"Since when was Jesus white?JESUS WAS A JEW?!?!?! HOLY CRAP!!!!!
Who tells people this!?!
He isn't white. He's of Jewish decent!"
Jesus was not white!
"HandsomeDead said:Hence my use of 'essentially'. He may have been a real person, but people only really know him because of his hocus pocus."I don't see what the problem of envisioning him as white is seeing as he's essentialy a fictional character anyway."No, he is not. There is historical proof that he existed, whether he had or not holy powers is fictional stuff."
"Willy105 said:i know! that totally blew me mind!"Since when was Jesus white?JESUS WAS A JEW?!?!?! HOLY CRAP!!!!!"
Who tells people this!?!
He isn't white. He's of Jewish decent!"
i kid.
I really dont care if there really was a guy named Jesus In Jerusalem who had 12 people who followed him. If there was, he was blown out of proportion, if there wasnt than there is even more reason why Christianity is a lie.
Who really cares. Also the whole idea of being "White" is just some idiotic ideology made up during the 1900s in the US. Its called Caucasian which is made up of people from Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Central and South Asia. Also just because your Caucasian doesn't mean your "White". Since Jesus was from the middle east I think he fits the Caucasian description.
"Snail said:Oh, the use of the word essentially was vague..."HandsomeDead said:Hence my use of 'essentially'. He may have been a real person, but people only really know him because of his hocus pocus.""I don't see what the problem of envisioning him as white is seeing as he's essentialy a fictional character anyway."No, he is not. There is historical proof that he existed, whether he had or not holy powers is fictional stuff."
It is certainly no fact that the biblical Jesus actually existed. Any writings about him (and there are suspiciously few from a culture that did engage in much other documentation) were written at least 20 years after his alledged death. Most testement is third hand (and therefore hear-say).
The earlist Roman accounts of his life have been called to scrutiny over early Christian additions to them. There were many people called Jesus who did live at the time (as tombs with remains confirm). The Jesus myth has far too much in common with earlier cultural beliefs and stories for me to believe.
"It is certainly no fact that the biblical Jesus actually existed. Any writings about him (and there are suspiciously few from a culture that did engage in much other documentation) were written at least 20 years after his alledged death. Most testement is third hand (and therefore hear-say).The earliest recorded versions of the bible, such as those contained in the dead sea scrolls and the Codex Sinaticus do not contain any of the resurrection story. The more you know!The earlist Roman accounts of his life have been called to scrutiny over early Christian additions to them. There were many people called Jesus who did live at the time (as tombs with remains confirm). The Jesus myth has far too much in common with earlier cultural beliefs and stories for me to believe.
"
The Jesus myth has far too much in common with earlier cultural beliefs and stories for me to believe.
That's fine, but it doesn't have any bearing on the factual existence of Jesus. You should avoid swinging that word around, it's dangerous. ;)
I assume that Jesus' movement was not nearly as big as the New Testament would have you believe, though it's really just speculation.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment