If Jesus Christ was god's only begotten son and he was sent to die for our sins, but he was a short sub5 man with a small dick, would anyone believe in his religion?
If Jesus Christ had been sub5 would people have believed in him?
He is a sub5 brown semetic, they had to make fake Aryan paintings so people believe in him that's how much people hate sub5s
What is semetic, sounds like semen
He is of Caanan origin (Israel, Lebanon, Palestine)
prolly nah
Early renaissance gay Italians made Him handsome. I don't think that was the point.
He would have been sub 5.
- Around 5'4
- Middle Eastern
- Typical brown skin, brown eyes, black hair phenotype
- Around 5'4
- Middle Eastern
- Typical brown skin, brown eyes, black hair phenotype
He is also horsefaced apparently
This your true lord and saviour, accept his love normie fags accept he died for you christcucks
He is my based prophet
It's so blackpilling how catholic normie fags can't accept what Jesus truly looks like, and have to delude themselves into thinking he was an Anglo-Saxon.
He is my Lord
Good for you
His looks doesn't matter, he came to guide us. People like them will burn in hell, no one with even an atom worth of arrogance will enter heaven.
Amen, it is so hard to change a heretics mind. Blasphemous
he was a sub 5
that's why they didn't believe him
that's why they didn't believe him
I think ironically Jesus being a 5'5 brown skinned man fits Christian message better than with him being a tall white Chad.
Why? You may ask.
Because it would've followed the message that it's all about your inner soul, rather than exterior. Him looking like an average man and not like some mystical figure, would've elevated message, showing anyone could be capable of good deeds.
That what's inside your soul matters more than the appearance outside. I would've liked the idea of a 5'5 brown man winning people over with his teachings and wisdom more than of some tall Chad simply getting praised and seen as a god for being born pretty.
Amen, I agree.
God sent him to Earth as an average man, to spread the word - not as an angelic chad.
Are Australians Catholics? I thought they were protestants. Idk much about religion in Australia. Just curious.
Last edited:
Technically they're now all Muslims from how many immigrants have been let in, but real Australians if they're christians are generally catholic.
Shit never works out when you have different religions all in one place. It feels so awkward.
This is why I dislike Bosnia especially for that particular reason.
And we've seen that more recently than ever - with the attack at bondi - mixing in Jews with Muslims.
Muslims have been instructed to kill the infidel and abolish the Jews, so mixing in these 2 religions is ridiculous and will never end well.
Are you from Bosnia? My mother is Bosnian/Croation
I don't speak the language at all, only my mother does. I was brought up in Australia learning English.
My father moved to Australia in the early 70s from the UK, and my mothers parents moved to Australia just before she was born.
How's in Aussie land?
It's a good place, but is being over run with woke ideologies and 3rd worlders.
Although in my area there is less, but more Chads than almost any other area.
If he came back as a sub 5 manlet they would nail him to a cross again.
he lived a humbling life for sure. became something beyond chad
He was sub5, thats my goat
exactely
gay ecclesiasthics to be more accurate. During the reinassance artists were 99% under pope's men contracts, italian plebs were not minding about art, pretty much farmers. Faggotry is epitome of christianity.
Also sevirely balding actually, there are newer updated reconstructions but yeah, pretty much...
How did people even believe him in the first place and followed him with his sub5 looks??
first of all, as an Italian from Rome who studied both latin and history on depth, technically, there aren't evidences of his "miracolous existence". From the scripts of Catullus and Cicero (so actual chronists from the era and NOT christiancels of any sort) we can only be sure that, among the many crucified prisoners of the east, there was one weird egomaniac causing disturbance in the streets called Yushua aka Yussuf aka Jesus. Crucified in his 30s. That's literally it. Everything else we been reading is from 1000y later and coming from a revamped remake of a fantasy books saga called "Bible" used by a powerful cult as a mass controlling weapon to brainwash peasants firsts, then lords, then kings later and then niggers and south americans. When a fable is enforced with brutality, empowered with money, it becomes a fact. That's the concept of "status quo" recapped very poorly here, and i'm sorry but it would take 200 pages just to be called schyzo by some illiterates after.
To reply to your question: he was made white 9/10 after a certain year because the holy church actually knew about the power of aesthetic when it comes to create an icon.
Last edited:
Wow so he might not even have been followed back then and it's a myth
yup, probably a couple of delusional homeless jews used to be his friends, maybe not even that. Maybe he wasn't even "the dude" and when the Bible was reviewed they picked a name of an existing random crucified prisoners of the romans registries to make their shit more believable. We can't time travel unfortunately.
Personally i dislike the facial reconstructions of jesus done by modern science mainly cause they werent directly linked to any close decedents of Jesus but were rather a group of random People's skulls brought together to create an average of what someone from that time period might have looked like. the reason i dont think this is a valid way of identifying how someone from this era would have looked like is cause if we did the same thing collected the average facial structures of 5 random white guys would that be an accurate representation of someone in the same race who is not related to a single one of them?
(also this isnt a defense of the other representations of Christ just saying this one isnt accurate to how he looked like)
The most accurate description given is the one in the bible that of an average man who lived the life of working class man and had the face of one
(also this isnt a defense of the other representations of Christ just saying this one isnt accurate to how he looked like)
The most accurate description given is the one in the bible that of an average man who lived the life of working class man and had the face of one
Today’s Hebrews_not Israel.
Mary’s brother and former High Priest Eleazar was the "Lazarus" whom Jesus raised from the dead, his Beloved Disciple.
View: https://youtube.com/shorts/AinoVahBlws?si=1QbUxGOygCx43BFa
Lazuri dance
I don't believe The Bible was altered
First OT can't be because of the Jews, second if it was revamped or rewritten it would please the catholic church dogma
Third there is many accounts outside of The Bible
M
JESUS WAS 4'6 according to Catholic exegesis. Vatican II is a lie. Catholics thousands of years ago were basically incels who had power.
See official description of Jesus here:
Early Catholics Understood Blackpill
Found on incel.wiki: "Tertullian can be seen as an early Christocel, as he wrote very much against female hypergamy and was celibate himself. Augustine, similarly. The first Christian, Jesus Christ, arguably a volcel, understood blackpill. His Mystical Body, the Church, divinely inspired...
incels.is
Jesus is our savior
M
"Tertullian can be seen as an early Christocel, as he wrote very much against female hypergamy and was celibate himself. Augustine, similarly.
The first Christian, Jesus Christ, arguably a volcel, understood blackpill.
His Mystical Body, the Church, divinely inspired, knew that if the secret of evolution was ever allowed to spread, the masses would act in a similar fashion as women act today, accepting the idea of evolution for 'eugenics' purposes, thwarting the family and depriving men of the opposite sex.
So in a counter-intuitive way, the Church — then the ruler of the world —understood that if you want humans to “evolve” away from their animal nature into a civilized form, you must keep the secret of evolution... a secret.
Christian groups in Texas want schools to teach Creationism along with Evolution. Perhaps the Church is trying to turn back the damage caused by letting masses study “evolution”.
There might, likewise, be a similar reason why the Church opposed Heliocentrism.
Humans will act more civilized if we think we are special and the center of the universe. Tinder and other modern-day ills happen because people think we are simply evolved apes who are on a tiny rock orbiting a small star which is among billions of other similar stars.
Therefore, the church knew about evolution but opposed faggot Charles Darwin because they understood that if the masses were given this knowledge it would lead to disaster.
Tinder proved them right.
We can learn a similar secret in Jesus, who stood at 4’6 short.
The official physical description of Jesus from Bishops to Emperor Theodosius in the 4th Century, which is the official Catholic Church's description of Jesus' physical appearance, as quoted by Eisler, ([26]:393–394,414–415), describes Him, here "quoting Hierosolymitanus and John of Damascus, [...] as having had connate eyebrows with goodly eyes and being [...] long-faced, crooked and well-grown. In a letter of certain bishops to the Emperor Theophilus, Jesus's height is described as 3 cubits (four foot six), which was also the opinion of Ephrem Syrus (320–379 AD): "God took human form and appeared in the form of three human ells (cubits); he came down to us small of stature."
Theodore of Mopsuestia likewise claimed that the appearance of Christ was smaller than that of the children of Jacob (Israel).
Jesus's prediction that he would be taunted "Physician, heal yourself" may suggest that Jesus was indeed physically deformed ("crooked" or hunch-backed), as claimed in the early Christian texts.
And here's the most interesting part: "Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Ambrose considered lack of physical attractiveness in Jesus as fulfilling the messianic prophecy Suffering Servant narrative of Isaiah 53."
Ancients weren’t stupid, they knew the truth.
They knew that tall, chads get respected and short incels get mocked. They knew that if the messiah came down, he won’t come as chad, that would be too easy. He would instead come in the form of a short man.
Jesus came to suffer and sacrifice himself for short and ugly men, the fact that he is short already shows that God knows that short, ugly men came to suffer. It seems that ties into a greater pattern of Jesus’s external circumstances (such as his background and physical appearance).
Let’s face it, He wasn’t tall, handsome and well built with blue eyes (contrary to the way he’s been regularly illustrated over the course of history, since many simply cannot comprehend such a divine figure looking like an average guy, or 'worse' — lookism at work).
For the Son of God, he was quite unremarkable when it comes to physical appearance.
But I am fairly certain that’s the whole point; why would Jesus need to be a good looking guy born into luxury and greatness? What lesson would be learnt? What suffering would he need to go through?
Our Jesus Christ was a short, ugly man. He didn’t come down as a chad, instead he came in the form of a short man.
"For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. – Book of Isaiah, Chapter 53, Verse 2."
The first Christian, Jesus Christ, arguably a volcel, understood blackpill.
His Mystical Body, the Church, divinely inspired, knew that if the secret of evolution was ever allowed to spread, the masses would act in a similar fashion as women act today, accepting the idea of evolution for 'eugenics' purposes, thwarting the family and depriving men of the opposite sex.
So in a counter-intuitive way, the Church — then the ruler of the world —understood that if you want humans to “evolve” away from their animal nature into a civilized form, you must keep the secret of evolution... a secret.
Christian groups in Texas want schools to teach Creationism along with Evolution. Perhaps the Church is trying to turn back the damage caused by letting masses study “evolution”.
There might, likewise, be a similar reason why the Church opposed Heliocentrism.
Humans will act more civilized if we think we are special and the center of the universe. Tinder and other modern-day ills happen because people think we are simply evolved apes who are on a tiny rock orbiting a small star which is among billions of other similar stars.
Therefore, the church knew about evolution but opposed faggot Charles Darwin because they understood that if the masses were given this knowledge it would lead to disaster.
Tinder proved them right.
We can learn a similar secret in Jesus, who stood at 4’6 short.
The official physical description of Jesus from Bishops to Emperor Theodosius in the 4th Century, which is the official Catholic Church's description of Jesus' physical appearance, as quoted by Eisler, ([26]:393–394,414–415), describes Him, here "quoting Hierosolymitanus and John of Damascus, [...] as having had connate eyebrows with goodly eyes and being [...] long-faced, crooked and well-grown. In a letter of certain bishops to the Emperor Theophilus, Jesus's height is described as 3 cubits (four foot six), which was also the opinion of Ephrem Syrus (320–379 AD): "God took human form and appeared in the form of three human ells (cubits); he came down to us small of stature."
Theodore of Mopsuestia likewise claimed that the appearance of Christ was smaller than that of the children of Jacob (Israel).
Jesus's prediction that he would be taunted "Physician, heal yourself" may suggest that Jesus was indeed physically deformed ("crooked" or hunch-backed), as claimed in the early Christian texts.
And here's the most interesting part: "Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Ambrose considered lack of physical attractiveness in Jesus as fulfilling the messianic prophecy Suffering Servant narrative of Isaiah 53."
Ancients weren’t stupid, they knew the truth.
They knew that tall, chads get respected and short incels get mocked. They knew that if the messiah came down, he won’t come as chad, that would be too easy. He would instead come in the form of a short man.
Jesus came to suffer and sacrifice himself for short and ugly men, the fact that he is short already shows that God knows that short, ugly men came to suffer. It seems that ties into a greater pattern of Jesus’s external circumstances (such as his background and physical appearance).
Let’s face it, He wasn’t tall, handsome and well built with blue eyes (contrary to the way he’s been regularly illustrated over the course of history, since many simply cannot comprehend such a divine figure looking like an average guy, or 'worse' — lookism at work).
For the Son of God, he was quite unremarkable when it comes to physical appearance.
But I am fairly certain that’s the whole point; why would Jesus need to be a good looking guy born into luxury and greatness? What lesson would be learnt? What suffering would he need to go through?
Our Jesus Christ was a short, ugly man. He didn’t come down as a chad, instead he came in the form of a short man.
"For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. – Book of Isaiah, Chapter 53, Verse 2."
We have seen this happen in modern times. Just look at how leftists used AI to make Alex Pretti look more handsome.
Last edited:
White men were something like 5'6 back then at least in my country.
I know the Vikings were something like 5'8 1000 years later.
I know the Vikings were something like 5'8 1000 years later.
Being 5'5 wasn't abnormal back then though. There probably would have been plenty of 5'0 men back then especially in ethnic countries.
A
Jesus was a jew plus he was hated on thats why he died on the cross and people believed he was the devil but people saw him heal and raise people from the dead and himself its just the other humans making him white chad
Similar threads
Serious
To religiouscels, what tf was 'the all loving' 'omnipotent' God thinking when he created this world?
- ndltn
- Inceldom Discussion
randomBlud
Users who are viewing this thread
