Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
I think the question goes to motivation. I confess to sharing oxcoug's frustration at PC-ness run amok.
Other than that, I really don't care.
|
The idiocy of this whole discussion is highlighted by the fact that we have no record that Jesus even existed that was not written at least 40 years after his death, and by people who never met the man. The Gospels are demonstrably derivative of the Old Testament and Greco poetic traditions and norms. Truth telling was not the objective or even a value at work.
Tex, I don't see contemporay portrayals of Jesus as semitic in appearance as "PC run amok." That's ridiculous. Rather, it represents an effort to portray as accurately as possible based on the preponderance of the evidence, and a corrective of the patently absurd blue eyed and white skinned Jesus portrayed by Northern Europeans. Why they would give Jesus such an appearance is easy to understand, but has nothing to do with reality.
Jews and Arabs are alike semitic peoples as established by the kinshp of their languages. In other words, semitic peoples are identified as such by the languages they speak. It's not surprising they would share some similar appearances. Linguistic markers are the surest evidence of biological kinshp. Jews and Arabs were alike nomadic peoples in the Sinai and around the Levant until the Jews settled in and around Canaan. Is there any evidence of blond haired blue eyed Jews before they intermarried with Northern Europeans?
I agree with Waters that oxcoug trying to argue for a white Jesus is demonstrably racist. Is this a back door attempt at B of M apologetics? Pathetic.