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

[that guy]

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

I really HATE debates like this because they always want to change the definition of what a black person is

 

[that guy]

.

 

[that guy]

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.

You like to argue just to argue and don’t form arguments within the proper context.

The video being shared in the OP is about white peoples reaction to seeing nonwhite religious iconography, not the video itself. Nobody here cares about pro-black Putin, a vault, or any of the other context you mentioned. We care about the images. You said that the “false” video was darkened (to make the painting darker) and I provided you the original video to show you that it wasn’t, as well as a video of the artwork itself.

Most of the thread is a discussion about European destruction and manipulation of history through artwork. You saying the artwork resembles Arabs is just trying too hard to be a contrarian. There is plenty of Russian iconography that some say resemble Arabs and some that resemble black people. Either way, they aren’t white.

And that Arab oil baron and Arab Johnny depp look nothing like the paintings

 

[Yagirlcheatinonus]

He gotta be black remember he hid in Egypt when he was a baby. Can’t be white or middle eastern but black.

 

[Clayton Endicott]

The Russian depictions of black religious figures are simply paintings that were locked up and survived the various iconoclasts movements throughout European history

I would love to see all the stolen art and artifacts that Catholic church has stored beneath the Vatican. That would be very telling

 

[3rdWorld]

I would love to see all the stolen art and artifacts that Catholic church has stored beneath the Vatican. That would be very telling

They have more shyt, amassed since the Roman era..along with the thieving Brits..

The British museaum has everybodys shyt, but the Brits refuse to return what is not theirs. What they stole.
Your children have to fly to England to view their own historical cultural pieces.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

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

Wait, WE'RE trying to redefine Black? I already exposed you there. You only cosplay as pro-Black when you think it's to your advantage.

I said (or implied) that tying yourself to a group of people based on skin color is foolish. There were black people that helped cacs take over other black people. So yea, fukk with people who fukk with you. Do not fukk with people based on skin color because there are people of your skin color who do not fukk with you... Not that hard...

Race definition: group of people thought to share certain distinctive physical characteristics, such as facial structure or skin color.

Its no different than grouping tall people together. Or overweight. Its a meaningless categorization

Theres people that believe in the boogeyman or Santa Claus. Those things dont exist just as "black" unity will never exist.

There has NEVER been a time where “Black” people globally were united under one cause. You only want to unite with others because you don’t know who YOU are.

We shouldn’t be basing unity off n skin color but on culture and values.

There are black people that helped cacs overtake you and would help them to keep you in your lowered estate. To base unity off skin color is stupid...

A Jamaican will call himself Jamaican before he calls himself black. A Nigerian will call himself Nigerian before he calls himself black. Only in America are people associated by color and not nationality. And by people I mean "black" people...

Your tying your whole lineage to slavery by giving yourself the title of "descendant of slaves". As if your people were not great before that time period that was really barely a blip considering everything...

Agreed. And thats why they feel let down every time a person that looks like them says they arent "black". Because they dont understand that they're the only ones not going by a nationality/ethnicity

Bruh its not hard. If you ask a Jamaican what he is he'll tell you he's Jamaican. He wont say black. Same with a Nigerian or Ghanian or "black" Dominican. You then ask "what will he identify as" when it comes to the census and I said "black" because of limited options. If the census had a blank line for self identification then they'd put their nationality, not a color....

People have been calling themselves black for centuries but not as a nationality/ethnicity. That didnt happen till cacs came into rulership. So I said "black" people should be identifying themselves in regards to what matters to them (which should be a nationality/ethnicity/tribal affiliation) and not based on what matters to America (that you stay "black" and never figure out where your homeland is)...

That was all just one thread too, this fool doesn't give a shyt about being black until suddenly all that matters is being black. The fukking trolls on here.


You're a right-wing ultra-capitalist who doesn't even fukk with black people, but you code-switch to flat earth / secret reptilian / supermilitant whenever there's a conspiracy theory thread.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

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

It's a story of black Africans and middle easterns. Most were more likely middle eastern during the post jesus days. Outside of Ethiopia, Africans weren't even rocking with it until Europeans forced it. If you want to be pro-black about why do you look into the religions that were being practiced in Africa 100% by blacks

 

[Born Rich]

if that makes you find better. Still myths no matter the color of the people's skin.

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

there are thousands of manuscripts or partial manuscripts of the biblical texts dating back as early as the 2nd century BC, so the argument that the Bible has been so drastically changed from its original text doesn’t hold much, if any, weight…

for comparison, the writings about the Gallic Wars that happened around 50 BC are how we know about Caesar and his conquests….earliest manuscripts are dated to the late ninth century…that’s 800-900 years after the original texts and events and there are only a handful of manuscripts…

Aristotle’s poetics, which is how we know about him and his philosophical teachings…earliest manuscripts are dated to around 9th century AD…at least 1,200-1,300 years after the original texts and there are again only a handful of manuscripts…

Herodotus’ work Histories is one of the earliest works on historical literature…earliest manuscripts are dated to the 10th century AD…at least 1,000 years after the original texts and events and there’s again only a handful of manuscripts…


the biblical texts have thousands of manuscripts written within decades of the original texts during a time when witnesses to the events documented in scripture, specifically NT events, would have still been alive to refute/correct…

you’re free to believe the biblical texts are myths, you just gotta keep that same energy for the likes of Julius Caesar, Aristotle, Homer, Herodotus, etc…

 

[GreenGhxst]

White people will forever scramble to find reasons why they're better

Meanwhile crying because they don't feel seen as superior like they do in their heads

A dog chasing it's tail, validate me by being subservient or feel my half thought out rage

You blacks can't do that!

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

there are thousands of manuscripts or partial manuscripts of the biblical texts dating back as early as the 2nd century BC, so the argument that the Bible has been so drastically changed from its original text doesn’t hold much, if any, weight…

for comparison, the writings about the Gallic Wars that happened around 50 BC are how we know about Caesar and his conquests….earliest manuscripts are dated to the late ninth century…that’s 800-900 years after the original texts and events and there are only a handful of manuscripts…

Aristotle’s poetics, which is how we know about him and his philosophical teachings…earliest manuscripts are dated to around 9th century AD…at least 1,200-1,300 years after the original texts and there are again only a handful of manuscripts…

Herodotus’ work Histories is one of the earliest works on historical literature…earliest manuscripts are dated to the 10th century AD…at least 1,000 years after the original texts and events and there’s again only a handful of manuscripts…


the biblical texts have thousands of manuscripts written within decades of the original texts during a time when witnesses to the events documented in scripture, specifically NT events, would have still been alive to refute/correct…

you’re free to believe the biblical texts are myths, you just gotta keep that same energy for the likes of Julius Caesar, Aristotle, Homer, Herodotus, etc…

I'm sure those works weren't translated and copied by hand for hundreds of years until the invention of the printing press in the 1400s.

Besides books being taken out for various reasons, words and meanings of the scriptures were changed either intentionally or unintentionally. This isn't a hidden fact.

 

[Everythingg]

Wait, WE'RE trying to redefine Black? I already exposed you there. You only cosplay as pro-Black when you think it's to your advantage.
























That was all just one thread too, this fool doesn't give a shyt about being black until suddenly all that matters is being black. The fukking trolls on here.


You're a right-wing ultra-capitalist who doesn't even fukk with black people, but you code-switch to flat earth / secret reptilian / supermilitant whenever there's a conspiracy theory thread.

This guys MO is always to misdirect by bringing out of context posts. There is no such thing as a “black” group of people.

Labeling both as “black” is LAZY. And your own post said it’s not based on anything “scientific” but that we just “agree on it” which is a lie. Cacs agreed to it. Before that no one EVER lumped groups of people together based on skin color.

 

[Yzak]

It has nothing to do with Arabs. The term “sub-Saharan” Africa was created because they realized ancient Egypt was a black African civilization and is not only the most advanced civilization ever created, but also the civilization that formed the basis for western/Caucasian “civilization”

The only way they could reconcile this revelation was by saying north black Africans are somehow different than other Africans. They even went as far as to say black Egyptians were “dark skin Caucasians”

Arabs and whites both understand that Arabs are not native to Africa nor did they even show up on the continent until the builders of the pyramids were already as ancient to them as they are ancient to us.

We're saying the same thing. Kemet/ancient Egypt in in North Africa and they were Africans, but people claim they couldn't be because of the current "native North Africans" but those are Persians and Arabs.

They can claim to be native because Africans only claim the land beneath the Sahara Desert by calling themselves sub-Saharan Africans.

It wasn't the Euros that first realized Africans were more advanced, it was the Arabs. They're the ones that started rewriting history and claiming Egypt.

 

[Ty Daniels]

Blackness and Black Folks Have NEVER Been confined to "Sub Sahara".

"Sub Saharan" is a Racist, ANTI-HISTORICAL Term, that has ZERO VALUE.

The Sahara Desert Has NEVER Been a Barrier for Black Folks.

"Anatomically Modern" Humans, Originated in "Sub Saharan Africa", yet "Somehow" managed to:
- Migrate PAST the Sahara.
- Live in "North" Africa for THOUSANDS of years, Before Leaving the African Continent.
- Navigate Past the Sahara, into "Eurasia" and go on an Populate the rest of the world.

"Sub Saharan" is a Suspect term, and so are the people who use it!

 

[Everythingg]

It’s a story of black A

It's a story of black Africans and middle easterns.

Well yea if you want to label them as “black Africans” and “black middle easterna then I agree. The book actually says that the Israelite looked like the Egyptian that looked like the Ethiopian. That’s black black and black

Africans weren't even rocking with it until Europeans forced it. If you want to be pro-black about why do you look into the religions that were being practiced in Africa 100% by blacks

There were black Europeans pushing it before you think it even reached Africa. You just follow a false view of history