Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
Do we trust..
Or
Edit:
Removed 17:39, 11 November 2023 by "Baruch Benedictus Spinoza"
That's dumb, people were calling it Palestine since the Egyptian New Kingdom (which was like 1300 BCE). The Romans called it Palestine or some version after Judaea, can't rember why the switch but the Byzantines kept it as Palestine. It's just what the region was called, it's silly. There was no Israel when Jesus was purported to be around, there was the Roman province and Herods Kingdom.
During the Egyptian period there was the region “Philistia” inhabited by the Sea Peoples. While they were technologically advanced and wealthy from trade, This region did not extend inland from their port cities.
The Switch of name from Judea to Palestine was because of the Jewish Wars (60 - 130 CE)
With sufficient time, Wikipedia may nudge itself further into colonialist absurdity, like "Jesus was totally blonde haired and blue eyed like in those historically accurate depictions, and he totally said 'thou' and 'thee' like in the original King James Bible." 
Khufu or Cheops was an ancient Egyptian monarch who was the second pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, in the first half of the Old Kingdom period (26th century BC).
This is the face they invented Crackers for.
i think he looks like a dentist
jesus christ, born, jessie christian, in fort worth, texas
Here we get into Palestine as a geographic vs. political vs. ethnic definition.
Jesus was born in the Roman province of Judea (Bethlehem), ethnically and religiously identified as a Jewish person by the earliest accounts we have. In the region at the time, there were Jews of various sects, Samaritans, indigenous polytheists, And Greek and Roman polytheists.
The region was renamed from Judaea to Palestine after the Jewish war which took place after Jesus Death. Previously, “Philistia” the origin of the Roman province name referred only to the region of the coastal plane settled by the “Sea Peoples” between the Sinai coast and Jaffa.
So, while calling Jesus “Palestinian” is correct as a geographic designation, I think it is somewhat misleading as nobody, ( Jew, gentile, Greek, Latin or Aramaic speaking ) identified themselves as Palestinian until several decades after Jesus’s death.
What would be historically accurate in terms of Roman terminology would be to call Jesus “Judean.” The problem is, calling anyone “Judean” is now problematic because I guarantee anyone who calls them self Judean currently is a hasbara psycho.
Maybe Levantine?
hmm curious i notice none of u are asking jesus what THEY identify as
Levantine is too eurocentric. Shami is better.
TBH he really should have been born a little whiter I mean c'mon target the audience
when he was resurrected he actually came back a few shades lighter. rumor has it that jesus 3.0 is coming back sleeker and whiter than ever
ill wait for 4.0 when they overcorrect and we get black jesus
Well this can be reverted because the MSN post is literally titled "OPINION" and therefore can't be used as a citation.
What am I supposed to be looking at? I couldn't find anything of the sort in the edit history.
I did find this in the "Talk" page, however:
I can't go through the 1000s of edits, however March of 2023 has:
Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of 1st-century Palestine.
And sometime after Oct this was removed entirely, along w/ some new additions about him being Jewish.
This line was added well before 2014, so the removal is as of the last ~6 months if you wanted to help me find the user that edited it via a binary search.
Edit: I have added the exact date/user that added it and have requested they re-add the line. If anybody has a veteran Wikipedia account; please help.
Weren't all Christians Jewish in the first couple hundred years? They weren't considered separate religions until later, way after Jesus's death.
Many, not all. Paul’s letters established the practice of converting to Christianity directly from polytheism without assuming Jewish practices first.
That said, on the eve of Christianity, Many Romans casually adopted parts of Jewish belief and practice, sort of like celebrities in the 2000s doing Kabbalah. So the line of who was and wasn’t Jewish was kinda blurry. At least before the council of Nicea and Constantine, most Christians were probably considered Jews by the Romans, and Heretics by the nascent Rabbinic movement.
Paul converted Gentiles, the Johannine school was likely mixed, and the First Council of Jerusalem was largely about the independence of Paul and the lack of a need for Gentiles to follow Jewish Law. By 150 the vast majority of Christians were non-Jewish in ancestry. Many of the 1st/2nd century Church Fathers, like Irenaeus, Clement I, and likely others were non-Jewish. You also had non-Jews worshipping the Abrahamic god for at least the 1st century BCE
You can generally break down the early branches of Christianity into three cross pollinating branches
Jewish Christians - Lead by the moderate Peter and the more strictly Jewish James. Largely died out or was subsumed by other branches.
Pauline Gentile Christians - What became the main branch of Christianity in organisation.
Mystic Christianity - This includes both the Proto-Gnostics and the Johannines. Highly mixed in with other mystic/apocalyptic Jewish and Middle Platonic sects, and largely comprised of fairly educated Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles.
Their relative education and theological hot-housing meant that the Johannine school ended up cross-pollinating with the Pauline school and almost co-opting their theology (the Johannine Irenaus and composite theology of Justin Martyr shooting down the "hyper-pauline" heresies of Valentius and Marcion.)
Wasn't that third category wiped out by the early orthodox Christian sects (i.e. the Catholic church)? Was the heresies of Valentius and Marcion part of that?
AFAIK most gnostic sects were deemed heretical after the biblical canon was established and killed.
Yeah, in the 2nd/3rd century.
But as many scholars have noted, the Gospel of John is more in line with mystic (not necessarily gnostic since most of these sects did not assume a demiurge) sects of the time than the more "grounded" synoptic gospels.
The difference is John's followers were not obviously contradictory to Pauline Christianity and were cross pollinating by the late 1st century
Curious how the Roman Empire (with all of their meticulous record keeping) do not mention a Jesus of Nazareth a single time
Sounds to me like history is repeating itself!