Would Christianity have ever become popular in Europe if they knew from the beginning that Jesus looked like this?

Goddamn, I love that man

>t-there's no way he'd look like every other fucking kike at the time

Story of a man born in Nazareth, the son of God, gee user i guess they would be to stupid to guess what his color would be. Bottom line, yes.

Attached: 1521946120874.png (1057x1114, 888K)

>Genetics and physics are totally real...unless GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD is involved, then it's magic for some reason!

Jesus didn't exist

That doesn't look remotely like jewish. That's an ugly black/muslim mutt.

But then again, Yuri once said you can argue logic with the brainwashed and they'd never accept it.

The message and underlying doctrine of Christianity was always was appealed to the Christians.

Fuck off mate.

Attached: what jesus looked like.jpg (1200x861, 215K)

They both look like kikes to me

This

Almost every credible historian doesn't agree with you.

Would Christianity have ever become popular in Europe if they knew from the beginning that Jesus wasn't a real person?

>pic related

Attached: jesus.jpg (333x499, 35K)

>Almost every credible historian doesn't agree with you.
How would you know that? In those American biblical studies departments they're all contractually obliged to believe in a historical Jesus.

bogan scum here are atheists though

zero iq

What the fuck is a bogan, emu fucker?

but they literaly don't
Neither of them have features that identifies them with the modern jew you dogfucking retard

Jesus was an Armenian?

It looks like they just photoshopped darker skin and darker hair and a beard onto Netanyahu.

I hate so much Shitalians because it's their fault if Chr*stianity developed. Today, Shitaly is the most religious country in Western Europe, what a pathetic people.

I'm sorry the true messiah is white Jesus

Attached: white-jesus-620x400.jpg (620x400, 43K)

>white
muh huhwite heysus

How do they know he looked that way?

They both look like semitic garbage to me. Not exactly saxons. Religion is cancer anyway.

The argument you should be using is that due to the census, jesus would have been born in nazareth, and therefore jesus was not christ, but some random jew.

We've been over this thread shill user, Jesus very likely had Olive skin due to where he lived and who he descended from.

>The argument you should be using is that due to the census, jesus would have been born in nazareth, and therefore jesus was not christ, but some random jew.
1. What census? No such census is attested in historical documents. It's a complete fiction.
2. Jesus wasn't from Nazareth. It's obviously a mistranslation of Nazarean. This isn't even a controversial point in biblical circles.

That's not what he looked like, retard. That picture was designed to undermine Christians by making him look stupid and bewildered, amongst other things.

Jesus didn't look like that, that image was all speculation, scientists just got a very good likeness of Him from The Shroud of Turin, also, if you look at pictures of the Shroud He looks nothing like that cucked picture

Attached: 1517037082616.jpg (387x496, 37K)

>In those American biblical studies departments they're all contractually obliged to believe in a historical Jesus.
They're not. I personally know quite a few. Some of them are atheists, but all of the ones I've met do indeed believe Jesus really existed. To not do so would be like denying that Tiberius Caesar ever existed for them.

thats not the Turin face recreation

Wow, nice anecdotal data

"The two biblical scholars I know both believe in a historical Jesus therefore that's clear evidence that most of them do"

>Caesar
Caesar is attested by primary source documents and by archaeological and numismatic evidence.

None of those things exist for Jesus. Why do you Christfags insist on keeping up this, your weakest argument?

This is what the average person back then may have looked like. Keep in mind he was only half of... That.

Looks don't matter that much if you are concerned with the truth. His parasitic religion destroyed pagan culture.

stop spamming this same thread over and over again, do you have nothing better to do?

Attached: 1457758708371.jpg (625x626, 37K)

>Caesar is attested by primary source documents and by archaeological and numismatic evidence.
>None of those things exist for Jesus. Why do you Christfags insist on keeping up this, your weakest argument?
There are copies of primary source documents; same as for Tiberius. Numismatic evidence doesn't help on the point in question, because coins frequently have mythological characters on them; not even sure why you would bring that one up. As for the archaeological evidence, what are you referring to for Tiberius? It all seems fairly indirect (as would be expected), just as it is for Jesus (again, as would be expected).

You come off as not really having thought this through, but just believed what you wished to be true.

This.

First time I've made this thread, Christcuck.

So the amerimut meme that also doesn't hold up. Cute.

>There are copies of primary source documents; same as for Tiberius.
Primary source documents for Jesus? What are you talking about?

None of the Gospels even claim to be eyewitness accounts, or based on eyewitness accounts, and besides Mark there's an excellent chance they are 2nd century documents anyway.

>Numismatic evidence doesn't help on the point in question, because coins frequently have mythological characters on them;
I'm not sure that the ancients minted coins with the words "rex" on them for people who weren't actually the current king. That would be a challenge to royal authority and I doubt that any monarch would have allowed it. But you must feel free to prove me wrong.

>not even sure why you would bring that one up.
Because bringing up relevant evidence is how you establish historical probability, dummy.

>As for the archaeological evidence, what are you referring to for Tiberius? It all seems fairly indirect (as would be expected), just as it is for Jesus (again, as would be expected).
Archaeological evidence for Jesus? I really have no idea what you're trying to say. You're not talking about that silly ossuary, are you?

>You come off as not really having thought this through, but just believed what you wished to be true.
St Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, so why should anyone else?

>Primary source documents for Jesus? What are you talking about?
Matthew, John, John's letters, Peter's letters, James' letter, Jude's letter. We have copies of the manuscripts. To say they don't count because those men were Christian is obviously circular logic.

>None of the Gospels even claim to be eyewitness accounts, or based on eyewitness accounts.
Dead wrong. You've obviously never read them. John claims that, as does Luke claim he gathered his info from eyewitnesses, e.g.

>I'm not sure that the ancients minted coins with the words "rex" on them for people who weren't actually the current king.
Sticking "rex" on a coin is enough to convince you someone existed? I guess I need more evidence to believe something than you do.

>Archaeological evidence for Jesus? I really have no idea what you're trying to say. You're not talking about that silly ossuary, are you?
You dodged my request for direct archeological evidence for Tiberius Caesar, which you claimed. My claim was that Jesus had indirect archaeological evidence (things named after him, etc), same as Tiberius.

>St Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, so why should anyone else?
If that were so, then why did he say "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty." Those are the words of someone who believes he did exist. But in any event, Paul came after Jesus' crucifixion.

>Matthew, John, John's letters, Peter's letters, James' letter, Jude's letter. We have copies of the manuscripts. To say they don't count because those men were Christian is obviously circular logic.
Matthew and John are just redactions of Mark. They don't count as separate pieces of evidence. None of the remaining documents you mention are either authentic or first-century.

>Dead wrong. You've obviously never read them. John claims that, as does Luke claim he gathered his info from eyewitnesses, e.g.
WTF are you talking about? John? We don't even have a manuscript for John, just a mishmash of pages sewn together in a random order.

And as for Luke, he claims an eyewitness but since he gets all his historical material from Mark and all his non-historical material from either Matthew or Q, we know he must be lying.

>Sticking "rex" on a coin is enough to convince you someone existed?
Yes, it certainly is. For the reasons outlined above. Kings don't mint coins with the names of other kings on them. That has never happened in history, not even once, as far as I know.

>My claim was that Jesus had indirect archaeological evidence (things named after him, etc), same as Tiberius.
Not until centuries later. Doesn't mean diddly squat.

>If that were so, then why did he say "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty."
Paul believe in a crufixion and a resurrection, but one that occured in some supernatural realm, not one that happened on Earth.

Search Paul's letters for a single reference to Jesus doing something on Earth or saying something* on Earth or going somewhere on Earth, you won't find one.

(* Doesn't count if it happens after the resurrection.)

I'm going to work now, so don't write a long reply if you want me to read it.

if they had actual READ some of the retarded shit they believe, I doubt anyone but 'mutt level autists could have espoused something as abjectly asinine as semitic religion

Attached: Yeshu.jpg (956x1282, 330K)

To be fair, he looks like a italian.

>Matthew and John are just redactions of Mark. They don't count as separate pieces of evidence. None of the remaining documents you mention are either authentic or first-century.
That's a huge amount of speculation. (Plus, you're confusing John with Luke, I'm sure, as that's the other synoptic gospel.)

>We don't even have a manuscript for John, just a mishmash of pages sewn together in a random order.
Again, false. The oldest fragments are just fragments, sure, and that seems to be confusing you.

>but since he gets all his historical material from Mark and all his non-historical material from either Matthew or Q
Luke does get some material from Mark and Matthew (this is consistent with what he says), but the existence of Q is purely hypothetical (to explain the predictive failures of the model you espouse), and there is yet other material not in any of those. That's a lot of speculation.

>Kings don't mint coins with the names of other kings on them. That has never happened in history, not even once, as far as I know.
Perhaps that is so (I'm not saying it isn't, especially as I believe Tiberius was a real person), but this illustrates your poor logic: to know it had never happened in history, you must presume that all instance are real kings, but that is the very thing in question.

>>My claim was that Jesus had indirect archaeological evidence (things named after him, etc), same as Tiberius.
>Not until centuries later. Doesn't mean diddly squat.
Since it was the basis of your claims("enough evidence for Tiberius, not for Jesus"), I would say it means something.

>Paul believe in a crufixion and a resurrection, but one that occured in some supernatural realm, not one that happened on Earth.
I've read people with that opinion, and I've read Paul, and he sounds like the opposite. I'm not sure where you got your info, but I'm convinced you've never read the Bible, so meh.

>Search Paul's letters for a single reference to Jesus doing something on Earth or saying something* on Earth or going somewhere on Earth, you won't find one.
"the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”"
You're full of it.

>I'm going to work now, so don't write a long reply if you want me to read it.
Okay, already typed it, so others may read it if they're curious.

No. Europeans always imagined that Jesus looked like them

Jews look white which is why they infiltrate white society so well. Op's pic looks like a nigger Muslim.

according to this (((factual))) C4 documentary the first brit looked like this and there's still plenty of borgerbois who self identify as anglophiles

Attached: factual.jpg (1444x772, 175K)

>Luke

Literally uses Josephus as a source-text.

>Paul

My personal theory is the opposite: Jesus existed; Paul did not. One was a rebellious Zealot; the other was a fiction created to explain the output of Hellenized Jews spinning the zealot into something harmless to Romans.

I am a forensic artist and based on OP's post, I've made this 100% accurate render of what he actually looks like,

Attached: caob5.jpg (320x263, 13K)

What culture? You nordicshits never had any.
East and west Romans built Europe, Christianity is just an extension Roman paganism except the letter one had actual involvement in society, the Romans chose Christianity for a reason.

Attached: Snowniggers.jpg (2380x1396, 832K)

no

double no if they read through mark 7 and found out what yeshua king of the jews thought about the goyim

Christianity became popular the old fashioned way; violently. You know, the same way Islam suddenly becomes "popular."

Jesus literally healed a goym kid. Mark 7:25-30.

as a reward for doing what?

for admitting that she is what, compared to who ?

Current kikes have had two thousand years of inbreeding in-between these events. Consider that the Judeans fought many times, instead of cowering behind >muh holohoax and getting ass-ravaged by the mere mention of their nationality.

>trusting an image put together by the yids

Imagine being this dumb.

Color me surprised; a kike can't see the difference between beautiful and grotesgue. However, he sticks with the grotesgue every single time.

This test was literally conducted in Israel.

No, this was a Greek woman, not a philistine.

so you know jesus looked like that, shit you should do the talk show circuit.

>be academic
>look at current middle east populations
>choose the most non-European features from each population
>say this is what Jesus looked like

This is just shitty academics and why you shouldn't trust them. The Lands of Judea were invaded by much darker skinned peoples multiple times in the past 2000 years. Many Middle Eastern populations look close to European. The hacks who put together this rendering should not be trusted.

yes i'm aware

core point: jesus straight up says he doesnt heal filthy goyim, woman prostrates herself before jesus and says "please master even the filthy dogs sometimes get the scraps from the table of the real children!" and only then does jesus give her the scraps

were most european converts aware of this?

probably not, i can't imagine they would be so spineless, so it was probably just deceit

You know whats weird 30 years ago I said Jesus would not have looked like that (what ever movie was on TV) and said he probably looked mire like Yaser Arifat

Attached: Yasser_051024022914127_wideweb__300x375.jpg (300x375, 60K)

>implying Jesus looked like that.
Theres literally no way of knowing how Jesus looked like. The people who came up with that portrayal of Jesus was literally jewish. Imagine my shock.

TIL you can tell a persons skin/eye/hair colour from skill fragments.

No he did not make any comparisons between dog and her If you are trying to say that he did.

The Faith of the Centurion
>When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them.

>He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

>When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.”
>“I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.”
This, in addition to His anti-banking schemes and desire to have Jews be loyal citizens of Rome, infuriated the kikes.

Literally a shittier, less accurate composite made for political statement. Saying Jesus looked like that is tantamount to saying Putin looks exactly like pic related

Attached: images.jpg (259x194, 5K)

except this is literally what she was rewarded for, acknowledging her status as a dog under the table, eating crumbs that fall when the real children (jews) eat first

cool 1 roman gets heal i guess jesus isnt mashiach of the jews anymore

owait

>in addition to His anti-banking schemes
lmfao

Deut 23:19-20
"19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."

>desire to have Jews be loyal citizens of Rome
"loyal" LMAO

the idea that you're to submit to temporal ruling powers isn't an endorsement of those powers, it's because "we wrestle not against flesh and blood" (Eph. 6:12). Submission to Babylon isn't an endorsement of babylon as a nation or it's rulers. Same with rome, they were irrelevant worldly shitters in jesus' eyes

Trying to hijack jesus to be somehow positive rome is not only heresy, it's a lie

>infuriated the kikes.
nice way to speak about the race of the man you worship as a personal god

>cool 1 roman gets heal i guess jesus isnt mashiach of the jews anymore
He fulfilled the law; jews lost their religion. No sacrifice, no priesthood, no temple, no nation, no lineage.

The jews of today are just a lie. Hence their hatred.

nice propaganda, kike

>jews lost their religion.
no they didn't. Christianity is the fulfillment of judaism, it's one and the same. It's judaism with the prophecied mashiach. It's literally that.

The jews who believed, including every single one of his disciples, did keep their religion exactly as is, minus a few customs

and they still have a special role to play in the religion in the future (Rev 7), also "all israel will be saved" (rom. 11)

Your God is a literal kike.

as for why most jews were upset and refused him, it's understandable - they were expecting a warrior prophet a la moses, and instead got this squeamy pacifist masochist, and afterwards they got paul who invented a twisted pro-goyim version and started giving their tribal religion to the foreigners to LARP as if they had something to do with king david or something

Original form of the word tend to get lost in translation. austingentry.com/meaning-mark-724-30/ Have some eksegetick.

>no they didn't. Christianity is the fulfillment of judaism, it's one and the same.
Jews aren't Christians, nor do they practice what Moses taught. They lost their religion. All they have is rabbinical bickering. It's as if Greeks lost philosophy and were left with sophistry.

I don't larp when I inherit philosophy, download memes from unknown sources, or read history. Nor do I larp when I have my religion. LARP represents the juvenile rebellion that is insincere. It stops being larp once you start the sacrifices.

>white boy doing damage control

"Here's what he REALLY meant! It's not what you get plain and clear as day just by reading the words, there'a s secret hidden meaning that i get by twisting translations!"

yeah no, it's not a mystery. The KJV translators were fully aware of greek words, there's a reason they chose "dog under the table" and not "beloved puppy who is part of the family"

you're deeply confused, i can only hope one day you wake up from this desperate rationalization

>Jews aren't Christians
correct, it's the christians that have become jews and joined the original children (romans 2:28-29)

> They lost their religion.
no they haven't. Whether they're christians or talmudic jews, the entire corpus of the jewish history is still theirs and theirs alone.

it's a tough pill to realize what a huge scam europeans have been wasting their time on, but it's necessary to tear out moles

>correct,
>it's the christians that have become jews and joined the original children (romans 2:28-29)
We are to assume that we are racially different, and by divine right separate from the jews. Rejection of Christ is as important as accepting Christ. Jews rejected Christ, and Logos. Jews are the eternal revolutionaries, have been since. Christians are the opposite. We do not revolt.
Heck, the worst things that have happened to us have been revolutions; The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution. It has always been a part of the revolution to go against Christianity, to murder the clergy and the monarchs.

Ruukinmatruuna, sinäkö se siellä?

What's funny is that racist whites are going to get it the worst in hell. God made us all brothers deserving of salvation. This is a foundational belief of Christianity and it's the racists that truly reject it

fuck off nigger

Attached: laura_chiatti.jpg (1200x900, 284K)

The irony is it's only the pure whites who are going to heaven.

Attached: 1524023172861.jpg (489x604, 44K)