Question about Jesus for Christians

[nomhar]

I will start off by saying I am not religious, and while I don't deny the possibility of a creator, I can't say I rationally or logically accept religion to be true. Regardless I would like for people to give their opinion on this interesting question.

In the Old Testament, Daniel 7:9 states;

"His vesture was like white snow
And the hair of His head like pure wool"

Now most bibles vary on what exactly this above passage states, but almost all Old Testaments are nearly identical with a slight change of wording.

Onward then, Revelation 1:14 states;

"His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow;"

Now again, different bible versions once again vary, some instead of 'like snow' say 'as white as snow,' but again they are almost identical aside from some minor wording.

So then, the Old Testament more or less seems to be describing the 'hair' of His head as wooly, in other words arguing that Jesus was Black. Many groups such as the black hebrew israelites (cult) claim that this proves Jesus was indeed black. Furthermore many or most black christians who are normal people also believe this to be true. Personally if Jesus did exist, I don't care whether he was black or not. If so then that's great, but why is there such a significant difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament for what these passages say? The New Testament implies nothing about a hair type; but rather that the 'wool' or white description of his hair refers to its pureness and not the texture or color correct? Perhaps this is the same for the Old Testament, that the wool description simply means pureness and not a literal hair type.

Anyhow, in my opinion if Jesus did exist then I believe he was of Middle Eastern or semitic descent, a semite. Surely not European Caucasian, Black African, or Asian? Perhaps only if God himself supernaturally chose for the appearance of Jesus to be one of those ways could it be true. But I highly doubt that.

[Quixotic]

Quixotic wrote:
Believing in god, in anything on faith, not evidence holds back science and progress, testing faith is an oxymoron. If you test something it is not faith. It is science.


Of course it is science, testing faith is an oxymoron and I think we both believe that and established that from the beginning, if you recall. Holding back science and progress? Based on what EVIDENCE? Shocked I don't see it happening, and I enjoy watching for new things coming out to better society and humankind. Present what you think is wrong here. Come on, stop dancing around the topic. You want to be logical about it? Then do it. My biology teacher can give better arguments and actually have a smart conversation better then you. Present your evidence, not your own biased talk. Be scientific about it. Question is, do you even have evidence? Think

1) Each hour research based on testing of theoris is published adding to the sum of human knowledge. Faith has never contributed to human knowledge. This hold back progress.
2) Blasphemy and heresy against the church were punishable by torture and death until the end of the 16th century, simply question the authority of this dogma resulted in horrible punishments. This held back progress.
3) Science actually tests its theories, faith does not, it tries to enforce them. This hold back progress.
4) Faith never got us anywhere. No progress has ever been made on faith. science can cure all kinds of diseases and get us to the moon.
5) Where sicence is oppressed even today by faith no progress is made.
6) Science encourages questioning and change, faith does the oposite. This hold us back from progress.

so on so forth.

[jeremiah]