, Persians, Romans, Jews, etc. I hope they took migration into account (doesn't look like they did ). You can't judge what people looked like in a region 2000 years ago based on today. Take the Spanish for example.
|
|
Quoted: What if a Roman knocked up the allegedly virgin Mary? Seems plausible. Extremely plausible. And if you were to believe that god planted the seed inside of Mary, Who is to say what he may have looked like. Could just as easily been a fish person. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You mean some guy from the middle east looks middle eastern!?!?!?!? Im fucking shocked. What if a Roman knocked up the allegedly virgin Mary? Seems plausible. Extremely plausible. And if you were to believe that god planted the seed inside of Mary, Who is to say what he may have looked like. Could just as easily been a fish person. I’m not sure if you’re being facetious. The Talmud claims Mary was a whore and was in fact impregnated by a Roman. Also claims Jesus is burning in a lake of shit in Hell, so decide for yourself how trustworthy it is as a source. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Seriously, though... uncanny resemblance to these very, very old images. It's a breakthrough! https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/101208-tech-jesus%20family.grid-6x2.JPG https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2b/23/a4/2b23a48eaccb9ccaf9180d0cd8408f21.jpg View Quote They could have saved a lot of time by just looking at old icons |
|
Ummmm, My grandparents had an old picture of Jesus on their wall that looked somewhat like that guy.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.