CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Since when have middle easterners counted as white?
There may be some whites in the middle east. There may even be light skinned middle easterners. They're not white though - otherwise they would be europeans, a different skin tone.
They look Mediterranean. Most Middle easterner are defnitely closer in appearence than Blacks or East Asians or even Southern Indians. Most of tehm could pass as Italians or Greek.
Mediterranean is between both Asia and Europe and so their appearances would naturally be similar to both Asian/Middle Eastern and european. So I wouldn't say they look meditarranean. They wouldn't pass of as Italians of Greeks either. I think you need to redefine what a middle easterner looks like because if you've ever been there - they're not white.
Mediterranean is between both Asia and Europe and so their appearances would naturally be similar to both Asian/Middle Eastern and european. So I wouldn't say they look meditarranean. They wouldn't pass of as Italians of Greeks either. I think you need to redefine what a middle easterner looks like because if you've ever been there - they're not white.
Jewish people are considered white today. Jesus was a Jew. Therefore, by the standards set in today's world He would be considered white when He walked on the earth. However, He is God and God cares about the heart, not the color of the skin.
Jewish people are considered white? That's because those Jews had been living in Europe for a very long time. The Jews of Israel are mostly migrants from various parts of Europe - who are white.
Back in Jesus's time there is no way that Jews were even close to being considered european.
You have no proof of anything you said anywhere in your reply and the arguement is completely lacking any devices of logic. How on earth did you get an upvote?
"being of fair skin"-does not mean white skin. It means of lighter colour. So that doesn't mean she's white. Sometimes that statement means beauty or unblemished. And what part of the bible is that from? can you give me the exact reference of it? And what version of the bible have you read this from? the wikipedia version?
Jesus came fom the middle east...people there need dark skin (larger content of melanin) to protect it from the suns UV rays. Unless he was albino (which was never stated) Jesus was not white. Which doesn't make him any less or more of a person. Like God, it is better to think of Jesus as genderless and colourless..better then us because they cannot be classed.
I dont' mean to offend (maybe a little), but seriously, are you even talking about Jesus anymore? You seem to be more concerned about whether or not a Middle Eastern is beautiful.
You said it yourself, first century Middle Easterners looked different from how they look today.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they were whiter, or that all or most were whiter.
Unless you date back as far as the bible does, your statements are no more valid than his/hers.
"Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל, Eretẓ Yisra'el; formerly ארץ–כנען, Eretẓ Kena'an; also פלשׂתינה, Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is a conventional name used, among others, to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands."
I said people from that region are white.
Just because your from India or whatever shit hole part of that world it doesn't mean you know the worlds map. Surrounding that area.
Also, the middle east may be in "Asia" but people there are NOT considered "Asian".
You do realise that you have created rivalries with most people?
There was a Christian sect, Nestorians I believe, that went to India and China and 'set up shop' for quite a while. While I don't believe that they were German, they were European.
P.S. I don't see how this related to the topic, but I thought that it would be an interesting addition.
Let's think about this: No-one living today existed 2,000 years ago, when Jesus was presumed to have been born, therefore, no-one can honestly say that they have physically seen him as a white OR black man. Photography wasn't even heard of at the time, so no pictures could have been taken of him. Adding to that, relying on 'drawings' of Jesus is a pointless cause. These drawings could simply have been the interpretation of Jesus from one man's/woman's point of view.
Consider the following problem: If the virgin Mary was white, how could she biologically give birth to a black child? If the virgin Mary was black, how could she have biologically given birth to a white child? My point in this is that we cannot even tell which exactly Mary was, therefore, it is even harder to guess which exactly Jesus was.
One thing that is easily noticed among religions is that they depict Jesus as a white man. To emphasize this, Jesus was dubded the son of God, who was also depicted as a white man. Consider this next problem: If Jesus was the son of God, would that mean that he would be identically coloured to God. And if so, would that be influenced by Mary's DNA, or would Jesus simply be portrayed as an identical child of God?
One theory suggests that Jesus is the physical form of God (God as a mortal man on Earth). This again circles itself in more questions.
To be honest, and personal, I would say that it is impossible to know. Of course people can tie this to the fact that Jesus was born as a Middle-Eastern man, and that he should therefore be of similar appearence to Middle-Easterns, but looking back at my previous argument, how do we know that he was not of identical appearence to God, and if so, would he be fully white, black, or a mix of the two?
This is an incredibly sceptical debate, which in my view, cannot be accurately answered.
And so you have led yourself to the whole point of this discussion. Why is it that Jesus was depicted as white? Eurocentrism.
God is only depicted white by whites. Jesus is only depicted white by whites. Mary is depicted white by whites. In truth Jesus nor Mary were white. They were middle eastern. God has no race. Nor would his DNA (is he had any) be similar to mankind. But I don't really think God's DNA is relevant in this debate. lol.
He isn't black either. I don't know where you got that from.
If you examine my case closely, Kinda, you will notice that I gave no mention to "God's DNA." I stated that it is incredibly hard to tell if Jesus would be primarily influenced by Mary's DNA, or if he would simply be portayed in the image of God (this does not relate in any way to God's DNA).
The concept of Jesus, Mary or God being black may seem ludicrous to most individuals, including yourself, but there are SOME who may actually believe in the possibility that one, two or all of them may have been black.
Take for instance the movie 'Bruce Almighty,' here we see that God is depicted as a Black man, so therefore, you need to accept that it is within the belief of others that there is a possiblity that God was indeed black. This then ties together with the question that I gave above. Will God or Mary influence Jesus' appearence?
This concept has 0% to do with DNA, I don't know where you got THAT from.
I am stating that it is incredibly hard to judge the colour of his skin because we then need to decide if he was born in the image of God (as many people do), or whether he was completely based from Mary's DNA. God didn't have sex with Mary (hence the status 'The Virgin Mary'), so therefore God's DNA shouldn't make a difference (if he has DNA, which I would have to say that he wouldn't, because he is supposedly a spiritual entity, and therefore not an actual physical, living, breathing creature).
"How else would he inherit his Father's image?"
That would be like explaining how Jesus could turn water into wine.
God is the creator of life, the universe, and everything that exists. How did he create all this? We can never tell, because all that we can assume is that it was 'within his ability or power' to do so. Therefore, we must assume the same for Jesus; Jesus was created in the image of God because it was within God's ability to do so.
Jesus turned water into wine because it was within his ability to do so. See the comparison?
There is, however, one other theory that has been around a few times. It was supposedly said that Jesus may have been God in physical form. I do not support this view, but it is, after all, a possibility. Like I said, it would be within God's ability to do so, wouldn't it?
Some people like one image, some like another, and some prefer to create an image of their own (which in my P.O.V is the worst mistake a person can make when it comes to God, etc.)
Touche. What I meant was that since Jesus was born in the middle east, he should probably be of darker complexion. The belief that Jesus was white is a white supremecist statement.
If you believe that Jesus actually existed, you must realize that he did have a color. He was Middle Eastern and, one would logically surmize, was the color of a middle easterner. A person of the Middle East is technically a caucasoid and thus, Jesus was white. However, it is not up to the individual believer to decide what he was. Next, I'm sure somebody will be saying 'Is God a woman?'
Of course it is up to the individual believer to decide what he was. Religion and faith are per se a matter of choice.
If one chooses to be a Catholic, due to personal experiences, to tranquilize his spirit, he is entitled to have an image of a Black Jesus when conducting his religious rituals.
Let's remember that there aren't any accurate theological proofs that say Jesus was white.
There may be, in your opinion, no theological sources that say that he was white. But you must also remember that it is an anthropological assertion that Jews and other Middle Easterners are white. If he was a Jew, a descendent of David, than surely he was white.
I reject this line of thought wholeheartedly. It is a slippery slope.
The people who believe he really existed (I do not) must then really believe he was a person.
As such he must have had skin of one sort or another, it's a biological imperative.
It's okay I guess to just "have faith."
But when a majority of these superstitious people start believing that "whatever makes you spiritually comfortable" is okay, well we'll start electing people like Palin and be catapulted back to the guilded age.
No. If that person existed, he did have a skin color. And it is not okay just to make this person whatever makes you feel comfortable.
This "personal Jesus" bs drives me nuts. It's not just whatever whoever feels like it should be. Otherwise, my Jesus was a gangster who wants me to rob banks and kill people.
Hey, it's what makes me feel "spiritually comfortable."
answer please. I gave a very complex reply. If you are going to downvote you will have to back up your argument. Things like this are the reason a lot of the good debaters have abandoned CD.
Portraying a 'personal image' is more of the 'heaven concept.'
To make that a tad clearer, some people believe that when we die, we go to heaven, but rather than finding a land sitting big fluffy clouds, we find our own personal idea of what heaven is. I.e. Chocolate Lover's may find a land of Chocolate, or perhaps a man who loves his family will find them all waiting for him at his home.
Then again, some people DO get the idea of heaven as a land sitting on big fluffy clouds, such as is on this episode of The Simpson's that I extracted from Youtube (as seen below).
Anyway, getting back on topic, Jesus is Jesus, God is God, not an Elephant or any other strange ludicrous form (in my P.O.V anyway).
Even "white" people aren't white. By my reckoning, they appear to be a yellowish pink.
I don't believe Jesus was yellowish pink. Considering the climate, his skin was likely more heavily pigmented.
Now if you are asking about his racial identity...well, I have some bad news for you about that as well. Race is a sociological construct, not a biologic fact. There is no White Race, no Black Race, no Red Race, and no Yellow Race. The fact is, there is no such thing as "race", biologically speaking.
Today, most scientists reject the concept of race as a valid way of defining human beings. Researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in genes that people inherit from their ancestors. In fact, there are more biological differences within a supposed racial group than there are between people of various racial categories.
But, ya sure. Better your god be white, like you, right? White folk ain't' gonna be worshiping no sand nigger now, are they?
The God in the Testament specifically states he is the God of the Israelites. Anybody who isn't an israelite or descended as one - should not be Christian or Jewish.
I'm pretty sure they all say the same thing. It's only peoples 'interpretations' that vary. And if they don't say the same thing then somebody's lying.
ok so you have the original? The one written in "the beggining"?
Can i borrow it ? You see i have a few of The Old testaments.
But their all in english.
Modern english actually compared to that of the "original" text.
Oh but i also have a ministers bible , you know the ones they use to preach their sermons from .
Also i have a couple of New Testaments , some older then my dead granny.
Also i have other bibles here as well. Also other books im not meant to have , but i wont say what they are or i will have unwanted unnessecary attention from authorities
You people can keep fighting about whos god is the one if you all like.
Bothers me very little that "god" cares as much about all this as i do.
I fail to see that "god is going to be who you all say he is , just because you all say so.
btw-The Authorized King James Version of 1611 will that do?
btw- Are you reading from a study bible such as Scofield?
btw does the Holy Qur'an say the same?
All you have said here basically is, that a book is right ,and that you should believe in it , because it tells you to.
Several times throughout the Exodus, when God talks to Moses.
Exodus 3:13
Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
Exodus 3:12-14 (in Context) Exodus 3 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 3:15
God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
Exodus 3:14-16 (in Context) Exodus 3 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 16:12
"I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, 'At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.' "
Exodus 16:11-13 (in Context) Exodus 16 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 29:45
Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God.
Exodus 29:44-46 (in Context) Exodus 29 (Whole Chapter)
Now please. Tell me if you can find any bullshit out there that does not agree with that.
If you're going to do so, do it without making yourself look like an idiot. Do it without being an idiot. Provide quotes, references etc. Don't tell me you don't have anything to prove, or that this is crap or that it's opinion. Let's see if you can debate for once in your life. I dare you.
There are various translations made so that people of various intellect can understand it - rather than having it just in Latin like the Catholics for all those centuries. I, myself, understand the King James quite well.
My guess is he never existed, and this story is a new version of the old story of this Egyptian god who was also immaculately conceived of a virgin, whose Earth father was a carpenter, who went around healing people, and who eventually died for other people.
Lot's of coincidences there, not to mention that group of people from whom Jesus supposedly came would have been slaves in Egypt at the time of the stories about this other Egyption god.
And the fact is, we can't even keep our history straight for a decade with the internet, they were just all telling eachother shit, none of that silly book was writting until around 500 CE
Logic tells me he's an old wives tale people decided to take a bit too seriously.
That said, if anyone cares, there were tons of people named. "Yeshua" or whatever his real name is (I'm going on memory) before Europeans mistranslated and turned it into Jesus. It meant "the way" or something, and you know how moms get about their first sons.
So there were tons of Jesus's running around at that time. Sure, maybe one was actually crucified, why not.
But if one of them was, he wasn't magical I'm pretty sure, just some dude.
All of that said,
He would have looked Jewish, but with a nicer tan than most American Jews probably.
Chances are: Jesus didn't exist. Not even historically. None of the gospels that wrote about Jesus never met him. He's nothing more than a fictional character in a story book.