Was Jesus Black?

[Meatplow]

Yeah old argument, i know. What are your opinions?

There is quite a lot of evidence to say Jesus was a real man, as a towering historical figure. There are also a lot of unbelievable stories surrounding the man which is a major turn off for many, though there has always been one thing certain to the vast majority. The fact that he was a white man. Most people don't seem to question this, and would scoff if someone said something as implausible as "Jesus was black". Is the evidence so concrete that he wasn't though?

The Christian argument to me reads something along the lines that Jesus was born in the image of God to a virgin woman through immaculate conception. I myself don't know what to make of this, if i'm going to see him as a real man i'd say that he is the son of Mary & Joseph and their respective races would have born him to bear their skin colour. If you take into account where he came from etc, it's harder to disbelieve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus_Christ

[Smokey D]

Probably not black, but not white either. If anything, he'd look Eastern Mediterrenean or perhaps Arab.

[VomitStainedCretin]

In 2004 Jesus was voted "greatest black icon of all time" by the British journal New Nation. The journal commented jokingly that he must have been black because "he called everybody 'brother', liked Gospel, and couldn't get a fair trial". Definitive proof that Jesus was black. :lol:

[lunchforthesky]

There is not nearly enough information about him to definatively prove anything. But it is highly likely he was of arab/meditterranean ethnicity.

[Eliminator]

straight outta bethlehem
crazy motha****er named jesus

[T_L_H]

Jesus was a Jew.

[Smokey D]

Jewish people weren't as ethnically hetrogeneous in the ancient world as they are today.

Also, I should clarify. Jesus would have looked Arab or Eastern Mediterrenean, but he was part of one distinct ethnic groups from the area around Palestine/Cannan in the first century. It's not really clear what his exact ethnicity would have beenm though.

[Der Übermensch]

He was dark skinned, but not Black.

[Iscariot]

1. he was jewish
2. he was middle eastern

no he was not black he was arabian'ish

[Dr Hooch]

Jewish Arab, surely?

[Iscariot]

sounds right to me

[Jharaski]

He was certainly dark-skinned, but not what we would today call "black." He was not born from an African. He looked like what everyone else looked like. If we're going to bring up that Jesus was born in the image of God, so was all of mankind. Since all of mankind looks different, and like God, this kind of falls apart to say he was anything in particular. He was Arabian, but as Smokey said, it's not the same it is today. Groups were more distinct, but he was definitely in one of those.

[Iskandar]

Jewish Arab, surely?His religion was Judaism and his ethnicity was Semitic. He wasn't exactly an Arab, though.

[pedro durruti]

At least he wasn't Asian.

[Eliminator]

http://www.rejesus.co.uk/expressions/faces_jesus/facesj_media/b_black_jesus.jpg

[Iskandar]

Yeah. Jesus wasn't black.

[HazMatBlue]

because the ethnicity of Jesus is intrinsically imortant to the reason he came



i've never understood why people care

[Iskandar]

because the ethnicity of Jesus is intrinsically imortant to the reason he came



i've never understood why people care
It suits the racialist purpose of certain interest groups to portray him as "their" colour.

[EinzingerIsGod]

It suits the racialist purpose of certain interest groups to portray him as "their" colour.

Basically.

And yeah chances are he was just really tan.

[HaVIC5]

It's possible. Nobody knows for sure.

But definitely not likely.

[Der Übermensch]

Jesus is only black when you smear your feces over pictures of him... :)

[Danger Bird]

Well he sure as **** wasn't white.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Jesus is only black when you smear your feces over pictures of him... :) :lol: Rep+

[spitfirejunky]

He could have been anything if he was the result of a virgin birth.

If he wasn't, he'd have to be semitic.

EDIT:

immaculate ≠ virgin birth

[Der Übermensch]

He could have been anything if the birth was immaculate.
Look up the definition of immaculate, because that makes no sense...

[italic zero]

immaculate conception actually refers to the birth of Mary

[Der Übermensch]

Well, it technically can refer to Jesus too, but regardless, its the wrong context :)

[italic zero]

no it's a specific catholic doctrine that only refers to the conception of Mary, and many people don't agree with it.

But what he was saying is that if Jesus was the son of God he wouldn't necessarily bound by the ethnicity of his culture.

[Der Übermensch]

I know that the Doctrine pertains to Mary. Christ was Miraculously Incarnated. But, since Jesus was conceived without sin, his was an immaculate conception, its just not The Immaculate Conception.

[Amit]

Probably not black, but not white either. If anything, he'd look Eastern Mediterrenean or perhaps Arab.

this

wtf black wtf what happened to geography for some of you twits

[Der Übermensch]

But what he was saying is that if Jesus was the son of God he wouldn't necessarily bound by the ethnicity of his culture.

He'd be what ever Mary was...

[spitfirejunky]

Look up the definition of immaculate, because that makes no sense...

You know what I mean.

[italic zero]

I know that the Doctrine pertains to Mary. Christ was Miraculously Incarnated. But, since Jesus was conceived without sin, his was an immaculate conception, its just not The Immaculate Conception.
yes but it's unnecessarily confounding to use the term immaculate to refer to Jesus's conception
He'd be what ever Mary was...
no man, God can be whatever damn color he wants

[Der Übermensch]

You know what I mean.
Yeah, it still didn't make sense though.... He did afterall have a mother, so would have gotten his looks from her I imagine.

yes but it's unnecessarily confounding to use the term immaculate to refer to Jesus's conception
Agreed, and I hope I wasn't implying it should be in a normal context.

[spitfirejunky]

Yeah, it still didn't make sense though.... He did afterall have a mother, so would have gotten his looks from her I imagine.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Y chromosome was manifested in such a way to express Jesus as a male identical to Mary.

It makes more sense to assume that half his genetics were from God and could have been anything God wanted them to be.

[Iskandar]

yes but it's unnecessarily confounding to use the term immaculate to refer to Jesus's conception
Catholic dogma must have gotten mixed up somewhere along the way for me, because I was taught that the Immaculate Conception referred to Jesus, not Mary. I assumed that Mary had had a normal birth.

[Cesar21]

Was Jesus a Christian? no
Was Jesus a Jew? yes
Was Jesus white? no
Was Jesus black? no
Was Jesus of a Hebrew ethnicity? yes
Was Jesus born in December 25 or X-mas? no (i don't remember if spring or fall)
Was the Christian religion made oficial in the Roman empire by a Christian? no (politician who feared division of empire)

[Iskandar]

Was Jesus a Christian? no
Was Jesus a Jew? yesThank you.

Jesus was attempting to reform the Jewish religion, not start a completely new faith.

[Der Übermensch]

It makes more sense to assume that half his genetics were from God and could have been anything God wanted them to be.

Ok, so he was some Goddish-Hebrew mulatto?

[Der Übermensch]

Catholic dogma must have gotten mixed up somewhere along the way for me, because I was taught that the Immaculate Conception referred to Jesus, not Mary. I assumed that Mary had had a normal birth.

Many Catholics get confused about that too... It refers to Mary though, and God sparing her of being born with original sin, as she needed to be sinless (Immaculate) in order to bare the Christ.

[Iskandar]

Many Catholics get confused about that too... It refers to Mary though, and God sparing her of being born with original sin, as she needed to be sinless (Immaculate) in order to bare the Christ.I don't see why we can't just assume Christ was born without sin. Logically it's the more likely explanation ... no need to assume an immaculate birth for Mary.

Well, Catholicism places too much emphasis on Mary anyway.

[Cesar21]

If u believe in the fact that is was the Holy Spirit who made Mary pregnant then I guess That would be correct

[spitfirejunky]

Ok, so he was some Goddish-Hebrew mulatto?

Or a full-blown zygote was simply spawned, making him anything still.

[Bajs]

Off course the bible doesnt say that hes not white. If it said that he was black white people wouldnt fell as if Jesus is a part of them in the same way. BUT, it doesnt say that he is white either. why? cause then the black ones wouldnt feel as if jesus was one of them .

Christianitys PR manager (L)

[Iskandar]

If u believe in the fact that is was the Holy Spirit who made Mary pregnant then I guess That would be correct
I've always found the concept of the Holy Spirit to be frankly beyond my grasp. It doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't help that it was never defined for me by any of my teachers or clergy while I was in a Catholic school.
Or a full-blown zygote was simply spawned, making him anything still.It can be inferred that he looked more or less like any other Semite from scripture. In the incident where he is arrested by the Romans, Judas is ordered to point him out, so his appearance could not have been too distinctive.:)

[Der Übermensch]

I don't see why we can't just assume Christ was born without sin. Logically it's the more likely explanation ... no need to assume an immaculate birth for Mary.
The assumption was that noone who carried sin would be worthy to concieve the Christ.

Or a full-blown zygote was simply spawned, making him anything still.
Makes no sense though. That would mean Mary wasn't even part of the process really, not even really pregnat as much as just carrying the guy for awhile, which would make the whole Immaculate Conception pointless.

[Cesar21]

Jesus was attempting to reform the Jewish religion, not start a completely new faith.

Dropper this is correct.
Jesus took the Jewish religion to soul and tried to reform it in the way he tough the Jewish religion actually was suppose to be. The change was so radical that the Jewish themself didn't accept it and killed him in order to maintain the original Jewish religion.

In other words, Jesus was sooo Jewish that they had ti kill him.

Disclaimer: This is NOT an attack against the Jew religion

[Iskandar]

The assumption was that noone who carried sin would be worthy to concieve the Christ.Only if that sin were to be transferred to him. But I see no reason to assume that. It makes more sense to me that Jesus was simply born without sin.
Dropper this is correct.
Jesus took the Jewish religion to soul and tried to reform it in the way he tough the Jewish religion actually was suppose to be. The change was so radical that the Jewish themself didn't accept it and killed him in order to maintain the original Jewish religion.

In other words, Jesus was sooo Jewish that they had ti kill him.

Disclaimer: This is NOT an attack against the Jew religionHmm, I see what you mean, yes.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus wasn't going against the Jewish faith; he was fulfilling its messianic expectations. Essentially taking Judaism to the next level. In doing so, he naturally challenged both religious and secular authorities and caused quite a controversy. That's why he was killed, really: to outsiders, it would seem he was merely stirring up trouble.

[Knifeboy]

Jesus skin was the colour of magic

[deathscreamingsheep]

Octarine?

(hardcore geek here)

[spitfirejunky]

It can be inferred that he looked more or less like any other Semite from scripture. In the incident where he is arrested by the Romans, Judas is ordered to point him out, so his appearance could not have been too distinctive.:)

Hehe, yeah.

Makes no sense though. That would mean Mary wasn't even part of the process really, not even really pregnat as much as just carrying the guy for awhile, which would make the whole Immaculate Conception pointless.

Well, she'd be just as pregnant as a surrogate mother, but you're right that the immaculate conception would be pointless.

I'm just throwing ideas around. :)

[Roy.]

according to the bible he was jewish.

his family line was jewish and he was called the king of the jews.

[Silly Beach Turtles]

The truth is, Jesus is pure Spice.

Actually he had to have been of arab or other middle eastern descent due to the fact he went to Egypt and wasn't spotted too easily

[Cesar21]

Threads like this are the creation of the alienation of the world we live in. The fact that we care about Jesus skin color is in esence racism. He could be blue and it wouldn't ****ing matter. What the hell does it matter if a person is black, white, yellow, brown, purple, red???? Its all the same, there is only ONE race and that is the HUMAN RACE. This is a racist thread even if it wasn't intended to be.

Why is it bad to be Musulmin, that doesn't make u a ****ing terrorist. Why is it bad to be Jew, that doesn't make you a snob or a killer. Why is it bad to be black, that doesn't make you inferior. Why is it bad to be white, that doesn't make you boring or fragile. Why is it bad to be latin, that doesn't make you poor and stupid. Why is it bad to be asian, that doesn't make you shy and a mass murderer.

People please get some sense into yourself adn stop having an ancient set of mind that wasn't correct to begin with. Move from stupid and senseless to a smart and caring person.

[Surtr]

No not black lol.

But he'd have been Middle-Eastern-ish.

[Iskandar]

Hehe, yeah.

Well, she'd be just as pregnant as a surrogate mother, but you're right that the immaculate conception would be pointless.

I'm just throwing ideas around. :)I do think that if Christ was concieved by God, Mary was only a surrogate mother and a sinner like everyone else.

Mary does not need to be emphasized by Christianity (Catholicism is especially guilty of this). She was not a divine being, she was just the mother of Christ, because he needed to take a human form.

[Roy.]

The truth is, Jesus is pure Spice.

Actually he had to have been of arab or other middle eastern descent due to the fact he went to Egypt and wasn't spotted too easily

you have to think about what mary was most likely,not how much jews looked different than everyone else.

:lol: @ spice

Threads like this are the creation of the alienation of the world we live in. The fact that we care about Jesus skin color is in esence racism. He could be blue and it wouldn't ****ing matter. What the hell does it matter if a person is black, white, yellow, brown, purple, red???? Its all the same, there is only ONE race and that is the HUMAN RACE. This is a racist thread even if it wasn't intended to be.

Why is it bad to be Musulmin, that doesn't make u a ****ing terrorist. Why is it bad to be Jew, that doesn't make you a snob or a killer. Why is it bad to be black, that doesn't make you inferior. Why is it bad to be white, that doesn't make you boring or fragile. Why is it bad to be latin, that doesn't make you poor and stupid. Why is it bad to be asian, that doesn't make you shy and a mass murderer.

People please get some sense into yourself adn stop having an ancient set of mind that wasn't correct to begin with. Move from stupid and senseless to a smart and caring person.

...or maybe people want to know the truth instead of assuming.

seriously though the OMG we are one race thing,relax martin luther king. :rolleyes:

i really don't know where the racism issue comes in with this thread.

[Iskandar]

Dude, the reason the appearance of Jesus is still debated today is because it suits racist purposes.

[T_L_H]

I do think that if Christ was concieved by God, Mary was only a surrogate mother and a sinner like everyone else.

Mary does not need to be emphasized by Christianity (Catholicism is especially guilty of this). She was not a divine being, she was just the mother of Christ, because he needed to take a human form.

Agreed here.

[Roy.]

Dude, the reason the appearance of Jesus is still debated today is because it suits racist purposes.
yes,i know...but is that what this thread is about?

i can see bringing that up if this thread was full of racist comments or **** slinging but it isn't.

[Iskandar]

yes,i know...but is that what this thread is about?

i can see bringing that up if this thread was full of racist comments or **** slinging but it isn't.
To be quite honest, I have no idea why this thread was made. It's obvious that Jesus was Semitic ... nobody questions that Muhammad was an Arab, or Caesar was European.

[Iscariot]

I don't see why we can't just assume Christ was born without sin. Logically it's the more likely explanation ... no need to assume an immaculate birth for Mary.

Well, Catholicism places too much emphasis on Mary anyway.

christ wasn't born without sin he had to shed his original sin like everyone else mary was the immaculate conception

her mother was barren and no matter how hard they tried or how much they prayed she couldn't have children until finally god sent one of his angels to tell her to tell her she would in fact give birth and she ended up having mary who was born free of original sin in preparation for the birth of jesus later in life

oh and ot: if jesus was black he would have been lynched not crucified

jk jk

[Roy.]

To be quite honest, I have no idea why this thread was made. It's obvious that Jesus was Semitic ... nobody questions that Muhammad was an Arab, or Caesar was European.

it's not obvious when the catholic church keeps up this cycle of a blonde blue eyed jesus.

christ wasn't born without sin he had to shed his original sin like everyone else mary was the immaculate conception







truth

[italic zero]

no one of importance (except Matthias Grunewald) says jesus is blonde or blue eyed

[T_L_H]

it's not obvious when the catholic church keeps up this cycle of a blonde blue eyed jesus.
I've never seen a blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus. Ever. I honestly don't think that Jesus is being portrayed as white, and I don't think anyone really cares. Jesus' race really doesn't matter.

[Smokey D]

I don't see why we can't just assume Christ was born without sin. Logically it's the more likely explanation ... no need to assume an immaculate birth for Mary.

Well, Catholicism places too much emphasis on Mary anyway.

The process by which original sin is transferred kinda necessitates Mary to be immaculate.

But undoubtedly it was also influenced by the Marian cult in Catholicism (particularly medieval Catholicism).

christ wasn't born without sin he had to shed his original sin like everyone else mary was the immaculate conception

I'm reasonably sure the vast majority of theologians believe He was born without sin. Paul, for example, refers to Him as the new Adam.

[Iskandar]

The process by which original sin is transferred kinda necessitates Mary to be immaculate.I don't agree at all. Why not just assume that Mary's original sin was not transferred to Jesus?

That's if we want to think in terms of inherent sin at all, which I find rather silly; but let's not get into that.

[Smokey D]

I don't agree at all. Why not just assume that Mary's original sin was not transferred to Jesus?

Because that's not how medieval Christianity thought.



That's if we want to think in terms of inherent sin at all, which I find rather silly; but let's not get into that.

Lots of Christianity is pretty silly to outside viewers, but we have to think of it as an internal process and ideology.

[Iskandar]

Because that's not how medieval Christianity thought.



Lots of Christianity is pretty silly to outside viewers, but we have to think of it as an internal process and ideology.I'm not terribly interested in medieval Christian theology, to be quite honest. I'm interested in modern perspectives on the modern form of the religion.

[Smokey D]

You can't separate them as easily as that. Catholicism especially places a lot of emphasis on earlier doctrines and dogmas, so the medieval understanding colours utterly the modern understanding, even if Mariology is of reduced importance in general.

Also, consider the Hail Mary when thinking about the way Catholics view Mary. The first line is 'Hail Mary, full of Grace'. That is, Mary who does not lack any portion of grace. Therefore, she does not have the lack of sanctifying grace which is produced by original sin.

Wiki has some interesting stuff on it. Apparently, the Hail Mary, Full of Grace line comes from the Gospel of Luke, and is a translation of the Greek Chaire kecharitomene (rejoice you who have been graced'. The verb here is written in the feminine gender, vocative case, which indicates the action has been completed in the past and continues into the future.

Also, the book of Genesis refers to a woman who will be 'at emnity' to the serpent. That is, they will triumph over the evil of the serpent and never be subject to the sin which the serpent led Eve into.

[Iskandar]

You can't separate them as easily as that. Catholicism especially places a lot of emphasis on earlier doctrines and dogmas, so the medieval understanding colours utterly the modern understanding, even if Mariology is of reduced importance in general.

Also, consider the Hail Mary when thinking about the way Catholics view Mary. The first line is 'Hail Mary, full of Grace'. That is, Mary who does not lack any portion of grace. Therefore, she does not have the lack of sanctifying grace which is produced by original sin.

Wiki has some interesting stuff on it. Apparently, the Hail Mary, Full of Grace line comes from the Gospel of Luke, and is a translation of the Greek Chaire kecharitomene (rejoice you who have been graced'. The verb here is written in the feminine gender, vocative case, which indicates the action has been completed in the past and continues into the future.Yeah, it is interesting, in a historical context, but I just don't consider medieval theology to be of great important to modern Christianity. Of course, the Church has a long history of reactionism. It has to be dragged into the modern world kicking and screaming.
Also, the book of Genesis refers to a woman who will be 'at emnity' to the serpent. That is, they will triumph over the evil of the serpent and never be subject to the sin which the serpent led Eve into.I think that's reading a bit much into an isolated verse. If I recall correct, it says the serpent and woman (which women is not really specified in translation although I always believed it to be Eve) will be at odds with one another.

Smokey D, you debate Christianity in a way that makes me think you're Christian yourself, even though you're not. Just found that worthy of comment.

[Smokey D]

Yeah, it is interesting, in a historical context, but I just don't consider medieval theology to be of great important to modern Christianity. Of course, the Church has a long history of reactionism. It has to be dragged into the modern world kicking and screaming.

The formation of dogma is an explicit reaction to historical developments.

But I think it's wrong to read things like the Hail Mary as a medieval construction that's no longer relevant to Catholics. In addition to the affirmation of the Immaculate conception in the late 19th century, Mary continues to play an important part in and of herself in Catholic liturgy and worship (note that I'm not saying she is worshipped or is considered by any Catholic worthy of worship).

I think that's reading a bit much into an isolated verse. If I recall correct, it says the serpent and woman (which women is not really specified in translation although I always believed it to be Eve) will be at odds with one another.

Early Christian theologians described Mary as a new Eve like Christ was the new Adam. Things like 'as Eve listened to the serpent Mary listened to the Angel' etc.

Also, I don't think its entirely out of context. See the point on chaire kecharitomene.

Smokey D, you debate Christianity in a way that makes me think you're Christian yourself, even though you're not. Just found that worthy of comment.

Yeah, it must be confusing. A lot of people get caught out on that.

[Iskandar]

The formation of dogma is an explicit reaction to historical developments.Yeah, and it's often reactionary in nature. But let's debate the nature of dogma no more. I'm not interested in that; I'm interested in the dogma itself.
But I think it's wrong to read things like the Hail Mary as a medieval construction that's no longer relevant to Catholics. In addition to the affirmation of the Immaculate conception in the late 19th century, Mary continues to play an important part in and of herself in Catholic liturgy and worship (note that I'm not saying she is worshipped or is considered by any Catholic worthy of worship).The cult of Mary is far beyond appropriate for someone who was after all a human being like any other as opposed to the Son of Man. It's not seemly for a monotheistic religion to include mortal beings as objects of veneration, let alone focal points of religious worship. Judaism and Islam wouldn't even permit statues of her to be made.

(I didn't ignore the rest of your reponse; I just didn't feel it necessary to comment.)

[Smokey D]

The cult of Mary is far beyond appropriate for someone who was after all a human being like any other as opposed to the Son of Man. It's not seemly for a monotheistic religion to include mortal beings as objects of veneration, let alone focal points of religious worship. Judaism and Islam wouldn't even permit statues of her to be made.

Islam and Judaism wouldn't allow any sort of statues being made of anyone.

Christianity has a bit of an iffy relationship with charges of idolatory, because Christ manifestly incarnated in the physical world, where as Allah and the Jewish version of God do not.

Also, the cult of Mary is often misunderstood, even by Catholics themselves. She is not worshipped, she is not the focus of worship. She is venerated because she holds a special place as an example to Christians. Also, we have to remember that Catholicism believes that aside from Christ Mary alone is 'full of Grace' show she does have a special place in Catholic cosmology. However, everything good about her is acknowledged as not coming from her own works, but resulting specifically from God's decision to sanctify her. Acknowledging her special status is merely acknowledging the grace of God.

[Meatplow]

Threads like this are the creation of the alienation of the world we live in. The fact that we care about Jesus skin color is in esence racism. He could be blue and it wouldn't ****ing matter. What the hell does it matter if a person is black, white, yellow, brown, purple, red???? Its all the same, there is only ONE race and that is the HUMAN RACE. This is a racist thread even if it wasn't intended to be.

I think it is a relevant thought. People have been taught Jesus is white for centuries, it's an image that is firmly drummed into a lot of people's heads. Racism and christianity has been a well worn topic, for example many of the Ku Klux Klan believed what they were doing was right as they were good christians. Similar attitudes still exist today, and i feel the theory of Jesus being black is only offensive to people who don't want to consider the possibility. It is not a racist thread, though i can understand how you can see it that way.

Why is it bad to be Musulmin, that doesn't make u a ****ing terrorist. Why is it bad to be Jew, that doesn't make you a snob or a killer. Why is it bad to be black, that doesn't make you inferior. Why is it bad to be white, that doesn't make you boring or fragile. Why is it bad to be latin, that doesn't make you poor and stupid. Why is it bad to be asian, that doesn't make you shy and a mass murderer.

What has this got to do with anything? Nobody is doing any generalisation on race here. I agree with this.

[Iskandar]

Islam and Judaism wouldn't allow any sort of statues being made of anyone.

Christianity has a bit of an iffy relationship with charges of idolatory, because Christ manifestly incarnated in the physical world, where as Allah and the Jewish version of God do not.Don't forget that Allah, God and YHWH/Adonai/etc. are all the same deity called different names.
Also, the cult of Mary is often misunderstood, even by Catholics themselves. She is not worshipped, she is not the focus of worship. She is venerated because she holds a special place as an example to Christians. Also, we have to remember that Catholicism believes that aside from Christ Mary alone is 'full of Grace' show she does have a special place in Catholic cosmology. However, everything good about her is acknowledged as not coming from her own works, but resulting specifically from God's decision to sanctify her. Acknowledging her special status is merely acknowledging the grace of God.i just think it's overstepping boundaries to include Mary in worship services. It's dangerous in that it's one more step down the road to idolatry, you dig? I wouldn't want it if I were Christian.

[Smokey D]

Don't forget that Allah, God and YHWH/Adonai/etc. are all the same deity called different names.

The later religions claim He is the same as mentioned in earlier revelations, but each one has a distinct theological understanding of Him that, in terms of comparative religion, makes Him different.

i just think it's overstepping boundaries to include Mary in worship services. It's dangerous in that it's one more step down the road to idolatry, you dig? I wouldn't want it if I were Christian.

Many Catholics (not all) will take steps to prevent that from happening though.

But I can understand what you're saying.

[Iskandar]

The later religions claim He is the same as mentioned in earlier revelations, but each one has a distinct theological understanding of Him that, in terms of comparative religion, makes Him different.Most followers of these religions (and some non-Abrahamic religions) will tell you it is the same god though.
Many Catholics (not all) will take steps to prevent that from happening though.

But I can understand what you're saying.I think the safest road for a monotheist is to follow the example of Islam and Judaism, and shun anything that smacks of idolatry. Just my opinion.

[Smokey D]

Most followers of these religions (and some non-Abrahamic religions) will tell you it is the same god though.

Maybe, but different theological conceptions produce different practises, even if He is theoretically the same.


I think the safest road for a monotheist is to follow the example of Islam and Judaism, and shun anything that smacks of idolatry. Just my opinion.

But anyone who is Christian acknowledges the unity and singularity of God, so there isn't a problem there.

[Iskandar]

But anyone who is Christian acknowledges the unity and singularity of God, so there isn't a problem there.That's still not playing it safe, though. Representation of human and animal forms is forbidden in Judaism and Islam because of the fear it might lead to idolatry. Christianity does not observe any such restrictions; many Christian denominations depict religious figures, both divine and mortal, in a variety of ways. That approach is more open to idolatry.

[Smokey D]

But a true Christian doesn't need to play it safe. They only need to play by the rules. As long as a Christian doesn't deviate any further than what is allowed by Christianity, they're in the clear.

[Iskandar]

But a true Christian doesn't need to play it safe. They only need to play by the rules. As long as a Christian doesn't deviate any further than what is allowed by Christianity, they're in the clear.It couldn't hurt to take precautions. The historical cult of Mary was cutting it awfully close, as was the veneration of saints. Even today some Christians will call on (mortal, shall I say) saints in prayer. That's not befitting of a monotheistic religion.

[Smokey D]

Not if you understand what it actually is (granted, many historic Christian probably didn't).

And anyway, if you're a Christian, following Christian practise is playing it safe.

And prayer to the saints is not asking them to use divine powers or equating them to God. It is asking them to intercede. Many would see this is an unnecessary step, but certainly doesn't make Christianity polytheistic.

[Iskandar]

And anyway, if you're a Christian, following Christian practise is playing it safe.Christianity is always in need of improvement, because we're mortals and sinners etc.
And prayer to the saints is not asking them to use divine powers or equating them to God. It is asking them to intercede. Many would see this is an unnecessary step, but certainly doesn't make Christianity polytheistic.It is essentially deifying dead humans ... only God has the power to answer prayers, not some long-dead martyr.

[LittlePound]

True, God is the only one to answer prayers.
I don't necesarily think that praying to saints is a bad thing, but like Smokey D had said some say, it's unnecessary. The bible says the Holy Spirit intercedes for us to God, there is no reason we should have to go the saints for intercession when the Holy Spirit does it for us
Also, why would the saints have to intercede. In all honesty, the saints are no different then you are i, they were just people, but they humbled themselves to the call of God. Any one of us could be just as good as any of them becuase we are empowered by and cleansed by the same God and the same Blood.

[Iskandar]

True, God is the only one to answer prayers.
I don't necesarily think that praying to saints is a bad thing, but like Smokey D had said some say, it's unnecessary. The bible says the Holy Spirit intercedes for us to God, there is no reason we should have to go the saints for intercession when the Holy Spirit does it for us
Also, why would the saints have to intercede. In all honesty, the saints are no different then you are i, they were just people, but they humbled themselves to the call of God. Any one of us could be just as good as any of them becuase we are empowered by and cleansed by the same God and the same Blood.I would say we have the same potential to be saints because we have free will, but I'm an existentialist not a Christian....

Praying to saints strikes me as undesirable because it distracts you from God. You worship God alone, your prayers should be directed only to him. I might just be reiterating the Islamic perspective however now that I think of it ... but I agree with what I said anyway.

[Smokey D]

Christianity is always in need of improvement, because we're mortals and sinners etc.

But dogma is divinely inspired.

It is essentially deifying dead humans ... only God has the power to answer prayers, not some long-dead martyr.

Yes, but saints don't do answer the prayer. They intercede with God on the behalf of the supplicant. It's always God who responds, not some saint.


Also, why would the saints have to intercede. In all honesty, the saints are no different then you are i, they were just people, but they humbled themselves to the call of God. Any one of us could be just as good as any of them becuase we are empowered by and cleansed by the same God and the same Blood.

I suppose it follows from the logic that saints are especially empowered because they have received grace more fully. Protestant logic obviously rejects this idea.

I should point out that saints are less important in modern Catholic worship than before.

[Iskandar]

Yes, but saints don't do answer the prayer. They intercede with God on the behalf of the supplicant. It's always God who responds, not some saint.But in prayer, the Christian's intent should always be to communicate with God directly ... that's the purpose of prayer.

[Smokey D]

I don't see why you can't communicate with other heavenly agents, unless you reject prayers to the dead.

[Iskandar]

I don't see why you can't communicate with other heavenly agents, unless you reject prayers to the dead.
I'm arguing that one shouldn't because one should remember only God in his or her prayers. That's why Jews and Muslims pray several times a day to God, to remember him....

[Smokey D]

But Christians pray to God all the time too.

[Iskandar]

But Christians pray to God all the time too.Might as well pray to only God, then.

Hmm. Christians don't pray as regularly as Jews and Muslims, who have set times for prayers. Just something I was musing upon.

[Smokey D]

Why?

[Iskandar]

Why?Because he's the focal point of the religion ... ? Because nobody else has the power to answer prayers?

[Smokey D]

That's not exactly clear.

Only God has the ability to respond to supplication, but Catholicism seems fairly certain you can communicate with the saints.

And being the focal point of religion doesn't make Him the only part of it.

[Iskandar]

That's not exactly clear.

Only God has the ability to respond to supplication, but Catholicism seems fairly certain you can communicate with the saints.

And being the focal point of religion doesn't make Him the only part of it.
What scriptural basis does Catholicism have for communicating with saints? It seems a holdover from the times of saint veneration, really.

[Smokey D]

As traditionally understood, the Trinity means that there are three persons all made of the same divine Being. These are God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit. God the Son is understood as the perfect self-awareness of God the Father (one of the qualities of perfection being reality) and the Holy Spirit is the perfect love that exists between the Father and the Son.

What scriptural basis does Catholicism have for communicating with saints? It seems a holdover from the times of saint veneration, really.

Probably, although Catholicism considers Tradition an important and relevant source of revelation.

[Iscariot]

I'm reasonably sure the vast majority of theologians believe He was born without sin. Paul, for example, refers to Him as the new Adam.

jesus is the son of god also referred to as the son of man

jesus was born as god in the flesh so that he may grow live and die as a man the same as the people he was sent to save

to be born a man is to be born with original sin

mary was spared original sin so she would be pure enough to conceive christ but christ's life was a series of tests and trials and this included the necessity to accept god as his father and shed his original sin

you can dispute this if you want but you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate source to invalidate it

edit: also the idea behind communicating with the saints is that these people were granted sainthood for their outstanding service and devotion to god and his word

when you send your prayers to these saints you aren't praying to them or asking them to fulfill your prayers you're asking them to validate your prayer before god because these are the people that you would expect to see within ten steps of god's "throne" so to speak

it's just a means of asking for a little backup if you feel your prayer may be a little too selfish or that god may not see it fit for fulfillment because of other circumstances

[Smokey D]

jesus is the son of god also referred to as the son of man

jesus was born as god in the flesh so that he may grow live and die as a man the same as the people he was sent to save

to be born a man is to be born with original sin

mary was spared original sin so she would be pure enough to conceive christ but christ's life was a series of tests and trials and this included the necessity to accept god as his father and shed his original sin

Everything I've ever heard or read about Jesus in terms of theology is that by being sinless He was the only one who could take on the sins of the world.

The controversy concerning the sinlessness of Christ focuses upon the human nature which Christ assumed. The question must be asked if it is possible to be fully human and not be a participant in the "fall" of Adam? Adam and Eve existed in an "unfallen" status before the "fall" according to Genesis 2-3.

[edit]The sinless nature of Christ involves two elements according to MacLeod, “First, Christ was free of actual sin.”[2] Studying the gospels there is no reference to Jesus praying for the forgiveness of sin, nor confessing sin. The assertion is that Jesus did not commit sin, nor could he be proven guilty of sin; he had no vices. In fact, he is quoted as asking, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" in John 8:46. “Secondly, he was free from inherent sin;

[Iscariot]

you don't have all the information

take a look at the list of books that were banned from the bible when it was compiled and of those that we have access to there is indeed reference to jesus experiencing quite a bit of turmoil in his early life and committing plenty of sinful acts before accepting his role and accepting his father

the gospel of mary is the most available excluded book that details the childhood of jesus recounting events such as the time when he was young and had a disagreement with his friend while working on a roof

he pushed his friend off of the roof and killed him and when the adults came to see what had happened jesus brought the boy back to life

there are plenty of instances of jesus being far from "sin free" and as i said earlier being the son of man and being that it was his mother not him that was the immaculate conception jesus was definitely not born free of original sin

the existence of adam and eve prior to original sin has no bearing on whether or not jesus was burdened with it because the whole point of original sin is that when adam and eve were cast out of eden all generations of their kin for the rest of time would be born with their sin until asking forgiveness and accepting god

mary was the only recorded exception because as i also said she had to be pure (hence her also being a virgin) in order to bear the son of god

[Dr Hooch]

Ah, the virgin mary story... <chortle>

Anyway, Iscariot, I expect you'll find a huge amount of people in diagreement for you. I don't see how jesus was much of a sacrifice if he was just another guy, born through weird means or not...

I thought jesus was the end of the sacrifice of 'sinless' animals like lambs?

Anyway you're right loads of stuff was banned form the bible so i guess it's a pretty rubbish source of information, right?

[Iscariot]

Ah, the virgin mary story... <chortle>

ah the stereotypical critic who ironically doesn't think critically at all but rather degrades and mocks those beliefs that he does not share

Anyway, Iscariot, I expect you'll find a huge amount of people in diagreement for you. I don't see how jesus was much of a sacrifice if he was just another guy, born through weird means or not...

then you apparently have never read the bible or have any concept of what jesus went through in his life

I thought jesus was the end of the sacrifice of 'sinless' animals like lambs?

jesus didn't approve of animal sacrifices because he felt that the blood of animals could not wash away the sins of man

his death was highly symbolic because of the fact that by dying in place of the lamb he became the lamb of god and the blood of man was shed to wash away the sins of all mankind

Anyway you're right loads of stuff was banned form the bible so i guess it's a pretty rubbish source of information, right?

of course not there are plenty of valid gospels that are present in the bible but for those gray areas that don't seem to be present we have to actually put out a little effort and do some research to fill the gaps otherwise we'd all be angry little critics with nothing better to do than try to invalidate a document that is very important to millions of people

[Cesar21]

I think it is a relevant thought. People have been taught Jesus is white for centuries, it's an image that is firmly drummed into a lot of people's heads. Racism and christianity has been a well worn topic, for example many of the Ku Klux Klan believed what they were doing was right as they were good christians. Similar attitudes still exist today, and i feel the theory of Jesus being black is only offensive to people who don't want to consider the possibility. It is not a racist thread, though i can understand how you can see it that way.

I understand where you are coming from. In my case I had never been thought Jesus was any color. I've always seen him as a Hebrew. So what I wrote a couple of pages back wasn't influence by some one teaching me Jesus was white. But i see your point and how if that is the case, then what I wrote might be a little out of context.

My second paragraph was just trying to give a bigger and stronger example of the racist theme I established in the first paragraph.

[Volumnius Flush]

Jesus was 'yellow'. He was Jewish. That's final. What more is there to say and what evidence do you have to suggest he was black?

[Der Übermensch]

Yellow is horribly rascist no matter what, but regardless, I'm pretty sure He wasn't from China...

[Volumnius Flush]

Yellow is horribly rascist no matter what, but regardless, I'm pretty sure He wasn't from China...

Oh so I'm a racist, but ts can call Jesus black and no one cares? I'm white, does that make me racist against myself? Oh I'm 6.25% Cherokee, I guess that makes me red. I guess I'm a Communist now.

[lunchforthesky]

What the f'uck are you talking about VF.

[Der Übermensch]

I'm saying that Yellow is a horribly archaic term used to refer to people of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other far Eastern decents, and by modern standards is considered very rascist.

White and Black don't carry overly rascist connotations though.

[Volumnius Flush]

I'm saying that Yellow is a horribly archaic term used to refer to people of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other far Eastern decents, and by modern standards is considered very rascist.

White and Black don't carry overly rascist connotations though.

Yellow refers to Jews you dolt. I am not a racist and if you continue referring to me as such, I will report you.

[lunchforthesky]

No yellow refers to the oriental races.

[Der Übermensch]

Wow... Your an idiot VF...

"Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), one of the founder of scientific racism theories, came up with the five color typology for humans: white (Caucasian), more or less black (Ethiopian), wheat-yellow (Mongolian), cinnamon-brown or flame color (American), brown color (Malaysian)."

Ever hear of 'Yellow Peril'? Or did you fail History?

[italic zero]

yellow is associated with the Christian sin of greed

[Volumnius Flush]

Wow... Your* an idiot VF...

"Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), one of the founder of scientific racism theories, came up with the five color typology for humans: white (Caucasian), more or less black (Ethiopian), wheat-yellow (Mongolian), cinnamon-brown or flame color (American), brown color (Malaysian)."

Ever hear of 'Yellow Peril'? Or did you fail History?

Ever hear of 'you are', not 'your', but 'you're'. You are one hammer short of a tool box indeed. You are one attorney short of a practice. You are one credit short of a degree.

Looks like you skipped over Jewish people in your color topology, racist. I have reported you and you will be sorry when the MX authorities take action.

[Der Übermensch]

Well, I'm still quite a number of credits short of my degree, but I'm getting there, but you are one ad hominum short of me saying " I will report you." :p Stop bitching when you're proven to be an idiot.

Jew's were lumped into White, if you care to know.

[Volumnius Flush]

You are one ad hominum short of me saying " I will report you."

Jew's were lumped into White, if you care to know.

Jews are not white!! That offends me!! And the only ad hominum here is yours so I would be quiet if I were you.

[Der Übermensch]

These are all ad hominum's "You are one hammer short of a tool box indeed. You are one attorney short of a practice. You are one credit short of a degree. "
Me calling you rascist is a statement of fact, based on what you say...

Being offended at the thought of Jew's being white seems rather rascist if you ask me... (Sometimes they are lumped in with Brown admittedly, but never Yellow, thats strictly Far East)

[lunchforthesky]

Jews do not have a specific colour, they are a religion not a race despite what Mein Kampf says. Jews in America do not look like Jews in Russia.

[Der Übermensch]

There is a Hebrew ethnicity... it's just very very very loosly defined though, and regardless, it isn't part of what was once vulgarly refered to as "Yellow".

[Volumnius Flush]

You yourself called the Asians yellow. It seems you are the racist.

[lunchforthesky]

I dont see why calling them yellow is racist. We arent white and "black" people aren't black.

They are just silly labels for differenciating..

[Der Übermensch]

What? I said that in Color Rasism, Yellow is what is used to refer to Asians. I didn't use it in anyway that could be termed offhand.
My exact words were "I'm saying that Yellow is a horribly archaic term used to refer to people of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other far Eastern decents, and by modern standards is considered very rascist."
I don't see how that can be contrued as me supporting the usage of that word...
You on the other hand seem to want to use it.

[Volumnius Flush]

What? I said that in Color Rasism, Yellow is what is used to refer to Asians. I didn't use it in anyway that could be termed offhand.
My exact words were "I'm saying that Yellow is a horribly archaic term used to refer to people of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other far Eastern decents, and by modern standards is considered very rascist."
I don't see how that can be contrued* as me supporting the usage of that word...
You on the other hand seem to want to use it.

See. He called Asians yellow once again, you big flaming racist! And it's construed*. You grammatical cornhole.

I dont see why calling them yellow is racist. We arent white and "black" people aren't black.

They are just silly labels for differenciating..

Exactly. You are exactly right.

[Der Übermensch]

Ok, I feel justified saying this publicly. You are the stupidest douchebag on this forum. ANYONE could understand the context in which I am using "Yellow" is not meant to be racist, but to explain that you in fact are, and you are just being stupidly immature with you're responses.

[Volumnius Flush]

This is completely uncalled for this great assault against me. It is you who should be banned, and not temporarily I might add.

[Smokey D]

you don't have all the information

take a look at the list of books that were banned from the bible when it was compiled and of those that we have access to there is indeed reference to jesus experiencing quite a bit of turmoil in his early life and committing plenty of sinful acts before accepting his role and accepting his father

the gospel of mary is the most available excluded book that details the childhood of jesus recounting events such as the time when he was young and had a disagreement with his friend while working on a roof

he pushed his friend off of the roof and killed him and when the adults came to see what had happened jesus brought the boy back to life

there are plenty of instances of jesus being far from "sin free" and as i said earlier being the son of man and being that it was his mother not him that was the immaculate conception jesus was definitely not born free of original sin

the existence of adam and eve prior to original sin has no bearing on whether or not jesus was burdened with it because the whole point of original sin is that when adam and eve were cast out of eden all generations of their kin for the rest of time would be born with their sin until asking forgiveness and accepting god

mary was the only recorded exception because as i also said she had to be pure (hence her also being a virgin) in order to bear the son of god

If you start using non-canon sources, you can believe pretty much anything you want about Jesus, so that's not really very helpful. According to the canon Bible, the one which Christianity bases its doctrines off, Jesus was sinless.

[Iscariot]

If you start using non-canon sources, you can believe pretty much anything you want about Jesus, so that's not really very helpful. According to the canon Bible, the one which Christianity bases its doctrines off, Jesus was sinless.

considering the only reason the banned books were excluded was due to the fact that many of them were either gospels written by women or gospels that offered a portrayal of women in a strong social role i fail to see the invalidation of their content

the books in the canon bible are there because they were deemed infallible merits of the word of god

again this would naturally exclude any book detailing a woman in anything other than a submissive role at the time of the bible's compilation

also there is a different "canon" for every christian denomination due to varying interpretations of the books so calling out my citation of a "non-canon" book is pretty silly and pointless

[Der Übermensch]

considering the only reason the banned books were excluded was due to the fact that many of them were either gospels written by women or gospels that offered a portrayal of women in a strong social role i fail to see the invalidation of their content
Also anything portraying him as having human atributes.

The fact that only 4 of the 30 something gospels actually were used should tell us something in of itself I would say...

[VomitStainedCretin]

Jews do not have a specific colour, they are a religion not a race despite what Mein Kampf says. Jews in America do not look like Jews in Russia.:rolleyes:Yes but they all has big nozes and lykes te money:rolleyes:

[Smokey D]

considering the only reason the banned books were excluded was due to the fact that many of them were either gospels written by women or gospels that offered a portrayal of women in a strong social role i fail to see the invalidation of their content

The reason they were banned was because they taught things about Jesus that was outside of orthodoxy.

Besides, I'm talking about Christianity as an established institution, not what we think it should be. The Christian Church has norms and practises which instantiate validity and have come to preclude certain understandings of Jesus as expressed in certain writings. Therefore, from the understanding of the Christian Church (and not our own personal beliefs), Jesus was sinless.

If I were going to talk about Jesus from my personal perspective, I'd question his divine nature. But that's not hte point here.

the books in the canon bible are there because they were deemed infallible merits of the word of god

Exactly.

again this would naturally exclude any book detailing a woman in anything other than a submissive role at the time of the bible's compilation

There's nothing natural in that process, but I'd agree that's what happened.

also there is a different "canon" for every christian denomination due to varying interpretations of the books so calling out my citation of a "non-canon" book is pretty silly and pointless

No canon Bible would ever say Jesus was anything but sinless.

There are differences and they have led to disputes in certain areas of doctrine, but that isn't one of them.

Unless you're talking about random sects which aren't really denominations in the way we commonly use the term.


Also anything portraying him as having human atributes.

No no. Jesus was entirely human as well as entirely divine. His humanity is a central mystery of the Church.

[Der Übermensch]

Yeah, I misspoke. I meant mortal attributes.

[White]

does anyone have any pages other than Wikipedia to back this up? cause I am trying to proove to my firned that yes he would ahve been tanned, they think "no he was painted White so he was white" they just don't get it.

[SoulSeekerz]

I think Jesus was multicultural. Since he was the Son of God, he appeared to all as they wanted to see him.

[Iskandar]

I think Jesus was multicultural. Since he was the Son of God, he appeared to all as they wanted to see him.
Dude, what?

[White]

thats actualyl a belief, also there one that he had no language but only one that everyone could understand.

[SoulSeekerz]

Dude, what?

I am chick,
What I meant was since Jesus was the Son of God, when you met him, he would be Arabic if you were Arabic, Jewish if you were jewish, black, white, chinese, etc.
He had the power of miracles and divine healing, so why not being all races to the people of their own race.

[Iskandar]

thats actualyl a belief, also there one that he had no language but only one that everyone could understand.That's stupid. He was human, had a body like everyone else etc. As to the language he spoke, the only direct quotations of him are in Aramaic.
What I meant was since Jesus was the Son of God, when you met him, he would be Arabic if you were Arabic, Jewish if you were jewish, black, white, chinese, etc.He didn't live in a multicultural society. Everyone he met, with few exceptions, was Middle Eastern. I don't see any basis, Scriptural or otherwise, for this theory.

[lfantwister]

I am chick,
What I meant was since Jesus was the Son of God, when you met him, he would be Arabic if you were Arabic, Jewish if you were jewish, black, white, chinese, etc.
He had the power of miracles and divine healing, so why not being all races to the people of their own race.
Do people really have that much trouble relating to people of other races that the unifier has to be a million different races?

[SoulSeekerz]

No, He was God in a divine human body. He walked on water, and ascended into heaven with his human body.
The point is, with his univeral language (think Star Trek universal translator) and his ability to alter his appearance, he would have made it easier for people to understand his teachings.
I am quite sure even 2000 years ago, they were cultural divisions in the middle east, as there are now in present times.

[Iskandar]

No, He was God in a divine human body. He walked on water, and ascended into heaven with his human body.As I am not Christian, I don't believe this at all.
The point is, with his univeral language (think Star Trek universal translator) and his ability to alter his appearance, he would have made it easier for people to understand his teachings.
I am quite sure even 2000 years ago, they were cultural divisions in the middle east, as there are now in present times.But he lived in Judea. Pretty much everyone he preached to was Jewish.

[lfantwister]

No, He was God in a divine human body. He walked on water, and ascended into heaven with his human body.
The point is, with his univeral language (think Star Trek universal translator) and his ability to alter his appearance, he would have made it easier for people to understand his teachings.
I am quite sure even 2000 years ago, they were cultural divisions in the middle east, as there are now in present times.
I'm not saying there werent cultural divisions, only that he probably wasn't all races and spoke all languages. The language thing reminds me that one of the major problems of the bible is its translation..er, mistranslations.

The ability for people to understand his message surely wasnt reliant on his race?

[SoulSeekerz]

I'm not saying there werent cultural divisions, only that he probably wasn't all races and spoke all languages. The language thing reminds me that one of the major problems of the bible is its translation..er, mistranslations.

The ability for people to understand his message surely wasnt reliant on his race?

Not at all. It is just a supositional theory. He did have amazing popularity in an era of no communications by phone, e mail, media, print, television etc..
I am just thinking outloud here.
Not sure how it all went down.

[Iskandar]

I'm not saying there werent cultural divisions, only that he probably wasn't all races and spoke all languages. The language thing reminds me that one of the major problems of the bible is its translation..er, mistranslations.Language wouldn't have been a problem for Jesus. Everybody in his area would have understood Aramaic, as it was a lingua franca at the time.

[lfantwister]

Not at all. It is just a supositional theory. He did have amazing popularity in an era of no communications by phone, e mail, media, print, television etc..
I am just thinking outloud here.
Not sure how it all went down.
The bible might help you out there, as it recorded his life

Language wouldn't have been a problem for Jesus. Everybody in his area would have understood Aramaic, as it was a lingua franca at the time.oh.. i was just testing you on that point, to see if you'd catch it

[Iskandar]

oh.. i was just testing you on that point, to see if you'd catch itDon't yank my chain.

[lfantwister]

Don't yank my chain.
dont rub my buddha

[italic zero]

ok i think that's illegal

[Smokey D]

No, He was God in a divine human body. He walked on water, and ascended into heaven with his human body.
The point is, with his univeral language (think Star Trek universal translator) and his ability to alter his appearance, he would have made it easier for people to understand his teachings.
I am quite sure even 2000 years ago, they were cultural divisions in the middle east, as there are now in present times.

He was divine, but he was fully human at the same time.

Cultural divisions in Jerusalem wouldn't have been particularly significant. Aside from a few Roman overlords, it was a fully Jewish city.

[Der Übermensch]

Language wouldn't have been a problem for Jesus. Everybody in his area would have understood Aramaic, as it was a lingua franca at the time.

Greek was too... (Mel Gibson got that wrong, Latin wasn't spoken in the Eastern part of the Empire very often).

But translation was an issue... Not for Jesus per sé, but such nuances as whether Hebrew for 'young woman' should be translated into Greek for 'virgin' in the Old Testemant prophecies did have some major effects on the New Testament...

[Smokey D]

Aramaic would have been more common amongst the people Jesus associated with. Greek was more intellectual and aristocratic.

[Der Übermensch]

Yeah, thats why I said not Jesus per sé.

Some of the Authors of the Gospols however probably read Greek, and it's thought that they read the Alexandrian translations of the Old Testement... in which certain prophecies (in Hebrew) about the messiah being borne to a young woman were translated to him being borne by a virgin (in greek).

[italic zero]

the evangelists 'probably' read greek?

[AA-12]

He was white. Probably Egyptian.

[Smokey D]

Egptians aren't white and Jesus wasn't Egptian.

[Iskandar]

He was white. Probably Egyptian.Um, Semitic people aren't white.

[Smokey D]

Egypt is pretty much the perfect example of why concepts of race shouldn't apply to the ancient world. Ancient Egyptians were not a single race.

[Der Übermensch]

They were more of a cultural grouping than anything else...

[Smokey D]

Made up of multiple different ethnicities from various places in the Near East and Africa.

[Surgicalgod]

Why do some people strongly believe that Jesus was white? I'm sure they're aware that people from the ME aren't white.

[Smokey D]

Because Jesus being something other than white thwarts ideas of racial superiority.

Apparently, there is a significant group amongst white supremacists who really think Egypt was a 'Norse empire in the desert'. Stupid white supremacists.

There is also a weird definition of 'white' according to 19th century anthropology which white supremacy is based on that says Middle Easterners are white enough.

[Surgicalgod]

He was white. Probably Egyptian.
Apparently, there is a significant group amongst white supremacists who really think Egypt was a 'Norse empire in the desert'. Stupid white supremacists.

lol....

I still don't get why they feel that Jesus should be white just like them. It's just too silly :/

[Der Übermensch]

I still don't get why they feel that Jesus should be white just like them.
Because they want to be the people in Gods image...?

[pedro durruti]

It's not like non-whites have tails

[MattyBlade]

Just an F Y I jesus was olive skinned.


edit: Think lebanese or like um iranian lolz

[Der Übermensch]

It's not like non-whites have tails

Shhhh.... Can't break all the news to them at once! They can't handle the shock!

[ghostfacekillah]

Just an F Y I jesus was olive skinned.


edit: Think lebanese or like um iranian lolz

I honestly thought that said skinhead and I was like "uhh".

In all likelihood, though, Jesus was probably darker than white but not as dark as black.

[spitfirejunky]

Sweet. Next time I'm approached by a white Christian supremacist I'll just remind them that I'm as white as Jesus.

[MattyBlade]

I honestly thought that said skinhead and I was like "uhh".

In all likelihood, though, Jesus was probably darker than white but not as dark as black.

let's see. If someone was born in jerusalem today, what colour would they be? the same colour as jesus. Olive skinned.


http://www.naomileeschulke.com/images/7.JPG

^^^^^ that's the colour I'd have to say jesus was, you know, if he existed.

[Iskandar]

if he existed.Why would he have been invented?

[MattyBlade]

You know, to give people something to look forward to/believe in.

[Iskandar]

You know, to give people something to look forward to/believe in.It would have equally easy to deify a living man (which is what I believe happened).

[MattyBlade]

It would have equally easy to deify a living man (which is what I believe happened).

prophet mohammad anyone?

[Der Übermensch]

He isn't deified though.

[MattyBlade]

Oh, he's definitely deified, he's not idolized.

[Der Übermensch]

Mohammad is revered, but he isn't an actual god...

[MattyBlade]

hmm you know, I just looked it up. I assumed since people took jesus as a deity...and mohammad claimed to be a prophet in the same way as jesus/noah etc that mohammad would have been considered a deity as well.

Looks like I was wrong :O

[VomitStainedCretin]

Jesus was obviously a blood-drinking 7-foot tall reptilian sent to our planet in order to subdue humanity to the will of the Draconian race. So he was green.

[Der Übermensch]

hmm you know, I just looked it up. I assumed since people took jesus as a deity...and mohammad claimed to be a prophet in the same way as jesus/noah etc that mohammad would have been considered a deity as well.

Looks like I was wrong :O

Noah isn't deified by anyone, and Jesus isn't done so by Muslims.

[LittlePound]

while Jesus was mostly likely some sort of middle eastern asian (very similar to jewish, iranian, iraqi, etc.), it is likely that one of his disciple may have been black.
I forget where i heard it but i did hear that some historians thought that one of the dicsiples and possibly even the apostle Paul were of some sort of African descent but i don't know how accurate that is.

[White Riot!]

Theres no solid evidence that jesus actually existed.

Gospels were written well after the average lifespan of the chronicled events and there has been no primary evidence of him existing.

[Smokey D]

It's more likely Jesus existed in some form or another.

while Jesus was mostly likely some sort of middle eastern asian (very similar to jewish, iranian, iraqi, etc.), it is likely that one of his disciple may have been black.
I forget where i heard it but i did hear that some historians thought that one of the dicsiples and possibly even the apostle Paul were of some sort of African descent but i don't know how accurate that is.

If they were African, it's unlikely they were black (sub-Saharan).