You know Jesus probably looked something like this right? Our Lord wasn't le pure aryan h'white. If you believe that...

I can play that game too. Jesus looked like John. Woaaaaah

Attached: John.jpg (328x400, 41.12K)

Why should you even care about his race? Shouldn’t you care more about what he has to say?

Leftypol and pol both need Christ as far as I care.

Wow, look at this picture of the Apostles found in the catacombs, so bigoted and problematic with their brown and blonde hair. I bet Zig Forums's behind this.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 5.36.00 PM.png (501x291, 103.41K)

Asian christian draw Jesus as an asian. I doesn't bother me.
Mediterraneans draw Jesus olive skinned but european.
Northern Europeans draw Jesus as fair haired.

Every culture represent God in a way the people will immediately recognize.
There is nothing wrong with it, and there is no reason to say something about these different ways of representing Jesus.

What kind of person would say that to another christian?
Ask yourself that question before you make your judgement.
Ask yourself: who benefits from dividing us against each other?

Semitic is a language family, not a racial/biological grouping.
That’s like saying people from Côte d’Ivoire and France are the same race because they both speak French.

I always assumed He may have looked like the Pantocrator icons.

Attached: 800px-Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg (800x1547, 513.39K)

this and the shroud is how I think He appears, imo

Jesus is only ever described in Revelation, in his heavenly form. It is reasonable to believe the appearance of his earthly form was not important, or else the scriptures would record it.

Jesus looked identical to Adam because he was born without original sin and is genetically perfect.

Pantocrator was probably based off the shroud anyway or previous tradition that conforms to the shroud

He looked likes this, but more reddish hair.

Attached: Jesus-paper-.jpg (900x900, 257.89K)

Jesus is a symbol, not a real person.
Also read this out loud:
Death to the left!

no.

jesus is completely real if you want it to be real

religion is not based on scientific mathematical matters

He was said to look just like his mother, but with masculine features. Keep in mind that First Century Jews were not genetically identical to modern Jews, and often were depicted with blue eyes and light hair as much as brown eyes and dark hair.

Gay

Reality isn't based on YOUR desires, but God's.

No.

This is why depicting people is bad. It just divide people so people can use it for their own agenda . Idols were a mistake

Yes He is

He looked like the image of Edessa, which strangely matches the shroud…

Attached: checkmate-atheists-plane.jpg (640x481, 36.7K)

The most blatant false flag I’ve ever seen.

Focusing on Jesus' physical appearance is dumb. These are some of the crappiest bait threads on Zig Forums, and that's saying something lemme tell ya

The shroud has scientifically been proven to be false. All hypotheses attempting to challenge the original radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted:

Christopher Ramsey, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, (2008), c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/shroud.html

Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition: An Archaeological Perspective, By R.E. Taylor, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Routledge (2016); pg 167-168

R. A. Freer-Waters, A. J. T. Jull, "Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin", Radiocarbon 52, (2010), pp. 1521–1527.

The Shroud, by Ian Wilson; Random House, (2010), pgs 130-131

Gove, H. E. (1990). "Dating the Turin Shroud: An Assessment". Radiocarbon. 32 (1): 87–92.

Please stop putting your faith in relics.

I have contempt for ultra-darwinistic views of nations as only a materialist playground for different races. Faggots only care about their democracy and reduce everything to their species view on race. It reduces man and all of human achievement to animal level breed and play. Many are comfortable to disregard the spirit and strength to build civilization out of nothing, scorn the West for Christianity like a contaminated pool, and don't care about anything other than race. After saying that, I don't agree with everything coming out of Zig Forums, OP, but you're no better. You faggots are keep hashing out these ugly "scientific" views of what Jesus probably looked like. Nobody cares about ugliness and trying to disparage the beauty of the Gospel for these weird renderings of Christ and guffawing, "Hah, hah, this is what Christ really looked like!"

God inspires our culture. You might go "muh culture", but without cultural significance and anything beautiful, being White is just being another dying heap of flesh. There is a great innate strength in Western civilization. There are things to be proud of. If you disparage culture and everything Whites built, you find nothing to be proud of with vanity. Whites are reduced to animals who hunt and prowl to defeat other races. Whites are reduced to a species not great like human through this view. You may think that Whites can simply tear off cultural layer, abandon all great values, and still become great because of innate racial benefit, but it won't show for nothing and rebuilding a culture doesn't happen like that. I don't understand this menality because it cultures are built with great spirit and meaning, and autists would rather tear them down to prove a point about greater racial significance.

Attached: 958af13766a108345b5b93038036c84a06f69ef1087b077d57e1827357c3d850.jpg (600x737, 55.94K)

Except for jews. The people posting these ugly renderings of Christ are jews.

Christ is a Serb

go to bed jordan peterson

Based and redpilled.

wrong, a new DNA study done on people from the same area as christ(largest ever done on ancient judea), shows the 3rd reich was right; about 1/2 the people were fair-skinned, blonde & blue eyed, originally coming from iran. the new testament also says jesus' eyes were the color of a flame near the coals, which is blue.
>nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9

Attached: dna jesus.png (738x928, 44.97K)

Attached: jesus5.png (131x173 105.39 KB, 62.3K)

Are you nervous?

Point of this thread?
Why should I care what he looked like?
Hurr hurr I apparently cannot take people questioning my worldview so I twist what they say and tell them to winnie the pooh off.
Pathetic.
Firstly: We could care less what "muh race he was" because he was incarnation of Logos. Yes, he was born as Judean…a jew. But "muh chosenites" stopped being a thing when Christ came to earth. Then it got sorted by those who accepted Jesus(Read Christians) and those who rejected him (Pharisees, today's Jews who follow their rejection)
Secondly: Many jews today are descendants of Khazar Turks or they are intermixed and they have little or no drop of Abrahamic blood in them. But you're probably completely ignorant of that aren't you. Anyway it does not matter since "muh chosenites" starte being a mere meme in the moment Christ came to Earth.
Thirdly: taking those things into consideration, why should we care how he looked? What is the point of your division thread?

Who is obsessed with muh culture? Personally I love my people. I like Europeans but I like people of my ethnicity the most
They are like minded as I am,they have the similar nature to mine. They speak and think as I do. My family is here. Of course I will prefer them to other Europeans, let alone non-Europeans. That's natural. deal with it. Naturally I love the culture my people create because it stems from them being who they are. National culture is just an expression of who your people are. You love the people - you enjoy the culture. There;s no "obsession" with it. You can hardly like the culture without loving the people.
I get annoyed when leftist Christians say dumb things like : You just care for culture, not for God.
Does God want your nation to perish? It is a sin to destroy one human life. imagine what a great sin it must be to erase a whole nation and their culture from the Earth,especially by neglect or cowardice.

The Caucasoid race does exist scientifically though. These features didn't just randomly show up on separate bland, featureless groups of humans. The earliest conquerors, raiders, pillagers and pirates were all from Caucasus, they were an Aryan people as were the tribes which came to displace and merge with the Harappan civilization in India. As they sacked the majority of all 1st millenium civilizations, they spread their genes to the native population either by intermarrying (the more likely cause) or through rape and slave marriage (less likely). Jews are predominately Caucasoid specifically because those intial, proto-Sea People features were bred out and displaced with Caucasoid ones.

I don't know, I think the Neolithic Middle-Eastern Farmers, Western European Hunter-Gatherers, and Eastern-European Pastoralists were all of the same race, though possessing different phenotypes. The people of the Middle-East prior to Arab invasion descend from Neolithic Farmers.

Also, I would posit, the origin of the three groups could potentially originate from Ararat, as well as Noah and his sons.

That's wrong though. The people who had settled in Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent were the direct descendants of the same people who had figured out how to cultivate plants nearly 4000 years prior to their emergence as defined civilizations. These initial groups shared very little in common with their successors, who spoke semitic languages and had their own set of myths and stories. It's why Sumerian and Hattic are language isolates, why the Sumerian creation myth differs from the Akkadic myths, why the manner in which people are depicted changed dramatically (Sumerians are depicted as bald, typically shaven and typically without decorative headgear, whilst Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians are practically always depicted with beards, shoulder length hair, and turbans). Beyond language and culture, we can find little else. Furthermore, it must be stated that nearly all of Europe had established agricultural societies well before the advent of the Sea Peoples.

I fail to see where Noah could possibly fit into anthropological speculation about the Sea Peoples.

Attached: War.jpg (2202x963, 2.68M)

Attached: 78c.png (832x968, 419.65K)

yes and that's why I don't worship (((him)))

Attached: 1501557991729.jpg (225x224, 8.43K)

Attached: gospelofstmatthew.jpg (1000x563, 86.21K)

that's so based and redpilled

True, the white supremacy magic probably changed them from black to yellow.

Go away bug man. Whoever says they love the lord and hates their brother is a liar, and anyone who is incapable of loving their family and community more than foreign strangers isn't capable of real love.

False, my natural intuition tells me Jesus was white

Who cares what he looked like? Christ was a Greco-Roman in his sympathies, theology and ultimately, his cultural background. Christianity, therefore, is a European religion.

radioaryan.com/2018/09/the-orthodox-nationalist-christ-and.html

The author has a doctorate in History, Philosophy and Political Science

Better than the Arabian Mario render

The Church across the world has known His image and preserved it in tradition as a bearded, dark-haired Levantine.
Various groups, since even in the early days but especially after the Renaissance, adapt Christ's likeness to their own as to pridefully impose their own egos onto Him. A common line of defense for this practice is that shifting around the image of Christ (or other saints) to suit any particular occasion attests to the universality of the message of salvation- that His image doesn't matter. God came to save all of us, yes, but if it isn't important to know God as a man, why did He come as a man? Why not a shapeshifter? What about the face of God isn't enough for you?
Instead of yearning to become gods, we invert theosis/divinization by seeking to make God more like us.

Attached: Resurrection_by_Yamashita_Rin_(Hermitage).jpg (321x411 523.29 KB, 45.76K)

The early Church icons and Shroud of Turin are the only reliable evidence of what He looked like. It's not important anyways.

You have a strange idea of dark.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-10-16 at 2.38.24 PM.png (65x87, 20.66K)

Are you saying it's fair?

Was the Stone Age population the sane as the 1st century Iron Age population?

THAT'S RIGHT COMRADE

Attached: removeKebab.webm (480x360, 1.72M)

...

he looks like this moran

Attached: shroud.png (1292x8757, 3.91M)

Yeah, I would not care; I'm Italian, I look like a Jew anyway. He probably had tanned skin, Caucasoid features…and even if He was not, I would still not care: all ethnic groups are called to answer to His call, no matter how dark, light or different their skin color is from mine.
And please, please do not start with the "beast of the field" posts…African saints, African priests, African believers are humans; I do not want forced blanda-upping, but it's another topic: they have an immortal soul just like you and me.

this thread and the topic within , is a testament to the gross misappropriation of the core message of Christ the Logos.

It is like a room full of people who receive a gift more precious than all the jewels in the world, ALL RECEIVE THE SAME GIFT.

YET argue about the different trivial packaging the gift they received was in.

It does not matter what race or what he looked like. Jesus human body was just a vessel to house his divinity and to deliver the message.

The divine Father chose to deliver his son at 'x' time, at 'y' place, using 'z' people/s. In the matter of why the divine chose such a specific place in history is above human comprehension and housed in mystery no man shall ever work out. but it must serve a special purpose.

Salvation comes from the Jews. Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah, the Messiah promised in the OT. God always intended that the Gentile, the whole world be saved by inheriting the Jewish Messiah from the Jews, and now, we are the New and True Jews.

Uh… good for you, but I'd rather be an Israelite than an edomite whole stole Judea (a jew) during the Babylonian captivity.

JUST let it die lads.

Attached: a799765d538925c10fc9cbef881e42c457c253bd91ac9a0bc8df07c10ee38101.jpg (184x184, 8.74K)

We're good boys who stole nothing, we were given Israel. OT is full of prophecies about an inheritance given over to those who were better than those it was intended for.

I don't think you get it. The jews weren't and aren't Israelites, neither spiritually nor ethnically. The jews stole Judea.

The Jews of the OT were the Jews of the OT, up until they rejected and slew Jesus Christ. You're right, I don't know what you're saying, and if it contradicts Scripture, I don't need to pay much mind.

The Israelites aren't jews and they weren't called jews in the OT.

Then you must not have Christ, since Salvation comes from the Jews.

Well it did come out of the jews. If they didn't kill Jesus so He could rise there wouldn't be salvation. But that doesn't make them good.

Where did I say the Jews were good? The New Israel, the New Jews, are circumcised in the heart, and are Jews by Baptism.

Ew, I'm no thief of Judea. I am an Israelite.

instead of listening to lip waggers on youtube, you should open the Scriptures sometime

I am well educated on the scriptures. Been reading them since I could read. Israelites are not called jews.

the perils of personal interpretation, all in one post

This isn't interpretation. Israelites aren't jews. Facts don't care about your feelings.

I'm a Lebanese Christian and this is false, and actually what a lot of Israeli children are taught. The Arabs did not spread themselves across the Near East in such a devastating fashion that they rendered all of us destroyed and replaced.
The Arabization of the Levant and Mesopotamia was a cultural, linguistic, and religious conquest, more than an ethnic one. Even today, Arabs from UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Oman view us Levantines as non-arabs that were conquered. They view Levantine culture as the enemy culture, and absolutely despise when we call ourselves Arabs.
Non-Gulf Arabs only identify as Arab in a sociocultural sense, not a literal genetic ethnic sense. You can tell this very very easily, when you see a Lebanese man that resembles a Jew far more than an Arabian.
However, we are and have always been distant cousins, jews included. Levantines were not white europeans, but were also never and are currently not today, south arabians. Our lingua-franca was Aramaic for the longest period of history, and Canaanite (which is extremely similar to Hebrew) before that. If we judged identity on time elapsed in history and literal genetics, most levantines would be calling themselves Canaanites or Jews, but that's not the case.

I am Italian, I am glad when He came into the flesh He looked a lot like me :)
But for real, I do not care: He came for all of us, no matter our ethnicity. Zig Forums has some good points, but their obsession over race as an idol and fetish is saddening.

Never implied native Levantine people were destroyed, only explaining the severe improbability of Jesus being an “Arab” when there weren’t any in the levant until later.

his looks don't matter that's why the bible doesn't describe his appearance. God is invisible, so the body he takes control of is not what he looks like, he can possess anything, like a burning bush, or a beam of light.

He was a White Baptist.

Stop bumping garbage threads

no

peak heresy

Op is a bigger racist than the Zig Forumsacks

Attached: 6241177-7508659718-lJL9S.png (512x512, 19.34K)

Attached: Jesus Looked Like This.jpg (2000x2000 158.33 KB, 555.16K)

A) He looks like this
B) It doesn't matter what he looks like
Stop being a race idolater

Attached: shroud.png (1292x8757, 3.91M)

I hope you're being ironic with that font rendering

his skin was 'burnished bronze' and he had hair 'like wool'. the king is black. ultimate blackpill that none here will swallow. kek.

How low is your IQ?

Attached: 3007fcfa3b3e04cafbfc309555aa5bd5904d647cd513db5b855e45f1d51db3e9.jpg (496x960, 50.82K)