• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Jesus White?

Was Jesus White?

  • Yep, white as a Viking, despite being an Arab!

    Votes: 8 23.5%

  • Yes, because Arabs are white, too. Have you ever actually looked at a Lebanese person?

    Votes: 4 11.8%

  • No, he wasn't white, because Arabs aren't white, only European are white.

    Votes: 22 64.7%
  • Total voters
    34
Proud South Korean said:
There's overwhelming evidence that he existed. As for the latter part, I'm not going to even address it.
Click to expand...

"Overwhelming" as in a person named Jesus existed, or that the son of god Jesus existed?

I'm sorry, but when you say you are atheist, do you understand what that means?
 
OnWisconsin said:
It was a book written by men, used by men, to control other men. Everyone from the Church of England to the Holy Roman Empire have used this book to put fear into the minds of other men as to what will happen if they disobey. I have very little respect for that book.
Click to expand...

TBH it's more than a book. Remember there are probably hundreds if not thousands of editions and interpretations of that book. The original message and the one that hopefully most believe is still one to be admired.
Yet I digress. One can disagree by the contents as you do but you still cannot deny that it's more than "just a book" which was the meaning of my post. In fact, you just confirmed it.
 
OnWisconsin said:
"Overwhelming" as in a person named Jesus existed, or that the son of god Jesus existed?

I'm sorry, but when you say you are atheist, do you understand what that means?
Click to expand...

As a true person. As for me being atheist, I'm more of an agnostic, but my beliefs are somewhat complex to fit either of them. Rest assured, I'm not religious.
Edit: I meant as a person who existed. I must have mixed up my language.
 
Last edited:
Ad_Captandum said:
Just out of sheer, morbid curiosity at what you folks think.
Click to expand...
Blonde hair, blue eyes, snowy white skin.

The Aryan ideal come to life. Movie star hunk with a jaw chiseled from granite.
 
Proud South Korean said:
From a quick search of the image, it's an icon, not a portrait. Very different, those two. BTW according to wiki, the two mismatching sides of the face which is obvious even to the casual observer suggests of Jesus's two sides-fully human and fully God which means that the icon itself isn't very realistic.
Click to expand...

That is indeed what orthodox Christianity teaches, Fully god and fully man.
 
johndylan1 said:
That is indeed what orthodox Christianity teaches, Fully god and fully man.
Click to expand...

How can anything be "Fully" two completely different things...seems to be counter intuitive, does in not?
 
Proud South Korean said:
From a quick search of the image, it's an icon, not a portrait. Very different, those two. BTW according to wiki, the two mismatching sides of the face which is obvious even to the casual observer suggests of Jesus's two sides-fully human and fully God which means that the icon itself isn't very realistic.
Click to expand...

From a quick review of my post I called it an image neither an icon nor a portrait. Very different that what you're trying to present. BTW if you read my post I explained what the two sides were and said NOTWITHSTANDING, you know that means "in spite of"... Artistic license isn't a wholesale disqualifier. "The most accurate depiction we will come across" in no way signifies it is the correct depiction, only what I believe will be the most accurate, artistic license notwithstanding (there goes that word again...)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
White as in: pale ass mother****er from certain regions in Europe? :)

There wasn't a single drop of European anything in the Bible. No one was white or there abouts. They didn't even know that, what was modern day Europe, even existed. It all takes place in select few areas of the Middle East.
Click to expand...

LOL....

Apparently Rome was in the middle east.... not in Europe....
 
ChezC3 said:
From a quick review of my post I called it an image neither an icon nor a portrait. Very different that what you're trying to present. BTW if you read my post I explained what the two sides were and said NOTWITHSTANDING, you know that means "in spite of"... Artistic license isn't a wholesale disqualifier. "The most accurate depiction we will come across" in no way signifies it is the correct depiction, only what I believe will be the most accurate, artistic license notwithstanding (there goes that word again...)
Click to expand...

My bad. I just saw the eyes part and thought that you just referred to them being overly wide. You're also correct on the images part. The mind does play tricks after all
 
Proud South Korean said:
My bad. I just saw the eyes part and thought that you just referred to them being overly wide. You're also correct on the images part. The mind does play tricks after all
Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty and will admit I could have been a little more clear in my original explanation...

We cool..:peace
 
Ad_Captandum said:
Just out of sheer, morbid curiosity at what you folks think.
Click to expand...


He was Jewish. Not Arab.


Most likely, he was a bit darker than the Nordics, but probably not dark enough to be considered 'brown'.


Modern Jews, you may have noted, include quite a range of coloration... probably less so then, but a mid-range complexion seems likely.
 
Goshin said:
He was Jewish. Not Arab.


Most likely, he was a bit darker than the Nordics, but probably not dark enough to be considered 'brown'.


Modern Jews, you may have noted, include quite a range of coloration... probably less so then, but a mid-range complexion seems likely.
Click to expand...
I expect he would have looked like a Sephardic jew, rather then a Ashkenazi jew, which generally means a darker skin colour then Europeans in general, and more equivalent to that of Arabs in the region (not Sudanese arabs)
 
Oh come on....everyone knows he looked like this:

images58Z1SDVO.jpg

We even have movies to prove it.
 
Jesus was not white in the Indo-European or American sense; he more than likely looked like your average Lebanese or Jordanian person.
 
tacomancer said:
this is obvious folks!

Santa = anagram of Satan

Santa = white

Jesus != Satan

Therefore Jesus != white

duh

:2razz:
Click to expand...

WTF is wrong with you?
 
Jesus was way beyond the bodily conception of life. Therefore the notion that he was white, black or any other bodily designation is flawed.
 
Actually the same can be said about attempts to label God as a man or a woman. God is transcendental to these bodily designations, and therefore such attempts are based on flawed understandings.
 
What friggin' difference does it possibly make?


:rolleyes: ...can we not limit new race threads to 100 per day.

Man...you people obsess about this stuff.

Are you people not capable of ignoring the melanin and just look at the people?

Obviously not for many of you.
 
DA60 said:
:rolleyes: ...can we not limit new race threads to 100 per day.

Man...you people obsess about this stuff.

Are you people not capable of ignoring the melanin and just look at the people?

Obviously not for many of you.
Click to expand...

It's a race to outrace race threads
 
DA60 said:
What friggin' difference does it possibly make?


:rolleyes: ...can we not limit new race threads to 100 per day.

Man...you people obsess about this stuff.

Are you people not capable of ignoring the melanin and just look at the people?

Obviously not for many of you.
Click to expand...

The Left is obsessed with race.
 
People that have a need for Jesus to be black, white, or any other designation based on the body, rather than the soul, have misunderstood what Jesus was about. Jesus was about freeing people from such misconceptions. That's exactly what tripped the Saducees up. They thought that spiritual life was based on our current conception of ourselves that are based on the body. As a result they asked Jesus whose wife would a particular woman be. No understanding of scripture.
 
American said:
The Left is obsessed with race.
Click to expand...

At least the black racialist portion of the left that isn't really liberal, but just pushing an identity-based agenda, anyway.

Just as"the right" includes various neo-Nazis, God hates Fags types, survivalists and whatnot, the left includes all manner of people who are similarly far from the mainstream. THe trick, here, is to learn to define either left or right by the more reasonable portions thereof rather than the fringes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom