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

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Ashkenazi Jews, and Palestinians both appear to have some genetic roots of ancient Hebrews.

The main thing is that Palestinians come from nearly a 100% Semitic bloodline, as opposed to Ashkenazi Jews who come from a nearly 50% Semitic bloodline.

 

[alang1216]

Maybe if you knew as much as you think you do about the Bible, you wouldn't be a buffoon.

You don't know how much I know so maybe you should talk about things you actually know something about.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

Do Yiddish speakers speaking a German (Indo-European) based language have anymore in common to Palestine / Israel than an Arab speaker, who actually speaks a Mid-Eastern language from Semites?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

Jesus was a Semite, linguistically, racially, and culturally related to Arabs.

Sem·ite
/ˈsemīt/
noun
noun: Semite; plural noun: Semites

1. a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

Again, no one has claimed otherwise. But thank you SO much for making that argument in support of your straw man.

I dare you to go to any Palestinian today and tell him that "Palestinian", "Arab", and "Semite" are all the same thing, and therefore Jews are Palestinians.

Meanwhile, the timeline remains the same.

Modern Ashkenazi Jews speaking Yiddish have about as much in common with an Ancient Hebrew speaker as do the Modern Egyptians speaking Arabic have about as much in common with Ancient Egyptians.

Basically, it's a hijacking of ancient names in both cases for having some roots to a distance culture, even if those roots aren't pure, or perhaps not even all that deep "Culturally".

 

[alang1216]

Ashkenazi Jews, and Palestinians both appear to have some genetic roots of ancient Hebrews.

The main thing is that Palestinians come from nearly a 100% Semitic bloodline, as opposed to Ashkenazi Jews who come from a nearly 50% Semitic bloodline.

I don't know percentages but I believe there were mass conversions of pagan tribes living in South-Eastern Europe. It seems unlikely they were of Semitic origin. The history of the Jews is complex so I'm not sure I'm getting this right...

 

[alang1216]

I love theology lessons from atheists.

As well you should. Who would be more honest and unbiased than someone who views all theology through the same lens?

"Viewing all theology through the same lens" is not the same as "honest and unbiased". And it's DEFINITELY not the same thing as "educated, informed, and intelligent."

I'll stand by my statement. In my experience, exemplified by USMB, people tend to judge their enemies by their worst actions and judge themselves and their friends by their best actions.

 

[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

Jesus was a Semite, linguistically, racially, and culturally related to Arabs.

Sem·ite
/ˈsemīt/
noun
noun: Semite; plural noun: Semites

1. a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

Again, no one has claimed otherwise. But thank you SO much for making that argument in support of your straw man.

I dare you to go to any Palestinian today and tell him that "Palestinian", "Arab", and "Semite" are all the same thing, and therefore Jews are Palestinians.

Meanwhile, the timeline remains the same.

Palestine is a region, Israel is a country within Palestine. Every Israeli is a Palestinian but not every Palestinian is an Israeli. There are Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis and Palestinians but recent events have given these terms political meanings too.

Arabs and Jews are subgroups of Semitic peoples, a historical and cultural designation. All Arabs are Semitic but not all Semites are Arab.

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

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

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.

 

[alang1216]

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

Well, here's my question:

Why is it news to the NYT that He wasn't white? Who has been keeping this a secret from them up 'til now? And why do they assume we didn't already know that?

Who, besides the OP and his link, says this is news to The NY Times?

The point of the article was that Jesus was unlikely to have been blonde and blue-eyed. That might have been news to the many artists that portrayed him that way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe if you knew as much as you think you do about the Bible, you wouldn't be a buffoon.

You don't know how much I know so maybe you should talk about things you actually know something about.

I can read your posts, hon, so I DO know at least SOME of the things you don't know . . . which would be everything you've spoken on so far. Yet another newsflash for leftists: using words and saying things communicates information to other people. Tell your friends.

YOU should talk about things you actually know something about . . . because that way, we wouldn't have to hear from you, ever.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Ashkenazi Jews, and Palestinians both appear to have some genetic roots of ancient Hebrews.

The main thing is that Palestinians come from nearly a 100% Semitic bloodline, as opposed to Ashkenazi Jews who come from a nearly 50% Semitic bloodline.

I don't know percentages but I believe there were mass conversions of pagan tribes living in South-Eastern Europe. It seems unlikely they were of Semitic origin. The history of the Jews is complex so I'm not sure I'm getting this right...

DNA testing puts Ashkenazi Jews at roughly 50% Jewish Semite, 35% Northern Italian, 15% Polish (Eastern European, and 5% German (Western European).

 

[Cecilie1200]

I love theology lessons from atheists.

As well you should. Who would be more honest and unbiased than someone who views all theology through the same lens?

"Viewing all theology through the same lens" is not the same as "honest and unbiased". And it's DEFINITELY not the same thing as "educated, informed, and intelligent."

I'll stand by my statement. In my experience, exemplified by USMB, people tend to judge their enemies by their worst actions and judge themselves and their friends by their best actions.

'I want to believe it, so I'm going to no matter what the facts are!"

Whatever your "experience", I personally - 'cause, y'know, people are individuals, not faceless, interchangeable cogs in a collective - am just going on your posts. I suppose I'm happy to hear that you apply your religiophobic bias equally to all religions, but that doesn't make what you say honest, correct, or unbiased in general.

 

[alang1216]

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.

 

[Moonglow]

WOW... so... even Jesus, the Son of God... didn't have white privilege.

He probably had a tan from working in the sun..

 

[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

Well, here's my question:

Why is it news to the NYT that He wasn't white? Who has been keeping this a secret from them up 'til now? And why do they assume we didn't already know that?

Who, besides the OP and his link, says this is news to The NY Times?

The point of the article was that Jesus was unlikely to have been blonde and blue-eyed. That might have been news to the many artists that portrayed him that way.

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?

 

[alang1216]

I'll stand by my statement. In my experience, exemplified by USMB, people tend to judge their enemies by their worst actions and judge themselves and their friends by their best actions.

'I want to believe it, so I'm going to no matter what the facts are!"

Exactly what facts am I ignoring?

I suppose I'm happy to hear that you apply your religiophobic bias equally to all religions, but that doesn't make what you say honest, correct, or unbiased in general.

If you're implying it makes what I say dishonest, incorrect, or biased, I'd like to see some examples.

 

[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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll stand by my statement. In my experience, exemplified by USMB, people tend to judge their enemies by their worst actions and judge themselves and their friends by their best actions.

'I want to believe it, so I'm going to no matter what the facts are!"

Exactly what facts am I ignoring?

I suppose I'm happy to hear that you apply your religiophobic bias equally to all religions, but that doesn't make what you say honest, correct, or unbiased in general.

If you're implying it makes what I say dishonest, incorrect, or biased, I'd like to see some examples.

Maybe try reading some of the many posts I make responding to you and telling you exactly why you're wrong. It's not like I'm hiding it from you.

 

[alang1216]

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?

 

[rylah]

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.

Do Yiddish speakers speaking a German (Indo-European) based language have anymore in common to Palestine / Israel than an Arab speaker, who actually speaks a Mid-Eastern language from Semites?

Yes,
Jews can pronounce the word "Palestine", know what that word and the names of the places in the land mean, write in Hebrew, keep the ancient Hebrew culture which revolves around the seasons of that specific land.
When Jews returned to Israel the land blossomed.

Arabs can't pronounce the word "Palestine" neither know what it means (wouldn't be using it if knew),
know not what the names of the places mean, write in a foreign language and keep a foreign culture revolving around the seasons in Mecca. When Arabs governed the land it was the most poor and neglected province of the Caliphate filled with disease and swamps.

 

[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".