Hindus are the obvious exception. They like to throw in elephant trunks, a few extra arms, etc.

Who did their hair and their laundry?

Hmm.... you are on to something here...

I still believe Jesus was a real person. His rise up to the heavens, not so much. Maybe he was ultra wise ‍ I do think the person existed. He would be the color of the people where he was born...a bit on the olive skinned side...

@Athena you don’t have to convince me, just the guy who I commented to.

@RobinGray you can believe anything you want, that doesn't make it real. There's zero historical evidence to back your belief

@RobinGray, @Athena zero historical evidence.

@Athena I am a Mofo always, ergo my handle. But since you are so lazy to look for sources as you do not put any, but claim a lot of debunked crap. Here you go:

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).

Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

Abject doubt over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved.

In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

@Athena Consensus maybe, but historical evidence, NONE whatsoever.

@Athena I agree 100% with Mofo1953, because, simply, there WAS no records/writings referring to a Jesus/Yeshua/Yeyoshua, etc, etc, as being either a Messiah nor a 'Christ' UNTIL after the Council of Nicaea convened by Emperor Constantine in 325 C.E. aka A.D.
Quintus Severus Lucidius was the personal Scribe to Constantine at that time, his records were once kept in the archives of Constantinople until the they were removed by the Holy Roman Empire in the year 331 C.E. to Rome and then sealed in the vaults of what now is the Vatican.
Quintus Severus recorded that, " The Holy Book of the Messianic Religion ( later to become the Christian Religion) was to be created from myths and legends with the only EXCEPTIONS being the Pentateuch of the 'Old Testament' which would be copied and altered to suit the new religion, upon this matter an agreement was unanimously reached by ALL the self-appointed Bishops of the Messianic Religion as was the name of Christianity also."
Ergo, @Mofo1953 is not being "very Grumpy," but actually stating facts and truths.

@Athena Not 'jerking off' here, justtelling the actual facts of the matter PLUS I have never believed the Jesus mythology anytime in my whole, entire life since I was first old enough to ask questions about it and everything else.
Plus, and only being considered as an Armchair Historian since I have never been able to actually work outside and in the fields, so to speak, I do have quite a number of Degrees from well renowned Universities in Australia that include Studies in both Ancient and Modern Histories, Theology and Comparative Modern Religions ( that includes the 3 main Judeo-Abrahamic based ones btw), Ancient languages and a few others a well.
And Yes, I too can be a Grumpy old Bastard ( Aussie terminology here btw) from time to time as well.
Can't we all at one time or another?
LOL, as the t-shirt my 6 year old nephew gave last Xmas so proudly states, " I never thought I'd grow up to be a Grumpy Old Bastard, but here I am and I'm killing it."
Man , I love that shirt.

@Athena thanks, grace when losing argument. Good for you.

@Athena oh wow, you lost the argument and now insults, cool, shows what you are. I take back my previous gracious comment above, Learn to lose gracefully.

@Athena and delusional too, wow. I did the insults, you didn't call me motherfucker, amazing. typical of people who never accept they lost. Be gone sore loser.

@Athena As I stated there are NO historians/historical accounts that this Jesus character depicted in the bible ever existed in either Judaea, Gallilee or the entire Middle Eastern Region.
The only referncee/s that come close to a mention is those from the records of the Roman Governor of the Judaeo- Gallilee region from approx. the year 4 B.C.E. until the year 12 C.E, one Gnaius Pontus Claudius, commonly called the Builder of Bridges, and NOT to confused with the biblical bullshit name of Pontius Pilate btw.
Governor Pontus' records show that he ordered the Execution by Crucifixion of a Yeyoshua ben Yusef from the Gallilee region and 2 of his Followers for the crimes of Sedition, Arson, Extortion, Rape, Pillaging, Murder, Theft and attacks upon a Roman Outpost on the eve of the Hebrew passover Festival and at the behest of Emperor Tiberius and the Sanheddrin.
The remainder of his Criminal Gang, so to speak, where sent to Tyrus to be Galley Slaves and work on the Roman Galleys until Death.
Ergo, If you are still under the impression that I believe this biblical Jesus ever existed then, sadly, you are barking up the wrong tree altogether I'm afraid.

@Triphid waste of time, I blocked her for the unwarranted insults

@Mofo1953 Good one.
And, imho, I tend to think that there may be a huge blockage present between the Cognitive ( Conscious) side of the Cerebrum and the rest of her Cerebrum somewhere also....LOL.

I wonder if when monotheism is abandoned (may it be soon), if white people will again morph the African deities and orishas into variations that reflect their cultural bias ?

@TO_BY I think gods will always reflect the biases of those who create them.

@Joanne Yes, but the adaptation of one god or another through different cultures carries an old significance, and it's new adaptation. All of this taken out of the framework of theism, implies a transmission of ideas. What do you think ?

@TO_BY Oh, sure. When people interact, for whatever reason, the transmission of ideas cannot be avoided and is often intentional--especially when trying to influence, persuade, or control, others.

@Joanne I suppose there could be elements of control in it, but not necessarily. Take for example the Greek gods. Almost all of them were transmitted north across the Mediterranean from Africa, yet when we picture them today they are white. In the case of the African diaspora, Santarians and others learned they could disguise their Orishas as Xian saints and religious figures, to escape the cultural whitewash of their captors. I'm speaking of cultural adaptation here, and not religious woo woo.

@TO_BY It is part of human nature for people to want gods and heroes that look like themselves (and this can be bad as well as good). So it is expected that they will take on the characteristics of the people who are either inventing them or adapting them to their cultures.

yes he is so brilliant, and he was a great advocate for social justice.

@Shaghaf, he was asking quite intelligent questions. In the social climate in the USA, those were quite revolutionary questions.

@Paddypereira and these questions are still relevant nowadays. Someone has to answer or respond. And as we know, unfortunately, people in power never feel the need to respond unless someone force them to.

@Shaghaf, true.

I couldn't agree more.

Maybe it was a good quality cross. Or maybe it wasn't, that's why he left the cross and flew to heaven where all angels were white too, and the black ones were in the kitchen preparing milk and honey

@Shaghaf I like your sense of humour

@Sofabeast actually, @Shaghaf was quoting Ali, right?

@Rodatheist I've been unable to open the link, so I've had guess at the content.

If he existed or not, people use his character and image to promote things and condemn others . so he has influences despite if he is historically existed or not .

@Shaghaf doesn't matter. You can't have a skin color if you weren't born. And why does skin color matter at all? This whole thing is idiotic.

@redhog yes i do agree, in an ideal world , skin color should not matter.
But, in the far from ideal world where we live, the people who abused, killed, and enslaved others based on their skin colors are telling their victims now to "just get over it" and why you're making it a big deal, and..... to get to "All lives Matter"

@redhog I think @Shaghaf explained it right. Skin color is used in many unsavory ways, and to give a particular skin color to a character like JC, nonexistent as he maybe, has practical consequences.

@Shaghaf just like Pinnochio and Gepetto is jeehobah.....I have never heard a sane metaphor of holy ghost so I just declare it all ghostholes like donut holes imaginary with no taste

That was the Ghost not the God

Indeed, god is invisible!!! In fact, it is much more than invisible... it is nonexistent!! Try giving a color to something that does not exist!!

Yes, but the historical story states that he was born in Palestine where people usually are not white with blue eyes !!

@Shaghaf I know, you know, but a roman artist from the first or second century had no idea.
Plus an artist wants his work to be popular, and at any time he/she will paint using the cultural references of that era/place.
So if you are representing a hero that should have good, beauty, purity on him, you will use the symbols of good, purity and beauty of your era/place. And guess how was the archetype of good, purity etc at the eras and places Jesus was portraied?

If you take representations from Ethiopia (that were christians even before the portuguese get there) the representations were of a black guy...

I am not saying this is the correct thing to do, I am just saying it is what happen and what will always happen. the portraits and paints are symbols, not historical representations intentionally made to cause confusion...

@Pedrohbds yes this what exactly Ali was pointing to, in the US they are still portraying good, beauty, and every good values as white and every bad values as black .
So if people are truly seeking changes, they need to question the whole culture and stereotypes that were build on the idea of superiority of one race above the others

not white people he turned white as white ppl believed the images then changed over time to reflect the population of the new believers

Who invented him ?

@Shaghaf “But if cattle and horses or lions had hands, or were able to draw with their hands and do the work that men can do, horses would draw the forms of the gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make their bodies such as they each had themselves.” Xenophanes

@whiskywoman Right, they re-invented him.

@Rodatheist yes they did. How they're gonna worship to a God who is not white !!
The way Mohamad Ali put it together is so funny. Even Tarzan who was a hero in Africa was white

i saw that bible thumping fake ass advisor of trump proclaim that of course jesus was white....proves she really didn't study the bible at all or didn't understand a word....... the book itself has good rules for life with others good teachings its a good way to live and respect others ...and it was written by men

@JohnnyQB Ok , but here, we are talking about American people who were creating these images, and Americans are not all white, unless we are not considering black Americans as Americans

@JohnnyQB I was referring to your example of Japanese characters..
As I know, white Americans have Europeans ansectors, the same why with African Americans who have African ansectors. But the American culture, as Ali pointed to in the video, is so white

@JohnnyQB Maybe Hollywood has something to do with making Jesus white ? Just wondering.

@JohnnyQB Well, you may be right about characters in Japanese movies, but one thing, aside from the topic of this thread, is that they draw anime characters with exceedingly large round eyes!!

@Shaghaf Unfortunately, not everyone has Ali’s feistiness. Too many non-white people around the world worship a white Jesus.

@whiskywoman Unfortunately, it contradicts itself in too many places. I guess a novel presented to an editor for publication with so many contradictions would never be published nowadays.

@JohnnyQB And regarding the status of majority of whites, that is something that will be changing a lot in the next 25 years. Already in some states whites are no longer a majority.

@Shaghaf Jesus was depicted as white way before celluloid was even in someone’s imagination.

@JohnnyQB That western culture has influenced the standards of beauty of later Japanese populations.

@JohnnyQB America has a full history of human rights violations to be blamed of, I don't care about blaming it for making or not making the white Jesus .

@JohnnyQB Yes, we agree on the initial comment. I just made a side comment about the fact that whites are rapidly loosing their status as majority in the U.S. that is all.

@JohnnyQB Ha! Try telling that to the Mexican statisticians that made predictions about the curve of Covid-19 infections and were largely correct, allowing the Mexican government to prepare and act so that medical services have not been overwhelmed by demand of the treatment of Covid-19 patients.

Don’t underestimate the power of statistics.

And you are right. It has nothing to do with the main point of this thread; only a side comment.

@JohnnyQB Look, I don’t know why a side comment is so bothersome to you. If you want to keep the thread on one narrow topic then just ignore side comments. However, some of us like to use side comments and ideas to go off on interesting tangents; I would call it “conversation”.

@JohnnyQB are you asking me if the US is a good place to live for the black Americans ? Or for whom? For the top one percent? For the corporations? For working poor families? For the 40 million people under the poverty line ? It depends ? It's a good place to live for whom ?

It's time to stop acting and thinking based on skin color, but it's not just an individual decision. When the discrimination is systematic and institutional, so the change has to be on those levels as well. They are millions of anti racist individuals, but if their efforts don't reflect on systematic changes so we will keep seeing more racist crimes and injustice

Getting bashed in the head is a tough thing to survive, yes?

@IAJO163 And in some ways a racist thing, a white boy as bright as that, would have been offered many more sellections to rise in life, without having to get his head banged about. Maybe he did coose it freely as his first choice, but did he have as much choice ?

@Fernapple I have minor history with him. He used to live in my area. I got a glimpse of what he could've been. Best that he was a boxer.

@IAJO163 Local knowledge. The public figure and the private person. Got it.