Who killed Jesus? Some new ideas

Post Reply New Topic

Well...maybe the term is a clumsy term. And maybe I shouldnt use it the way I do. Logically it WOULD mean "racism against one's own race". But when mentioning the word "racism" the reader tends to assume that the writer is talking about White descriminating against non Whites. So some, like I, use the phrase "reverse racism" to signal the reader that "I am talking about the opposite- non white bigotry against Whites".

Also there is some difference of opinion about the exact meaning of the word "racism". Some use it to mean "prejudice", but some insist that it means "prejudice plus power". So a Black in the US could be prejudiced against Whites, but could not be "racist" against Whites because even now White are the majority with most of the power in this country. So you would have to call a Black with a prejudiced attitude towards Whites a "reverse racist" for that reason.

Its complicated. And folks get emotional talking about it.

But yeah...A Black Jesus, and White blonde blue eyed Jesus, are equally 'racist' constructs. The real historic Jesus, if he existed, was neither.

Reverse racism is the racism opposite to typical one. In China they assume typical racism is against other races. So reverse racism is against ones own race. In the west they assume typical racism is against blacks. So reverse racism is the one against whites.

Of course in the west they are wrong in thinking that typical racism is against blacks. And that wrong assumption results in a wrong definition of reverse racism.

Now, the basis for the assumption that typical racism is against blacks is an assumption that only whites can be racist. And that assumption is wrong too. Racism is linked to ethnic bonds. Non-white ethnicities have stronger ethnic bonds than whites. So if anything whites are less racist than others.

The wrong idea that whites are more racist is due to the fact that whites enslaved blacks while blacks didn’t enslave whites. But that’s not because they were more racist. It was because they were more powerful. Were white slave-owners racist? Yes. But blacks were just as racist, they just didn’t have power to act on their racism. So while white slave owners were racist they weren’t “more racist” than others, just more powerful.

The Chinese Empire is strong enough in history.

But I'm pretty sure there's never been an ideology of Phrenology or an ethnicity that's too low-moral to feel pain in the period of the Chinese Empire.

The ethnic centralism of the Chinese empire is manifested as:

Other ethnic cultures have problems. But if they can accept our values, they will be just like us. Having an alien lineage is not noteworthy.


Um, as far as I know, there are still Asians, Native Americans / Oceanians and other ethnic groups in the world. And white supremacists are not friendly to them.
I would say that this is the American centralism, which replaces the entire western view with the "American view".

Last edited by SkinnedWolf on 18 Jun 2022, 11:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Yeah. Thats what I said. Jesus would have been an olive skinned guy from Palestine. But the officials at Ellis Island wouldve let him through anyway, because they let thousands of other olive skinned Arab looking folks through during that same era.

Who cares, according to that mythology...he was meant to die in that way, it was his fate. So in that context why does it matter who killed him specifically?

Exactly. If the "guilty parties" hadnt done him in he would have had to provoke some other bunch to kill him.

So it was essentially 'suicide by cop'. He did it himself...but for our sins.

In Jurusalem mental health facilities they have a ward just for Jesus impostors. Fun stuff.

And that brings up one of those things it takes a few minutes to absorb and wrap your head around, at least wrap around to the extent humanly possible.

Given that God is eternal and has eternally known everything, it was known before any of us and our reality existed that Jesus was going to die on the cross.

The Bible references that a couple times, have this reference about that, but note that what I quoted here does not include those 2 quotes, go to page to see them.
https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.org/2 ... -of-world/
"
Long before Adam was created and placed on the Earth, long before he sinned in the Garden of Eden, long before Calvary’s crosswork was ever accomplished to undo the damage of sin, that crosswork had already occurred in the mind of the triune Godhead. Jesus Christ’s destiny was predetermined long before He ever became a man, and long before there ever was a creation. Nothing in His earthly life occurred fortuitously; even His miraculous birth and graphic death were in the Godhead’s eternal plan! “Lo, I come to do thy will,” Messiah Jesus, quoting Psalm 40, told His Father at His incarnation (Hebrews 10:7-9). If you read verses 10-22 of Hebrews chapter 10, you will see the cross!!

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—in their omniscience (all-knowledge)—could actually look into the future, down the corridor of time, to see that the Son would suffer and die on Cavalry’s cruel cross. All three Persons would cooperate to work to that end. It was all settled fact in Heaven before it even came to pass on Earth. Notice the Apostle Peter’s astounding sermon delivered in Acts chapter 2: “[22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: [23] Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: [24] Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.”
"

As Jesus' first followers were Jews, it stands that not all Jews were guilty of his death. Rather, it had been the Jewish religious leaders who had been collaborating with the Romans who had put Jesus through a kangaroo trial, as they felt threatened by his his opposition to their legalism, the financial burdens they had put on poor worshippers, and of course for him claiming to be the Messiah.
Pilate of course had had the ultimate authority to condemn or free Jesus. It had been due to his weak character that he had folded to the Pro-Roman priests, as they had threatened to bring the Emperor into the matter. It seems Pilate's posting in Judea had hardly been a reward, and he had been gun shy when it came to offending Rome.
Ultimately who had been guilty of Christ's death according to Christian theology is - - wait for it, wait for it - - all of us. God had become incarnate as a human being in order to live according to the Law perfectly, according to Christianity, and yet had suffered its wrath for the sake of all humanity. Christ's death had been intended to happen all along by God.
To say that Jews are to be held responsible for his death, as if it had been something meant to be avoided, completely ignores the whole understanding of the reason and necessity of his death.

I'm saying two things.

1. Jim Crow internalised the idea of "black blood" as some type of contaminant. It wasn't just the supremacist whites of the time (and yes with the exception of the Quakers they all believed they were superior). This belief was so pervasive that even black Americans believed the concept of "one drop" (even though they despised the premise). This why white looking people with even one grandparent who is black are forced by society to self-identify as black which is preposterous.

2. There were reports of Jewish people being thrown back on the boat because they were too dark for the immigration officers. We don't know what Jesus would look like but its likely he would have swarthy and dark from working outdoors. The irony of this is that many white christians in the US sincerely believe they are the descendants of the tribes of Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadroon

Are these really identifiable "non whites"?

Even if we do not consider the mixed ethnic groups along the Central Asian border. Northeast China and Hong Kong / Macao have many typical East Asian phenotypes and white mixed blood.
Half of white is noticeable in some individuals. A quarter or less of non East Asian descent, if not declared by themselves, is usually not perceived by others at all.

Or Do Africans have more recognizable phenotypes?

There are certain sects of we Christians who both grab that and run down the antisemitism road and then further depart from what the Bible says by saying the Church has replaced Israel in God's prophetic plan. I expect they are among those who believe in Great Replacement theory politics. And then a part of them, plus others, depart even further with something called "Kingdom Now" or also "Dominion" theology where the Christian church is going to keep making a better and better world here on Earth and then when it is good enough Jesus will return to rule it. Funny thing is, that Bible they are, supposedly, reading says outright this world is going to get worse and worse and Jesus will return on God's timetable which deeply involves the Jewish people.

I dunno about humans, they do some really odd stuff.



Yep.
My ego and heart both are unhappy that my own sin nature contributed to that.
My heart and soul are very happy and thankful Jesus Christ did that.

African Americans
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... hite-black








Quite likely Jesus could have been African based on the above

^If you don't tell me these background stories.

The third one is not very typical white in my (a Chinese) eyes because of her hair. But I would have guessed more about whether she was a particular white minority. I wouldn't associate her with a black/African.

The first two look completely white. Even conforming to stereotype.

I would think that these people are obsessed with someone's "race"/blood.

Well, yes and no - - depending on who you're talking about.
While there are doubtlessly Anti-Semites who have misused the doctrine of super-secessionism, sometimes called "Replacement theology," the whole actual doctrine behind it argued that Israel's status as the Chosen People had been based on faith rather than ethnicity, and so the spiritual identity of Israel had always been with the followers of Christ. It's not a case of Jews having been deserted by God for being Jews.
While the Dominionists talk about "the Kingdom now," most amillennial (opposed to millennialism) mainline denominations see the "Thousand Years" as not Christ's future earthly Kingdom, but as an indeterminate long period of time including the here and now, where Christ's Kingdom is in the hearts and minds of all true believers.
Unfortunately, religious extremists and bigots use the same or similar terms used by responsible denominations, giving it all a bad name.

The answer to your questions lie in the realm of culture, and not in the realm biological "phenotypes".

In the Seventies a famous Black American author wrote a book about his ancestors- largely about slavery- but like most American Blacks he had some White ancestry. His were Irish. When researching his Irish lineage in Ireland his guide around Ireland would always introduce him to the locals by saying "here is Protestant from America". The Irish didnt care about his skin color. They cared about whether he was Catholic, or Protestant. The anecdote always gets a big laugh from us Americans (Black and White) because we're so color obsessed.

Different societies do "race" differently. China, like Ireland, is an old world country. And thus not a society built by recent immigrants. China, Ireland, most places in Eurasia and Africa have centuries old tribalisms, and social hierachies, and inequalities, but they arent based on skin color. China has always been the "middle kingdom", and center of east Asian civilization. They pretty much look down on everyone who aint Chinese regardless of skin color. But if you conform to Chinese culture then you're okay.

In the NEW WORLD the colonial powers of western europe set up settler cultures in new lands, and in some areas imported Afican slaves. So for the first time you had people from different continents (thus different skin colors)thrown together. So race became a thing of social importance, and related to status and power.

But even in the new world there were marked differences in how they do race - between Anglo North America, and how they do race in Latin South America/Central America/Caribbean.

The US had the "one drop rule". You were not just socially, but also legally defined, as being "Black" if you were seven eighths White, and just one eighth African, in ancestry.

In some Caribbean islands it was the exact opposite. One drop of White meant you were White.

In South America, Central America,the Caribbean, and even in French ruled Louisiana, "Mulattos" (people of mixed African and European ancestry) were category unto themselves. And you even had subgroupings of quadroons and octoroons (quarter blood and eighth bood). In contrast in the US there was never a concept of "mulatto". You were either White or you were a n****r. Mixed blood people were just not a social category.

And the legacy of that continues into the 20th and 21st Centuries.

Baseball great Roy Campanella was forced to play in the Negro leagues even though he was just half Black (his dad was Italian) until Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball in 1947. And thats why it was big deal that a "Black" was elected POTUS in 2008 even though Obama is only "half Black" (historically in America that makes you ALL 'Black').