Since this is stupid, here's something more interesting:
There is growing scientific concensus that Earth used to have rings. The rings would have existed approximately 466 million years ago, for a period of ~40 million years.
When examining sedimentary rock, there is a period where meteoric rock mineral increases nearly 1000x fold. There are at least 21 major impact craters still identifiable "around the world" today. Geologists who study tectonic shift traced the location of these impact sites back to where that land would have been positioned in the past: all 21 are perfectly aligned across equatorial regions.
This supports a hypothesis of a ring system existing during that time. The theory states that a large asteroid made a near miss with the planet and became trapped in orbit. This rock asteroid may not have been entirely solid: the combination of Earth gravity and lunar gravity pulled it apart, and it gradually settled into a ring around the equator. This rock ring would have existed for roughly 40 million years before parts of it rained down to Earth, while others were eventually pulled out of orbit by lunar gravity and launched back into space.
While it is impossible to definitively confirm this theory, the evidence supporting it continues to grow, as well as scientific concensus around it.
There are at least 21 major impact craters still identifiable "around the world" today. Geologists who study tectonic shift traced the location of these impact sites back to where that land would have been positioned in the past: all 21 are perfectly aligned across equatorial regions.
It is geologically impossible for the Manicouagan Crater in northern Québec to ever have been at the equator.
Those chunks of rock became the moon, not a ring system that collapsed into the earth. The Theia hypothesis seems like occams razor here, and the moon would have been formed in hours (according to NASA sims).
It almost certainly had one of dust and rock and sediment like 4.5 billion years ago, but a ring system of ice and rock 460 milion years ago eith no evidence of sublimation just seems like trying too hard.
That depends on how you define "sustain". Earth ultimately couldn't sustain it for very long, on a cosmological time scale. But any planet can have an orbital ring as long as there is sufficient gravity to capture ice or rock.
Arabs weren't in the area in large numbers for another 600 years. He probably looked Greek or Italian. The Phoenicians (from modern day Lebanon) went on to settle Sicily prior to Jesus. He likely looked like most Mediterraneans did back then, which was not Arab.
Italian don’t mean much either. There’s quite a difference between northern and southern ones, and the one that probably fits the bill the best is southern Italian.
Also, he was almost definitely handsome. He had tons of female followers and even if you think he was a cult leader you still need charisma and charm for that kind of thing. They made that representation look like a neanderthal, not even like the people that lived in the Levant at the time, as a way to fuck with Christians and that's it.
I dont know if you could enlighten me how we could know jesuses definitive features without dna, a body or anything like that?
I mean, unless you think theres no white people in the levant.
Christians when you're atheist but know history is just such a doozy, because they're probably used to arguing with 14 year olds who had bad church experiences.
The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is the fringe view that the story of Jesus is a work of mythology with no historical substance. The mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who lived in first-century AD Roman Judea, but his baptism and crucifixion are the only facts of his life about which a broad consensus exists. Proponents of mythicism, in contrast, argue that a historical Jesus never existed, and that the gospels historicized a mythological character.
The non-historicity of Jesus has never garnered significant support among scholars. Mythicism is rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity, and has been considered a fringe theory for more than two centuries, but has attracted more attention in popular culture with the rise of the Internet.
Tldr, Some people incorrectly like to believe that Jesus was never a person at all, specifically pseudointellectuals, filmmakers, and redditors.
While not quite like that, he’s probably a little more Arab looking, that is very accurate to what Jesus would’ve looked like than fucking brown hair and blue eyes with white skin.
The official church position on the colour of Christ is that he has no colour and is to be depicted to resemble the native people of wherever you are preaching, so an African denomination would depict Christ as black and a European denomination would depict him as white and priests at the time would consider it weird if you ensistit he had to be shown a specific way
When you say “the official church position” which church are you talking about? There’s tons of churches in America. If you’re talking about the Catholic Church, then yea they’re pretty liberal with this stuff and by its nature the Catholic Church is international with congregations in every region of the world and they have no interest in portraying Jesus as exclusively white to their Latino, Asian, African, Middle eastern, or even European congregations. No Catholic priest would see this image and tell you Jesus was white.
If you’re talking about American evangelicals though, those are the guys who actually get triggered by this type of image.
Meanwhile every Christian people around the world represents Jesus in artwork according to their own styles. Black Jesus, White Jesus, Japanese Jesus, Arab Jesus, Chinese Jesus, Native Jesus...
Curious how only one of these representations is focused on, isn't it?
Curious how only one of these representations is focused on for criticism, isn't it?
Not really? The American-European Jesus is the blond one, and the places on the internet that we use tends to have a very American-European useerbase as it's absolute majority.
Also helps that the Catholic church and the evangelicals/protestants are all from the same area, so the "official" depiction of Jesus by the biggest proponents of Christianity show him as a blond white guy.
Well only one of these representations really travelled around forcing it on other groups and crusading and shit...I doubt missionaries were giving Native Americans pictures of Native American Jesus.
It's not curious at all. Europe, the center for the Christian faith for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, mostly used the white representation of Jesus. It's by the far the most popular representation out of all of those.
And yet even still, if a black guy were to tell an anthropologist that Jesus was black, they would also be told they were wrong. So the very premise that this is some sort of attack on white Christians specifically is ridiculous.
Black Jesus is a literal meme and adult swim tv show, Arab Jesus is basically accurate most likely, and Asian Jesus I’ve only ever seen once and it was in a joke about Korean Jesus from 21 Jump Street.
White Jesus is actually the only one that gets taken seriously, and that would be curious if the answer why isn’t obvious, white Christians are charmin soft
Curious how only one of these representations is focused on for criticism, isn't it?
Do you thank that has anything to do with where you live?
Also people definitely mock all of the interpretations. One gets it more because it's obviously inaccurate but a certain group of people can't help bit try to shove it down everyone's throats anyway.
As far I’m concerned this debate should not exist.
The Apostle Paul dedicated his life to ensuring that Christianity was a religion for all peoples everywhere. The universal Church spread the faith to all corners of the world. Christ represents an idea and a spirit, not an ethnicity. But an essential ingredient of the idea of Christ is that he was God made flesh, therefore he has to be represented as a person of some variety.
Artistic depictions of Jesus have historically tended to depict him with the ethnic appearance of the artist or their region.
The artists didn’t do that to promote their ethnicity, they did it to promote the humanity of Christ.
A). People who point out that the historical Jesus was probably tanned with dark hair are making a technically accurate point about how climate affects skin tone, but they’re using Jesus as the example for the sake of attention.
B). People who think this technical point is a good way to undermine the Western artistic tradition of Christ depictions are ignoring the point of the art.
C). People who get defensive about the ethnicity of Jesus are forgetting the substance of Christianity, and conflating incidental elements of artistic representation with the idea itself.
This debate over skin tone is an argument between the least engaged critics of Christianity and the least informed proponents of it.
If people are going to attack or defend something, I really wish they’d engage with the thing itself and not a surface level token.
You'd be surprised how much biblical research was done by Christian scholars who hoped the evidence would support them but ended up accidentally debunking the Bible
Yeah they’re really good at stepping on that rake. My Christian high school’s science class was 70% real science and like 30% wild ass shit screaming about gaps in the fossil record and giant spheres of water that caused the flood and explained away how Methuseleh was akshually 969 guys we swear.
Supernatural powers or not, Jesus of Nazereth the man is pretty well agreed to have existed around 2,000 years ago. Christian and non-Christians scholars widely agree on that.
I am an atheist, but since jesus is an imaginary character, whose story is compiled out of stories of many real life people and from various sources, i feel it's completely irrelevant how exactly those peoples looked.
It doesn't make sny depiction anyhow less fake and gay
I'm not religious and not american and I really, genuinely, do not give a fuck. But if you INSIST then I really wanna know what you are smoking to believe a dude from the middle east didn't look like a dude from the middle east. (And how your racist insistence on his looks is compatible with his teachings but again I do not care)
Do American evangelical white supremacists genuinely believe they are the ones actually believing in Jesus? While literally not supporting anything he ever said according to the bible?
The thing is, white jesus isn't an accident. White jesus was made, to make it easier to kill brown people. I'd write a longer thing about it but op probably only likes Christianity because it lets him hate gays and creep on kids, so it's not worth actually engaging with
Christians unironically embrace the dumbest, most obviously fake scammy bullshit. And aggressively campaign against the tenets of their own faith. There will never be a persecution against them that they haven't earned a thousand times over.
WintersbaneGDX@reddit
Since this is stupid, here's something more interesting:
There is growing scientific concensus that Earth used to have rings. The rings would have existed approximately 466 million years ago, for a period of ~40 million years.
When examining sedimentary rock, there is a period where meteoric rock mineral increases nearly 1000x fold. There are at least 21 major impact craters still identifiable "around the world" today. Geologists who study tectonic shift traced the location of these impact sites back to where that land would have been positioned in the past: all 21 are perfectly aligned across equatorial regions.
This supports a hypothesis of a ring system existing during that time. The theory states that a large asteroid made a near miss with the planet and became trapped in orbit. This rock asteroid may not have been entirely solid: the combination of Earth gravity and lunar gravity pulled it apart, and it gradually settled into a ring around the equator. This rock ring would have existed for roughly 40 million years before parts of it rained down to Earth, while others were eventually pulled out of orbit by lunar gravity and launched back into space.
While it is impossible to definitively confirm this theory, the evidence supporting it continues to grow, as well as scientific concensus around it.
kool_moe_b@reddit
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hyperstar5@reddit
I was worried I had wasted precious time clicking on this post, but this was here. Thanks!
ItsMichaelRay@reddit
Happy Cake Day!
Luname@reddit
It is geologically impossible for the Manicouagan Crater in northern Québec to ever have been at the equator.
ElectricSnowBunny@reddit
This is ridiculous. The gravity has never been strong enough, and we were closer to the sun. Jesus actually being from Krypton is more logical.
WintersbaneGDX@reddit
Our gravity is strong enough to hold satellites in an indefinite orbit. Why not similarly sized chunks of rock, or ice?
ElectricSnowBunny@reddit
Those chunks of rock became the moon, not a ring system that collapsed into the earth. The Theia hypothesis seems like occams razor here, and the moon would have been formed in hours (according to NASA sims).
It almost certainly had one of dust and rock and sediment like 4.5 billion years ago, but a ring system of ice and rock 460 milion years ago eith no evidence of sublimation just seems like trying too hard.
BananaMaster96_@reddit
the moon was formed in the Hadean, the rings were formed much much later in the Ordovician
LasyKuuga@reddit
Back in my day Earth used to have bling
Kicooi@reddit
Damn unc, you old
Dragon_Bidness@reddit
Neat.
new_KRIEG@reddit
Isn't there a minimum size requirement for a planet to sustain a ring orbit, which, if I remember correctly, the earth is nowhere close to?
WintersbaneGDX@reddit
That depends on how you define "sustain". Earth ultimately couldn't sustain it for very long, on a cosmological time scale. But any planet can have an orbital ring as long as there is sufficient gravity to capture ice or rock.
Ecstatic-Compote-595@reddit
oh that's neat
creepymustaches@reddit
Spoilers! Still haven't watched the new Astrum video on earth's rings yet.
TheKingOfTCGames@reddit
He existed historically lmao this shit isnt unknowable
Nice_Category@reddit
Arabs weren't in the area in large numbers for another 600 years. He probably looked Greek or Italian. The Phoenicians (from modern day Lebanon) went on to settle Sicily prior to Jesus. He likely looked like most Mediterraneans did back then, which was not Arab.
twotokers@reddit
I mean is that not still what this depiction looks like?
RaiderCat_12@reddit
Italian don’t mean much either. There’s quite a difference between northern and southern ones, and the one that probably fits the bill the best is southern Italian.
HitIerWasBad@reddit
Also, he was almost definitely handsome. He had tons of female followers and even if you think he was a cult leader you still need charisma and charm for that kind of thing. They made that representation look like a neanderthal, not even like the people that lived in the Levant at the time, as a way to fuck with Christians and that's it.
GoGoSoLo@reddit
They claim he’s not because of some prophecy where he’s an uggo.
ItsMichaelRay@reddit
Personally, I like to read that prophecy as saying He simply looked average.
GoGoSoLo@reddit
You’re assuming this guy isn’t jorking it to ripped, Korean Jesus.
jaleCro@reddit
Historical consensus is that Abraham Lincoln existed, however it's still disputed whether he was a vampire Hunter or not.
Highfivebuddha@reddit
If Lincoln wasn't a vampire hunter then why are there no vampires?
no_4@reddit
Because of my rock that keeps vampires away.
ITSolutionsAK@reddit
I blame Toto.
viciousraccoon@reddit
Anyone who denies that is a fool, that probably believes birds aren't government UAVs.
Bruhmomento2134@reddit
I dont know if you could enlighten me how we could know jesuses definitive features without dna, a body or anything like that? I mean, unless you think theres no white people in the levant.
Noble-Jester@reddit
Christians when you're atheist but know history is just such a doozy, because they're probably used to arguing with 14 year olds who had bad church experiences.
theyeshman@reddit
Does anyone believe Jesus didn't exist? He's pretty undeniably a historical figure whether or not you believe he's the son of a god.
Jabbam@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Tldr, Some people incorrectly like to believe that Jesus was never a person at all, specifically pseudointellectuals, filmmakers, and redditors.
PushPullLego@reddit
Even though Helen of Troy didn't exist, I argue she wouldn't look like this
Slick_Rhoads@reddit
PushPullLego@reddit
1st she's Greek.
2nd
So no, she shouldn't.
Vike92@reddit
Neither should she look like a blond German like in the Brad Pitt movie
PushPullLego@reddit
Yeah, it's almost like they should have actors who look remotely like the people who live in the area it's set.
siggiarabi@reddit
Or we could just get good actors to play all roles
_heidin@reddit
It's not that we don't believe in his (former) existence, we just don't believe he's a mystic being son of a random god
Minute_Account9426@reddit
While not quite like that, he’s probably a little more Arab looking, that is very accurate to what Jesus would’ve looked like than fucking brown hair and blue eyes with white skin.
tehsmish@reddit
The official church position on the colour of Christ is that he has no colour and is to be depicted to resemble the native people of wherever you are preaching, so an African denomination would depict Christ as black and a European denomination would depict him as white and priests at the time would consider it weird if you ensistit he had to be shown a specific way
zygro@reddit
Funnily enough, Jesus would hate any images of him because they break the 2nd commandment and he was a deeply religious jew.
Lost_Bike69@reddit
When you say “the official church position” which church are you talking about? There’s tons of churches in America. If you’re talking about the Catholic Church, then yea they’re pretty liberal with this stuff and by its nature the Catholic Church is international with congregations in every region of the world and they have no interest in portraying Jesus as exclusively white to their Latino, Asian, African, Middle eastern, or even European congregations. No Catholic priest would see this image and tell you Jesus was white.
If you’re talking about American evangelicals though, those are the guys who actually get triggered by this type of image.
zenheadset@reddit
it’s not that confusing when you consider that Protestants aren’t Christians
PissVortex9@reddit
prods resigned!
GameyRaccoon@reddit
waow (based based based!)
siggiarabi@reddit
Which church?
Natedude2002@reddit
How do you think Jesus would feel about not being depicted as Jewish?
MichJohn67@reddit
What is this mishegoss? Nu, Herschel? Is this meshuggeneh?
InquisitorMeow@reddit
Really? So you're telling me if I brought a picture of black Jesus into churches back then they would be totally cool with it?
Reading_username@reddit
Meanwhile every Christian people around the world represents Jesus in artwork according to their own styles. Black Jesus, White Jesus, Japanese Jesus, Arab Jesus, Chinese Jesus, Native Jesus...
Curious how only one of these representations is focused on, isn't it?
bustermagnus@reddit
The persecution complex never ceases to amaze
MrBingly@reddit
"PERSECUTION COMPLEX"
bustermagnus@reddit
Very curious how you only replied to my comment but not other comments on random subreddits you don't look at
Slick_Rhoads@reddit
We need to find a way for white christians to be the real oppressed ones here
new_KRIEG@reddit
Not really? The American-European Jesus is the blond one, and the places on the internet that we use tends to have a very American-European useerbase as it's absolute majority.
Also helps that the Catholic church and the evangelicals/protestants are all from the same area, so the "official" depiction of Jesus by the biggest proponents of Christianity show him as a blond white guy.
Play174@reddit
Could've been a completely normal comment if it weren't for that last sentence lol
Kicooi@reddit
Oh my god, can you whine and pretend to be oppressed even harder? It’s kind of turning me on.
Econmajorhere@reddit
Jesus multiverse sounds badass
InquisitorMeow@reddit
Well only one of these representations really travelled around forcing it on other groups and crusading and shit...I doubt missionaries were giving Native Americans pictures of Native American Jesus.
Nadiadain@reddit
Not sure why you got downvoted. Historically Catholics were horrible
ryanpn@reddit
AlphaMassDeBeta@reddit (OP)
Are you telling me that there is a 600lb Jesus?
RipDove@reddit
My 600 lb Christ
Shawn_1512@reddit
Somoan Jesus
PigsandBears@reddit
Now there's a TLC show I'd binge
Arstanishe@reddit
king of burger kings and lard of lards
AlphaMassDeBeta@reddit (OP)
Turns water into soda
ThatFuckingGeniusKid@reddit
Multiplies chicken tendies
hairyballsinmybutt@reddit
Hell yeah borther!
FaceJP24@reddit
It's not curious at all. Europe, the center for the Christian faith for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, mostly used the white representation of Jesus. It's by the far the most popular representation out of all of those.
And yet even still, if a black guy were to tell an anthropologist that Jesus was black, they would also be told they were wrong. So the very premise that this is some sort of attack on white Christians specifically is ridiculous.
StanIsHorizontal@reddit
Black Jesus is a literal meme and adult swim tv show, Arab Jesus is basically accurate most likely, and Asian Jesus I’ve only ever seen once and it was in a joke about Korean Jesus from 21 Jump Street.
White Jesus is actually the only one that gets taken seriously, and that would be curious if the answer why isn’t obvious, white Christians are charmin soft
Scruffz0r@reddit
Don't forget the absolutely jacked Korean Jesus
abundanceofb@reddit
Chinesus is the true one
calmdownmyguy@reddit
Do you thank that has anything to do with where you live?
Also people definitely mock all of the interpretations. One gets it more because it's obviously inaccurate but a certain group of people can't help bit try to shove it down everyone's throats anyway.
LuckyLynx_@reddit
Chinese Jesus is the only accurate one here.
CaloricDumbellIntake@reddit
If you want a fun read search up the Chinese brother of Jesus.
AlphaMassDeBeta@reddit (OP)
YOU NO JUDGE, OR YOU WIRR BE JUDGE!
demicus@reddit
How could you forget about Korean Jesus?
matt-kennedys-legs@reddit
i agree, we should start paying more attention to chinese jesus
Arstanishe@reddit
Xisus
matt-kennedys-legs@reddit
chinesus
carsausage@reddit
I feel like I just woke up from a 15 year coma when the fuck did 4chan become pro-christian?
No_Vermicelli_1190@reddit
As far I’m concerned this debate should not exist.
The Apostle Paul dedicated his life to ensuring that Christianity was a religion for all peoples everywhere. The universal Church spread the faith to all corners of the world. Christ represents an idea and a spirit, not an ethnicity. But an essential ingredient of the idea of Christ is that he was God made flesh, therefore he has to be represented as a person of some variety.
Artistic depictions of Jesus have historically tended to depict him with the ethnic appearance of the artist or their region. The artists didn’t do that to promote their ethnicity, they did it to promote the humanity of Christ.
A). People who point out that the historical Jesus was probably tanned with dark hair are making a technically accurate point about how climate affects skin tone, but they’re using Jesus as the example for the sake of attention.
B). People who think this technical point is a good way to undermine the Western artistic tradition of Christ depictions are ignoring the point of the art.
C). People who get defensive about the ethnicity of Jesus are forgetting the substance of Christianity, and conflating incidental elements of artistic representation with the idea itself.
This debate over skin tone is an argument between the least engaged critics of Christianity and the least informed proponents of it. If people are going to attack or defend something, I really wish they’d engage with the thing itself and not a surface level token.
awesomedan24@reddit
You'd be surprised how much biblical research was done by Christian scholars who hoped the evidence would support them but ended up accidentally debunking the Bible
GoGoSoLo@reddit
Yeah they’re really good at stepping on that rake. My Christian high school’s science class was 70% real science and like 30% wild ass shit screaming about gaps in the fossil record and giant spheres of water that caused the flood and explained away how Methuseleh was akshually 969 guys we swear.
ITSolutionsAK@reddit
Supernatural powers or not, Jesus of Nazereth the man is pretty well agreed to have existed around 2,000 years ago. Christian and non-Christians scholars widely agree on that.
RomeosHomeos@reddit
Didn't Arabs not really live in the Levant back then?
Arstanishe@reddit
I am an atheist, but since jesus is an imaginary character, whose story is compiled out of stories of many real life people and from various sources, i feel it's completely irrelevant how exactly those peoples looked. It doesn't make sny depiction anyhow less fake and gay
FrogOnABus@reddit
How can you tell someone is an atheist? Don’t worry, they’ll tell you!
Lost_Bike69@reddit
Dudes talking about his religion (or lack of) in a thread about religion.
Irl I meet 10 people who unprompted tell me they’re Christians for every atheist.
Arstanishe@reddit
i think it makes sense to tell that, given the point?
queenannsrevenge99@reddit
Guess all those romans who wrote about him, who were not Christians made it all up
pikis900@reddit
This is who you guys are praying to ???!!??!
Fab_iyay@reddit
I'm not religious and not american and I really, genuinely, do not give a fuck. But if you INSIST then I really wanna know what you are smoking to believe a dude from the middle east didn't look like a dude from the middle east. (And how your racist insistence on his looks is compatible with his teachings but again I do not care)
water_slav@reddit
Come on. Jesus is described as olive skinned. Of course a dude living in a fucking desert doesnt look like a goddamn anglo-saxon
PJ_2005_01@reddit
Fake: Jesus was born in the Middle East, meaning he was of middle eastern skin color, which is to say, not white.
Gay (and racist): anon is overly concerned with the skin color (appearance) of another man
GillysDaddy@reddit
Do American evangelical white supremacists genuinely believe they are the ones actually believing in Jesus? While literally not supporting anything he ever said according to the bible?
Dio_Landa@reddit
It did not exist, and making your psychosis socially acceptable by calling it "faith" makes you brain-dead.
whiplashMYQ@reddit
The thing is, white jesus isn't an accident. White jesus was made, to make it easier to kill brown people. I'd write a longer thing about it but op probably only likes Christianity because it lets him hate gays and creep on kids, so it's not worth actually engaging with
thatweirdguyted@reddit
Christians unironically embrace the dumbest, most obviously fake scammy bullshit. And aggressively campaign against the tenets of their own faith. There will never be a persecution against them that they haven't earned a thousand times over.
FrogOnABus@reddit
PixelSpy@reddit
Most people think jesus was a real person, he just didnt have magical powers.
Why are they so embarssed that their god was a brown dwarf?
Fern-ando@reddit
Dankchristianmemes is both the least dank and less christian sub.
RazzleThatTazzle@reddit
I love the idea that if youre not in the cult you dont get to have opinions about historical facts.
"Youre not even a muslim, how dare you imply that Mohammad didn't type the Quran on an Apple II!"
darko_mrtvak@reddit
Does it really matter at the end of the day? Half the planet worships Jesus either way
Mean_Marketing9458@reddit
Anon discovers critical biblical scholarship