Black Spirituality Religion : What Did Jesus Or any Biblical Character Really Look Like?

[IPXninja]

Hate isn't a word I have used... I have simply challenged the existence of this (in my view) man created so called God Creator of the Universe & all things. I totally disagree with idea/premise, etc., that 0n can just "belief" such an entity into existence, etc. I have only stated that it's humans that have created this so-called (by believers, etc.) omnipresent deity. Btw, if this God is omnipotent, then God has the power to "eliminate" all evil, etc. As the word good cannot exist without the word evil! My point has always been that religious views, religious scriptures, biblical stories etc. is not immune from challenge. One makes a challenge, the believer/religious follower, quotes a scripture that is supposed to nullify the challenge, etc. Since all things are created, in some way, etc. Who/ What, then created this God those millions of believers so revere? Was this entity created out of the Universe, etc. And to further fool humans, the biblical/theology messengers included in the story that Man was "created" in God's image! Now why am I supposed to believe this? When man cannot gaze upon this God and live, etc., Well that's what's been said! Does God then look human? Or was "mankind" simply addressing himself as a God, etc. In my view there must be sufficient evidence or reasons supporting the belief, making it reasonable to hold as true. Therefore, the questions remain... "Does God exist?" "Did Jesus exist?" And why does religion so closely abound with death? As all things rewarding for believers is associated with one's demise/departure from life, etc. While actually we know very little regarding the Universe we now travel in, etc. Since when w had no idea about it, we created images/things to make up that which mankind didn't understand or feared, etc. Mankind then looked to the sky... enough said.

And this is where I say you have valid arguments. Did humans create gods? Absolutely.
Did humans create gods by telling stories/myths about such? Absolutely.

But here's the confusion...

You and most people (myself included) have assumed that the original story about gods is the same as the strongest modern stories. Is is an assumption that if modern pastors are being deceptive then the original story tellers had to have the same motive. I disagree. After extensive study and research, my conclusion is that the origins of "gods" are in fact the origins of "science". But the idea/concept of gods wasn't literal but figurative representations of the "Forces of Nature". This is far more apparent in pagan theology as well as Eastern religions and their approach to "spirits". WESTERN minds got this all wrong even when coming into contact with these concepts and so "some people", especially those more corrupt by the concept and allure of power, tend to conflate the idea of gods with literal beings/entities. But in the original understanding/theology... no... these were energies and we needed some what of easily referencing them. So just like elements on the periodic table, different gods were "named" and their "behavior" represented the nature or characteristics of their element. It's just like saying "Firey people". What does that mean? What kind of nature does fire tend to describe?

So at some point in history, I believe science and religion "decoupled" because many people saw the value in the power/influence and that became more important to them than the knowledge/science. And so even though "god" literally translates to "power" in different languages, the literal definition was set aside in order to create these literal personas that could be used to control people's behavior, get them to pay taxes, etc. And yes, our modern concept of God falls mostly under this construct of corruption, and as you said, fooling humans. And in some way many people thought this was necessary because human nature has had to evolve in the way that we respect and treat each other. Some humans have no love or respect at all and so, mainly for them, society felt a need to use religion to control those people who empathy did not come naturally to; making them afraid of some other consequence.

"Did Jesus exist?"

I don't think he existed because the bible or Christians say so. Again... I'm not a believer. I do believe he existed but I believe it because the story tries to make him into something he wasn't in order to manipulate people into a very specific action. In other words... the original intent of the NT wasn't to create Christianity. Not at all. The original intent of the NT was to inspire Israelites to fight against Rome for independence. Yeshua/Jesus... either claimed to be their future king, thus uniting them against Rome, or this is something (like marketing) that was cooked up and claimed on his behalf. Christians tried to change this, removing it from the regional time-sensitive context of seeking Independence (Same way and same reason American colonists sought independence from England). And yes, for Christians, they have been wildly successful in changing the "narrative". That doesn't mean THEIR story (or representation of it) is true. But it indicates even more so that there was an original story that has a higher probability of being true because that story is against the interests of Roman Christians (Christianity is a Romanized form of Judaism). Rome did put a stop to the movement by crucifying its leader. However, Rome was unsuccessful in stopping the message. It's kind of like how the Middle East has been fighting forever and how that's involved America. They're fighting for Independence and see America as a foreign aggressor trying to "enslave" them. This creates a situation that allows them to actively recruit based on this dynamic.

To stop this from being a perpetual battle Rome figured out how to destroy the agitators and take over the message so that they could change it into something that wasn't "against Rome". And so now most people don't know what the hell the NT is really about when originally it was a way to build legitimacy for a rebellion. And if you don't believe me... think about it this way. The miracles they ascribed to Yeshua/Jesus were done for the same purpose that miracles were ascribed to Moses. In the case of Moses they had to fight the Egyptians for what? For freedom. And so before you go into war you want people to think God is going to be on your side. That's what miracles lead people to believe and so they think they'll be less likely to get killed for nothing because "without God" they could still die and lose the battle.

 

[SwagII]

Like I said before... it's not like you don't have a reasonable argument. You do. But 2 things can be true at the same time. So at the same time that some biblical figures may have been allegorical and may OR may not have existed as we know them... does that mean then that we should doubt them because there isn't a picture or description somewhere? No.

When reading fiction it is understandably reasonable to include some kind of description as the writer is trying to convey how THEY see this character. And so you're getting their description along with whatever details you create from your own imagination. When the subject of a story is non-fiction there may be a picture to go with the story or not. In the absence of a photo maybe there is some description of important features that might distinguish the person in some way that's relevant. But often features are only included based on relevance.

For example... Jacob's "coat of many colors" has a description that is relevant to the story but not so descriptive that you know exactly what it looked like. The writer's objective is not to try and prove to you that the coat existed, but how it relates to the story. The problem with your approach is that you're attempting to disqualify writers for not doing the thing that you expect as a reader who wants proof of existence rather than a reader who is seeking knowledge or wisdom. And so you're not looking at how other stories at the time were written to see if this was normal behavior or not. You're judging them based on more ideal 24th-century standards of journalistic integrity. And the problem is... you're just not going to find that. We have progressed in these areas. 200 years ago writers could freely quote each other without citing sources.

So you have to think about who the writer was and what their purpose and intent was at the time. A description doesn't mean the person is real. Sci-fi characters often have detailed descriptions. So then that means nothing. How many people cared about what Yeshua looked like if it was a story being told to his own (ethnic) people?

If you tell a story involving a friend who is also black... do you tell another black person that the friend is black? How much do you describe the friend? You probably don't describe them unless the feature of the description is relevant to the story. Same is true here. No one is really doubting your friend exists so you don't feel the burden of having to pre-emptively defend that. You don't be like "my friend, JB, who is tall, dark-skinned, with dreads". So think about how YOU tell stories. THEN you can apply the same type of critiques to other people and how they describe situations and events, not necessarily thinking it's important for everyone to know exactly what someone looks like. And unless the feature isn't a common or shared feature, what's the point in specifying? Just try to think about it from this perspective.

Look... If I can't see it, talking about Jesus now, not the wind or the air, etc. Why should I believe it? Here is an all-important man of the Biblical stories, a man that is supposed to have risen from the dead, and you mean to tell me, nobody has an accurate description of this man? But they can tell you word for word what this man spoke, etc. I said word for word, etc. But there is "NO" accurate description of such a man? Talking about wooly hair, etc. Its all-fabled storytelling, even the magic of Moses parting a sea, etc. C'on man... who really believes this? These theologians, and message spreaders (preachers, etc.) can't even describe his mother, Mary nor his father Joseph, etc. Seems as if nobody had last names back then either. While even to this day, your claimed God has "not" spoken to any human being, etc. And why is religion, even Christianity, so inbound with death, etc. that's when humans get their rewards, afterlife and heaven, etc. None of which exist outside of a confused mind! To be truthful about Religion is a money-making business, it lulls people into the expectation of heavenly rewards in some afterlife realm, etc. It's simply not happening... Again, one can't simply "belief" something into existence. End of story...

 

[IPXninja]

Look... If I can't see it, talking about Jesus now, not the wind or the air, etc. Why should I believe it? Here is an all-important man of the Biblical stories, a man that is supposed to have risen from the dead, and you mean to tell me, nobody has an accurate description of this man? But they can tell you word for word what this man spoke, etc. I said word for word, etc. But there is "NO" accurate description of such a man? Talking about wooly hair, etc. Its all-fabled storytelling, even the magic of Moses parting a sea, etc. C'on man... who really believes this? These theologians, and message spreaders (preachers, etc.) can't even describe his mother, Mary nor his father Joseph, etc. Seems as if nobody had last names back then either. While even to this day, your claimed God has "not" spoken to any human being, etc. And why is religion, even Christianity, so inbound with death, etc. that's when humans get their rewards, afterlife and heaven, etc. None of which exist outside of a confused mind! To be truthful about Religion is a money-making business, it lulls people into the expectation of heavenly rewards in some afterlife realm, etc. It's simply not happening... Again, one can't simply "belief" something into existence. End of story...

Bro... this is what I'm saying..

He did NOT rise from the dead.
He DID (allegedly) lead a movement to build an insurrection against Rome. (You don't know what other rebels looked like either but we know they crucified people)
Moses did NOT part any sea.

Again... I feel like you're getting hung up on the Narrative without really getting the reason behind it.

The reason for these fabled stories is to hype up the nation and/or individuals in order to push people in a certain direction. People will fight if they believe God is on their side and they're going to go to heaven. You heard of the 70 virgins in Islam? Same concept. But instead of falling for the sales pitch or "marketing"... I'm asking you to look at the reality which is that there were geo-political situations and people wanted "freedom" or "independence" just like America did. So these stories are really about fights for freedom. IN ORDER TO MAKE THE FIGHT MORE EFFECTIVE... you need "morale". Going to a fight you believe you're going to lose means you're probably going to lose. And normally, what class of people is it who get which (other) class to fight?

Rich get the poor to fight, right?

The rich are the ones who stand the most to gain. Because who does the new found (fought over) territory belong to now after the battle is won? The poor? No. They're not the ones making the decisions. They don't rule the nation. So why do they do it? Why fight?

Because God wants them to and "God" supplies the benefit for doing so. Do you see?

This is a lie to manipulate people into being pawns on a chessboard.

So on the surface level that is what a lot of religion has become. Manipulation.

But does this mean that this is how ALL religion/spirituality started? No.

Because religion and spirituality themselves can be manipulated by the corrupt who seek more and more power.

Does this mean God is real?

NO. It means the very concept of God can be changed from the original concept; such that NOW... people are under the false premise that they must believe that God is a PERSON.

However, this is false. In the original concept the gods were representations/symbols of the forces of nature! That's why the biggest, strongest, most important "god" is the Sun god. Because our sun is where our energy and life comes from. But it isn't a person, being, or entity. Therefore you have no obligation to pray to it or do anything for it. It doesn't care.

 

[frankster]

Bro... this is what I'm saying..

He is not Reading what you post or it seems he is not....common assault practiced by @SwagII

He did NOT rise from the dead.
He DID (allegedly) lead a movement to build an insurrection against Rome. (You don't know what other rebels looked like either but we know they crucified people)
Moses did NOT part any sea.

Again... I feel like you're getting hung up on the Narrative without really getting the reason behind it.

He is hung up on his own opinion....preaching and repeating it endlessly
I have seen all kinds of posters....swagII is impervious to reason and rationalism - in that he is unique.

The reason for these fabled stories is to hype up the nation and/or individuals in order to push people in a certain direction. People will fight if they believe God is on their side and they're going to go to heaven. You heard of the 70 virgins in Islam? Same concept. But instead of falling for the sales pitch or "marketing"... I'm asking you to look at the reality which is that there were geo-political situations and people wanted "freedom" or "independence" just like America did. So these stories are really about fights for freedom. IN ORDER TO MAKE THE FIGHT MORE EFFECTIVE... you need "morale". Going to a fight you believe you're going to lose means you're probably going to lose. And normally, what class of people is it who get which (other) class to fight?

Rich get the poor to fight, right?

Lol if you get a direct response....let me know

The rich are the ones who stand the most to gain. Because who does the new found (fought over) territory belong to now after the battle is won? The poor? No. They're not the ones making the decisions. They don't rule the nation. So why do they do it? Why fight?

Because God wants them to and "God" supplies the benefit for doing so. Do you see?

Are you expecting an answer....good luck with that.

This is a lie to manipulate people into being pawns on a chessboard.

So on the surface level that is what a lot of religion has become. Manipulation.

But does this mean that this is how ALL religion/spirituality started? No.

Because religion and spirituality themselves can be manipulated by the corrupt who seek more and more power.

Does this mean God is real?

NO. It means the very concept of God can be changed from the original concept; such that NOW... people are under the false premise that they must believe that God is a PERSON.

Great Reasoningon your part....lets see if swagII will respect your effort and give it a second thought
My guess is that he will just continue preaching his speil and repeating the very thing you just addressed..

However, this is false. In the original concept the gods were representations/symbols of the forces of nature! That's why the biggest, strongest, most important "god" is the Sun god. Because our sun is where our energy and life comes from. But it isn't a person, being, or entity. Therefore you have no obligation to pray to it or do anything for it. It doesn't care.

@ogoun thinks he has some sort of trauma around religion....christianity in particular.
I have experience trauma and so I can relate.....You want answers so you ask the questions but the answer cannot and does not alleviate the pain.
Only time can offer relief
Let me say that I respect him for keeping his cool and his dogged determination to hold fast to his ideas....very loyal almost devout.

 

[Fine1952]

Correct Answer: All of those fictional characters were copied right off walls of the walls of the pyramids and the coffin texts in Dark Skinned Ancient KmT.