When in reality he was an ugly, ethnic
Brown-haired normie*
Jesus didn't even die JFL he went away for 3 days and looksmaxxed.
Brown-haired =/= blonde, mate
Whites have always made everything in their image in those days, to worship an ethnic back then was most likely an insult to any white European.
i dont give a fuck, you get the point
R
Nice meme pic. Been talking about this for ages. The fact that white people had to change his race completely is both the lookspill and racepill incarnate. They couldn't bring themselves to worship an ugly god. So they betrayed their god and created a new one they liked better.
You think foids would have worshipped a ugly ethnic god?
Yeshua Ha-notzri looked like me.
I can't take Christianity seriously because of this, why would I as an ethnic worship some whitewashed nordic Chad god?
There is no escaping the race and lookspill, it's everywhere especially in religion.
There is no escaping the race and lookspill, it's everywhere especially in religion.
Jesus was killed by Jews
#NeverForget
#NeverForget
It's almost like artists in the ancient and medieval world didn't have access to internet or reliable hard-copy reference material for how foreign people looked, so the people they drew tended to look like the people they lived around.
Smol brains in here.
Smol brains in here.
B
It is a stereotype, in fact most of the representations of Jesus are a Mediterranean South Caucasian to the Middle East.
but still he is always a handsome man.
but still he is always a handsome man.
Im honesty more offended by black people trying to claim every nonwhite race as black tbh
Religion is a scam, if you believe in a God, believe in that being to yourself.
Even Jesus couldn't slay today with his looks. JFL
dont forget betabux joseph married the 'virgin' mary who ended up getting cucked by chad god but raised jesus anyway cos he was a low t numale
Joseph was 90 years old and Mary was around 13 years old.
over for religioncels
He took enough sacred showers
He was killed by the Romans actually, the apostles retconned it after Jerusalem was sacked by Rome in 70AD because the anti-Roman sentiment in Christianity (the idea around which the movement was originally based) was drawing too much negative attention from the Empire and would have been eradicated from the Diaspora had they not adopted a less anti-roman message.
The Romans killed him but it was the Jews who wanted him dead. I’m pretty sure I read that Pontius Pilate didn’t want to kill him. He saw no guilt but the Jewish mob cried for him to die.
If you are truly interested in the this there is a fantastic book titled ‘Zealot’ by Reza Aslan that covers this exact subject. The truth is that going by Pontius Pilot’s historical profile, there is absolutely no way he would have been sympathetic to the plight of Jesus as he was in no way subtle about his contempt for the Jews and Jewish unrest under his governorship and quashed rebellions with excessively brutal suppression. He was actually reported to Rome for handing out too many executions without trial for Jewish nationalists and reactionaries (which is what Jesus actually was) so the idea that he would advocate his innocence or be swayed by the opinion by a mob of people he utterly despised is totally laughable (he once had a mob of peaceful Jewish protesters massacred in the streets for protesting against his decision to sell their ancient temple artifices in order to restock the Roman armour).
The reason Pilot is depicted as sympathetic towards Jesus in the gospels (written 60 years after the death of Jesus and 10 years after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem) is because there was no longer an established Jewish stronghold in Israel from which to criticise Rome because the Jews had to disperse throughout the Roman Empire after their capital was destroyed (which is why their populations can be seen all over Europe today). You can understand why the Christian converts could not depict Pilot as he truly was, as a despotic suppressionist as they were now living in Roman cities preaching in front of Roman citizens.
Proof of the fact that Jesus’s death was a Roman conspiracy rather than a Jewish council (the Sephradim) conspiracy is evidenced in the fact he was crucified at all. Crucifixion was a specific punishment reserved for crimes of sedition against Roman rule, the Sephardim used stoning as their method of execution as is the method prescribed by the Tora. They had the right to carry out executions themselves, so if Jesus’s death was their agenda he would have been stoned to death as is the traditional custom rather than crucified.
A made-up image for a made-up God, it fits. At least the Greeks had imagined Gods with recessed chins.
no man. It was the Jews
Nonsense. Pilate asked the Juden if they wanted to kill Jesus Christ or the rapist killer Barabbas. The Kikes of course choosed to save Barabbas and kill JC, claiming that the blame for his death will be on them and on their descendants. Romans only did that to appease the Juden and avoid another war.
If Jesus was still alive he would probably be an Incel
This whole thread is kekfuel.
Lookism is everywhere, even in religion.
best morph in human history
He was an incel in his times too, there is a theory that he was also a cuck, he used to date a prostitute, JFL.
Jesus was a jew. Jews are light skinned. I do not believe he was brown.
LOL, so we're gonna believe you over what science says?
R
Abrahamic religions are not white people religion and everything you said makes no sense and also has got nothing to do with white people/their gods.
Edit. Also lots of people in the thread are absolute idiots and bandwagoning on something they have no understanding of, just so they can say "told you".
Last edited:
I don't believe in "science".
he was Aryan, just brown haired Celto-Turk and came to kill the God of the jews.
R
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm referring to these people:
Who would rather worship this guy:
Instead of this guy:
Because Lookism and Racism are the true Gods of this world.
R
Yes I understand that. The problem is, is that abrahamic religions is not either created by white people or is for white people, thus has actually got nothing to do with white people.I'm not sure what you mean. I'm referring to these people:
Who would rather worship this guy:
Instead of this guy:
Because Lookism and Racism are the true Gods of this world.
What you're pointing out is a brainwash system. Or just a single instance of it from the list of hundreds in their tactics book.
For example entire christianity is based around "ancient" white people traditions and customs, only because (((they))) otherwise would have had no chance of infiltrating the culture to begin with. It's all for brainwash purpose, with intention of it working over hundreds of years and not immediate benefits. It's a long-con, it has fooled so many people, even here this thread is an example, only through virtue of it being old and expansive.
Of course nobody from Europe is going to worship an ugly sandnigger so to say, it is done so, that one might relate to it somehow, with an intention to deceive.
Categorically no, Jesus was a Jew himself, we are ridiculing the fact he is often depicted as a white Chadlite in this very thread.
no man. it was the Jews
Have you ever saw a Jew that looks like the version those "scientists" (who were most certainly not infected by social justice in the slightest at all) came up with?
It's just black washing for the sake of inculcating into people the idea race means nothing so that globalists can more easily build their new world order. Pure propaganda. And it is also an attack on Christianity given that their version is purposely lacking any feature of a regal or inspiring kind. By making Christ look like as "mundane" as possible they are hoping to undermine the claims of his divinity and regality (Christ came from the line of David which was an aristocratic line. His "lowly" occupation as a carpenter is a red herring also because it was common for Rabbis in those times to take up common occupations, and Christ also happened to be a Rabbi, who could read Hebrew and who preached from scriptures). Again, no agenda there, i'm sure.
This is the earliest "realistic" portrait of Christ that has ever survived:
And most iconography has followed this image. This painting was made in the 6th century, preserved in a monastery is Sinai, build by a Roman emperor. Now it is likely that the artist used his own race as an ideal in the absence of an actual model, but then, the Jews that lived there six hundred years before and that probably still lived around the same area this artist lived weren't terribly different from the painting in question:
And the Jews themselves in those times didn't look terribly different from the Romans and Greeks around them, the artist of that painting being a Greek person.
None of this makes any difference because all traditional depictions of Christ were symbolic, not realistic. Thus, in the Ethiopian Church we find Jesus portrayed as an African:
And in China, he was given the traits of a Chinese man:
To me this just seems normal and obvious, especially if you take into account how insular cultures were in ancient times. In 6th century Italy, we have a man as prominent Pope Gregory I being startled by the look of the Anglo-Saxon slaves brought to the Roman market. Never having seen people with blond hair and blue eyes, he inquired as to the origin of those people, and upon being told those were Angles, he commented that those looked more like Angels (Non Angli, sed angeli ), which fostered his desire to bring Christianity to England. Just imagine a world in which you could go on your entire life and not meet or interact with anyone that didn't belong to your own race. How shocking then that so many depictions of Christ were made in the image of the artist who made them in the first place? What else would anyone expect? The idea that there had to be some kind of "racist" motive underlying any depiction of Christ as a white person, where Christianity has historically spread out mostly among people of European descend, is simply an absurdity. By the same token, every depiction of the Buddha as an Asian man is also racist, given that the Buddha came from India, not the east. But nobody finds it extraordinary that he is most often portrayed as an Asian man given that Buddhism spread out mostly in Asia, having left India, but somehow when it comes to Jesus that is problematic and endemic of the inherent "evil" of the white peoples, who just did what everybody else has done, make art in their own image.
It's just black washing for the sake of inculcating into people the idea race means nothing so that globalists can more easily build their new world order. Pure propaganda. And it is also an attack on Christianity given that their version is purposely lacking any feature of a regal or inspiring kind. By making Christ look like as "mundane" as possible they are hoping to undermine the claims of his divinity and regality (Christ came from the line of David which was an aristocratic line. His "lowly" occupation as a carpenter is a red herring also because it was common for Rabbis in those times to take up common occupations, and Christ also happened to be a Rabbi, who could read Hebrew and who preached from scriptures). Again, no agenda there, i'm sure.
This is the earliest "realistic" portrait of Christ that has ever survived:
And most iconography has followed this image. This painting was made in the 6th century, preserved in a monastery is Sinai, build by a Roman emperor. Now it is likely that the artist used his own race as an ideal in the absence of an actual model, but then, the Jews that lived there six hundred years before and that probably still lived around the same area this artist lived weren't terribly different from the painting in question:
And the Jews themselves in those times didn't look terribly different from the Romans and Greeks around them, the artist of that painting being a Greek person.
None of this makes any difference because all traditional depictions of Christ were symbolic, not realistic. Thus, in the Ethiopian Church we find Jesus portrayed as an African:
And in China, he was given the traits of a Chinese man:
To me this just seems normal and obvious, especially if you take into account how insular cultures were in ancient times. In 6th century Italy, we have a man as prominent Pope Gregory I being startled by the look of the Anglo-Saxon slaves brought to the Roman market. Never having seen people with blond hair and blue eyes, he inquired as to the origin of those people, and upon being told those were Angles, he commented that those looked more like Angels (Non Angli, sed angeli ), which fostered his desire to bring Christianity to England. Just imagine a world in which you could go on your entire life and not meet or interact with anyone that didn't belong to your own race. How shocking then that so many depictions of Christ were made in the image of the artist who made them in the first place? What else would anyone expect? The idea that there had to be some kind of "racist" motive underlying any depiction of Christ as a white person, where Christianity has historically spread out mostly among people of European descend, is simply an absurdity. By the same token, every depiction of the Buddha as an Asian man is also racist, given that the Buddha came from India, not the east. But nobody finds it extraordinary that he is most often portrayed as an Asian man given that Buddhism spread out mostly in Asia, having left India, but somehow when it comes to Jesus that is problematic and endemic of the inherent "evil" of the white peoples, who just did what everybody else has done, make art in their own image.
Last edited:
Never try the jesus pill.
All of these symbols are blasphemy and you must destroy them. Topple all idols and imges of gods and demons
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
