HOME | DD
Bob-Rz β we three kings?
Published: 2007-01-06 04:40:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 87791; Favourites: 2123; Downloads: 2658
Redirect to original
Description
this is an idea i've had for a long time but every time i tried to draw it it dident look right. third time's the charm?update: i have been informed that i'd been confusing my Yiddish with Hebrew. the origonal virsion of this i had Jewish Jesus saying "sholem" when he should have been saying "shalom." i haden't been able to find consitant results when i was looking up the word and figured it was kinda like "katchup" vs "catsup." guess i was mistaken. maybe i still am?
Related content
Comments: 400
Ha, Interesting.
brings a question to mind,
If he were in fact "Black" or "White" or "Jewish" ... or "Asian" or "Native American"
would you follow him?
His message,
his death for all races (individuals) sins
and his resurrection is the same no matter what color or race some folks might want him to be.
He died for the sins of the world. All the children of Adam.
And the book of revelation says that there will be people from every tribe, people, and language and nation will be in heaven.Β
the question is will we be their to see Jesus as a friend or see him as judge. His race won't be an issue.
π: 0 β©: 0
Ask them these black folks who think jesus was "black" these simple questions if u can by the next u run into them:
1. Why can't u guys answer or explain why do the Jews who never left Israel are white?
2. Why can't we find a single black race person's skeleton in all of Israel and Judah?
3. Why do the Jews who lived in Babylonia, Persia and Egypt since the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah in the 6th Century BC (ask them if they've ever read II Kings till its end?) are also white?
TIA
π: 0 β©: 0
I am Catholic.Β I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.Β And there comes a time when I can say that maybe he was a black man.Β We'll never really know.Β After all, it doesn't matter what he looked like.Β It's what he taught us about peace and brotherhood and love that matters the most right?
I can only say we'll all know the truth about our Lord when our time comes.Β ^_^
π: 0 β©: 1
He's actually Palestinian, so he's middle eastern. Given what scientists know about where he lived in his time, he was probably also super smol. NASA I think has a good assumption on what he looks like, and have conjured up computer generated images on what he probably would've looked like.
also, you're a Catholic too? Nicee.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
You know, when I was Christian i considered Jesus male, Holy Spirit female, and God gender neutral, because, well, God.
π: 0 β©: 0
Tell that to the Catholics. They're the ones who don't know it.
π: 0 β©: 4
I'm Catholic.Β I know about it.Β Of course there's still the possibility that maybe he was black.Β Maybe he was, maybe not.Β Who know, right? Β We'll all never know until we meet him when our time comes.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Avoid necro-post please. The question as been already discussed with another catholic in the replies anyway.
π: 0 β©: 0
Jesus wasn't the one who started Christianism by the way, it's his followers who wrote his story and spread the good news... He technically is the Messiah the Jews are still waiting for, and that's how believing Jews turned Christians in the first place, because Jesus brought them the good news, telling them they had no debt anymore toward God. Jews in Israel are still waiting for the Messiah and they are doing everything to make him come by colonising the land (which slowly erases Palestine from the map).Β
I am a non-practicing and non-believing Catholic born French Canadian. Only non-practicing people or not informed people in general don't know about this fact, not only Catholic ones.
π: 1 β©: 0
I'm Catholic, I know it xD
π: 0 β©: 1
That's a good thing. I know some (too much) people who rage like mad if you just mention it.
π: 0 β©: 2
There's some good Catholic literature called "salvation comes from the Jews" the nun in my religion class also discussed it saying that Jesus was a fervent Jew. She's a Salesian sister.
I guess it depends what Catholics you're talking too because the church sure as hell accepts that Jesus was Jewish religion-wise.
π: 0 β©: 0
Mhm 
Though IΒ choose to notΒ follow those people. I'm not, as they call it, an "extremist". I don't rage at people to repent and whatnot, but I do rage when extremistsΒ start name calling others orΒ hate on other people.Β Β Β Β
π: 0 β©: 0
The Others Know that. the others don't >
π: 0 β©: 0
Middle eastern in race, Jewish in religionΒ
π: 0 β©: 0
Awesome picture!
Why is this featured in all the atheist groups? I mean, that's cool or whatever, like what you like. I'm definitely not trying to start a religious debate. But I'm a christian and I think this is hilarious. Are other christians offended by stuff like this??? Tight-wads if they are.
Thanks for posting. : )
π: 0 β©: 2
Same here! lol
π: 0 β©: 0
There have been a few religious types who have found this offensive. Some folks just cant handle the combo of jokes + Jesus. I never did intend this as an anti-religion thing. The atheists sure do love it though.
π: 0 β©: 0
You are a beautiful, beautiful person. Thank you for creating this.
π: 0 β©: 0
Nevermind, here it is:
[link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Their sources are humorous. They're using a lot of the bible for their descriptions, I would have thought that an obviously unreliable source. And the Shroud of Turin, please, how is that still not considered a fake? I would say here is a more likely Jesus [link] But yes, if there was a Jesus he would most certainly be Arabic.
π: 0 β©: 2
Um......the shroud has been tested by the same tests that are given to fossils that support evolution.....
π: 0 β©: 1
hahaha, are you fucking kidding me? You're really comparing fossils to the Shroud of Turin? For starters fossils are everywhere! I've dug up my own goddamn fossils, there's no controversy about fossils. There's only one Shroud of Turin, and it supposedly depicts a man that even the bible (the only real "source" on Jesus) can't agree on the history of. Even the fucking Catholic church won't acknowledge it's legitimacy! And they control who sees it and who doesn't, it's not even on regular public display, it's not like a fossil where people have access to it in order to study it. It has been radio carbon tested and called a fake (three times), since the dates have put it around 1260 to 1390, then people whine and say they tested it wrong. The latest test revealed in December was done with ultraviolet light, so no that's not the same tests normally given fossils (and humorously this was supposed to prove a super natural light fell on the cloth). Not to mention they've found an actual burial cloth in Israel from around 1-50AD, the only one they've ever found out of thousands of burial sites (though they also have one set of clothes from a Jerusalem site), and the only reason it survived was because the tomb had been specially sealed against leprosy (which the remains had traces of). The only undisputed cloth from a burial site in Jerusalem in the first century also points to the Shroud of Turin being a fake, since we now have fabric and weaving to compare and as the Shroud of Turin is made with a weaving style and technique not available until the medieval ages. So here you have a cloth that just suddenly appears in the medieval ages in Europe, which evidence shows is from that time, and by coincidence just happens to be found by European Christians, and claim the vague stain on it is supposed to be evidence for a man that there is no real evidence for and they believe is divine, and we're supposed to believe this bullshit? Even if there was suddenly conclusive evidence that the burial cloth was from the date claimed, and it could be placed as coming from Jerusalem, there is still NO evidence to link it to Jesus. And even if it has a name tag on it that says "Jesus" you have no evidence to show it was The Jesus of the bible. And even if you could link it to that Jesus it does nothing to show that Jesus was anything other than a man, it does nothing to show he was the "son of God", and therefore doesn't even prove anything. Even John Calvin in 1543 already called it a fake, as the Gospel of John says they had two clothes (one for his body and one for his face), and there's no mention of a miraculous cloth with his image on it...but of course the gospels can't agree on anything regarding Jesus' death and resurrection anyways. I love how Christians always say science can't disprove God but then feel so threatened when it questions the legitimacy of their strange little trinkets, which I have to wonder why they even need those when their faith is supposed to be so strong?
π: 0 β©: 1
Dude....take a chill pill......ultimately everything comes down to belief anyway and where are you getting your sources? I heard messed up stuff on either side of this argument where people would make up sources for they're own sides.......not saying you're doing that at all.......
π: 0 β©: 1
Right, empirical evidence and scientific fact is the same as belief in superstitions and fairy tales.... News sources such as the Telegraph and NY Times, articles in the National Geographic, Oxford scientists who radiocarbon tested the shroud and various scientific journals. And this isn't something like left and right wing politics where both sides have a biased opinion, this is between scientists who study artefacts to discover what they really are and religious zealots who have an agenda and special interest in having an answer that fits their preconceived ideas. Oh and saying I should "take a chill pill" in order to try to make me look ridiculous and cover your ass for making a stupid comment is made more absurd by the fact that you have no real response, that you never gave any sources or evidence to your outrageous claim (and points to your rather obvious religious beliefs), and that I'm already perfectly calm.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh they're definitely ridiculous.
But, for a better view of what proof there is of Jesus, check this out: [link]
SPOILER:
There is none.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh thank you for that, very interesting. I actually had to go buy his ebook after seeing that. I knew a lot of what he mentioned already (just read the Dan Barker book he mentions as a source), but I like how he frames it and presents his arguments. I'm curious to see what else he has to add
π: 0 β©: 1
I get people sharing their new books on my atheist facebook page and my website all the time. His was one of them.
I've got two books I have to read and review already lol
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>