Jesus couldn't of been white..

[athiest_420]

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?

[tiberriver256]

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.

how do you know it wasn't in the book of Isaiah originally? How do you know Isaiah didn't write it?

[Goat]

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.

how do you know it wasn't in the book of Isaiah originally? How do you know Isaiah didn't write it?

Stylistic differences. There is the speculation that it was Isaiahs grandson.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

Critical positions

One of the most critically debated issues in Isaiah is the proposition that it may have been the work of more than a single author. Different proposals suggest that there have been two or three main authors (Original Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah), while alternative views suggest an additional number of minor authors or editors.
A fragment of the Book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Almost all scholars who believe that there are multiple authors recognize some sort of division at the end of chapter 39 and that subsequent portions were written by one or more additional authors, referred to collectively as Deutero-Isaiah. Supporters of the three author proposal see a further division at the end of chapter 55. For most of the twentieth century the three-author position was the most widely held; in the 1990s, more complex and carefully nuanced positions (such as that from Williamson, 1994) started to appear. The typical objections to single authorship of the book of Isaiah are as follows:

* Anonymity → That is to say that Isaiah’s name is suddenly not used from chapter 40-66.

* Style → There is a sudden change in the mood of the book from Isaiah after chapter 40.

* Historical Situation → The first portion of the book of Isaiah speaks of an impending judgment which will befall the wicked Israelites whereas the later portion of the book discusses God's mercy and restoration as though the exile were already a present reality.

* Supernaturalism → Critics often reject the unity of the work as such would require that the author had intimate knowledge of future events-- a possibility precluded by the naturalism under-girding much of higher criticism.

These and other considerations have led most modern critical scholars to conclude that the book of Isaiah, in its present form, is the result of an extensive editing process, in which the promises of God's salvation are re-interpreted and claimed for the Judean people through the history of their exile and return to the land of Judah.

[Anansi]

Race is a cultural construct with little meaning outside of making inane judgments. Skin color in our species is on a cline(a gradual change of a character or feature (phenotype) in a species over a geographical area). Was Jesus white? Probably not. Does it matter?

[myth-one.com]

Was Jesus white? Probably not. Does it matter?

Good point! His color matters not. What matters is that He lay down His life to pay the penalty of our sins and the scriptures say:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

what else is lies?

Jesus is today portrayed with long hair, delicate features, and carries himself in a slow, solemn, sliding of the feet in theatrical presentations. His wardrobe contains only bright white robes. Sometimes, a halo or glow is produced around his head. Why is Jesus portrayed as such? Because that is how people now believe he looked. These beliefs are the result of an artist's conception. The artist never saw Jesus or any description of Jesus, lived thousands of years after Jesus, and obviously never read the entire Bible. The artist's portrait most of us accept as "Jesus" was sketched by Warner Sallman in 1924.

These are not so much "lies" as simple ignorance. When someone miraculously "sees" Jesus in a cookie, window screen, potato chip, or whatever; they see Him as portrayed by Warner Sallman or some other artist.

If you read the Bible you will know that the image we recognize as Jesus is very probably wrong. Likewise, you will know that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial shroud of Jesus. Why not? Because it looks like our perception of Jesus based on Sallman's drawing, which is wrong. The Shroud may be the burial cloth for someone during that period, but it is not Jesus. It is obviously someone with long hair and Jesus did not have long hair:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Corinthians 11:14)

Nonetheless, virtually everyone today believes that Jesus had long hair thanks to Warner Sallman and man's inability to read and understand the Bible. Other than not having long hair, there are some hints as to the appearance of Jesus in the Bible:

He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. (Isaiah 53:2)

So Jesus did not have long hair, and He wasn't handsome. People did not desire Him for His looks or His form!

[muhammad rasullah]

Race is a cultural construct with little meaning outside of making inane judgments. Skin color in our species is on a cline(a gradual change of a character or feature (phenotype) in a species over a geographical area). Was Jesus white? Probably not. Does it matter?

It does matter when every image of the suppossed Jesus is white with long blonde hair and blue eyes. Its a false image of what he looked like and a false worship of who Jesus is. It was all psychological for during the times of slavery it was used to further enslave the minds of African Americans by the White slave masters to impose on their minds white dominance and getting them to believe that white was superior to any other race. By saying look Jesus was white....

[Anansi]

Thats a good point Muhammad Rasullah. I'm gonna play devil's advocate and suggest that it isn't impossible that Jesus was white (rather unlikely but possible). Ancient chinese records have described some mongolian raiders at the time as having blue eyes, blonde hair and lighter skin.

[msmcneal]

I'm surprised that people are still wondering about this. Picture a modern Arab, from, say, Jordan or Syria. That's probably what Jesus would have looked like.