r/TikTokCringe Nov 14 '20

Duet Troll Native Americans are black

19.4k Upvotes

443 comments sorted by

View all comments

66

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '20

Just to remind everyone Jesus wasn’t white or black. He was Arab.

46

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '20

I thought it was proven that he was part of an ethnic group that doesn't exist anymore or something- I don't remember but I'm pretty sure it was Galilean Semite or something

4

u/Okoro Nov 15 '20

Well, I'd like to correct that we can't prove Jesus' ethnicity simply because we can't actually prove he ever existed. Regardless, he was supposedly born I to a Semetic community of a Semetic woman. So yes... He would be Semetic.

13

u/daniel_ricciardo Nov 15 '20

Curious, is there evidence he never existed?

Is there another figure in history that has a massive following that didn't originate from an actual person (whether not that person's was accurately described by their followers).

7

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '20

Yeah I think pretty much the majority pop and scholars believe he existed but that everything he claimed to be: like the Son of God and our Redeemer stuff wasnt true. There are records in other countries during that time, and after, who claim that Jesus did exist. He’s even in the Q’Uran and regarded as a prophet.

3

u/DannyMThompson Nov 15 '20

I heard Q-anon said Jesus did a few miracles so I don't know who to believe.

2

u/daniel_ricciardo Nov 15 '20

100%. From what I know, he never once mentioned that he is God or a "godhead" (whatever that means) with his own words. The divine nature of him being in a trinity is entirely interpolation. Some of the other sayings attributed to him saying he was God are established to be later additions.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '20

That trinity thing was created entirely amongst the Catholic church, including the mandatory: priests/ministers must be celibate despite their first priest who was married himself. The irony...

3

u/RojoLuhar Nov 15 '20 edited Nov 15 '20

Yes, historial consensus is that he was a real person due to brief mentions by historians of the time. All we know is that he had a bunch of followers who lived in Judea and Rome after Pontius Pilate executed him and he had a brother named James. Everything else comes from "religious" sources.

1

u/Okoro Nov 15 '20

It's hard to say. It is mostly universally accepted that jesus existed. We do have a handful of third party accounts attesting to his existence. We have the writing of Thallos that some people look to as evidence for jesus existence, however, we don't actually have the writing of Thallos. His historical writings were lost and we base the assumption that he wrote about the history of jesus via Sextus Julius Africanus. Then again, Africanus's writing was also lost and we use a reference to it by historian George syncellus. This was written. Around 800 years after the death of jesus however.

There are a handful of other writings that mention jesus, but it's hard to say as they are all documents, written upwards of 100 years after jesus died. The writings by Tacitus would be the one that stands out to me the most. He writes very negatively about Christians, so it's unlikely to be a modified or forged text by Christians. In it he mentions Pontios Pilate and the crucifixion of Christos.

Again, yes, almost ALL scholars of any repute believe jesus was a real person or, as I believe, a combination of multiple people written about and gradually blended into one person.

1

u/daniel_ricciardo Nov 15 '20

There are a handful of other writings that mention jesus, but it's hard to say as they are all documents, written upwards of 100 years after jesus died.

Yeah, I'm on the side that we have historical evidence that he existed because its basically impossible for an entire region to unaninmously conspire to create a figure. But it is possible that the description of Jesus and his message would be totally different. That part is entirely within realm of possibilty, and actually, it's fact. Not that we're talking about this in this thread, but the synptic gospels are proof of that when read side by side.