What did jesus look like??

We talk about Jesus, yet attack each other.

If we understood even a ounce of Christ, we should take a step back and regroup.

Let the anger go.

Originally posted by Colonel
I answered you in the last post. READ!

Just because you say I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong because you haven't back up anything. You have just sat there and called me a racist and that I'm wrong. If you choose to adress any fo the scriptural doctrine that i have brougth forth, I would appreciate that.

If not, I am getting real tired you whining and saying I'm wrong with no doctrine, no proof, just nothing but rhetoric to support you.

I read, I still don't see where you answered me. I have done more than just call you racist and said you are wrong. I rebutted every argument, and I'm really getting sick of you telling me I haven't. Maybe you should read my replies. You seem to be the only person on this thread who still thinks you're right.

YOU are the one whining and saying I'm wrong. Where is your proof? I mean good proof, proof that I haven't already dismissed or rebutted. You must be blind.

What I don't get is why people believe so blindly in the bible when they weren't there to see it first hand. Do you believe that Moby Dick really happened? How about the Cat in the Hat? But this argument really isn't about religion at all so forgive me for the side line.

This thread is about believing that the package is more important the the contents of the package. If I put a pile of crap in a bag that said gold on the side would you pay me greatly for it? Would you pay even more if an african american was holding that bag? You have proven, through your responces in this thread, that you would and that makes me very, very sad.

PS Here, I will save the the trouble of typing your response. "Racist, repugnant, wrong wrong wrong!"

Joehayner: You know what. You don;t even know what you're talking about right now. You conceded in your last post that Jesus may in fact be black. Now, I explained to you why its important using scripture and you refuse to address that but insisit on calling me a racist. You're a moron.

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Colonel]

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by Jonna
PS Here, I will save the the trouble of typing your response. "Racist, repugnant, wrong wrong wrong!"

Thank you.

AND i'M ALWAYS RIGHT.

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by Colonel
Joehayner: You know what. You don;t even know what you're talking about right now. You conceded in your last post that Jesus may in fact be black. Now, I explained to you why its important using scripture and you refuse to address that but insisit on calling me a racist. You're a moron.

I did say that it is possible that he was black, but chances are that he was middle-eastern. That's not even the point. I answered you and rebutted your arguments, do what you tell everyone else to do, look back and read my responses.

I'm not trying to say you're racist, well it may be true, that's not the point. Listen to Jonna, and what was said about you thinking the package is more important. You misinterpreted the scriptures you're using for your argument so that you think they say something that they do not. You're the one who keeps turning this into a name calling/shouting contest. Grow up 'moderator'. I'm not going to treat you with respect unless you do the same for me.(and I doubt that will ever happen)

Originally posted by joehayner
I did say that it is possible that he was black, but chances are that he was middle-eastern. That's not even the point. I answered you and rebutted your arguments, do what you tell everyone else to do, look back and read my responses.

I'm not trying to say you're racist, well it may be true, that's not the point. Listen to Jonna, and what was said about you thinking the package is more important. You misinterpreted the scriptures you're using for your argument so that you think they say something that they do not. You're the one who keeps turning this into a name calling/shouting contest. Grow up 'moderator'. I'm not going to treat you with respect unless you do the same for me.(and I doubt that will ever happen)

The packaging is important because God said not to have images or idols---that is in the scripture and I am misinterpreting nothing. Now, the "packaging" is being used to convey a lie---that Cesare Borgia is the man on the cross who died for our sins....A LIE.

And, no don't expect any favors from me with regards to treating you with repect, repugnant.

So, if Jesus is Black, does that mean God is Black?

If there is an all-powerful being watching over all of us, I really don't think the color of his son is more important then the message he was sent to give.

I really don't think it matters in the long run......

Originally posted by Facefirst
So, if Jesus is Black, does that mean God is Black?

If there is an all-powerful being watching over all of us, I really don't think the color of his son is more important then the message he was sent to give.

I really don't think it matters in the long run......

I don't know what race God is. I don't believe the Bible says.

Howeever, if "race" didn't matter, why is there a plethora of instances where the Bible gives the skin color of Jesus and the angels?


Daniel 10:5: "Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:"
Daniel 10:6: "His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude."

Revelation 1:13: "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle."
Revelation 1:14: "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;"
Revelation 1:15: "And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."

Well,

I tend to think that if God sent Jesus down here, the people recording it would need to describe Jesus's appearance for the readers and also future generations.

Still, just because there are visual descriptions in the bible, that does not really make it more important than the message Jesus was sent to give.

Depends on who's sending the message. If Hitler was sending the same message with his background would you trust him?

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Colonel]

Wha??

I don't quite get you there......

Explain.

Originally posted by Facefirst
Wha??

I don't quite get you there......

Explain.

If Hiter delivered the same message today as Jesus does, knowing Hitler's background, would you trust what Hitler was saying or would you think he had an alterior motive?

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by Facefirst
Wha??

I don't quite get you there......

Explain.

If Hiter delivered the same message today as Jesus does, knowing Hitler's background, would you trust what Hitler was saying or would you think he had an alterior motive?

This is getting strange. Are you insinuating that someones skin colour and their past acomplisments are on the same level for judging someone???

It is an interesting hypothectical, but I still do not see how it fits into what we are discussing here.

Jesus was born a jew and came from a humble carpentry family.....

Hitler was a sociapath from a broken down home and country.

Appearance and backround are two totally different things. Never judge a book by it's cover comes to mind.



[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Facefirst]

Jesus message was and always will be more important than his physical appearance...altho there were writings that that gave a description of Christ...please check out the following link, as there is too much information to post here...:

www.thenazareneway.com...

anger does not serve purpose when seeking information...each has a right to their own beliefs, ideas or opinions...but in the attempt to find answers, placing ones beliefs, ideas, and opinions above anothers, for the reason of being "right", does not serve a purpose at all, as i see it.

~oracle

I would expect that in a redition of an angel sighting there would be a discription of the angel.

But I would also expect that an angel would appear in the form familiar to the recipiant so as to put them more at ease.

Seeing an angel would be a scary thing, and certainly they would want to seem reasuring.

Originally posted by Facefirst
It is an interesting hypothectical, but I still do not see how it fits into what we are discussing here.

Jesus was born a jew and came from a humble carpentry family.....

Hitler was a sociapath from a broken down home and country.

Appearance and backround are two totally different things. Never judge a book by it's cover comes to mind.



[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Facefirst]

What I'm saying is that the packaging is just as important as the message because of authenticity. Remember the scriptures said:

2 Corinthians 11:4: "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Originally posted by Colonel

What I'm saying is that the packaging is just as important as the message because of authenticity. Remember the scriptures said:

2 Corinthians 11:4: "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I understand your point, and it is good, but I interprit that to mean another person, not Jesus appearing differently.

I do not think it was maliciously intended as to make Jesus seem white, but rather artists see Jesus as they see him. They were not all biblical scholars.

It has just become a mainstay in the vision of Christ. He might have been black, but then again, he might have been Arabian looking.

Probability says that he would not be white, and if he was, he would be extremely tan.