Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] St Albans Cathedral commision repainting the last supper with Jesus depicted as Black
- Thread starter Lenny Rider
- Start date
symyjym
Banned
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
Well-known member
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.
Muhammad had a reddish tinge to his complexion which prob makes him General Gammon.
Everything is up for grabs.All good fun.
Klaas
I've changed this
- Nov 1, 2017
- 2,560
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:
No idea what you are on about here.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
sydney
tinky ****in winky
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
tinky ****in winky
Mo was a Ranga....100%
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,514
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.
Last edited:
OzMike
Well-known member
Coming from Israel, he is hardly going to be white is he.
Unless he was Albino !
Unless he was Albino !
Yes. Again, there is no evidence. A book of stories is not evidence.
Jesus Chris almost certainly existed, that’s all we know.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,514
Out of interest, on what evidence are you personally basing that ?
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
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.
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
Well-known member
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,514
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
There’s a mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.
symyjym
Banned
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.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,287
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.