Would Christianity have thrived in Europe and Americas?

The answer would be just about as much as other eastern religions.

The reality is that identification with race/culture is paramount on most people's minds prior to adopting the religion.

hence why alot of drawings of Jesus Christ, for marketing reasons show him to look almost Aryan in some instances with those blue eyes.

What if Jesus looked like.......

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/cear_moak/JesusChristHadDreads.png

Would white man have followed his ebony rooster?

or....

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm96/javabeans122/kpop/tim_jesus.jpg

not to be...well, I'll be honest...all Jesus figurines look homo.

But... Jesus WAS black (or at least Middle Eastern).

http://www.dadsdayoff.net/Jesus-real-face.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/RFJesus.jpg

Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus' disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument being that if Jesus' physical appearance differed that markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify.

I'm more Jesus than any of you!

"race" will not be an issue in the Kingdom, and it's not an issue now, in terms of salvation

Revelation 7

that wasn't my point.......

is the growth of christianity fueled by chinese that are already christian or by other races coming in?

if they are white, then the chinese are usually OK with that race.

But if they are middle eastern, it's tougher to market/preach Islam, for example.

First impression counts in everything in life.

I had to spell it out for u.........

How do we know Jesus had a beard though? Do we know all we know about Jesus just through word of mouth passed down among the ages? Is there account of his description in scripture?

But it doesn't say "Jesus was _____"

I gather he's a person with a beard from that. I'll give you that.

Clearly He Wasnt Bald Headed

I just want to know how jewish he looked.

there is no physical description provided in the Gospels at all, clearly it wasn't important for us to know

Hate to correct you (again)


REV 1

13and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man,"[b]dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.



Now the wool comment , there is only one race where their hair is like wool and that is black.

although I tend to think the Shroud of Turin image may be legitimate http://www.shroud.com/

Ha! You've been duped.

Morons! Jesus was an Asian. Israel is in Asia.

read much? I clearly stated "Gospels"

Are you sure you're not a liberal democrat....cause crap like that is along the same lines as slick willy.

Fact is there is a description of Him in the bible, or are you now omitting (as usual) only the sections that you want .....

there is no physical description provided in the Gospels at all, clearly it wasn't important for us to know

In that case, how do we know he wasn't a gal? Or a body double?

I don't recall people wearing tight jeans back in the day.

Hate to correct you (again)


REV 1

13and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man,"dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. [B]14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.



Now the wool comment , there is only one race where their hair is like wool and that is black.

This verse is describing the color of his hair, not the texture.

head and hair white....doesnt sound Arabic. more of Caucasian-hickabic

Morons! Jesus was an Asian. Israel is in Asia.

Lrn2Geog

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/middle_east_and_asia/israel_rel01.jpg

It's more towards Africa then Asia.

yeah, I'm sure bx was being sarcastic.

Oh, well nvm then.

and it has zip to do with Christ's physical appearance during the First Advent....completely out-of context...then again, this is superhack we're talking about here, hacking his way through the scripture like the guy from sling blade

you're just butthurt because I blasted your statement that there wasn't a description of Christ in the Bible.

smashing your mis-quotes, once again, superhack


Blah, blah blah....you know as well as I that you are splitting hairs now like Bill Clinton. And by your reaction with the name calling and such you are defiantly butthurt about this.

makes no sense for jesus to be black or asian.

if he wasn't jewish, he would have had zero credibility with the jewish masses... not because of some modern era preconception of race relations and first impression acceptance, but because the messiah of the jews was thought (naturally) to be a future jew, seeing as how the prophecy predicts he will come from the line of david and all that.

jesus didnt have a father side.

what line of David did the Jews say jesus came from....Mother? Uncle Joe?

yeah, only from Josephs seed it matters. yes, i would tend to agree that Joesph seed made Jesus but we heard the story that god instead seeded Marys womb.

yeah, only from Josephs seed it matters. yes, i would tend to agree that Joesph seed made Jesus but we heard the story that god instead seeded Marys womb.

Actually I believe that decent is based from the mothers side with Jews...

well, we just read a few posts up that the Jews are all hard on in matters of david blood line. so is it joe or mary?

edit: here it is
wow, someone gets it...

if Christ was not of the line of David, both from His mother's side and from His father's side, and if that was not provable, then He coulld not have fulfilled prophecy and anyone believing He was the Messiah would have been a fool...the Jews kept very good records on this stuff

thanks poop

poop indeed

but YZF it doesn't matter because Joseph did not impregnate mary, and if he well that just leaves way more questions

what matters to a Jew is Christ's lineage, I'm not sure why there is so much debate about this because we don't have any Jews here, except for Jason

Why would it matter if you were jewish or not?

both were direct descendents of David, do the research before posting more dumb comments

FAIR ENOUGH. So both MAry and joe were related?

then why the vaste differences in rooster sizes?

then why the vaste differences in rooster sizes?

Or skin color, hair color, face size/shape, hand size/shape, feet size/shape, height, bone structure...

heck, all Jews are related if you go back far enough...so is the entire human race

then each boy born is related to David? then we had multiple Jesus?

FAIR ENOUGH. So both MAry and joe were related?

yes. all jews are releated.

the one progenitor is jacob, later named israel (no coincidence). all jews are descendant from jacob through his 12 sons, whose names are the 12 tribes of israel (also no coincidence).

and if you claim to know anything about the bible you knew this already. so i'm going to assume that was just a sarcastic tongue in cheek reply.

as for the lineage bit, its debated and more complicated than most people know

the short customary answer:
joseph to david through jeconiah, which is a cursed bloodline. which is why joseph had no part in conception, but is jesus's father under jewish law as he did not cut jesus off. mary to david through nathan, brother to solomon, son of david.

there are problems and debates with that explanation as well. but any of you who are curious can look that up yourselves.

yes. all jews are releated.

the one progenitor is jacob, later named israel (no coincidence). all jews are descendant from jacob through his 12 sons, whose names are the 12 tribes of israel (also no coincidence).

and if you claim to know anything about the bible you knew this already. so i'm going to assume that was just a sarcastic tongue in cheek reply.

as for the lineage bit, its debated and more complicated than most people know

the short customary answer:
joseph to david through jeconiah, which is a cursed bloodline. which is why joseph had no part in conception, but is jesus's father under jewish law as he did not cut jesus off. mary to david through nathan, brother to solomon, son of david.

there are problems and debates with that explanation as well. but any of you who are curious can look that up yourselves.

I didn't have far to go. both Matthew and Luke claimed that king David blood line points to Joesph. not to Mary. thats ground zero stuff and is relevant in this case. ill say it again....no mention of Mary. only Joe. ya ll listening? Joe...from two authors. now don't put voodoo curses on a king like Boston red sock crap. there is no such thing of curses in a blood line of gods favorite line of kings and priests. therefore if the world found out that the blood line ended with a hoe, then Jesus would be view as not legit. its a mans world and is how god would see fit. that is if there was a god.

now since joe didn't seed this woman Mary, then it is impossible that Jesus came from the king David blood line.

but Jesus mother did receive a sperm load from Joe that splattered inside her cavity we call a womb. that is why Jesus was pwned later in his life. Man proved he had no powa.

czar got it right

lol. you're arguing the wrong position...

you see people who argue AGAINST the lineage of jesus from david cite that jeconiah was cursed such that the messiah could never arise from his bloodline. joseph is through jeconiah's line. see the problem? whoops. citation? sure. Jeremiah 22:24-30. that's an even stronger argument than your rather flimsy joseph-failed-to-splooge-inside-mary argument, because when arguing inside the context of the bible, you need to cite the bible. duhr.

"Thus says YHVH: 'Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah."

first, the tanakh (we're going out of christianity into judaism now) is often cited to suggest that curse was lifted, which is often cited by pro-jesus from david enthusiasts. that would be a counterargument for me, just to help you keep track.

second typical (and boring) counterargument: apparently the huge differences between matthew and luke didn't bother you at all. one common christian explanation for the huge discrepancies between jesus and david for matthew and luke is that matthew and luke trace two different bloodlines down to jesus. matt traces the line down to joseph and luke traces it down to mary.

now as i mentioned before, jeconiah and joseph through him is cut off. that leaves mary's bloodline, which i mentioned above. mary is descendant from david through nathan, solomon's brother. nathan is a son of david.

the common counterargument to that is it has to be traced from the paternal line.

the counter-counter argument is then that joseph had legal claim to the throne of david. but his blood line was cursed by god such that he could never sit on it. that problem was solved by the virgin birth. jesus was not biological son of joseph. but he was the legal son of joseph by adoption since joseph decided not to divorce (aka put away privately) mary in view of her pregancy. therefore jesus gains legitimacy to david's throne through his adoption by the heir (by line) and the virgin (by blood).

but why i have to argue my position and then elaborate what should be your best counter-position for you is beyond me, and quite frankly it makes "arguing" rather boring.

if you ever get the chance....reread those passages and notice a trend....you have to be a royal male species for your male child is to be consider part of the royal blood line.

heres another

if you ever get the chance...reread the passages and notice that Joesph was indeed tied into the royal blood line.

oh but look, heres another

if you ever get the chance...reread the passages and notice that this so called curse is very weak, Joesph indeed prospered apparently fathering the kings of kings.

oops, did i miss one?...oh heres another

reread the passages and notice that this so called curse argument is irrelevant since Joe nor Jesus didn't care to rule such a place.

I thought maybe this would help ya. I know, yer all giddy and all since you thought you saw an opening of old czar here and might win one on our first debate. Well, good luck poop. may you days fill with king Mary thoughts.

its logic and poop's offering to me a counter arguement is unwanted and useless (since mine is superior)

my stuff should be mindless to you. you are programed.

I question essentially everything, always have...but I stopped questioning God's Word quite awhile ago now

get off the fence...life is short, and then the Judgment....all the bravado is out the window then!

The sheep goes BAAAAAAAAHHHHHH.

LOL. you know that you are brainwashed by the YECs.
As for Gods word, you havent got the slightest clue....cause you certainly dont show it by example here.

if you ever get the chance....reread those passages and notice a trend....you have to be a royal male species for your male child is to be consider part of the royal blood line.

heres another

if you ever get the chance...reread the passages and notice that Joesph was indeed tied into the royal blood line.

oh but look, heres another

if you ever get the chance...reread the passages and notice that this so called curse is very weak, Joesph indeed prospered apparently fathering the kings of kings.

oops, did i miss one?...oh heres another

reread the passages and notice that this so called curse argument is irrelevant since Joe nor Jesus didn't care to rule such a place.

I thought maybe this would help ya. I know, yer all giddy and all since you thought you saw an opening of old czar here and might win one on our first debate. Well, good luck poop. may you days fill with king Mary thoughts.

i covered all those points. did you even read my post at all?

in summary your argument is

#1 "joseph was tied to the david blood line."
well that's not really an argument, because i said that too.

#2 "the curse was weak."
first, are you acknowledging the curse existed?
there is no such thing of curses in a blood line of gods favorite line of kings and priests.

second, you ignored my point about the tanakh suggesting that the curse was lifted. very persuasive. arguing usually involves listening to the other person's point and responding.

#3 "the curse is irrelevant because neither desired to sit on the throne of david."
jesus laid claim to david's throne a shitload of times in the NT. but i guess the NT isn't a reliable source to you. so what is? your own imaginary version of events? if so, this "debate" is meaningless because you're just going to make up random shit and vomit it into your posts.

wow, you posted poop. hmmm i see zingers in it. i'm betting your reply will be entertaining. ill read it later. chow

ya, i went ahead and read your reply and it seems to read that you are a total <something that rhymes with jagged>. I'm on the side where there are no curses, also no woman can get pregno without a man. and no, a man cant have powers told to us from the bible. So yeah the NT isn't reliable at all. maybe for gullible gaymeeks. are these words? of course they're words. czar said so and czar got it right.

im surprised you can count past two let alone remember 10K items by heart.