Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 12:12 PM Dec 2013

Flash! Fox’s Megyn Kelly now admits Jesus may not be 'white'

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/1214/Flash!-Fox-s-Megyn-Kelly-now-admits-Jesus-may-not-be-white-video

Fox News host Megyn Kelly caused a mini-media storm when she asserted that Santa Claus and Jesus were both white. She backed off a bit on Jesus, but accuses her critics of race-baiting.

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / December 14, 2013


Megyn Kelly, host of Fox News Channel's "The Kelly Files," raised a mini-media storm when she claimed that Santa Claus and Jesus were "white men."
Richard Drew/AP

For TV personalities, the most important thing is exposure, even – often especially – if it means controversy. Toss out some outrageous political or cultural tidbit and watch the fur fly as your audience numbers bounce up.

Sometimes the tidbit goes too far, even for cable TV. Martin Bashir got bounced from MSNBC recently for what he admitted had been his “shameful” comments about Sarah Palin. (“America’s resident dunce,” the British broadcaster had called her.)

But anybody who thinks that Fox News host Megyn Kelly was actually shocked – shocked! – that people would react to her comments this week about Santa Claus and Jesus doesn’t understand the way such things work.

The point was to keep her in the news, and her assertion that Santa and Jesus – one a historical figure, the other (don’t tell the kids) a made-up character – were both white, and that "just because it makes you feel uncomfortable it doesn't mean it has to change” certainly did just that.

more at link
33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Flash! Fox’s Megyn Kelly now admits Jesus may not be 'white' (Original Post) cbayer Dec 2013 OP
Jesus is a "historical figure"? What did he write again? Schema Thing Dec 2013 #1
About as much as Alexander the Great. rug Dec 2013 #2
yeah, but AtG was actually busy Schema Thing Dec 2013 #3
Yes, conquering the world is very important. rug Dec 2013 #4
That is a pretty foolish analogy. Warren Stupidity Dec 2013 #5
Oh, bullshit Warren. rug Dec 2013 #8
So you agree that the evidence for the existence of Alexander is far beyond that of Jesus? Warren Stupidity Dec 2013 #9
No. The absence of written works neither proves nor disproves the existence of a person. rug Dec 2013 #14
I'm sure you can come up with a contemporary image of Jesus too. Warren Stupidity Dec 2013 #15
I'm kind of fond of this one cbayer Dec 2013 #22
I know south park has been on for a long time, but not that long. Warren Stupidity Dec 2013 #25
It was just a joke. cbayer Dec 2013 #27
If that was the topic, I'd look for the catacomb markings. But it's not. rug Dec 2013 #29
Yep. Jesus is just as much a historical figure as Santa. stopbush Dec 2013 #10
Wait. You are making the argument that Jesus is not a historical figure? cbayer Dec 2013 #12
quasi-historical? Schema Thing Dec 2013 #16
Is this really worth debating? cbayer Dec 2013 #17
It mattered very much to me, for most of my life. Schema Thing Dec 2013 #18
I think the worshipful mythology is a testament to the power he had as an cbayer Dec 2013 #19
Well, fortunately or unfortunately, that's one thing we don't have to worry Schema Thing Dec 2013 #20
Yep, not going to happen for me either. cbayer Dec 2013 #21
Once again trotting out that weak sauce? trotsky Dec 2013 #24
Don't miss this.....Megyn Finds Proof That Santa Is White: dixiegrrrrl Dec 2013 #6
Who is this Megyn person? SaltyBro Dec 2013 #7
Well, first off, she's white... stopbush Dec 2013 #11
And she loves Jesus, so he must have been white, too. cbayer Dec 2013 #13
Who are you to say she's wrong? trotsky Dec 2013 #23
Jesus was as white as she is blonde Skittles Dec 2013 #26
Say what?? That's not natural? cbayer Dec 2013 #28
Nah. I'm not buying that it was a clever publicity ploy. She's just a bigot who thought everyone Squinch Dec 2013 #30
Well the Beatles were more important than Jesus. edhopper Dec 2013 #31
And they were definitely white. cbayer Dec 2013 #32
Excuse me, but which Jesus are you talking about? amerxp Dec 2013 #33

Schema Thing

(10,283 posts)
3. yeah, but AtG was actually busy
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 12:59 PM
Dec 2013

being tutored by Aristotle and conquering the world and shit.


I guess while he was sitting for some of those similar looking bust and artworks depicting him, he could have at least dictated a few chapters?
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
5. That is a pretty foolish analogy.
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 01:24 PM
Dec 2013

Your claim here is that the historical evidence for Jesus is equivalent to the historical evidence for Alexander?

Seriously?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
8. Oh, bullshit Warren.
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 02:25 PM
Dec 2013

I made no "claim".

The response was to a comment that Jesus wrote nothing. BFD. There are dozens of historical figures who have written nothing.

If you want to discuss historiography, that's one thing. If you want to push an agenda, go back to GD and continue to rant against guns.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
9. So you agree that the evidence for the existence of Alexander is far beyond that of Jesus?
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 03:12 PM
Dec 2013

Or is this instead your usual descent into personal attacks?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
14. No. The absence of written works neither proves nor disproves the existence of a person.
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:03 PM
Dec 2013

Nice try.

Not to be personal, but is this instead your usual attempt to turn a topic into your predetermined agenda?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
29. If that was the topic, I'd look for the catacomb markings. But it's not.
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 06:36 PM
Dec 2013

Here, amuse yourself with Atwill.

http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/

I'm sure you two can keep yourselves busy for hours.

stopbush

(24,395 posts)
10. Yep. Jesus is just as much a historical figure as Santa.
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 03:33 PM
Dec 2013

We miss out on the power of myth when we feel the need to morph mythical figures into historic figures. This is especially true of the ham-fisted attempts in the Gospels based on Mark to turn Mark's entirely allegorical figure of Jesus into a flesh-and-blood historical personage.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
12. Wait. You are making the argument that Jesus is not a historical figure?
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 04:39 PM
Dec 2013

If not, what would you call him?

Schema Thing

(10,283 posts)
16. quasi-historical?
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:15 PM
Dec 2013




His presence during the time he was supposedly walking the earth (which is not an agreed upon or attested to data set) is sort of like the time GW Bush was supposedly showing up for duty in the Alabama national guard, except with even less supporting evidence. But at least Bush will leave behind paintings and pain.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
17. Is this really worth debating?
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:18 PM
Dec 2013

Whether he was an individual, a compilation or even primarily a myth, the impact has has been enormous.

Since the issue will probably never be fully resolved, does it really matter?

At any rate, whatever he is, I feel certain that he is a historical figure.

Bush will leave behind paintings and pain, but he will never, ever have the historical impact that the Jesus character has had.

Schema Thing

(10,283 posts)
18. It mattered very much to me, for most of my life.
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:26 PM
Dec 2013


However, now that I think the lack of historical testament shows there was no single historical "Jesus" figure, or if there was he was a rather unremarkable person compared to the worshipful mythology that followed, I don't really care so much. And, I think that if everyone felt this way, it does seem like there would be much less strife in this world.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
19. I think the worshipful mythology is a testament to the power he had as an
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:35 PM
Dec 2013

individual (or group of individuals).

Hardly unremarkable, at any rate.

Whether there would be more or less strife if everyone felt the way you do is debatable.

Most of us feel that if everyone saw things like we do, the world would be a much better place.

Perhaps it is true, but it would be oh so dull.

Schema Thing

(10,283 posts)
20. Well, fortunately or unfortunately, that's one thing we don't have to worry
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:47 PM
Dec 2013

about: everyone seeing things like I do. Not gonna happen.


I think the worshipful mythology, especially as it exist by now, is a sort of "reverse engineering": all these billions of people believe, these giant institutions exist, every human's existence has been touched, and history has been incontrovertibly altered - See, Jesus not only existed, but HAD to be an incredibly special, remarkable person/god for all that to be so.

I just don't think that's true. Christians shouldn't take it personal though - I know that Mohammed existed, but I don't think he had any real connection to a supreme being, although it would not surprise me if he sincerely believed that he did. And he's got just about as many followers (more?) and has touched the world just about as powerfully.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
21. Yep, not going to happen for me either.
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:54 PM
Dec 2013

Geez, I can't even get my husband to think like me, lol!

I guess whether people actually existed or whether the things attributed to them actually occurred makes little difference.

I can see the good messages that have come out from all the religions that I am familiar with and also see how some of the messages have led to evil and been corrupted.

Cherry picking is ok by me, as long as the cherries picked lead to betterment and not destruction.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
24. Once again trotting out that weak sauce?
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 06:06 PM
Dec 2013

Who decides if a cherry leads to "betterment," cbayer? You don't have any right at all to tell others what to think. Their opinions are just as valid as yours. Maybe someday you'll understand.

Squinch

(50,935 posts)
30. Nah. I'm not buying that it was a clever publicity ploy. She's just a bigot who thought everyone
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 07:45 PM
Dec 2013

would nod their heads and agree with her.

edhopper

(33,556 posts)
31. Well the Beatles were more important than Jesus.
Sun Dec 15, 2013, 08:00 PM
Dec 2013

I'm not saying they were better people or Gods or whatever, just more important to a lot of the kids out there.

amerxp

(6 posts)
33. Excuse me, but which Jesus are you talking about?
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 09:42 AM
Dec 2013

There’s an elegant, albeit scrupulously self-serving reason why an awful lot (82%) of the canonical writings pertaining to Jesus were left on the cutting-room floor in the Christian bibles 300+ year editing process. While charlatans, liars and counterfeiters of the highest order, the nameless proof readers and editors ultimately in-charge of fashioning the orthodox Christian product weren’t entirely insane. From the creepily coercive homosexual Jesus who surfaces in James 2nd Apocalypse and the Secret Gospel of Mark (Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God) to the gnostic gospel of Thomas (which miraculously forgets to mention the crucifixion) there are in fact over seventy so-named Apocryphal books that were evidently considered either too outlandish or simply too contradictory by early Christian publicists to make the final grade. Alone, this is

a remarkable statement as it means Mathew’s post-crucifixion Zombie Apocalypse (which, extraordinarily, no one in all of Judea seemed to have noticed) was deemed at some point by these same men to be perfectly credible. Credible, that is to say, when perhaps compared to the mob of hideous, fire breathing, winged dragons a two-year-old, nappy wearing Jesus battles (and bests) on his way to Egypt.

That particular story is found in the 18th Chapter of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew; one of the nine so-called Infancy Gospels which detail the early life of a thoroughly odd, utterly ghastly little boy named, Jesus; a boy you seriously, absolutely, positively wouldn’t want as a neighbour.

Three years after the dragon incident, now aged five and back in Nazareth (which incidentally wouldn’t actually exist as a town until at least five generations later), Jesus was playing on the muddy banks of a creek with some other kids. Being Jesus he fashions some birds out of clay, whispers life into the statues, and they happily fly away (Infancy Gospel of Thomas 3:2-3). Another boy saw this and for reasons he’d soon regret meandered up to Jesus’ pool of miracle-mud and started poking at it with a stick. Puddles, evidently, meant a lot to Jesus because he goes balls-in-the-air ballistic and murders the kid right there on the spot. “O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? Behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit.” And straightway that lad withered up wholly. (Pseudo-Matthew 27-28)

A little later on that same day Jesus is walking through the streets of Nazareth (streets which, of course, wouldn’t be laid until at least the middle of the 2nd century) whereupon a happy-go-lucky boy carelessly, but accidently, bumps up against him. Without rhyme or reason Jesus goes berserk and in a frenzied fit of rage promptly murders that kid as well. Jesus was provoked and said unto him, “Thou shalt not finish thy course.” And immediately he fell down and died. (Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1)

With the homicidal butchering of two kids under his belt before even lunchtime the

five-year-old then goes completely off the rails and in an eruption of egomaniacal hellfire orders that the terrified children of Nazareth (which didn’t exist) worship him as a king. Panic-stricken they obey and mobilise into Jesus’ personal sycophant army who proceed to terrorise the town, forcing all passers-by to pay their respects to him like Kurtz enthroned in the middle of the deepest, darkest jungle. Soon after some men dash through town carrying a child and when confronted by Jesus’ thugs they refuse to divert from their path and pay homage. When he gets wind of this Jesus tracks the men down and demands an explanation. “The child has been bitten by a snake and we desperately need a cure,” they tell him. Jesus calls the snake out from the woods, commands it to suck the poison back out from the boy, and then for no reason whatsoever blows the poor reptile to smithereens. So the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison again. Then the Lord Jesus cursed the serpent so that it immediately burst asunder, and died. (First Gospel of Infancy 18:13-16)

After this incident the townsfolk of Nazareth (a town as yet settled by anyone) confront Jesus’ father, Joseph, and insist he rein the boy in. Under threat of expulsion (from a place not yet founded) Joseph delivers his cease and desist ultimatum to the boy. Jesus hears the words, ponders his father’s insolence, momentarily thinks about killing him, but then chooses instead to just blind all the adults in town. “They shall bear their punishment.” And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness (Infancy Gospel of Thomas 5:1).

At this Joseph goes nuts, but Jesus simply dismisses him. He mocks and threatens everyone, says he knows the day of their death, makes a teacher named Zacchaeus cry, then bursts into deranged maniacal laughter and restores everyone’s sight. After that, “nobody dared to make him angry because they did not want to be cursed or crippled.” (Infancy Gospel of Thomas 8:4).

A few days later though Jesus is playing on the roof of a house with another boy and when the lads parents return they, predictably, find their son dead on the ground (Infancy Gospel of Thomas 9:1-3). When asked Jesus says he didn’t do it, rather the kid just spontaneously threw himself off the roof. To make amends Jesus resurrects the boy who’s clearly so petrified of this egotistical little psychopath that he parrots the story and tells everyone that he, in fact, hurled himself off the roof, voluntarily…. Not Jesus, oh no, never.

Now, this is just one snippet (a few days copied across three canonical documents) in

the life of what is essentially fifty entirely different (albeit mostly incomplete) Jesus’; a 1st Century Judean gnostic character who in even the church sanctioned editions exhibits different personality traits doing completely different things at entirely different times depending on which account you read. It is a character to whom not a single physical description is given and who floats in a suggested window of time, yet no date for his birth, deeds or death is offered anywhere. Since his invention in 1939, Batman has also exhibited over fifty entirely unique versions of himself depending on which account you read. In the original 1939 version Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, but in DC Comics Azrael’s version it’s the computer science graduate student, Jean-Paul Valley, who assumes the role of masked crusader. In Batman Earth Two Bruce Wayne is born in 1910, but in Gotham by Gaslight Batman starts his crime fighting career in 1889. In The Batman of Arkham Bruce Wayne is a psychiatrist who runs the Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane, while in Castle of the Bat, Bruce Wayne is a geneticist who brings to life a patchwork corpse containing bat DNA and the brain of his father.

Like Batman, Jesus is a character literally impossible to pin down, and if there is any semblance of mild uniformity in the pseudepigraphical synoptic gospels then it’s only because Mathew and Luke were copied directly from Mark; itself an embellished document which originally didn’t even mention a resurrection event (Mark 16). Although divergent the edited and re-edited synoptic gospels are, however, the aberration. In the Gospel of Peter it is Herod Antipas, not Pontius Pilate, who orders Jesus’ death, and in the Gospel of Truth he is nailed to a tree, not a Roman cross. Perhaps even more unfamiliar to our ears is the Jesus found in the Gospel of the Egyptians who not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that sorrow and error will remain with man “As long as women bear children.”

What is however perfectly clear to anyone curious enough to look is that 1,650 years ago some mindful, temperately script-savvy church publicists figured a murderous, bloodthirsty, psychopathic baby Jesus probably wasn’t the type of character they wanted to sell as their frontline product. A similar decision seems to have been made by the studio executives at DC Comics when in 1994 they passed on commissioning a second instalment to The Tyrant; a freakishly bizarre story where a corrupt Batman takes control of Gotham City, drugs the city’s water supply and turns it into a police state before he is brought down by the villains he once terrorised and then burnt alive inside Wayne Manor by the good citizens of Gotham.

http://salemhistory.blogspot.com/2013/10/excuse-me-but-which-jesus-are-you.html

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Flash! Fox’s Megyn Kelly ...