So all those people who saw visions of Mary, and saw her as a white anglo featured woman were merely hallucinating? This also adds to those weird claims from women who claims they have slept with Jesus. It might have just been a normal hippie white dude taking advantage of them. And FranchiseBlade: Those were just planted there by God to test us. OWNED
I believe the Jews that lived in the region 2000 years ago were the Palestinians of today with a different culture. I find it hard to believe that in 2000 years, the Jews would not interbreed with different European tribes.
Under outdated, yet widely used racial taxonomy, Arabs and others of Mid-Eastern descent belong to a sub-class of Caucasians. Americans just have that mental image of the Arabs found on TV.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/742430.stm [rquoter] They may have their differences but Jews and Arabs share a common genetic heritage that stretches back thousands of years. The striking similarities in their biology have just been revealed in a study of over 1,300 men in almost 30 countries worldwide. Scientists compared the men's Y chromosomes, the tiny structures within cells that carry the genetic instructions that tell a developing foetus to become a boy. The comparison also showed that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora - the time since 556 BC when Jews migrated out of Palestine. [/rquoter]
In fact, I don't know if it's particularly outdated. The primary male Middle Eastern mutation grouping, Haplogroup F*, is from what I gather believed to be direct predecessor to the Persian lineage, Haplogroup K, which fathered India, Russia, Mongolia, Finland, and almost all of Northern Europe through a couple of different populations. Haplogroup F* also is apparently the precursor of Haplogroup I, off into the Caucuses and through to Bulgaria and Rumania. It is also the mutation point for Haplogroups J & J2, which head off to Greece and Italy, as well as across North Africa. My understanding is that the old source for tracking this and the source you may be refering to as out dated is linguistic drift, but it seems that the Y Chromasome mutation migration maps match those old theories fairly well.
There wasn't really one image of Christ that was THE image. But, yes, much of early organized Christian representation of Christ (as opposed to the more symbolic and scattered earlier images) were based on Imperial Roman imagery. The hierarchy of enthroned images, use of halos, etc. all come from political images. There is a school of thought that these political images were based upon pagan imagery before it (such as Zeus, Mithra, and others) but the evidence is not fully there for that interpretation. Throughout visual history, though, Jesus has appeared as emperor, god, woman (or androgyne), philosopher, lamb, goat-man (in graffiti)shepherd, fish, X, magician (with magic wand), and young boy (called Apollo imagery). Imagery from the Eastern Church was also less European than the West for obvious reasons.
That's some interesting info. My thoughts on its outdatedness come from news when gene mapping was in its infancy. Do you have any papers or webpages by chance that go into more detail?
I understand that and I already was familiar with the study you referenced. I have mentioned on multiple occasions how closely related Arabs and Jews are. I was not contradicting Azadre's statements, just questioning the reason for his exclusions.
Well, the simplest place to start is the Genographic Project page that I already mentioned (but may have been overshadowed by hot naked Australopithecine women ). The site itself isn't particularly detailed, but as far as I know the Genographic project is the largest scale study of this sort. The website isn't particularly informative in terms of data, but pages linking from there have more detailed info.
The genographic project like its predecesor, the human genome diversity project, probably will die off and never be completed because of all the ethical questions that arise from such an endeavor. The fact of the matter is that in order to get an accurate picture of genetic diversity among humans, we need to tap into the DNA of isolated tribal groups who are still "genetically pure" and haven't bred with other racial groups. Unfortunately, most of these groups arent so comfortable with handing over their DNA so its hard to get a good picture. Also the fact that the NIH actually had the nerve to patent a tribesman's DNA from Papua New Guinea speaks volumes in terms of how idiotically these scientists have approached this. Genetic Diversity researchers simply haven't figured out an effective ethical protocol that avoids them from getting called out by various NGOs and activists. Ok I'm done with my rant.
i always wondered why I see Jesus as a White Dude, when he was born in the mid east. I would think he would be Arab-ish looking.
Does it really matter what his race or skin colure was?. the most important factor is, his message of love, tolerance. jesuse was a great man indeed.
Considering how many Christians have killed black men in the name of Christ, considering our very country which was founded on Christian ideals enslaved black men because they were considered to be less than human, yeah. I'd say it matters a lot.
I understand what you're trying to say, but that would make no difference to those 'supposed' Christians. After all, many of those same folks in the last century wouldn't have minded killing some Jews either, and we're all quite certain that Jesus was Jewish. Back in those days, was Christianity the only religion whose followers enslaved people? Do you have issues with Christianity in general? Or is it really with society (and slavery) from a few hundred years ago, racism in any era, or religious fundamentalists of any yoke? I'm sure that you don't want to be misinterpreted on an issue like this.
Nope. I have issues with bigotry and with hypocrisy. I hate a Christian bigot just like I hate an athiest one.
Nice, completely take the discussion off-topic so that you can have yet another opportunity to blast Christians. If you *didn't* have a problem with Christianity, why were you driven to post after hearing someone call Jesus a great man? People aren't going to believe you when you say you have nothing against Christians when you constantly derail threads with attacks on them. In this case, you threw it into a thread where it had absolutely no place. People are talking about Jesus' race and you decide that's a good time to say that Christians are bad people? Please, your hatred is so incredibly obvious. Trying to say that Christianity was responsible for the slave trade is just stupid, btw.
I didn't say that, you hilarious idiot. I said, in direct response to another poster, that the question of Jesus being black was relevant, particularly when a nation founded largely on the principles of his teachings enslaved black people simply because they were black -- an example, by the way, of how dangerous your particular brand of jingoism is. Jorge, I am very, very, very pro-Jesus. I am anti-bigot and anti-hypocrite, which incidentally means I am also anti-you. But most everybody here is.
p.s. to Jorge. With your stated positions against forgiveness, aid to the poor and peace, you are as anti-Christian as they come. Pray there's not a Hell.
Oopsie daisy, looks like I struck a nerve! HO HO HO A little defensive, are we, Batman? Wonder why... If you can't understand that calling all Christians bigots and hypocrits could be perceived as being anti-Christian, then you sir must believe that we are unable to see through your transparent ploy. It's not unlike a small child covering his eyes and believing no one can see him. It's obvious what you are doing, and your silly games of semantics are doing a very poor job of covering your tracks. Where did you go, Batman, we can't see you!!!
