Jesus couldn't of been white..

athiest_420 · Post by **athiest_420** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:05 pm

Think about it, where he was from, and when he lived there.....

You telling me either
a) he was the only white man there, and was white because he was the son of god.
b) just another example of believing what you want to believe....

even tho i am an athiest, i believe jesus existed (though obviously do not believe he was the son of god)
But his existance was a sham, a lie, he preached, people believed, here we are 2000 years later worshiping an image of a white man when it is IMPOSSIBLE that jesus was a white man...

what else is lies?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:32 pm

His Father was white wasn't he?

Let's see. The argument from silence. According to his biographers, Jesus was accepted by the people of the area as a Jew. If he looked markedly different, then one would have expected someone to have mentioned it. "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "

So long as we're being racist, how do you define white? What possible difference could it make?

athiest_420 · Post by **athiest_420** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:39 pm

McCulloch wrote:His Father was white wasn't he?

Let's see. The argument from silence. According to his biographers, Jesus was accepted by the people of the area as a Jew. If he looked markedly different, then one would have expected someone to have mentioned it. "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "

So long as we're being racist, how do you define white? What possible difference could it make?

I would appreciate not calling me racist, there was nothing racist about my statement unless the very idear of even mentioning someones skin pigment is racist in your eyes...

If thats the case political correctness has got much a hold over you.

No where in you reply did you oppose me and say he was white, bar maybe "His Father was white wasn't he? ", but as i already said, i do not believe i god, nor that he was the son of such god...

But saying god did farther jesus, and god did create those people, why is every reference to jesus and god of a Caucasian male...?

The fact is 2000 years ago in bethliham, everyone was a person of color, if this is the place where you supposed Saviour was born and raised, except that he was colored.

"So long as we're being racist, how do you define white? What possible difference could it make?"

Uhm, how do i define white? white is skin without the colour pigment, that is the only differance between a white man and a black man, but if your saviour was, black, is it not racist to deny this and depict him as white?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:29 pm

I apologize for my poorly thought out response. Since Christianity has been historically white, there seems to be a presumption that God is white. Therefore, Jesus, his son, must be white. I suppose that is changing.

McCulloch wrote:So long as we're being racist, how do you define white? What possible difference could it make?

My point is that racial differences are not all black and white. It is racist to divide humanity into two groups; white and colored. Our differences are far more subtle and complex than that. The American definition of white is even more troublesome. White means having no one in your ancestry that is not white, right? So someone with 15 white great-great grandparents and 1 black great-great grandparent is contrary to the laws of genetics and common sense is black not white.

However, I get your point. Many depictions of Jesus make him look as if he had Western European origins. The truth is that he should be presented as looking as if he grew up in the Middle East.

melodious · Post by **melodious** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:52 pm

athiest_420 wrote:Think about it, where he was from, and when he lived there.....

You telling me either
a) he was the only white man there, and was white because he was the son of god.
b) just another example of believing what you want to believe....

even tho i am an athiest, i believe jesus existed (though obviously do not believe he was the son of god)
But his existance was a sham, a lie, he preached, people believed, here we are 2000 years later worshiping an image of a white man when it is IMPOSSIBLE that jesus was a white man...

what else is lies?

McCulloch wrote:However, I get your point. Many depictions of Jesus make him look as if he had Western European origins. The truth is that he should be presented as looking as if he grew up in the Middle East.

The image of the bearded Jesus came from the images of the Egyptian god Serapis and later Romanized into the typical illustration today. This is fairly common knowledge to anyone who has studied a bit of actual Christian church history. The earliest depictions of Christ were as a beardless, blonde youth much like Apollo, Hermes or Dionysus. Every metaphor used to express Christ for Christians - "the true vine," "lamb of God," "the way, the truth, and the life," etc. - was used by the pagans for their gods millenia before the first century.

To condemn as foolish and trickery the Christianity of today is to rant and rave about something that has already been debunked by any intelligent, critical thinking person since the first and second centuries. Let's make it simple: Gnostics vs. Literalists... the Literalists won. It's really that ridiculously simple. Why, you ask? It is obvious that self-liberation loses out over autocratic, institutional dependency when it comes to the fear-mongering game of politics and religion. Anymore questions? If so, you aren't filling in the gaps by merely looking at the bigger picture.

Racism and religion are, in essence, the same - they're both dividers. They create "us" and "them" mentalities that divide us at our root-core: the inner psyche. However, I do view the religion game as a kind of ultimate test of character and wit from the Universal Joke. Some folks, I'll admit, have had a bigger challenge than others depending on the time/place they were born and their parental upbringing, but all 'n all I believe the legend: We are all orginally born either from the seed of the woman or the seed of the serpent. I choose to interpret this in the gnostic rather than profane masses since. It goes something like this: The one who is born of the Woman is an ordinary man or woman, but the one who is born of the Serpent is a Child of the Light, for the Serpent is the Light-bringer unto the world. In ancient symbology the snake is both Creator and Destroyer, the Light and the Darkness - the duality of the physical cosmos... reality... "the way, the truth, and the life"... Sophia... undefiled wisdom. A good atheist understands perfectly the Wisdom of the Serpent through the understanding that human beings are the godhead, and therefore see no need or reason to worship the slave-god of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims (for anyone who cares to know, this god is the same bloody god who enslaves humans through their own stupidity and cowardly self-deceit, and in turn these pious humans condemn and criticize others who would have the dignity to not choose this "holy" masochism).

In the spirit of the serpent of knowledge - M

tiberriver256 · Post by **tiberriver256** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:23 pm

Isa 53:2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.

There was nothing especially attractive, or special about his appearance. If he was white black or any other color than what the natives of that area were it would contradict this passage I believe

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:28 pm

tiberriver256 wrote:Isa 53:2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.

There was nothing especially attractive, or special about his appearance. If he was white black or any other color than what the natives of that area were it would contradict this passage I believe

Well, Isaiah 53:2 isn't talking about Jesus. .. it was written 700 years before the time given for Jesus's birth, and it was in past tense.

tiberriver256 · Post by **tiberriver256** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:38 pm

goat wrote:
Well, Isaiah 53:2 isn't talking about Jesus. .. it was written 700 years before the time given for Jesus's birth, and it was in past tense.

Isa 53:1-6 was a prophecy about Jesus and everything was fulfilled in Him. The whole book of Isaiah was a prophecy implying of course it was written before what actually happened. John 12:38 cites Jesus as the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:52 pm

tiberriver256 wrote:
goat wrote:
Well, Isaiah 53:2 isn't talking about Jesus. .. it was written 700 years before the time given for Jesus's birth, and it was in past tense.
Isa 53:1-6 was a prophecy about Jesus and everything was fulfilled in Him. The whole book of Isaiah was a prophecy implying of course it was written before what actually happened. John 12:38 cites Jesus as the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Of course it wasn't. The 4th servent song (which you quoted from) was discussing Israel. Not Jesus at all. The writer of the 'Gospel of John' reinterpreted for his own purposes, but it was about Israel.

the writer of the 4th servant song (it wasn't actually Isaiah, although it is lumped into the Book of Isaiah) was quite explicit. In Passages 42 and onward, he identified the servant as Israel a number of times.

melodious · Post by **melodious** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:02 pm

tiberriver256 wrote:Isa 53:2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.

There was nothing especially attractive, or special about his appearance. If he was white black or any other color than what the natives of that area were it would contradict this passage I believe

Yet isn't it interesting how in other passages he is described as looking like unto the sun (granted, these are perhaps speaking of his post-resurrection image) and in Gnostic gospels he sometimes appears to the disciples as a child.

However, the earliest depictions of Jesus in artwork illustrate him as a young beardless youth with blonde hair, much like the pagan gods Apollo, Hermes, and Dionysus. Many scholars have attributed the blonde hair of these gods to being symbolic of the rays of the sun. The halo depicted on angels and gods is also a solar disk symbol.

It still boggles my mind why people can't see the massive amount of classical symbolism that surrounds the Jesus figure and Christianity. I suppose it's because of the extreme ignorance of the vulgar masses that this erroneousness has spread like a disease all the way to modern times, and is the very reason why many people today still descend into ridiculous and nonsensical speculations of a fictional person.

In the spirit of the serpent of gnosis - M