• 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
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 entire point of this thread (I am the creator) was to see how far some conservative religious loonies would go to fit history to their worldview.

So far, some of them are doing an admirable job.

Jesus was not white. He was not European. He was not Israeli as we know it, nor did he look, talk or act like the Jewish Americans or Jewish Britons we know today, who are for all intents and purposes besides their religion simply American, or simply British.

Jesus was a dark-skinned Semite -- the people we call Arabs today. He was born, lived and died in a backwater in the Middle East, which was at that point already a backwater to start with. He was almost certainly illiterate, probably mad, and the idea that Christians literally a world away have turned him into this 'easy-on-the-eyes' white guy with blue eyes is just so absurd I couldn't help making a thread to poke at it.
 
I think Jesus was half black/half white and was very concerned that people had access to healing.;)
 
Ad_Captandum said:
The entire point of this thread (I am the creator) was to see how far some conservative religious loonies would go to fit history to their worldview.

So far, some of them are doing an admirable job.

Jesus was not white. He was not European. He was not Israeli as we know it, nor did he look, talk or act like the Jewish Americans or Jewish Britons we know today, who are for all intents and purposes besides their religion simply American, or simply British.

Jesus was a dark-skinned Semite -- the people we call Arabs today. He was born, lived and died in a backwater in the Middle East, which was at that point already a backwater to start with. He was almost certainly illiterate, probably mad, and the idea that Christians literally a world away have turned him into this 'easy-on-the-eyes' white guy with blue eyes is just so absurd I couldn't help making a thread to poke at it.
Click to expand...

I'll say old chap, you Brits have a bloody way with words.

BTW, have you figured out who the "we" is?
 
Jesus was a pretty dark person. Makes perfect sense.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Jesus was a pretty dark person. Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, he was a dark person.

Seriously, his dad sent plagues as punishment......my dad just grounded me.
 
He was certainly Caucasian. Whether that translates into "white" really depends on who you ask.

I think it can be rather safely said that he probably wasn't a dirty blonde Anglo-Saxon with pale skin and blue eyes, however.
 
I want to know why he was a Jewish male? Why not an Asian female or does that not matter?
 
Perhaps Jesus was an invisible pink flying spaghetti monster.
 
Gathomas88 said:
He was certainly Caucasian. Whether that translates into "white" really depends on who you ask.

I think it can be rather safely said that he probably wasn't a dirty blonde Anglo-Saxon with pale skin and blue eyes, however.
Click to expand...

I don`t believe the people of Palestine around 0 CE would be considered Caucasian. It is ~2500 miles (~800 miles as the crow flies) from Sevastopol to Jerusalem.
 
RogueWarrior said:
I don`t believe the people of Palestine around 0 CE would be considered Caucasian. It is ~2500 miles (~800 miles as the crow flies) from Sevastopol to Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

The "Caucasian Race" is generally held to include all peoples living in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and large portions of Central Asia, as the peoples living in all of these areas are more physically and genetically similar to one another than any other racial group.

India is something of a special case, as they are a bit too mixed to be easily categorized.
 
MildSteel said:
Jesus as beyond awesome. In this world all you see is people wanting revenge and hating. Jesus was divine. It is because he had transcended the material world and the bodily concept of life. He had thoroughly realized the truth that indeed he was from the Supreme, Divine, Transcendental, Almighty God.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is all YOU see but you cannot say what others see.

I see only some people as you describe I see many others who are decent good people and many of them are atheists.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Maybe that is all YOU see but you cannot say what others see.

I see only some people as you describe I see many others who are decent good people and many of them are atheists.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I made my case. You have the free will to believe what you want to believe and I respect that. Thanks for the debate though. I appreciated the discussion.
 
MildSteel said:
You cannot conclusively prove that the manuscripts that are there were not written from either the firsthand accounts of witnesses to the events or from actual written, recorded manuscripts of the events that were contemporaneously recorded with his life. And that is a fact. And because that is, in fact the case, you cannot say there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus did, in fact exist.



You cannot provide one example because there is no one that has been tortured in that way and then put to death that has prayed for forgiveness in such a manner. Not only that no one has lived such a life and preached such forgiveness before being tortured and put to death in such a way. It's simply is not possible except for someone who is under the influence of the divine energy of the Supreme Lord, the father of Jesus.



It is not a false assumption because no one has been tortured and put to death in that way and then asked for forgiveness for the perpetrators. It's not possible. And again, Jesus taught that, practiced it in his life prior to that, and then demonstrated by example what is the nature of divine behavior that is inspired by genuine, transcendental realization of the almighty God. I can tell you this, if you did such things to me, I would curse you to burn in hell. And if I did that to you, you would certainly not pray for me, you would hate me, that is a fact.



Now you are cooking with gas. Indeed that is the evidence that Jesus was divine. In particular the writings of Vyasa, such as the Vedanta Sutras and the Puranas, have elaborately elucidated on the nature of the Supreme Sentient Being, the Father from which everything is coming, the subordinate sentient beings, the material nature, i.e. maya shakti, and what are the symptoms of saintly persons. There have been many saintly self realized persons who have confirmed what Vyasa has stated. The behavior of Jesus is consistent with what is described in those writings as being of under the influence of the divine energy of the Supreme Lord. Those things were not known in that part of the world and Jesus took the practice of Judaism to the next level.



Jesus preached in the area of Palestine which is part of Europe.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about many things.First of all it has in fact been proven that the earliest known copies of the gospels were written well after he died and clearly not as a first hand account. In fact the known copies were written by someone other than tha authors which they are attributed to so yes we can say and it is fact that no evidence exists of his existing.

Once again I need not provide an example for literally hundreds of thousands of people is in fact you who needs to prove your assumption is always correct. It si very possible and even likely for people to forgive thier executioners. You are not an authority on what is possible for another person to do. And for the record neither am I which is why it is entirely possible and probable for SOME to engage in such forgiveness under such circumstances.

Scholarly work is nothing more than learned opinion it is not evidence of divinity. There is no evidence whatsoever of any divine being. The teaching and writings you describe are engaging in the same old circualr and self defeating logic. They are meaningless unless one first assumes there is a god. Without faith they are worthless and faith is nothing more than belief in what is not possible.

The fact is his behavior was in fact very much the norm in that part of the world at that time. Many people of his time were in fact seearching and looking for a messiah or savior and more than one individual came forward claiming to be exactly that divine being. Appolonius of Tyree for example lived and died years before Jesus. Appolonius was proclaimed the messiah and savior , he taught forgiveness , mercy , charity and faith. Witnesses claimed he performed miracles to include healing the infirm and sick. He was eventually crucified and was later seen walking among the living before " ascending " to heaven. Sound familiar? Other fragmented examples of similar people abound from the general time and place of the historic jesus. As one comedian put it the Monty Python movie Life of Bryan is more accurate than the new testament.

The only difference between jesus and those examples is that no historic record or evidence exists of his existing and of course his ministery grew into a world wide religion over the centuries.

Palestine is not and never was part of europe.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
You are wrong about many things.First of all it has in fact been proven that the earliest known copies of the gospels were written well after he died and clearly not as a first hand account. In fact the known copies were written by someone other than tha authors which they are attributed to so yes we can say and it is fact that no evidence exists of his existing.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that the earliest manuscripts that have been found were written after Jesus died. But what I said was

Mildsteel said
You cannot conclusively prove that the manuscripts that are there were not written from either the firsthand accounts of witnesses to the events or from actual written, recorded manuscripts of the events that were contemporaneously recorded with his life.
Click to expand...

I said that you could not CONCLUSIVELY prove that

1. The manuscripts were not written from firsthand accounts of witnesses to the events

OR

2. The manuscripts were not from actual written, recorded manuscripts of the events

So it's possible that the person who wrote the manuscripts wrote them after hearing from someone who actually witnessed the events, or it's possible that someone wrote them from manuscripts, that are no longer available. And saying that the manuscripts were written after Jesus died does not conclusively prove either of those statements. Therefore evidence is there, however I think it is fair to debate it's reliability. So you can't say there is no evidence whatsoever, and that's where I disagree with you.

I will be the first one to admit that I think much of what is in the New Testament is from sources of questionable reliability. But having said that, I believe that although the picture of Jesus that we get from the New Testament may not be crystal clear at times, the message was so powerful, clear, and consistent with what is attributed to a person possessing divine qualities, that we can say with confidence that a reasonably close approximation is there in many cases, especially some of the words that have been attribute directly to Jesus.

Soupnazi630 said:
Once again I need not provide an example for literally hundreds of thousands of people is in fact you who needs to prove your assumption is always correct. It si very possible and even likely for people to forgive thier executioners. You are not an authority on what is possible for another person to do. And for the record neither am I which is why it is entirely possible and probable for SOME to engage in such forgiveness under such circumstances.
Click to expand...

No you don't have to do anything. I can't force you. But you can't provide an example of someone in that area of the world before Jesus, that taught love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as much as you do yourself, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, that was tortured in such a way before their death, and then praying for forgiveness for the perpetrators. Now, it is possible that indeed someone else did so. But there are not hundreds of thousands of them for sure, at least not in that part of the world, and if any existed at all they were very few, because very few people can attain that level of transcendental realization.

Soupnazi630 said:
Scholarly work is nothing more than learned opinion it is not evidence of divinity. There is no evidence whatsoever of any divine being. The teaching and writings you describe are engaging in the same old circualr and self defeating logic. They are meaningless unless one first assumes there is a god. Without faith they are worthless and faith is nothing more than belief in what is not possible.
Click to expand...

Any branch of learning makes assumptions or postulates about things that it assumes to be true, before it tries to explain other things. For example Newton did not try to prove that there were such things as mass and force. He assumed that they existed and were related to each other by the mathematical relation of Force = mass * acceleration. Furthermore you are complaining that paradigms that explain reality by assuming that God exists are circular, but at the same time it is a fact that you cannot prove that you exist and you have to rely on the assumption that you do exist. And there is a reason for that. Vyas has clearly stated that the sentience, the state of being aware, is a function of Supreme Sentient being and the subordinate sentient beings, and that the existence of both fall outside of the realm of the logic of the material mind. But if you assume that both exist, it is possible to understand the true nature of the Supreme Sentient being, God, the subordinate living beings, us, and the material energy, maya shakti.

The topic of what is sentience is the most difficult subject. Indeed the answer to this question has baffled modern scientists to this very day. However, Vyas in the very first statement of the Vedanta Sutra opens the discussion on the very topic of nature of sentience by stating, "athato brahma jijnasa", i.e., let us inquire into the nature of Brahman or the transcendental reality. The great sage, Ramanuja Acharya has commented thus

The word 'Brahman' denotes the hightest Person (purushottama), who is essentially free from all imperfections and possesses numberless classes of auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence.
Click to expand...

Here Sri Ramanuja clearly states that Brahman, the ultimate reality, is the Supreme Person, God, who is free from any imperfections, who is possessed of unlimited divine qualities, such as beauty, knowledge, strength, wealth, fame, etc. That is where Vyas starts, by stating that what is worthy of being discussed is the nature of sentience, in particular the nature of the Supreme Sentience. It is not a trivial subject, and to say that such a discussion is flawed, simply on the basis that is makes certain assumptions, is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
I don't dispute that the earliest manuscripts that have been found were written after Jesus died. But what I said was



I said that you could not CONCLUSIVELY prove that

1. The manuscripts were not written from firsthand accounts of witnesses to the events

OR

2. The manuscripts were not from actual written, recorded manuscripts of the events

So it's possible that the person who wrote the manuscripts wrote them after hearing from someone who actually witnessed the events, or it's possible that someone wrote them from manuscripts, that are no longer available. And saying that the manuscripts were written after Jesus died does not conclusively prove either of those statements. Therefore evidence is there, however I think it is fair to debate it's reliability. So you can't say there is no evidence whatsoever, and that's where I disagree with you.

I will be the first one to admit that I think much of what is in the New Testament is from sources of questionable reliability. But having said that, I believe that although the picture of Jesus that we get from the New Testament may not be crystal clear at times, the message was so powerful, clear, and consistent with what is attributed to a person possessing divine qualities, that we can say with confidence that a reasonably close approximation is there in many cases, especially some of the words that have been attribute directly to Jesus.



No you don't have to do anything. I can't force you. But you can't provide an example of someone in that area of the world before Jesus, that taught love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as much as you do yourself, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, that was tortured in such a way before their death, and then praying for forgiveness for the perpetrators. Now, it is possible that indeed someone else did so. But there are not hundreds of thousands of them for sure, at least not in that part of the world, and if any existed at all they were very few, because very few people can attain that level of transcendental realization.



Any branch of learning makes assumptions or postulates about things that it assumes to be true, before it tries to explain other things. For example Newton did not try to prove that there was a such thing as mass and force, He assumed that they existed and were related to each other by the mathematical relation of Force = mass * acceleration. Furthermore you are complaining that paradigms that explain reality by assuming that God exists are circular, but at the same time it is a fact that you cannot prove that you exist and you have to rely on the assumption that you do exist. And there is a reason for that. Vyas has clearly stated that the sentience, the state of being aware, is a function of Supreme Sentient being and the subordinate sentient beings, and that the existence of both fall outside of the realm of the logic of the material mind. But if you assume that both exist, it is possible to understand the true nature of the Supreme Sentient being, God, the subordinate living beings, us, and the material energy, maya shakti.

The topic of what is sentience is the most difficult subject. Indeed the answer to this question has baffled modern scientists to this very day. However, Vyas in the very first statement of the Vedanta Sutra opens the discussion on the very topic of nature of sentience by stating, "athato brahma jijnasa", i.e., let us inquire into the nature of Brahman or the transcendental reality. The great sage, Ramanuja Acharya has commented thus



Here Sri Ramanuja clearly states that Brahman, the ultimate reality, is the Supreme Person, God, who is free from any imperfections, who is possessed of unlimited divine qualities, such as beauty, knowledge, strength, wealth, fame, etc. That where Vyas starts, by stating that what is worthy of being discussed is the nature of sentience, in particular the nature of the Supreme Sentience. It is not a trivial subject, and to say that such a discussion is flawed, simply on the basis that is makes certain assumptions, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You are in fact quite wrong it has been proven none of them are first hand accounts.

Yes if you learn a little history you will find many people from the same region and area teaching the same message long before Jesus.

All branches of learning do not do as you say. Science observes reality and tests to prove it Newton's observations were based on evidence. Faith by definition is absence of evidence.

It is not ridiculous to state that such assumptions are flawed it is accurate to state they are weak minded opinions of someone long since dead.
 
Obviously he was white, white people are awesome so obviously God would want his son to be awesome.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
The fact is his behavior was in fact very much the norm in that part of the world at that time. Many people of his time were in fact seearching and looking for a messiah or savior and more than one individual came forward claiming to be exactly that divine being. Appolonius of Tyree for example lived and died years before Jesus. Appolonius was proclaimed the messiah and savior , he taught forgiveness , mercy , charity and faith. Witnesses claimed he performed miracles to include healing the infirm and sick. He was eventually crucified and was later seen walking among the living before " ascending " to heaven. Sound familiar? Other fragmented examples of similar people abound from the general time and place of the historic jesus. As one comedian put it the Monty Python movie Life of Bryan is more accurate than the new testament.
Click to expand...

First of all you are very wrong to state that the behavior of Jesus was the norm in that part of the world. Where Jesus was teaching, if people were religious, they were doing things like stoning people to death for adultery and it's said that once Jesus had to stop people from doing so. You have mentioned Applonious and that is good, because it only reinforces the notions of what is the nature of the behavior of self realized persons. I just looked and according to some sources, it is said that Appolonious went to India where he learned the knowledge of the Vedanta Sutras from the sages there. So that is good. However, I have not seen where Appolonius expounded on the highest principles of religion, i.e. that one should love God with all your heart. That is a very, very advanced state of self realization that is indeed rarely attained. But I don't know, perhaps Appolonius was on that level. If so, that is very good. I don't have problem with that at all.

Soupnazi630 said:
The only difference between jesus and those examples is that no historic record or evidence exists of his existing and of course his ministery grew into a world wide religion over the centuries.
Click to expand...

I have already discussed the issue of historical evidence.

Soupnazi630 said:
Palestine is not and never was part of europe.
Click to expand...

I have already admitted twice that I was wrong. It is on the eastern Mediterranean coast and has some association with the cultures of Greece and Rome, which were a part of Europe.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
You are in fact quite wrong it has been proven none of them are first hand accounts.
Click to expand...

Again, you cannot CONCLUSIVELY prove that what was written was not written by someone who heard it from someone who witnessed the events. And neither can you CONCLUSIVELY prove that it was not written from a manuscript that is no longer available. Now you may be able to cast doubt on both assertions, but you cannot CONCLUSIVELY prove either statement. If you can, do it.

Soupnazi630 said:
Yes if you learn a little history you will find many people from the same region and area teaching the same message long before Jesus.
Click to expand...

No, if there were, there were not many. And it was certainly not the norm of behavior for people at that time as you have asserted. I have discussed Appolonius in another post. I don't have a problem with that.

Soupnazi630 said:
All branches of learning do not do as you say. Science observes reality and tests to prove it Newton's observations were based on evidence. Faith by definition is absence of evidence.
Click to expand...

And that is a very very ignorant thing to say. When did Newton try to prove that force and mass existed? He assumed that they did. Not only that, before you can even say there is a such thing as reality you have to assume that you exist. You cannot prove that you exist. I challenge you, prove that you exist. You can't, you have to assume that you exist. So when you say "science observes reality" you have implicitly assumed that there is a reality in the first place and that there is an observer. You cannot prove that either indeed do exist.

Soupnazi630 said:
It is not ridiculous to state that such assumptions are flawed it is accurate to state they are weak minded opinions of someone long since dead.
Click to expand...

Your assertion that science does not make assumptions is a stupid, weak minded, ignorant notion that is worthy of mind of a donkey.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom