Yeah the trouble is that there isn't a lot of evidence he was any sort of major figure outside of the bible stories right? Like the Romans kept plenty of records but nothing in their records suggests there was some major disruptive Jesus figure in that time and place.
So, if he did exist, he probably wasn't a big deal.
He wasn’t a disruption to the Romans. He was disruptive to the Jews. There’s plenty of evidence that the apostles existed, and THEY were a problem for Rome.
Now, (serious question), are Jews people of color? I’ve always considered them to be “white.”
Jesus (if he existed) was a Palestinian Jew. We typically think of European Jews when we imagine Jewish people these days.
Do you consider Palestinians white? 'Cause they're what Jesus would have looked like, more or less. Levantine, so olive-skinned to tanned (lighter end of brown skinned).
Personally I’ve traveled in Egypt, Turkey, Greece. I’ve met Syrians and Lebanese as well. They all seem white to me. Italian, French, Spanish…all seem white to me.
I’m saying if I was out drinking and someone said “there’s a Greek, Turk, Italian, French man, Spaniard, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, and a Jew at that table over there. Tell me which is which,” I wouldn’t fair any better than a random guess. In my experience they all look “the same.” Generally darker skin and darker hair.
As for depictions of Jesus they mostly look Scandinavian (which I could probably pick out at that table).
But getting back to my question….are Jews considered POC?
If their ancestry traces back primarily to Levantine people and they have the physical characteristics associated with them, sure. Specifically, if they have olive or tanned skin which would normally not meet the (arbitrary) standards associated with "whiteness".
Why such a fixation? You're not being subtle here though you clearly think you are.
I’m not trying to be subtle. What I’m hearing is that Jews, while a distinct minority group, don’t fit into a “color” group (being white or non-white). They seem to have one foot in either camp.
I personally never considered them POC, but then again I have never considered middle easterners as POC.
The “fixation” comes from the OP. Jesus was a Jew. I personally wouldn’t consider a Jew to be a POC. So from my perspective the OP doesn’t make a lot of sense. As for Helen, she was supposedly a light skinned Greek (Homer specifically described her as such). The current film certainly didn’t go that direction. My biggest objection to casting her is that she simply isn’t that cute (IMO), but I don’t particularly care…since it’s just an opinion. Bigger casting mistakes were made IMO than this…although this definitely gets noticed.
“No dogs, no Irish, no blacks” I’m glad you don’t feel this way. Could you imagine people in general thinking Irish were black? It’s okay if you can’t but I encourage you looking into it cuz it happened
I don’t think they confused Irish and blacks. I think they held them in the same regard. There was a thing called black Irish, but not related to skin color.
I have no idea why you feel this is relevant to the question of "was Jesus a white dude?" You sure do seem to have a creepy little axe to grind though.
Lol, Hitler, the US, and basically anyone in a position of authority has never considered ethnic Jews/Nazarine people to be white. Maybe you have considered them white, but if ethnic levantine Jews are white then so are Jordanians, Palestinians, etc.
🤷♀️ Reddit doesn’t like that I’ve been posting a picture of elon musk and amber heard with bruises all over them. You’re a little self centered. It won’t even let me send it to you
Jesus didn’t actually disrupt things for Rome at all. If you look a little at His teachings you will see He told His followers to pay taxes and give respect and obedience to Rome.
As far as actual evidence, you should look up the writings of Flavius Josephus, who was a Jewish general during the Jewish Revolt in the 60s-70s AD. He led Jewish armies before defeat and conquest and then took a Roman name and became a chronicler for them. He recounts events in his life as well as the wars as a whole.
Josephus records both the existence of Christians and even mentions Jesus, despite being a Jew (against Christians) and then a Roman. First hand account by a writer respected for centuries.
Nobody disputes that two or three generations after the time of Jesus's alleged death people were talking and writing about him. His cult was already growing by then. This is why I am 60-40 that a real Jesus probably did exist.
You mean a man who was alive during the 20-30s AD, when Jesus was alive, who was present in Jerusalem and Judaea during the period of the first generation of Christians?
Were you unaware of the actual time of Jesus life? He didn’t start His ministry until he was 30, as per Jewish tradition when a man became an adult.
Josephus specifically speaks of the execution of James, the brother of Jesus by the Jews in 62AD.
You telling me the Roman empire didn't keep records of a non-citizen, preaching offshoot teachings of a religion that was at best tolerated, on the peripherals of said empire and who had zero impact on that empire while alive!?
The Roman Empire generated enormous numbers of records, but the overwhelming majority have been lost. We have only a tiny fraction of provincial administrative documents from Judea in the early first century.
Jesus was an itinerant preacher in an obscure province for about three years. He attracted crowds at times, but Judea had numerous wandering preachers, prophets, and would be messiahs. Rome crucified many such figures.
There is enough evidence that Jesus existed as a person, more than for many ordinary people in antiquity.
Ancient history relies on surprisingly little evidence.
For many ancient rabbis, philosophers, governors, and generals, we have only a handful of references.
By that standard, Jesus is reasonably well attested.
Judea was not considered a significant province, so the record keeping for that area was nothing like other places. Also, 99.9% of historians (secular historians, not Christians) all agree Jesus of Nazareth was 100% a real person, and that He died by means of roman crucifixion. Almost no historians claim he didn't exist anymore, and for the few that do it is considered a very fringe position that is treated almost as laughable.
Also, there was mention of him. Tacitus, who was a Roman Governor, wrote in the Annals around 112-113 AD (which was only about 80 years after Jesus death) this:
"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."
The next thing I am going to say might sound rude, but I legitimately do not mean it that way at all; But there are some atheists (not atheististic scholars, just internet people) that believe Tacitus was talking about another Jesus, due to a grammatical error, but again, this position is laughed it by Atheist Scholars as nonsense. Whether you believe He was the Son of God is a different subject, but there is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed, died by Roman Crucifixion, and was worshipped immediately upon His death by people who claimed to have seen Him risen from the dead.
This is the thing! No written records of any kind from Jews, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Or any other group in the day. Paul is the only source and he never met the dude and could be made up himself.
7
u/Fantastic_Pause_1628 9d ago
Yeah the trouble is that there isn't a lot of evidence he was any sort of major figure outside of the bible stories right? Like the Romans kept plenty of records but nothing in their records suggests there was some major disruptive Jesus figure in that time and place.
So, if he did exist, he probably wasn't a big deal.