White People Respond to Putin opening the Vault of black biblical images

[BobbyWojak]

I was laughing when you said “nonblack” features. That’s a white supremacist talking point that fails to understand the various of black phenotypes. You can find every phenotype under the sun in Africa alone let alone indigenous populations outside of Africa.

I was going to respond to your earlier comments later but before I step away from the computer I have to say that there are absolutely certain features that are more common in Africa than anywhere else. You can find people all over the world with a variety of features but don't play dumb.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

We're not talking about moors. The Putin Jesus video was proven to be fake, there was no 'vault' he was presenting a military award. The translation is wrong, and the video was purposefully darkened.

Here is the original.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/video-does-not-show-putin-saying-jesus-was-black-2024-03-28/

Let's also point out that this is a copy of an icon from Serbia made sometime after the 16th century. It's supposedly a copy of a much older icon that has been lost, for which legend claims was created during the time of Christ himself, but there's not any actual historical evidence of that icon existing or even being referred to until 600 A.D.



But regardless of what people think of the historical existence of such an icon, the main point is that the video is completely fabricated, with a false translation and manipulative darkening, and is purely being used to try to promote Putin as pro-Black when he has never done anything like the videos claim he has done.

 

[that guy]

I was going to respond to your earlier comments later but before I step away from the computer I have to say that there are absolutely certain features that are more common in Africa than anywhere else. You can find people all over the world with a variety of features but don't play dumb.

I don’t get the point you’re trying to make here. You said that the man in the painting had nonblack features but there is no such thing. For instance, black native Europeans had black skin and blue eyes.

That argument only works the other way around because there are phenotypes that exist in black populations that don’t exist in any other population. I can say a person has black features but you can’t say a person has nonblack features.

Also, don’t make the mistake of comparing how populations look today with how they look thousands of years ago. People look much different now than they did during those times. Take the Filipino who used to look like the “negritos” or aeta people (that still exis):

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/trip-down-memory-lane-aeta-people-one-of-the-first-african-natives-of-asia-and-the-original-inhabitants-of-philippines--722616702694686527/

but most Filipinos today look like this:

Young Filipino man smiling Stock Photo

Download Young Filipino man smiling Stock Photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock.

stock.adobe.com

This is the result of only 300-400 years of Spanish colonial rule and the resulting admixture

 

[Vεnεficα]

I don't understand the desperation to claim something as black when it's not, this shyt is embarrassing and y'all are gullible.

 

[Justin Nitsuj]

I don't understand the desperation to claim something as black when it's not, this shyt is embarrassing and y'all are gullible.

So you actually think Jesus was white? Who's really gullible?

 

[that guy]

.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I don’t get the point you’re trying to make here. You said that the man in the painting had nonblack features but there is no such thing. For instance, black native Europeans had black skin and blue eyes.

Are you talking about "Black people", or are you talking about people with dark skin? Those are two completely different things.

Skin color is controlled by just a few genes, and dark skin in one population can be the result of completely different genes than dark skin in another population. The fact that two people from different populations both have dark skin doesn't mean they're related in any way whatsoever.

Usually when someone talks of "Black people", they're speaking of the social construct that groups together everyone descended from Sub-Saharan African groups. Even though it's not a scientifically objective or meaningful grouping, it has a clear defined meaning in use, and certainly isn't meant to include completely unrelated people from other continents who just happen to have dark skin even though they don't have any shared ancestry.

Also, don’t make the mistake of comparing how populations look today with how they look thousands of years ago. People look much different now than they did during those times. Take the Filipino who used to look like the “negritos” or aeta people (that still exis):

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/trip-down-memory-lane-aeta-people-one-of-the-first-african-natives-of-asia-and-the-original-inhabitants-of-philippines--722616702694686527/

but most Filipinos today look like this:

http://[URL]https://stock.adobe.com/images/young-filipino-man-smiling/78060962

[/URL]

This is the result of only 300-400 years of Spanish colonial rule and the resulting admixture

Literally all of that is wrong.

Outside of isolated pockets, the "Negritos" of the Philippines were almost entirely replaced by mainland Asian immigrants about 4,000 years ago. The average Filipino has 90% east Asian DNA, 5% European DNA, and just 3% "negrito" DNA. They're not light because of Spanish colonial rule and admixture, they're light because of invasions from other parts of Asia that came much, much earlier.

The actual Negritos, who were already a tiny population when the Spanish got to the islands, lived primarily in remote mountain areas and didn't really interact with or admix with Spaniards at all.

On top of that, the Aeta people who are called "Negritos" are not African. They're descended from the Oceania genetic line also found in Papua New Guinea, Australia, and pockets of indigenous populations of some of the coastal areas of Asia. They do have several somewhat African-like features, but genetically they turn out to be most closely related to South Indians, not Africans.

 

[that guy]

Let's also point out that this is a copy of an icon from Serbia made sometime after the 16th century. It's supposedly a copy of a much older icon that has been lost, for which legend claims was created during the time of Christ himself, but there's not any actual historical evidence of that icon existing or even being referred to until 600 A.D.



But regardless of what people think of the historical existence of such an icon, the main point is that the video is completely fabricated, with a false translation and manipulative darkening, and is purely being used to try to promote Putin as pro-Black when he has never done anything like the videos claim he has done.

The video isn’t fabricated nor is it darkened. It has nothing to do with Putin being pro-black, it’s about trying to get the church institution on his side for the war in the Ukraine. Here is the actual video 1:25 mark:


Here is the actual painting itself in the video at the 30 seconds mark:

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The video isn’t fabricated nor is it darkened. It has nothing to do with Putin being pro-black, it’s about trying to get the church institution on his side for the war in the Ukraine. Here is the actual video 1:25 mark:

But that's not the video being shared on social media, the video being shared has a darkened image, fake translation, and claims Putin is opening some secret vault of original Black icons when none of that is true.


The title of this thread is "Putin opening the Vault of black biblical images", which never happened.


And like I pointed out earlier, the "actual painting itself" is some European thing from the 1500s or later and has no relation to anyone who had ever seen Jesus in the flesh. That being said, it probably looks a lot more like Jesus than most of those 1950s-style White American Jesus shyt does, but it doesn't make him look "Black", it makes him look like a Brown Arab.

Here's a screenshot from the video you posted:

Basically looks like a European artist trying to depict a Syrian/Jordanian man.

 

[Everythingg]

If you going by the canonical bible we have today was filtered by numerous scribes with each editing and changing parts with each copy, more changes were made when the church was also editing what goes in the Bible. Many of those people were not black if at all.

As I mentioned before it is all myths anyone

Get to it being myths after black people being the OG authors is acknowledged first. You want to skip over the contributions and achievements of black people being hidden by cacs because your ego calls anything spiritual a “myth”. If that’s how you want to lead your children, do you, but one would think that you’d also point to your children how cacs hid this and other contributions made by black people and took the credit for themselves..Instead rather fight over it being true or not while your child grows up in a world where white men civilized the world and black people

 

[MostReal]

“But, but, but…. The Bible is the white mans book!!!!”
-Coli athiesc00n

we tried to tell them dummies whole Old Testament ain't bout nothing but Black people

 

[Pseudonym]

God is good !
John 3:16

 

[Everythingg]

we tried to tell them dummies whole Old Testament ain't bout nothing but Black people

Now they’re trying to redefine “black” even though the label NEVER made sense:

Usually when someone talks of "Black people", they're speaking of the social construct that groups together everyone descended from Sub-Saharan African groups. Even though it's not a scientifically objective or meaningful grouping,

 

[No Ma’am]

Cac ass Genghis Khan

 

[that guy]

Are you talking about "Black people", or are you talking about people with dark skin? Those are two completely different things.

Skin color is controlled by just a few genes, and dark skin in one population can be the result of completely different genes than dark skin in another population. The fact that two people from different populations both have dark skin doesn't mean they're related in any way whatsoever.

Usually when someone talks of "Black people", they're speaking of the social construct that groups together everyone descended from Sub-Saharan African groups. Even though it's not a scientifically objective or meaningful grouping, it has a clear defined meaning in use, and certainly isn't meant to include completely unrelated people from other continents who just happen to have dark skin even though they don't have any shared ancestry.





Literally all of that is wrong.

Outside of isolated pockets, the "Negritos" of the Philippines were almost entirely replaced by mainland Asian immigrants about 4,000 years ago. The average Filipino has 90% east Asian DNA, 5% European DNA, and just 3% "negrito" DNA. They're not light because of Spanish colonial rule and admixture, they're light because of invasions from other parts of Asia that came much, much earlier.

The actual Negritos, who were already a tiny population when the Spanish got to the islands, lived primarily in remote mountain areas and didn't really interact with or admix with Spaniards at all.

On top of that, the Aeta people who are called "Negritos" are not African. They're descended from the Oceania genetic line also found in Papua New Guinea, Australia, and pockets of indigenous populations of some of the coastal areas of Asia. They do have several somewhat African-like features, but genetically they turn out to be most closely related to South Indians, not Africans.

How are you writing a drawn out response to my post with another poster and you are asking me about the context of my response. Shouldn’t you have for context before you respond?

The poster said the painting had “nonblack” physical features. You can pick any definition of “black” people that you want. There is no such thing as a nonblack feature in the context that he used it. Mainly in the bridge of the nose or hair texture.

I know you’re one of those posters that like to argue just to argue but please keep it short and stay on topic. Your response basically boiled down to “the Filipinos are lighter because theyre “Asian” not because they mixed with Spaniards.

The argument was about how the phenotypical characteristics of a population can dramatically change over a relatively small period of time. That has nothing to do with DNA lineage. For example, if you compare the phenotype of Africans who arrived in America as slaves to African Americans who have interbreed with Caucasians in America over the last 300 years we look like completely different people.

Unless you’re arguing against that argument (which is a scientific fact) you’re just arguing to be arguing

You mentioned “the average Filipino” (whatever that means) DNA admixture but then made an erroneous connection between DNA lineage and phenotype expression. Your physical characteristics are based on your most recent DNA expression ie your parents, grandparents etc. That means Filipinos will look more like their parents who are descendants from Spaniards and native Filipinos then some random Eurasian population from “4000 years ago”

I never said the Aeta people are African, you just went off of the deep end by that point