Who killed Jesus? Some new ideas

Post Reply New Topic

"Spirits" do not eat.  Read your Bible.

"Pharoah's descendents" are the Copts. Their language is virtually extinct, except as a liturgical language. It could come back into common use, though----just like Hebrew did.

I'll take your word for it. My fiction reading list is already pretty long.

Pretty much. Black reverse racists have LONG sought to claim the Holy Land as being Black. White "forward" racists are only now just getting into the act, and ALSO claiming the Holy Land, but for light skinned Anglo Whites. Both both fly in the face of history.

A few years ago a certain African lawyer actually attempted to serve a lawsuit for..."the wrongful death of Jesus Christ".

And he named as defendants: the modern state of Israel, and the modern Republic of Italy. He was gunning for BOTH the Jews and the Romans.

Nothing much came of it. Not sure what the point would be. The whole point of a wrongful death suit is to get money for the surviving family members. Jesus is not supposed to have had any kids, so he isnt supposed to have descendants (unless you believe Dan Brown).

In other words, he came up with idea 13 and added idea 15 to it, 15 being

15) Turn into a law case

I thought idea 13 was totally my own but apparently not.

In any case, I am glad he was creative enough to think of 13 and 15. I didn’t think anyone is that creative other than myself since everyone likes to repeat old and tired 1-10.

I am glad to know that there is at least one creative person out there.



Even though Jesus didn’t have children, he had brothers. At least James, and I believe there were a couple more, I don’t remember. So the descendants of his brothers could get the compensation.

Although the problem is that apparently his brothers’ descendants didn’t track their ancestry that far. Otherwise they would have made themselves known in other contexts.

"Creative"?

Ahem...[cough]....

Thats ONE way to look at it!

Some folks would say that its equal parts "inane and insane".

Others would say that its equal parts "ludicrous, and laughable".

But be that as it may...

Yes...in theory Jesus might still have surviving "next of kin" today who are descended from his siblings or cousins or whatever.

In fact - anyone (or their near kin if they didnt have descendents of their own) from that era (a century on either side of the year one)- Jesus, Julius Ceasar, Brutus, Cleopatra, etc could be contributing to the ancestry of just about EVERY one in Europe, and in the Middle East today...since it was a 100 generations ago. And the ancestry of most people in places settled by Europeans (like the Americas), including you and me. Do the math. You have kids..then they have kids...and work it out on paper for a hundred generations. See how many descendants you would have- in a hundred generations.

If you're interested here is the Kenyan lawyer, Dola Indidis, who sued Israel, and Italy,in the Internal Court of Justice in the Hague for the wrongful death of Jesus Christ in 2013 explaining it. Unfortuately he has a rather thick accent.



lawsuit

The actual reason for afrocentricism in the US is because of Jim Crow, In the mind of an African American during the height of the Jim Crow era a swarthy Aramaic speaking Jesus with tight curly black hair might be perceived as "black", The same with Egyptian Pharoahs and dark skinned Sumerian and Indian civilisations (the latter occupies an enormous volume of literature and videos but is farcical since genetically Africans are closer to southern Europeans than they are to Asians).

If the real jesus tried to migrate to America he would have been thrown back on the boat at Ellis Island

Not sure what you're saying.

There is Afrocentrism (which can go overboard but isnt necessarily wrong or bad), and there was also the creating of ideologies of reverse racism against White (like the founding of the Black Muslims). Obviously both started in the 1960s as a reaction against the centuries of anti Black racism in the US. That goes without saying because every American knows that. So you're just stating the obvious.

This Qanon thing about "Whites are descended from the Biblical Jews" is Trump era stupidity without any rhyme or reason that I can see.

Its not obvious to me why Jesus would have been rejected at Ellis Island. Nor why you're talking about Ellis Island in the present tense. Ellis Island shut down as an immigrant processing center almost a century ago. Its now just a museum.

The rules about immigration into the US changed over time. And at the turn of the 20th century there were limits on how many folks they could allow in for each country. And ethnic prejudice factored in which nationalities got higher or lower quotas. But even so- during the era of Ellis Island forty million folks entered the US from all over Europe and fair number from the Middle East.

If the Lebanese Poet Khalil Gibran (Lebanese Arab) could make it through Ellis Island in circa 1900 then I dont see why Jesus wouldnt have been allowed into America as well ( as long as the quota for his native Palestine hadnt been topped)because Jesus would have been perceived as being of the same "race" as Gibran, and thousands of others from the Mediterranean who made it off the boat here in the same era.

American immigration was almost shut down mid century after they closed Ellis Island. But then in 1964 Congress passed civil rights legislation forbidding racial discrimination. And the courts determined that the quotas for nations for immigration were unlawful. So we started to allow folks from everywhere to arrive here. So in the present day there would be no reason to bar Jesus on racial grounds. But even back in 1900 when they were selective based upon nationality Jesus would probably have been allowed in (unless he had criminal record).

The gun industry killed Jesus by not inventing AR-15s in time to save his feeble non divine ass

It’s not Trump era. It dates back to 19-th century. These movements are called “British Israelism” and “Christian Identity”.

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

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



He was assuming Jesus had Olive skin like today’s middle eastern do. So — under this assumption — he would be rejected for not being white.

What he was saying is that since Olive skinned people and black skinned were treated the same under Jim Crow, that’s why they decided Jesus was black.

I don’t agree with this by the way. Since they went out of the way to say the conventional wisdom (with middle eastern Jesus) is wrong, you can’t just say they just sloppily lumped the two together. I am simply explaining what he was trying to say, even though he was wrong.

"reverse racism"is a strange term.

Its direct translation means discrimination against one's own race/nation/ethnic in the context of China - this is indeed an ideology that once prevailed.

But its western usage is that non whites discriminate against whites. Why is this not simply "racism"?
Is it an anomaly for other races to use their own version of ethnocentrism?

Western society is just as often illogical as logical.

And when it isn't being either one of those it is usually being not quite completely sane.

(Trust me, I've been there)
(You've been where, western society or not quite completely sane?)
(Yes!)

Pharaoh descendants don’t exist since pharaoh drowned in Red Sea. We are really talking about his next of kin.

Speaking of next of kin, why do you think they are Copts as opposed to Egyptians?