Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Theory [THEOLOGY] Jesus and Muhammad were related

  • Thread starter BummerDrummerOG
  • Start date
BummerDrummerOG

BummerDrummerOG

卐 卍࿕࿖࿗࿘ꖦ
-
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Posts
21,421
I have a theory to discuss about the possibility of Jesus and Muhammad both being of the same ethnic group or at the very least similar ones. To do this I need to prove that both Jesus and Muhammad were the same race (that being broad white). Note that I'm not religious and this is just a theory. Please be open minded as this is a work in progress theory.

PART 1: JESUS
Jesus was born in Galilee. "jesus was born in bethleham!" you may ask, but actually there was a Bethlehem of the Galilee, which is probably what the bible meant. To back up this claim there is a story in the bible of Joseph and Mary (Mary being 9 months pregnant) going to Bethlehem of Judea from Nazareth to be counted in the roman census. They would have had to travel 175 Kilometers (46 miles) to get there. How would a 9 months pregnant woman with a donkey travel 46 miles? It's simply more plausible that instead they traveled 7 kilometers, or 4 miles instead, which is the distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of the Galilee. The second evidence of Jesus being from Galilee is that Mary is from Tzippori and Joseph is from Bethlehem of Judea, which are incredibly far away from eachother. Especially for the ancient world. However bethlehem of the Galileee and Tzippori are very close. It's much more plausible for them to meet as Mary and joseph's birth places are closer together.

Now, why is Jesus being born in Galilee so important? Because Galilee was known for having an Indo european population. All over Europe and the middle east there were celtic tribes with the prefix "gal". GAL-edones in Scotland, GAEls in Ireland, GALicians in spain, GAULs in france, GAL-ations in turkey. This would mean that GALilee is celtic, GALileans in Northern Palestine. If Jesus was from Galilee (proven in the first paragraph), he would've been Celtic white with possibly a little bit darker skin to make up for the sun but not too dark.

So we've established what Jesus was, now let's go on to Muhammad


PART 2: MUHAMMAD
Muhammad is in many ways easier to prove his race. While we don't know completely we have 2 pieces of evidence: His descendants and the Quran.
image0.png

1612830497038

There are all kinds of verses about how Muhammad was pale. So pale that it drew attention from other arabs. With that being said, we also know from his descendants.
1612830859080

This is muhammad's 34th grandson. Through this protected bloodline of what used to be caliphs this is probably the closest thing we can see to the real deal. Looks a bit light doesn't he? Not "white" but also whiter then the average arab. He wouldn't look very out of the ordinary if he was in say...Ireland? With the celts? And that's what leads us to the final GIGA THEORY.

PART 3: THE GIGA THEORY
The conslusions I have come up with, after seeing both individuals described similarly and matching them up, is that Muhammad and Jesus were both Indo European in some form or fashion, and more specifically both were probably Celtic. This part by far has the most "shaky" evidence but it really isn't that crazy. 2 of the people who created the largest Abrahamic religions on earth happening to be related is truly not that weird. It could also explain why in the Qur'an Jesus was considered a prophet and both religions are incredibly similar in their raw guidelines and restrictions. These 2 religions are similar because both people were apart of the same broad culture and were taught the same broad values. If you're religious this should make even more sense as god coming down to both people and influencing/guiding their religion. This also wouldn't be out of the question as Indo Aryans also were the ones who practically created Hinduism (as hinduism was created by the Vedas texts and the Vedas were indo aryan).
 
Do you believe in God OP?
 
Do you believe in God OP?
Dunno, pretty agnostic ngl. I would be considered too hedonistic and also my belief set doesn't fit into a designated religion. If god is real though he is not this limp wristed brown monkey sifting through the desert like (((((((((((((((((()))))))) portray him.
 
>muhammed's 34th grandson is a White looking ginger
can't make this shit up
 
time to @ some niggas
@Mainländer @ThePopeofCope @FlamingCel @Uggo Mongo @Azaylias @PotatoTomato
 
Jesus was probably light brown to white in terms of skin but brown-eyed and haired. This is how Solomon is described in Song of Songs, he was Jesus's ancestor. This is also the most common phenotype for people in the middle east. He certainly wasn't black like the black hebrew roots movement claims and it's very unlikely that He was blue-eyed and blonde/redhaired either. The most famous portrait of Jesus was actually a male model from Italy in the 14th century. The "catholic" "church" has always used Chads for its propaganda.

When Judas betrayed Jesus, he gave Jesus a kiss to show the Roman soldiers which one was Jesus. Had he been a tall, white, Nordic-looking gigachad, He could just have said "it's the only white gigachad over there" instead of it.

Also, Jesus was ugly according to the prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 53:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
 
Last edited:
I have a theory to discuss about the possibility of Jesus and Muhammad both being of the same ethnic group or at the very least similar ones. To do this I need to prove that both Jesus and Muhammad were the same race (that being broad white). Note that I'm not religious and this is just a theory. Please be open minded as this is a work in progress theory.

PART 1: JESUS
Jesus was born in Galilee. "jesus was born in bethleham!" you may ask, but actually there was a Bethlehem of the Galilee, which is probably what the bible meant. To back up this claim there is a story in the bible of Joseph and Mary (Mary being 9 months pregnant) going to Bethlehem of Judea from Nazareth to be counted in the roman census. They would have had to travel 175 Kilometers (46 miles) to get there. How would a 9 months pregnant woman with a donkey travel 46 miles? It's simply more plausible that instead they traveled 7 kilometers, or 4 miles instead, which is the distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of the Galilee. The second evidence of Jesus being from Galilee is that Mary is from Tzippori and Joseph is from Bethlehem of Judea, which are incredibly far away from eachother. Especially for the ancient world. However bethlehem of the Galileee and Tzippori are very close. It's much more plausible for them to meet as Mary and joseph's birth places are closer together.

Now, why is Jesus being born in Galilee so important? Because Galilee was known for having an Indo european population. All over Europe and the middle east there were celtic tribes with the prefix "gal". GAL-edones in Scotland, GAEls in Ireland, GALicians in spain, GAULs in france, GAL-ations in turkey. This would mean that GALilee is celtic, GALileans in Northern Palestine. If Jesus was from Galilee (proven in the first paragraph), he would've been Celtic white with possibly a little bit darker skin to make up for the sun but not too dark.

So we've established what Jesus was, now let's go on to Muhammad


PART 2: MUHAMMAD
Muhammad is in many ways easier to prove his race. While we don't know completely we have 2 pieces of evidence: His descendants and the Quran.
image0.png

View attachment 406595
There are all kinds of verses about how Muhammad was pale. So pale that it drew attention from other arabs. With that being said, we also know from his descendants.
View attachment 406596
This is muhammad's 34th grandson. Through this protected bloodline of what used to be caliphs this is probably the closest thing we can see to the real deal. Looks a bit light doesn't he? Not "white" but also whiter then the average arab. He wouldn't look very out of the ordinary if he was in say...Ireland? With the celts? And that's what leads us to the final GIGA THEORY.

PART 3: THE GIGA THEORY
The conslusions I have come up with, after seeing both individuals described similarly and matching them up, is that Muhammad and Jesus were both Indo European in some form or fashion, and more specifically both were probably Celtic. This part by far has the most "shaky" evidence but it really isn't that crazy. 2 of the people who created the largest Abrahamic religions on earth happening to be related is truly not that weird. It could also explain why in the Qur'an Jesus was considered a prophet and both religions are incredibly similar in their raw guidelines and restrictions. These 2 religions are similar because both people were apart of the same broad culture and were taught the same broad values. If you're religious this should make even more sense as god coming down to both people and influencing/guiding their religion. This also wouldn't be out of the question as Indo Aryans also were the ones who practically created Hinduism (as hinduism was created by the Vedas texts and the Vedas were indo aryan).
Jesuslossus tbh ngl ded srs

@Weed
 
Jesus was probably light brown to white in terms of skin but brown-eyed and haired. This is how Solomon is described in Song of Songs, he was Jesus's ancestor. This is also the most common phenotype for people in the middle east. He certainly wasn't black like the black hebrew roots movement claims and he very likely wasn't blue-eyed and blonde/redhaired.
Yeah but You don’t think Solomon got lighter possibly as he mixed in with the galilleans? I think the jesus we’ve been using for however long has worked fine. As much as the libs whine the church doesn’t depict jesus as a nord or whatever and never has. They just don’t portray him as a nignog
3B525336 7192 4C33 AC80 9A25BBB792D5
 
Yes they are related because abraham and sarah are parents of the isrealite s , and Abraham and the Egyptian Haggar are parents of the arabs.
So abraham is both the father of the isrealites and arabs.
 
Jesus was probably light brown to white in terms of skin but brown-eyed and haired. This is how Solomon is described in Song of Songs, he was Jesus's ancestor. This is also the most common phenotype for people in the middle east. He certainly wasn't black like the black hebrew roots movement claims and it's very unlikely that He was blue-eyed and blonde/redhaired either.
Yeah. Somehow this has been misunderstood though and people either believe Jesus to be a tall, hippy looking white guy or a black man. Sandcels got glossed over again @tehgymcel420 @gymletethnicel
The most famous portrait of Jesus was actually a male model from Italy in the 14th century. The "catholic" "church" has always used Chads for its propaganda.
High IQ.
When Judas betrayed Jesus, he gave Jesus a kiss to show the Roman soldiers which one was Jesus. Had he been a tall, white, Nordic-looking gigachad, He could just have said "it's the only white gigachad over there" instead of it.

Also, Jesus was ugly according to the prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 53:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Image below is way more accurate than the white Jesus that is commonly portrayed in anglo countries imo.
1612834744808
 
racepilled again
Just like the present people only see white and black males. This view makes sense given the demographics of Scamerica but it's spreading worldwide now where all these racial issues between white and black people are far less prevalent.
 
Yeah. Somehow this has been misunderstood though and people either believe Jesus to be a tall, hippy looking white guy or a black man. Sandcels got glossed over again @tehgymcel420 @gymletethnicel

High IQ.

Image below is way more accurate than the white Jesus that is commonly portrayed in anglo countries imo.
View attachment 406609
Jesus wasn’t arab, he didn’t look like a crooked nose nigger either. I explained what he looked like; a celt
46F34E9A 8D78 4057 8956 F6EE8BE9A7DF

that picture is what the soy faggots say he is. I don’t buy it for a bit. Don’t trust anything given to you by VICE
 
Both Christianity and Islam are controlled opposition created by kikes.
 
Jesus wasn’t arab, he didn’t look like a crooked nose nigger either. I explained what he looked like; a celt
View attachment 406612
What would Celts be doing in the Middle East though? All the stories in the Old and New Testament unfolded either in modern day Israel-Jordan-Syria-Egypt or countries near the Mediterranean sea.
that picture is what the soy faggots say he is. I don’t buy it for a bit. Don’t trust anything given to you by VICE
It wasn't given by VICE. It appears to be made by British anatomical scientist Richard Neave in 2001. Imo it was only widely reported on after that whole debacle about Megyn Kelly saying Santa Claus and Jesus were white @PPEcel
 
"Jesus was an irish scotsman"

One of the biggest stormfront copes so far
 
What would Celts be doing in the Middle East though? All the stories in the Old and New Testament unfolded either in modern day Israel-Jordan-Syria-Egypt or countries near the Mediterranean sea.
The indo aryan migrations. You link all these Jewish companies like the BBC who tried claiming ancient Roman britons were black.

GAL. GALILEE. The prefix GAL is Celtic. Just like the Galicians or the Galatians
"Jesus was an irish scotsman"

One of the biggest stormfront copes so far
CBE5D884 1065 4DBD A37C 044436AFEE32

Explain the gal prefix son
 
The indo aryan migrations. You link all these Jewish companies like the BBC who tried claiming ancient Roman britons were black.
Here is a link on that same story not from BBC. The story didn't originate from the BBC or newstatesman. They just reported on it.
GAL. GALILEE. The prefix GAL is Celtic. Just like the Galicians or the Galatians
Didn't @JegErSkribent address this point though?
Galileans are not the same as Galatians.

Galileans are not Galatians. There is no connection between Galilee and Galatia which is in fucking Turkey. And Galilee's etymology: The region's Israelite name is from the Hebrew root גָּלִיל (galíl), an ultimately unique word for 'district', and usually 'cylinder'.
And the location of Galatia is in Turkey not in a Celtic country.

Though the timing of the Indo-Aryan migrations seems to coincide with the Biblical time periods in the Old and New Testament so it's still possible. It just makes sense though that it's more likely that most of the characters in the bible were of Middle Eastern ethnic origin, because most of the stories in the bible take place in the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
all the prophets are related and descendant from Abraham OP
 
Here is a link on that same story not from BBC. The story didn't originate from the BBC or newstatesman. They just reported on it.
Yeah but its from the same soy source
Didn't @JegErSkribent address this point though?
Galileans are not the same as Galatians.
It's not galileeans and galatians.

It's GALicians, GAULs, Galileeans, it's all GAL.
GAL-edones in Scotland, GAEls in Ireland,

And the location of Galatia is in Turkey not in a Celtic country.
It had celtic populations though.
1612839188685

Asiatic turks were not always in Anatolia. They are relatively new.
Galatia is celtic, just like galicians are and just like the gaels and galedones
Though the timing of the Indo-Aryan migrations seems to coincide with the Biblical time periods in the Old and New Testament so it's still possible. It just makes sense though that it's more likely that most of the characters in the bible were of Middle Eastern ethnic origin, because most of the stories in the bible take place in the Middle East.
They are right next to the biblical areas.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but its from the same soy source
There wasn't .edu or paper where this was published. It was done by a retired anatomical scientist so maybe that's why. If I had found the original source I found have linked that.
It's not galileeans and galatians.

It's GALicians, GAULs, Galileeans, it's all GAL.
GAL-edones in Scotland, GAEls in Ireland,
But the Galician people were mostly in Spain and the Iberian Peninsula and not the Middle East.
I can see how the Gauls and Galatians are related though.
It had celtic populations though.
View attachment 406641
Asiatic turks were not always in Anatolia. They are relatively new.
Eastern Eurasians and some Celtics were in Anatolia then instead of Central Asiatic people?
The map you posted also says the maximal extent of the Celtic territory was at 275 BC. That was hundreds of years before Jesus's birth. Unless there were remnant populations of Celtic people in areas like Bethlehem where Jesus is alleged to have been born. But Bethlehem is in Israel and there isn't much talk about Celtic people being in Israel except in British Israelism, which is like the white version of Black Hebrew Israelites tbh
Galatia is celtic, just like galicians are and just like the gaels and galedones
Yeah I see that the language Galatians spoke is related to Gaulish which was spoken by Ancient Celtic people.
They are right next to the biblical areas.
True the pathways of Indo-Aryan migration do pass through biblical areas so one can't completely discount the possibility. But it still makes more sense for all the characters in the bible to have a Middle Eastern (Arabic or Israelite) ethnic origin and not Indo-Aryan origin.

Depictions of Jesus as a white man with blonde or brown hair were made by Europeans while depictions of Jesus as Asian are made in countries like China. Every country wants to show Jesus as being the same race as the people in that country so pictures of Jesus painted by Europeans that show Jesus as a white man with blonde or brown hair aren't entirely convincing imo.
 
I want to change something here: like I said this is a work in progress

Arabic is a Semitic language, however like said Muhammad was pale and his closest descendant alive is a ginger. I think that they are still both related but Muhammad was probably mixed with Afro Arabic as well as indo European (hence the uncommonly pale skin tone). Given the closeness of the gulf of Hormuz this seems quite plausible.
White as in pale, not white as in white race.
 
tell them spare us from this misery or give us foid.
 
Queen Elizabeth might be descended from Muhammed.
 
jesus was chinese
 
@BummerDrummer do you believe in God/higher power?
 
“Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."
Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375
 

Similar threads

copemaxx9002
Replies
9
Views
271
blackpillscience
blackpillscience
sociology blackpill
Replies
27
Views
707
anandkonda
anandkonda
IronsideCel
Replies
11
Views
316
proudweeb
proudweeb
S
Replies
12
Views
253
NeverEvenBegan
NeverEvenBegan
T
Replies
13
Views
352
turbosperg
turbosperg

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top