NYT Times Blabs Again: Jesus Was Likely A ‘Palestinian,’ Not White

[Crepitus]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Jesus was a blue eyed blonde Aryan

It is in all the movies

And the paintings, and the statues, and the stained glass windows and.....

Hé speaks with an english accent

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point of the article was what the point of so many leftist screeds is: "I have brilliantly discovered THIS, which I am sure no one else knows!" And then they go on to "educate" us about something we were all aware of a long time ago. And, as is also typical, it contained misinformation, because the author is neither very bright nor very educated, despite his/her belief that he/she is an insightful genius.

Those artists were well aware that He was not actually a white European. May I assume that you have not taken any art history classes?

Would you have any objection if, in the name of inclusiveness, every depiction of Jesus showed him to be an African? Any baby growing up from today on would only see the Messiah rendered as a Black man. Would anyone have a problem with that?

I take it from your questions that you assume I would. Tells me a great deal about YOUR racist tendencies.

Because, unlike you, I HAVE studied art history - and history in general - and I'm well aware that people have been depicting Jesus according to their own culture's standards since long before the medieval and Renaissance paintings which are the most familiar; and because I'm also - again, unlike you - actually well-versed in Christianity and theology and realize that what Jesus did or did not look like while He was Earth is basically irrelevant to the central purpose of His incarnation; and because, as a Christian, my primary interest is for as many people as possible, of all races and ethnicities and cultures, to develop a relationship with God, the answer is no. I really don't care if people choose to depict Him as whatever race makes them happy.

Now, I will add a few caveats to this. I would object vociferously about "in the name of inclusiveness" and "every depiction showed Him to be African", but because I object to EVERY encroachment on freedom of expression and EVERY attempt to cloak tyrannical fascism as "inclusiveness" and "tolerance" and whatever other oxymoron leftist twits have come up with, not because I care about the race in question.

Also, I object to depictions of Jesus - ANY depiction, no matter the race - that is intended to be disrespectful or to cause discord.

And I frankly consider it rather silly to depict Him during His life on Earth as anything but what he actually was. I think it was silly of earlier people to do it, and I think it's silly of people now to do it. But hey, art is supposed to be more about expression and emotion as it is about photo-realistic duplication, and I'm quite familiar with the concept of "artistic license".

As I recall, the author is Black and his objection was growing up seeing Jesus ONLY depicted as a blonde, blue-eyed, White man. I think he would have loved to see Jesus depicted as every race, just not only one race.

You're making the typical leftist mistake of thinking that a person's feelz are, or should be, relevant and important to anyone other than that person.

The author didn't appear to be very bright to me, since it seems to have taken him a lot longer than it does most people to make the connection between "Middle Eastern Jew in Biblical times" and "probably not actually white".

And it really is a very silly thing to have one's shorts wadded about that much, for that long, to the extent that he feels the need to "inform" people of his epiphany in the pages of the Times now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Gosh, I'm SOOOOO glad you and the NYT have come along to "brilliantly" explain to us . . . what we already knew a long time ago.

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Do people on the left EVER realize that their "deep, original revelations" about things are ACTUALLY years behind everyone else?

Tell it to the evangelicals lady.

Why? THEY aren't the ones ten years behind on their emotional/mental development.

 

[Cecilie1200]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Yes, but depending upon what color God used.

But a Jew, not an Arab as the NYT states.

Middle Eastern Jews are not genetically distinct from Arabs.

It is unlikely in the extreme that Jesus was anything other than swarthy, black haired, brown eyed, and so on.

Pretty sure Weather doesn't think He was white with blond hair.

However, He was not "Palestinian", and Jews are not Palestinian. Feel free to find a Palestinian and ask him if you don't believe me.

Genetically they are.

Only if you think "Palestinian" is used in the broad, generic form leftists suddenly want to cling to. The truth is that genetically, he was a Middle Eastern Jew, and that "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are both terms that were made up well after His lifetime specifically for the purpose of wiping out the Jewish identity of that area by the Romans. It is therefore not only historically incorrect to try to attach "Palestinian" to Jesus Christ, it is also a direct insult to the Jewish people. Particularly - one more time - in light of the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Jews use that term to include the Jews in it.

Pretty white privilege of you to think that you get to barge into other cultures and tell them what their words "really" mean.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, I dare you to tell anyone from the above groups this canard about "every Israeli is a Palestinian".

Peoples reactions don't change reality. You could get a violent reaction from a racist if you called them that to their face.

Palestinian, Arab, and Semite are not synonyms, and it is incorrect and borderline illiterate of you to use them as if they are.

If you read more carefully you'll find I did no such thing.

And still, the timeline remains the same. Whatever people do or don't call that region now, they didn't call it "Palestine" during Jesus' time, and they certainly didn't call everyone in it "Palestinian". For that matter, those terms as you try to use them aren't universally accepted NOW.

True enough. Names change. You could find maps where Virginia was in a British Colony, a Confederation, a Confederacy, and a Union.

Rather my point. George Washington was a Virginian, and it would be quite incorrect to say that he was a Confederate, because Virginia was not part of the Confederacy during his lifetime; the Confederacy itself did not exist during his lifetime.

Likewise, the name "Palestine" applied to that region was not a thing during Jesus' lifetime; in this day and age, "Palestinian" is very specifically NOT meant to include Jews.

Sure it was ... it was known as Palaistinê some 2500 years ago...

Palestine

The whole of the region was referred to as `Canaan’ in Mesopotamian texts and trade records found at Ebla and Mari as early as the 18th century BCE while the term `Palestine’ does not appear in any written records until the 5th century BCE in the Histories of Herodotus. After Herodotus, the term `Palestine’ came to be used for the entire region which was formerly known as Canaan.​

That's where the name, 'Syria-Palaestina,' came from when the Romans renamed the region after Christ.

And that region included Nazareth, where Jesus was from, as were many Jews. I'm not saying that means Jesus was Palestinian ... no one will ever know. I'm just saying it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

Palestine | History, People, & Religion

The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century BCE occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv–Yafo and Gaza. The name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century CEin “Syria Palaestina,” designating the southern portion of the province of Syria, and made its way thence into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region at least since the early Islamic era. After Roman times the name had no official status until after World War I and the end of rule by the Ottoman Empire, when it was adopted for one of the regions mandated to Great Britain; in addition to an area roughly comprising present-day Israel and the West Bank, the mandate included the territory east of the Jordan River now constituting the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan, which Britain placed under an administration separate from that of Palestine immediately after receiving the mandate for the territory.

So yeah, your source is correct when it says, "After Herodotus, the term 'Palestine' came to be used for the entire region", insofar as "several centuries later" qualifies as "after". Not exactly precise, and definitely not the refutation you hoped it was when you cherry-picked it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Gosh, I'm SOOOOO glad you and the NYT have come along to "brilliantly" explain to us . . . what we already knew a long time ago.

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Do people on the left EVER realize that their "deep, original revelations" about things are ACTUALLY years behind everyone else?

Tell it to the evangelicals lady.

I love atheists teaching religion.

I love religious fanatics "teaching" history.

I love ignoramuses in BOTH religion AND history trying to teach any damned thing.

Shockingly, being religious does not require one to be uneducated, although being religiophobic apparently does.

 

[Gornoodle]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Why do they want to that? Arabs and Israelis are dark-skinned people noticed? That is not pro or anti-religious.Just fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Jesus was a blue eyed blonde Aryan

It is in all the movies

And the paintings, and the statues, and the stained glass windows and.....

Yes, because the paintings and statues and windows in question were being created by artists whose entire livelihood depended on pandering to the white European nobles who employed them.

So what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Jesus was a blue eyed blonde Aryan

It is in all the movies

And the paintings, and the statues, and the stained glass windows and.....

Hé speaks with an english accent

View attachment 257594

"Wow, look how stupid religious people are based on memes created by other bigots like me!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Why do they want to that? Arabs and Israelis are dark-skinned people noticed? That is not pro or anti-religious.Just fact.

How very America-centric and white privilege of you, to say, "Fuck all that complicated history crap. They look alike to ME, so they must BE alike!"

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Thanks NYT, the American Voters need to be reminded every now and then that Democrats hate Christians

 

[gtopa1]

Can't see no Palestine in that thar map at all; some Sanjaks though. Ottoman stuff.

Greg

 

[Weatherman2020]

Again, I dare you to tell anyone from the above groups this canard about "every Israeli is a Palestinian".

Peoples reactions don't change reality. You could get a violent reaction from a racist if you called them that to their face.

Palestinian, Arab, and Semite are not synonyms, and it is incorrect and borderline illiterate of you to use them as if they are.

If you read more carefully you'll find I did no such thing.

And still, the timeline remains the same. Whatever people do or don't call that region now, they didn't call it "Palestine" during Jesus' time, and they certainly didn't call everyone in it "Palestinian". For that matter, those terms as you try to use them aren't universally accepted NOW.

True enough. Names change. You could find maps where Virginia was in a British Colony, a Confederation, a Confederacy, and a Union.

Rather my point. George Washington was a Virginian, and it would be quite incorrect to say that he was a Confederate, because Virginia was not part of the Confederacy during his lifetime; the Confederacy itself did not exist during his lifetime.

Likewise, the name "Palestine" applied to that region was not a thing during Jesus' lifetime; in this day and age, "Palestinian" is very specifically NOT meant to include Jews.

Sure it was ... it was known as Palaistinê some 2500 years ago...

Palestine

The whole of the region was referred to as `Canaan’ in Mesopotamian texts and trade records found at Ebla and Mari as early as the 18th century BCE while the term `Palestine’ does not appear in any written records until the 5th century BCE in the Histories of Herodotus. After Herodotus, the term `Palestine’ came to be used for the entire region which was formerly known as Canaan.​

That's where the name, 'Syria-Palaestina,' came from when the Romans renamed the region after Christ.

And that region included Nazareth, where Jesus was from, as were many Jews. I'm not saying that means Jesus was Palestinian ... no one will ever know. I'm just saying it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

There’s no Roman record of the region being called Palestine, Dufus.

 

[james bond]

Can't see no Palestine in that thar map at all; some Sanjaks though. Ottoman stuff.

Greg

Haha. You must be a low brow NYT reader.

 

[gtopa1]

Can't see no Palestine in that thar map at all; some Sanjaks though. Ottoman stuff.

Greg

Haha. You must be a low brow NYT reader.

Doan see no NYT nowheres 'cause fer 800 years there was no Palestine cause the Ottomans jus had subject areas. Now many joos still lived thar cos if you looky at the cities they has Joorusalem that joos lived in.

jus sayin'

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Can't see no Palestine in that thar map at all; some Sanjaks though. Ottoman stuff.

Greg

Haha. You must be a low brow NYT reader.

Betcha yoe thort Sanjaks was them pancake thingies!!
Greg

 

[Crepitus]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Gosh, I'm SOOOOO glad you and the NYT have come along to "brilliantly" explain to us . . . what we already knew a long time ago.

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Do people on the left EVER realize that their "deep, original revelations" about things are ACTUALLY years behind everyone else?

Tell it to the evangelicals lady.

Why? THEY aren't the ones ten years behind on their emotional/mental development.

Lol, really? We adults don't need an imaginary daddy figure to get us through the day.

 

[Crepitus]

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Yes, but depending upon what color God used.

But a Jew, not an Arab as the NYT states.

Middle Eastern Jews are not genetically distinct from Arabs.

It is unlikely in the extreme that Jesus was anything other than swarthy, black haired, brown eyed, and so on.

Pretty sure Weather doesn't think He was white with blond hair.

However, He was not "Palestinian", and Jews are not Palestinian. Feel free to find a Palestinian and ask him if you don't believe me.

Genetically they are.

Only if you think "Palestinian" is used in the broad, generic form leftists suddenly want to cling to. The truth is that genetically, he was a Middle Eastern Jew, and that "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are both terms that were made up well after His lifetime specifically for the purpose of wiping out the Jewish identity of that area by the Romans. It is therefore not only historically incorrect to try to attach "Palestinian" to Jesus Christ, it is also a direct insult to the Jewish people. Particularly - one more time - in light of the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Jews use that term to include the Jews in it.

Pretty white privilege of you to think that you get to barge into other cultures and tell them what their words "really" mean.

That's nice honey, would you like to reinterpret anything else I've said?

 

[Cecilie1200]

History lesson for NYT editors: Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs didn’t conquer the area until 700 years after Jesus was crucified. Jesus is an ancestor of David, a Jew. Jesus was not an Arab.

They think if they attack Christianity enough they’ll destroy the faith.

NY Times Article: Jesus Was Likely A 'Palestinian,' Not White

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Given the time and area of his birth (if he was actually real) it's highly I'll likely he was white, and if he was it would have been odd enough that it would be noted in every account of him.

He was a brown middle eastern Jew.

Gosh, I'm SOOOOO glad you and the NYT have come along to "brilliantly" explain to us . . . what we already knew a long time ago.

Be serious for a minute, if you can.

Do people on the left EVER realize that their "deep, original revelations" about things are ACTUALLY years behind everyone else?

Tell it to the evangelicals lady.

Why? THEY aren't the ones ten years behind on their emotional/mental development.

Lol, really? We adults don't need an imaginary daddy figure to get us through the day.

Your egomania impresses no one as "adulthood" except you, which means nothing.

If we're QUITE done with your self-aggrandizing religiophobia, perhaps we could return to the topic. Your bitter hatred of the idea that you MIGHT not be the pinnacle of the universe is not nearly as interesting to me as it is to you.

Evangelicals don't make a routine habit of discovering or inventing information that everyone else has known since forever, and then expecting to be congratulated on their "brilliant, original thinking". Leftists do it a great deal. If you need an example, just take a look at the dipshit who wrote this article to "inform" people that Jesus wasn't white. Duuuh, Gomer. Not news.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, but depending upon what color God used.

But a Jew, not an Arab as the NYT states.

Middle Eastern Jews are not genetically distinct from Arabs.

It is unlikely in the extreme that Jesus was anything other than swarthy, black haired, brown eyed, and so on.

Pretty sure Weather doesn't think He was white with blond hair.

However, He was not "Palestinian", and Jews are not Palestinian. Feel free to find a Palestinian and ask him if you don't believe me.

Genetically they are.

Only if you think "Palestinian" is used in the broad, generic form leftists suddenly want to cling to. The truth is that genetically, he was a Middle Eastern Jew, and that "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are both terms that were made up well after His lifetime specifically for the purpose of wiping out the Jewish identity of that area by the Romans. It is therefore not only historically incorrect to try to attach "Palestinian" to Jesus Christ, it is also a direct insult to the Jewish people. Particularly - one more time - in light of the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Jews use that term to include the Jews in it.

Pretty white privilege of you to think that you get to barge into other cultures and tell them what their words "really" mean.

That's nice honey, would you like to reinterpret anything else I've said?

Depends. Were you planning to be borderline-illiterate and misuse any other words?