Are you okay with worshipping the image of some violent Italian?
>>69154
who cares about how Christ is depicted on paintings?
gaytheist tier thread
>>69154
>Leonardo da Vinci's portrait of his lover
stopped reading here
into the thrash...
Catholics love to demonize the Borgias because it lets them deflect mentions of a less illustrious period in the history of the Mother Church. Just those filthy Spaniards defiling their fair institution, you see.
Cesare wasn't particularly violent by the standards of his age. He was admired by his contemporaries for his intelligence, good looks and princely demeanor. Machiavelli regarded him highly and it wasn't just because he had a crush on him.
>>69276
this desu senpai
>>69154
The whole idea is pretty fucking cool.
>>69154
ok.. fedora-leftish
Those black Israelite biblical fanfiction people keep trying to push this.
>whites make him look an European
>blacks make him look like an African
>Asians make him looks like an Asian
why can't anyone do it right?
Okay I can shitpost a little, can't I?
>>70744
well he probably wasn't black but he definitely wasn't the white european depicted in art
jesus was brown. Nazareth is in the Middle East.
>inb4 jesus was half roman
Romans weren't white.
>all these buttmad chriskeks facing identity crisis in every thread about religion
MY KEKS
Jesus was a spaceman
>>70791
>Romans weren't white
>>70791
>Romans weren't white.
oh boy, shit posting!
>>70635
/thread
I didn't know Borgia was alive in 500 AD
He was a Jew. And a Jew at a time before the Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim and so on became seperated entities.
To a Christian, his skin tone is irrelevant.
>>70791
>Romans weren't white
White isn't something that is defined very well. Marcus Antonius would certainly pass for white in New York City though judging from busts.
>>69154
>1205 AD
>Turkey
Stopped reading there.
>>70879
This. That icon is from 550 AD
Jesus probably looked like pic related desu
>>71097
Looks kind of indian
>>69154
>posting a Jesus-was-black infographic
>>69302
I would like to interject (as a christian, though not a catholic) that the auto-da-fe(s, technically) didn't happen until the church let the local monarchs name their own inquisitors. The Spanish for example made their own courts and bureaucracies. They, the Spanish government, started an inquisitorial court in Barcelona, when there was still discontent and people where committing crimes against the crown; notice that of the 1000 or so charged, only 25 where absolved.
>Cesare Borgia
>Leonardo's lover
loving every laugh
>>69154
Does it matter, really? The major texts discussing iconography all generally agree that the image is just a stand in.
>>71115
french tv showman nicknamed "le paki"
I'm not joking
well, uhh...you wear a stupid hat, bitch!!!
>ITT people know nothing about migration of races
even polfags know their middle east and caucasian stuff better than you guys.
>>69154
Jesus wasn't even depicted with a beard before the 3rd century IIRC
also fun fact: some early frescoes depicted him as dark-skinned
>>69154
Err the one in 1205 AD Turkey still looks pretty much like the iconic Jesus long before Cesare Borgia: long faces, long hair, narrow nose, beard etc...
>>69154
His look doesn't matter.
It's a long standing Christian tradition to depict Christ as he would have looked in he area.
Ergo, Korean Jesus looks Korean, Congo Jesus is black
>>72547
then why is ethiopian jesus an ayy lmao
Some art historians think that the stylization of the face of Jesus is from the Shroud of Turin
>>73903
The Shroud of Turin is a product of the medieval period, and the face on it is entirely consistent with depiction of Jesus from the time.
It's not the other way around. The earliest depictions of Jesus were much different than the ones of the medieval period.
>>70957
Curly hair, big nose. He'd fit right in NY.
This is from the 6th Century.
The Cesare Borgia meme started with Alexander Dumas.
>>72954
weebos
>>73949
Ya nobody takes the 1979 carbon dating as accurate anymore. The sample was taken from a rewoven corner of the linen.
Might well be a medieval forgery but nobody has any idea how the image was formed.
> Never make this thread again
>>69154
because, this
>>74002
>>69154
Don't be so focused on what mountain we should worship OP.
>>74002
Sooooo, Jesus had a lazy eye?
>>74146
No one has offered a criticism of the radicarbon dates that has been universally accepted. At least not that I've seen.The first mention of the Shroud is in a letter from the bishop stating that it's a fake and the artist who did it is know. And this letter matches the carbon dating range (which is also the height of the medieval relic craze). Yes, the date could be wrong, but that's an interesting coincidence.
As far as how the image was produced, a few people have produced pretty good replicas. And in different ways, too, so it's not like it's a mysterious supernatural technique would be needed. Surprisingly, wikipedia actually gives a pretty good summary.
In general, it's pretty hard to find reliable information about the shroud, because the vast majority of information sources are Christian-based. When you get beyond them, things like the provenience of the shroud and artistic problems (wrong fabric, wrong image, several anatomical issues) make it a pretty obvious forgery.
>>74394
It's supposed to represent his duel nature of both Human and Divine.
One side is loving and caring father, the other is a very scary judge that demands your respect.
