Ancient mosaic shows that Jesus was Russian?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: RussianTroll

I think your propaganda pieces are going a bit to far here. Were you released from service with home work or something??

Most early Christians depicted Jesus as related to their race and culture and not Jewish.

academic.oup.com...

This chapter provides an introduction to early Christian mosaics that emphasizes the important role played by archaeology in improving our understanding of their geographical and architectural contexts. After a short discussion of the position of early Christian mosaics in the history of the medium, a brief review of the most productive methodologies used in research on mosaics is undertaken, followed by a survey of mosaic technology that includes the workshops and artists involved in mosaic production. In the rest of the chapter, a selection of mosaics in churches, martyria, chapels, and Christian mausolea located in various parts of the Mediterranean world is examined. The evidence from archaeology demonstrates that although early Christian mosaics share universal themes, the diversity reflected in their iconography and the presence of secondary themes rooted in local traditions necessitate a regional approach to their interpretation.

BTW, Yahshua was not Jewish.
He was Galilean
To save space.
New evidence for Noah's Ark.
Very entertaining from Trey Smith

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: Kurokage

A common trick for a provocateur. First, insult, get change, and then run to complain and cry.
I feel sorry for you.

You are a sore loser, aren't you.

I offered you the proper information over the incorrect data you posted. It was Neolithic people with Proto-Indo-European language who moved across Europe and not the people (Slavs) you claimed it was.
I also offered up an Oxford Uni link to how early Christians added their own culture and race to early depictions of Christ.

If you can't handle that, then why post the subject in the first place, complain that I'm insulting you and then insult me?
You should try to improve you understanding in the subject rather than dismiss and block out any that doesn't match your misinformation or misunderstanding.

The Mosaic looks to be 5th-6th century which would put it squarely in the Byzantine empire. There was a style of boot from that time period that was common:


Whenever a conquer is in control of a region, local customs get put aside and fashion and art seem to follow right along.
I'd love if anyone can confirm this for me.

a reply to: RussianTroll

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Not to sure on that but...

Cambr idge Paper.

No literary evidence survives from Galilee to suggest that the inhabitants thought of themselves as Galileans rather than simply as Jews, and the detailed narrative set in Galilee by Josephus, the only contemporary author known to have been well acquainted with the region, singularly fails to mention anything special about the Judaism practised there. However, later rabbinic texts preserve traditions that religious life differed from that in the south.

a reply to: Yggdrasiljuice

According to official historiography, the first aggressive campaigns of the Rus against Byzantium took place in the 9th and 10th centuries. Doesn't fit(((Your version doesn't work.

Byzantine empire was in control of that region long before that. Fits the available mosaic.

a reply to: RussianTroll

a reply to: Yggdrasiljuice

The mosiac does look more Medival when you compare it to others from this time...

The World of Medieval Mosiacs

originally posted by: Yggdrasiljuice
Byzantine empire was in control of that region long before that. Fits the available mosaic.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Yes. But there could not be an official historiography of Russians in the Palestine region at that time.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: Yggdrasiljuice

According to official historiography, the first aggressive campaigns of the Rus against Byzantium took place in the 9th and 10th centuries. Doesn't fit(((Your version doesn't work.

How about some links to evidence to back up some of your claims here, please?

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
New evidence for Noah's Ark.

ATS Thread - Noahs Ark and the Biblical World Wide Flood Never Happened

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

BTW, Yahshua was not Jewish. He was Galilean

even if you want to view Galilee as a separate roman state, syriaian or who ever was in control at any given time, jews have lived in Galllee from the time of Joshua and was in Naphthali and Dan, and sometimes was seen as part of Asher's division.

being called Jewish through the years covers a nationally, race, and religion sometimes all three at the same time.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: Kurokage

A common trick for a provocateur. First, insult, get change, and then run to complain and cry.
I feel sorry for you.

You are a sore loser, aren't you.

I offered you the proper information over the incorrect data you posted. It was Neolithic people with Proto-Indo-European language who moved across Europe and not the people (Slavs) you claimed it was.
I also offered up an Oxford Uni link to how early Christians added their own culture and race to early depictions of Christ.

If you can't handle that, then why post the subject in the first place, complain that I'm insulting you and then insult me?
You should try to improve you understanding in the subject rather than dismiss and block out any that doesn't match your misinformation or misunderstanding.

I myself am not sure what your argument is to be honest.
I suspect we are agreeing more than disagreeing.
The Indo-European roots come from the area we are discussing, I think.

More Robert Sepehr.
This video deserves its own thread actually.
Tell me from this if there is disagreement.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Not to sure on that but...

Cambr idge Paper.

No literary evidence survives from Galilee to suggest that the inhabitants thought of themselves as Galileans rather than simply as Jews, and the detailed narrative set in Galilee by Josephus, the only contemporary author known to have been well acquainted with the region, singularly fails to mention anything special about the Judaism practised there. However, later rabbinic texts preserve traditions that religious life differed from that in the south.

If you from Judah(Yudah) you would be a Judean.
Yashua was from Galile.
The "j" sound and letter did not exist in Hebrew, Chaldean or Aramaic.
It did not exist until about 400 years ago.
Can we start there?

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

That reply was to Russian Troll.

These people were Neolithic and in these areas 4000+ years ago so aren't/weren't Slavs as RT tried to infer, and spoke a Proto-Indo-European Language which is why European languages have similarities.

For anyone interest in the spread of this language heres a good starting point on an interesting journey....

originally posted by: Yggdrasiljuice
Byzantine empire was in control of that region long before that. Fits the available mosaic.

a reply to: RussianTroll

I see where I am taking this in a different direction.
And it kind of helps make sense of my instincts and intuition on this. I looked but did not find enough on this mosaic and church.
I instantly had my attention with the anthropology of this subject and the region.

My instincts and intuition is based upon my belief there were 2 different people of that period that took the role of Christ. Each coming their separate fathers name.
Yahshua and Appolonius of Tyana.
I believe much of Roman history of christ has been attributed to Appolonius in an attempt to whitewash and misidentified Yahushua HaMashiach.
The byzantine empire being the eastern part of the Roman empire just makes sense to me and might help with me tracing these 2 Christ's.
I will try and get back on topic but the wardrobe in the mosaic caught my attention.
He is right about boots and trousers.

originally posted by: RussianTroll

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: RussianTroll

Interesting thread RT some places like what we know call the Golant hights were not so long ago called the plains of Bashan
archive.org...

And they vanished in a short window after the author visited when the book was printed in 1865 there were photographs taken and in 1900 all was gone ! .

Sorry, I just saw your comment with a link to the book. Very interesting. I have a browser with an image translation function, so I’m happy to read it.

Thank you.

You're welcome Rt

This holy man did a large amount of travelling, Egypt, Japan ,India China ,England and Russia all claim that he visited , Yoshua or Issa sure stirs some controversy RT

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
The Byzantine Empire was never the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Vice versa. Rome was a province of Byzantium. Moreover, it is a very backward province.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

BTW, Yahshua was not Jewish. He was Galilean

even if you want to view Galilee as a separate roman state, syriaian or who ever was in control at any given time, jews have lived in Galllee from the time of Joshua and was in Naphthali and Dan, and sometimes was seen as part of Asher's division.

being called Jewish through the years covers a nationally, race, and religion sometimes all three at the same time.

Which would explain why Eastern Euopeans whose forefathers never stepped foot in the Holy land can claim to be Jewish.
Why zionists are not considered by orthodoxy to be real jews.
Because it can be just about anything.
In my opinion.
It is religion, that became a Nationality due to prophetic declaration of a promised land.
Now it is National seeking a religion.
But Rothchild backed zionism is way more political than anything due to the reasons for the Balfour declaration.

a reply to: RussianTroll

The Byzantine Empire was never the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Vice versa. Rome was a province of Byzantium. Moreover, it is a very backward province.

Well, thats not quite true and a bit to simplified don't you think and a backward province?
en.wikipedia.org...

This history of the Byzantine Empire covers the history of the Eastern Roman Empire from late antiquity until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. Several events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the transitional period during which the Roman Empire's east and west divided. In 285, the emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305) partitioned the Roman Empire's administration into eastern and western halves.[1] Between 324 and 330, Constantine I (r. 306–337) transferred the main capital from Rome to Byzantium,

Although the Roman state continued, some historians choose to distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving from Rome to Byzantium, the Empire’s integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin.[4]

www.britannica.com...

Byzantine Empire, Empire, southeastern and southern Europe and western Asia. It began as the city of Byzantium, which had grown from an ancient Greek colony founded on the European side of the Bosporus. The city was taken in 330 CE by Constantine I, who refounded it as Constantinople.The area at this time was generally termed the Eastern Roman Empire. The fall of Rome in 476 ended the western half of the Roman Empire, and the eastern half continued as the Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople as its capital.

Being Mostly Finn. When someone asks you if something is true....You say Yah.

Do you want some ice cream....Yah.

Do you want some Liver and onions....Yah for me and others say Hell No if they don't like liver.

Sounds like Yah and Hell are opposites.



Sounds like history got rewritten on that Mossiac. I did read that Apollo and Baldur might have been the same person somewhere in some historical interpretations. Is that true, some of the ancient gods used to be snowbirds from what I read.

There is little chance that we will ever know the true history, religions through the centuries altered the interpretation of the bible. And just interpretting things across different languages can distort the true meanings of things. Interpretations are based on beliefs most times and interpretting scientific research is not immune from this problem, in fact, medical interpretations of evidence are distorted quite a bit to make things so they do not show that consensus of the time was wrong. It takes a lot of proof and years for science to admit they made mistakes.