RadioFreeLiberal.com

It seems every other person on FB posts almost nothing but religious stuff. Today some girl I went to HS with posted a picture of Jesus with a caption stating how many people would not repost it because they were ashamed to have a picture of Jesus on their FB page.

I posted the comment that Jesus having been born in the Middle East was a man of color. No doubt pissing the poor girl off. I blame Ike's bad influence.

Happy Holidays Ike and I am looking forward to another year of bad influence. I wonder if you were the kid down the street that mothers warned little Johnny not to play with.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18

I wouldn't be ashamed to have a picture of Jesus on my FB page.

Here's football player Jesus Gonzalez.



Vaya con dios, glen.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Religion poisons everything.

gee glen you could blame reality but instead you wanna blame Ike.

jaysus was not a pale guy. he came from the mediterranean middle east whereas the pale
people came from pale northern europe not the north of africa.
fwiw.

_________________
Who are these...flag-sucking halfwits fleeced fooled by stupid little rich kids They speak for all that is cruel stupid
They are racists hate mongers I piss down the throats of these Nazis Im too old to worry whether they like it Fuck them.
HST.

This face was featured in National Geographic and Popular Mechanics. It's an attempt to reconstruct Jesus' appearance from forensic reconstructions of remains from the same time period and region. The skin coloration we can get from portraits, frescoes, and paintings.

(I should note you will not find Jesus described by phenotype/appearance in any Gospels or NT texts. The topic is totally ignored. We could get into the Slavonic recension of Josephus.)



Yeah .... it's not blond haired and blue eyed. I mean, sorry, most Romans in the area didn't look that way, either.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Romans are always depicted as looking like the British royal family.

That's not my understanding of the Mediterranean.

Jesus was brown skinned, and his parents were migrants. He was also a Jewish socialist. Read your Bible, as they say.

_________________
"Our democratic institutions... seem to have been upended by frat-boy billionaires from California," remarked Canadian politician Charlie Angus. (BBC, 11/27/18)

I think he's back, and preaching.

Put a gun in his hand and white, rightwing Christians will go nuts.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.

That his father was a commoner of Israel, and his mother was a Levite is suggested by the virgin birth legend. Miraculous conception was not unheard of during that more liberal period to avoid stoning Levite women for violated the law by marrying outside of their tribe. It was how more liberal Judges of that day turned a blind eye to a law which they did not want to enforce.

The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is roughly 60 miles, maybe 70. And all was within the same country....you can call that a migrant if you want...but most of us wouldn't.
The Christian bible indicates Jesus was a Jewish, but there is no reference to his race. One would have to assume he was like most other Jews. "Brown, the same as perhaps Italians, Greeks, Cypriots, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Israelis..... You can decide what race that is. On the other hand, I'm assuming that to believers his race is not relevant. That certainly would be the impression if you visit the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth.

He certainly could not have been a Marxist socialist, as Marx wasn't around for another 1800. I guess you could decide what you want his economic policies to be, but not being that familiar with the subject, I'm not sure how. They say he was a carpenter, one might better infer he was a small entrepreneur. But I don't know.

Jesus' race appears to be irrelevant, as long as He doesn't get too African.

The parents went to their place of birth to register for the census. It was what, maybe 2-3 day's travel? The Gospels seem in conflict over details, but we can agree that it's not migrant, especially if they planned to go back to Nazareth.

Here's the problem. The St. Luke gospel says that's what happened. They went back to Nazareth. The St. Matthew gospel says that all this behold your new lord and savior stuff made Herod nervous, and he wanted Jesus dead. He ordered first born males killed, and all that. So they fled to Egypt and stayed there until Herod kicked the bucket.

I'm sure everyone would agree that, in this version of the story, Jesus was not only a migrant but a refugee.

Socialism was obviously not invented yet, nor was there a need for it. However a lot of Jesus' teachings, as we understand them from the sketchy and conflicting Biblical accounts, would get him called that now.

_________________
"Our democratic institutions... seem to have been upended by frat-boy billionaires from California," remarked Canadian politician Charlie Angus. (BBC, 11/27/18)

I'll leave much of that to the believers, and/or academics, to decide. Honestly, I hadn't given any thought to that story...only the Nazareth family in Beth Lehem which is often misunderstood. (But I still think there's an uncanny resemblance between the Popular Mechanics/National Geographic J and Jonathan Cahn. (pictured above)...btw...didnt Herod die sometime between 1 and 5 BCE ? And Jesus born about the same time?

But to help support your point, or maybe compromise between the two perspectives, here's an article from US Catholic. http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201708/was-jesus-refugee-31096

Re race. Well in the Church of the Ascension, there were black Jesus's as well (if i remember correctly.) Theoretically, I guess, he could have been African, or partially African as well. After all, we know Moses wife was African. King Solomon had relations with Africans. And we know there was economic and cultural integration between the Jews and Africans. But then there was interaction between the Jews and Mediterranean Europeans and well...and between the Jews and the northern Middle Easterners. Meggido, not far from Nazareth, was a major crossroad between Asia and Africa. (Jerusalem, on the other hand, was a major location only for its religious significance, not really for economic or transportation reasons.)

The problem is there were several people in the Herodian dynasty who used the same name. And back then, there wasn't numbering, like Louis I, Louis II, III, etc.



What most people mean by "Herod" is the guy usually identified as "Herod the Great" but he wasn't the only Herodian to use that name.

The story of them going from Nazareth to Bethlehem is based on them having to move for a Herodian census no historian has ever found.

Personally, I also find the flight to Egypt story romantic, but I really doubt that any of the Herods had heard of this infant, or ordered its death as a threat to their rule.

When Jesus shows up preaching in his thirties, it's in Galilee, near Nazareth, his birthplace, which is why they called him ... "Jesus of Nazareth".

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

If I remember correctly, there was also a lot of 'unusual' family dynamics/intrigue.

Oh sure. Like a lot of royal dynasties of the time, they interbred (royal incest), and killed off their relations when they got in the way of the throne.

Of course, as you probably know, the Hasmoneans started doing that kind of stuff late into the dynasty too, esp. this really creepy dude John Hyrcanus, which is why the Book of Maccabees isn't in our canonical Tanakh, even though they are the heroes of Hanukah.

Hyrcanus had the chutzpah to make himself both king and high priest, even though he was descended from neither David nor Zadok. It gets worse, and this is why probably Jonathan Maccabeus is the "Wicked Priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It's the Hasmonean civil war that allows the Romans to step in in 63 BCE and take over without firing a shot (or, errr, spear) and putting the Herodians and the procurators in charge. Herod (the 1st) not only wasn't descended from David, he wasn't an Israelite; he was an Idumean (Edomite). Of course they start marrying what remains of the Hasmonean line for legitimacy.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Yep. That's why the Jews primarily blame themselves, not the Romans, for the destruction of the Temple and our exile. "Baseless hatred." (Of course the Roman's are no great shakes either. And I'm not sure it was 'without a shot' after all their legions did completely destroy and ransack the country. ...do they still have what they stole? maybe, maybe not.)

Interestingly, eerie, you can still go to Jerusalem and see burnt wood and ashes from the when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. Some of it still in place.

The conquest of 63 BCE was without (at least any noted) violence. The Hasmoneans asked for Roman help to settle their civil war. They did, by taking over and adding Judaea to the Roman Empire. All I can say is, c'mon guys ... did you not notice what they were doing elsewhere in the world?

You're definitely right that the Romans did plenty of mayhem in the 1st and 2nd Great Revolts, and the Bar Kochba insurrection. You can still see remnants of the ramps they besieged Masada with.

Yep, on the Arch of Titus, built in Rome to celebrate the emperor's victories, they're carrying out something from the destroyed 2nd Temple that ought to look fairly familiar from a very recent holiday.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

What I love about the Bible is that it is an obvious load of bull. For instance, Jesus was born from a virgin, right? Joseph was NOT Jesus' father, right? Nothing to do with it, right? A DNA test would show that Joseph had nothing to do with it.

But the prophesies said that Jesus would be descended from King David. So, you crack open the very first book of the New Testament, and it shows how Jesus is descended from King David via...

...wait for it...

Joseph!

Interesting how nobody notices that. That was one of my first WTF moments when I really read the Bible. That's Matthew. In the Book of Luke, there's yet ANOTHER genealogy of Jesus, which differs quite a bit from Matthew. They were just making it up as they went along.

Yeah, the two NT genealogies are kind of whack. They disagree with each other - even in the number of generations between David and Jesus. One seems to try and prove 14 generations from Abraham to David and then 14 generations from David to Jesus. Uhhhh, there's no f-n way that can work.

But it doesn't matter if Mary was descended from David - the royal/kingship descent was patrilineal, had to go through the father. And yes, had to be BIOLOGICAL father. Not step.

So if Joseph wasn't his bio-dad, wouldn't matter whether the genealogy works or not.

You of course also have to be coronated king to be the Messiah (the adjective means "anointed with oil") as well as have the descent from David. Now, this Mary Magdalene chick is pouring oil over him ...

No, I don't think the Herodians noticed this little infant being born, nor worried about his supposed threat to their rule and started killing infants willy-nilly. It's just a cool story, bro.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

YEAH, and when you point it out to a Christian for the first time, it's hilarious to see their eyes glaze over.

You preface it with a couple of questions:

First, you ask if every word in the Bible is completely true, straight from God. Of course they say yes.

Then you lay the basis for their doom: "do you believe that Mary was a virgin, and Jesus was conceived immaculately?"

When you get the affirmative answer, you need to then make sure they can't weasel out:

"So Joseph was NOT the father in any biological way, right?"

They double down, firm in their belief. Of COURSE not! Everyone knows that Joseph wasn't the father!

Then the boom for the doom: "Then why does the Book of Matthew say that Jesus was descended from King David through Joseph, if he wasn't the biological father?"

At first they don't believe you - of course, THEY haven't read the damned book at all. Then you show them.

Then they go into fully mind-blown meltdown - and the basis is laid for them to ultimately question their faith. Most don't, they'll just pretend that verse isn't there. But I don't try to do this to friends that are Christians. Their happiness is built around that book, and it's tough when you realize the foundation your life is built upon is an outrageous lie. Call me a hypocrite, but I don't have the heart to do that to them.

Unless, of course, they want to force me by law to live by their beliefs, and they use the book to hurt others. Then it's Katy bar the door!

You'd probably have to ask someone who believes, or at least studies that.

But that said, I do know that the term 'young woman' is often mistranslated as 'virgin.' I think a lot of Christians don't believe it was a 'virgin' birth. And sometimes the Bible is allegorical, not literal, using linguistic flair. So some might say that its not that Mary was a virgin (if you do want that translation) but meant she was "like a virgin." (thanks Madonna). (A bigger question is how Mary might have been a virgin if she was married to Joseph. Sex is a required part of marriage.)

GoU. From what I can tell. You are the only one on this board who is trying to evangelize anyone. Don't be surprised when we react as such. You say you 'read the book.' (I have not read or studied the Christian Bible, so I admit my knowledge is limited.) But it doesn't seem you've really learned much about religion...either specifically or in general.

In this particular case, the mistranslation is deliberate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

Isaiah 7:14 is a verse of the Book of Isaiah in which the prophet Isaiah, addressing king Ahaz of Judah, promises the king that God will destroy his enemies; as a sign that his oracle is a true one, Isaiah predicts that an almah (young woman of marriageable age) will shortly give birth to a child whose name will be Immanuel, "God is with us", and that the threat from the enemy kings will be ended before the child grows up.

[snip][end]

Almah, the original Masoretic Hebrew word in this passage, does NOT mean "virgin". It means, "young woman of marriageable age". We know the NT authors know of this prophecy, it's why we are told at one point Jesus was also known as ... Immanuel.



Whether or not they believe it, it's in the Nicene Creed. That thing you are supposed to believe to be a Christian.

And I agree lots of portions of the Bible are allegorical, but the Nicene Creed declares this to be literal doctrine.

MHO, this was part of the Pauline effort at recruiting Gentiles to the faith, stories of virgin births are all over Roman, Greek, and Near Eastern mythology.

In fact, the only argument over it within early Pauline Christianity (*) --- weirdly enough -- was whether Mary was "ever virgin". Well, she did marry Joseph, if later than Jesus' birth, and Jesus had brothers and sisters ... they claim they were from a previous marriage of Joseph's but that don't work as James and others appear to be younger -- seems the definite answer to THAT was no.

(*) Differentiating that from Gnostic or Ebionite or Arian, etc.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Nope. Not evangelizing anything. Dealing in FACTS and REALITY isn't evangelizing. Sorry.

And I haven't found any Evangelical Christians who don't believe in the virgin birth. It's an important thing to those folks - they seem to have a real problem with lady parts. Somehow a woman who hasn't had sex is better than one who hasn't. Which is wrong on the face of it.

And obviously, then, you are saying that you can't can't read the Bible literally. If you can't, then why should we believe a word in it, and base our laws upon it? Truth is, it's no better than any other religious text, up to and including the Book of Mormon.

Look, there's no archeological proof of anything in the Old Testament - I mean, the Jews spending 40 years in a desert that only took, what, 11 days to cross on foot? Oh, and how about the physical impossibility that God stopped the earth from rotating?

The Jews have finally given up on proving the Old Testament in archeology. It just didn't happen.

The Bible is a mish-mash of earlier religious texts and beliefs, including Sun Gods and such. I mean, the virgin birth is in almost every earlier belief system, too!

But we now know that female virginity isn't a holy thing - at least, we should.

Gotta love "Cafeteria Christians" who pick and choose what things they want to believe from the Bible. "Oh, I agree that all gays should be stoned, but I don't want to believe all those rules making slavery okay - at least until we get it back!"

To me, either you believe the whole thing or it's not worth anything. Just think it through using logic. Works every time!

And no, again, I'm not evangelical about it. The only thing I'm "evangelical" about is that I don't want YOUR beliefs to rule MY life through force of law!

Well, it's very fuzzy up until the United Monarchy period (from David on) when lots of archaeological & historical corroboration can be found.

So I wouldn't exactly agree on your statement. BTW, this is also true of Egyptian records, Babylonian records - a lot of legendary mythology, but the closer in time to the author's own time period, the more genuine history. (See: Manetho).

Incidentally, particularly, we can find stuff from the City of David in modern Jerusalem, whether Mahmoud Abbas likes it or not. I've been to some of those archaeological sites.



We could get into the Merneptah Stele.

My personal position on these matters is to discuss whether religious beliefs are in accord with empirical or historical reality. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. That's the honest answer. We can look at the Bible from a Euhemerist perspective, and I do. (Could do the same thing with Homer's Odyssey. Or the Quran. Or the Mahabharata.)

In doing that, I'm not trying to insult believers or their beliefs. I know people can be upset by that, but that's not the goal.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger