[Albion] St Albans Cathedral commision repainting the last supper with Jesus depicted as Black

[zeemeeuw]

I can assure you that when his image appeared on my toast his face was the only white bit.

 

[symyjym]

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=125443&stc=1&d=1593345020

Which I retracted when I posted, but it is also irrelevant now as it seems that people are starting to distance themselves from Black Lives Matters saying exactly the same things I was saying in all the threads that I was removed from.

This has been a great example of people being silenced for introducing facts and a valid opinion into a discussion.

p.s. At least I No what No to use, and you should Know which one to use when No is spelt No, not Know

Your playing the smart arse days are over monkey brain.

 

[pastafarian]

In fairness Yahweh was obviously black so it makes sense that after diddling with Mary she would have a black baby Jesus.
Muhammad had a reddish tinge to his complexion which prob makes him General Gammon.
Everything is up for grabs.All good fun.

 

[Klaas]

Which I retracted when I posted, but it is also irrelevant now as it seems that people are starting to distance themselves from Black Lives Matters saying exactly the same things I was saying in all the threads that I was removed from.

You don't 'retract' ridiculous, huge **** ups. You hold up your hands and say something like ooh that's embarrassing. Saying you 'retracted' that is a great example of your overblown sense of self importance, see also:

This has been a great example of people being silenced for introducing facts and a valid opinion into a discussion.

p.s. At least I No what No to use, and you should Know which one to use when No is spelt No, not Know

No idea what you are on about here.

 

[sydney]

Yeshua ben Youssuf not being white, who would've thought?

Ok, he most probably wasn't Jamaican either as in this case, but makes as much or little sense as white.

there is a mural on a church wall in Ponsonby , Auckland , NZ of the last supper with Jesus depicted as a Maori , it caused a stir initially but people soon forgot about it ......it's the best way imho.

 

[sydney]

In fairness Yahweh was obviously black so it makes sense that after diddling with Mary she would have a black baby Jesus.
Muhammad had a reddish tinge to his complexion which prob makes him General Gammon.
Everything is up for grabs.All good fun.

Mo was a Ranga....100%

 

[Eeyore]

I can't see that placing a painting of a black Jesus above the altar is going to play well with the church's congregation who - I expect - will be elderly, white Anglo-Saxon and entirely comfortable with the traditional Christ image of the Robert Powell-style tall, white, bearded Jesus.

Interesting thought, and in line with the original production's thinking of Jesus of Nazareth.

Powell was not the first choice but got the role as he befitted the American perception of Christ. White, blue eyes, he fitted the profile.

It would be laughable it if it wasn't so cemented in this universal inherited psychology.

What is bewildering to me is how the vast majority of people who expect Christ to appear in a certain way are not actually Christians but virtue signalers of popular tradition. Perversely, the same folk who would accuse those who support the BLM stream of consciousness and packing the band wagon of woke populism.

It's really only Christians who should decide how Christ is depicted. And if indeed they wish to see him depicted at all they would surely want it to be as accurate as possible.

In fact, why should anyone who doesn't actually believe in Christ have an opinion at all other than to support some kind of depiction that would pay proper respect to something close to reality ?

I wouldn't tell a Buddhist how their symbols should form, or a Hindu what their gods should look like.

 

[OzMike]

Coming from Israel, he is hardly going to be white is he.
Unless he was Albino !

 

[vagabond]

Physical evidence of New Testament gospel accounts would always be hard to provide. It's a bit like me telling you I went to the garden centre today. I can't provide evidence as I don't have the receipt. Although I could provide evidence that I was alive, there is a plant in my parent's grave, and it was the date of Mum's birthday. And folk who saw me there could vouch for it. The problem is there is no video footage, or even written accounts,

So if someone in 25 years says 'Ian was at the garden centre that day, someone told me at time' you still don't have evidence other than someone else's account.

Much of history is written from few original first hand accounts. Did Caesar really give a true version of the Gallic wars ? Commentarii de Bello Gallico is the main account. But it's commonly written as historical fact.

But what we see is a pattern of events and from that conclusions are drawn. The question will always be who Jesus really was, but his crucifixion is accepted as fact by most historians, the disciples existed, and the absolute dedication and adamant claims of them and some who were around at the time, and its mushroom effect in the face of some pretty deadly opposition, is quite remarkable.

Yes. Again, there is no evidence. A book of stories is not evidence.

Jesus Chris almost certainly existed, that’s all we know.

 

[Eeyore]

Yes. Again, there is no evidence. A book of stories is not evidence.

Jesus Chris almost certainly existed, that’s all we know.

Out of interest, on what evidence are you personally basing that ?

 

[vagabond]

Wow this is an eye opener you getting 29 likes for a dumb comment. No surprise really on here though tbf. They didn't have photographs back then and when artists were asked to depict a man nailed on the cross, they got a man nailed to the cross.

Having not ever flown out on holiday to Egypt in their lives, they made him look like the people they know around them.

Why make it look a sinister whitening up when in New Zealand he is depicted as a Maori and in China Chinese. The "Woke" are sleep walking This whole story and many comments are as funny a ****.

Bloody arrogant church for assuming

You didn’t address this to me, but you’re missing the posters point.

The church still depict Christ as white. It is incredibly arrogant at worst, or ignorant at best. This is still happening now, in books, posters and whatever.

Do you honestly think a man from that part of the world would be white, blue eyes and long flowing blond locks? Lol.

Your point is half true, the ignorance was understandable in early history. But certainly not in the last 100 plus years.

 

[vagabond]

Out of interest, on what evidence are you personally basing that ?

I believe there is reasonable evidence there was a man named Jesus Christ, of that time in Nazareth. I haven’t investigated that element of history personally, but that’s my understanding certainly based on books and lectures. I believe any notable historical scholar worth his salt agree he existed.

But that’s all.

I am certainly not a believer in any more than that. And am quite anti religion if anything. Dangerous thing all round.

 

[OzMike]

You didn’t address this to me, but you’re missing the posters point.

The church still depict Christ as white. It is incredibly arrogant at worst, or ignorant at best. This is still happening now, in books, posters and whatever.

Do you honestly think a man from that part of the world would be white, blue eyes and long flowing blond locks? Lol.

Your point is half true, the ignorance was understandable in early history. But certainly not in the last 100 plus years.

So Hitler invented Jesus !

 

[Eeyore]

I believe there is reasonable evidence there was a man named Jesus Christ, of that time in Nazareth. I haven’t investigated that element of history personally, but that’s my understanding certainly based on books and lectures. I believe any notable historical scholar worth his salt agree he existed.

But that’s all.

I am certainly not a believer in any more than that. And am quite anti religion if anything. Dangerous thing all round.

The overwhelming majority of scholars, both secular and religious do accept his existence, you are right. (Although I did get a baseless challenge to that in this thread).

Christianity isn't dangerous- except when it becomes a tool of politics. And any aggressive political movement has the potential to be dangerous.

We're all religious really. To be religious does not always mean to have recourse to a divine source. Some people's support of the Albion is most definitely religious and pursued with as much fervour as some who identify with faith.

If I told some on here I had chosen to support Crystal Palace I would be hounded and abused by many. I've even seen some supporters of other teams who said nasty things pursued digitally and humiliated for what they have done.

Religion has many dimensions. And I agree that it can be pernicious.

 

[Baldseagull]

The overwhelming majority of scholars, both secular and religious do accept his existence, you are right. (Although I did get a baseless challenge to that in this thread).

Christianity isn't dangerous- except when it becomes a tool of politics. And any aggressive political movement has the potential to be dangerous.

We're all religious really. To be religious does not always mean to have recourse to a divine source. Some people's support of the Albion is most definitely religious and pursued with as much fervour as some who identify with faith.

If I told some on here I had chosen to support Crystal Palace I would be hounded and abused by many. I've even seen some supporters of other teams who said nasty things pursued digitally and humiliated for what they have done.

Religion has many dimensions. And I agree that it can be pernicious.

I realise you are just trying to make a point, but please find a less distasteful example if you need to make this point again. It also fails to make your point well, as it is an absurd proposition.

 

[Baldseagull]

There are whole industries dedicated to creating Jesus tat, balanced by some fabulous religious architecture, art and writing (not so much the music, which really is a mixed bag). No need to fret over a black Jesus.

One on the plus side for music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eneFooOrihc

 

[vagabond]

Christianity isn't dangerous

There’s a mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.

 

[symyjym]

You didn’t address this to me, but you’re missing the posters point.

The church still depict Christ as white. It is incredibly arrogant at worst, or ignorant at best. This is still happening now, in books, posters and whatever.

Do you honestly think a man from that part of the world would be white, blue eyes and long flowing blond locks? Lol.

Your point is half true, the ignorance was understandable in early history. But certainly not in the last 100 plus years.

No I'm not missing the point. The poster said "it's quite arrogant of the various churches to assume he was white in the first place owing to where he lived."

We still believed in dog heads south of the English Channel until the 11th 12th century.

I am no fan of the church or religion period, and we understand there is some corruption or convenience in its Bible compilation when canonised, but that's in its text. Back then they wouldn't naturally assume that he was black, brown, red or green so when the artist or sculpturer was commissioned to create an impression of a man nailed the cross, they would have given him a man on the cross. It's not some sinister cover up. There are also depictions of Jesus as a Maori as Chinese.

To suggest that the people of the time. from over a 1000 years ago in the UK, were arrogant to presume a colour of Jesus is really dumb, and is a great example of virtue signalling. Judging by the thumbs up it works and the poster can now pat themselves on the back for making a dumb comment.

That's the point I was making, Being factually incorrect in an assumption to make oneself feel of a higher morality is tiresome, and that's before we even breakdown the racist message in the new painting itself.

Apart from anything else we don't even know if he even was black either, so that is just as much of an assumption especially when the rumour at the time was that he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and Mary had Egyptian roots.

 

[Your Mum]

he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and .

..your mum

 

[beorhthelm]

I believe there is reasonable evidence there was a man named Jesus Christ, of that time in Nazareth. I haven’t investigated that element of history personally, but that’s my understanding certainly based on books and lectures. I believe any notable historical scholar worth his salt agree he existed.

But that’s all.

I am certainly not a believer in any more than that. And am quite anti religion if anything. Dangerous thing all round.

have to point out "christ" is derived from Greek word meaning annointed, and Jesus is a translation/pronunciation of a name via Latin and Greek to original Hebrew. there was defiantly not anyone around Nazareth by that name.
the best historians can say is there was probably a rebel priest, and someone of a similar name got crucified. there's very little contemporary evidence of anything from the bible.