Jesus was...

by sadiesmom Posted 2008/07/06 20:55:15

140 votes
Read all 397 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Middle Eastern in coloring	79 votes	56%
	Blond, blue eyed, of course!	6 votes	4%
	African in coloring	12 votes	9%
	None of the above	43 votes	31%

Knowing the region, knowing his religion, knowing all of this Jesus was...

+25

Add a comment above

ShineFloyd [Ninja]™ Chi-Kung 2008/07/07 23:42:40

None of the above

+8
heaven... brilliant

>> See Replies

G-Rod 2009/08/27 04:57:20

None of the above

At the end of the day it matters not. What truly matters is the message the Savior had to offer the world.

reply
harrypotterpwns 2009/07/18 02:06:06

Middle Eastern in coloring

Thats kinda the whole point of ISRAEL!

reply
y so serious 2009/05/05 06:46:53

Middle Eastern in coloring

reply
driley 2008/12/15 06:05:35

Middle Eastern in coloring

Why wouldn't he be?

reply
BillHill "In God We Trust" 2008/12/13 22:19:54

Middle Eastern in coloring

It's not what He was..........It's what HE is...........

reply
someshortkid17 2008/12/13 21:15:59 (edited)

Middle Eastern in coloring

he was also jewish so all yall people hating on jews you might wanna think twice
jesus sees and knows all we do and say

reply
diaverde08-AmericanKilljoy 2008/12/12 23:04:55

Middle Eastern in coloring

+1
and Jewish.

reply
Suzanni 2008/12/12 06:23:40

None of the above

+1
Jesus simply said is best..."I AM"

reply
sadiesmom to Suzanni 2008/12/12 19:24:12

+1
We all can say that, no??

reply
Suzanni to sadiesmom 2008/12/12 20:27:25

+1
YES!!!!

reply
AerialRach "In Dog We Trust" 2008/12/12 05:58:12

Middle Eastern in coloring

+1
...although how are we to know for sure...and he may not have existed.

reply
sadiesmom to AerialR... 2008/12/12 19:23:58

+1
He existed, my opinion, of course..but, was he who they've made him out to be??

reply
G-Rod to sadiesmom 2009/08/27 04:50:41

Absolutely. Why would they have any reason to lie? Let's not forget that all of the Apostles who followed Christ and wrote his gospel were executed for their claims. Now, most people will die for their beliefs, even if what they believe is wrong. How many people do you know are willing to die for something they know is a lie?

reply
Rondolce 2008/12/12 03:42:13

Middle Eastern in coloring

+1
He was a First Century Semite

reply
sadiesmom to Rondolce 2008/12/12 04:06:02

+1
Actually, some are now saying he was born in 2 B.C. on June 17th...so...he could be older...depends on what your think and believe.

reply
Rondolce to sadiesmom 2008/12/12 04:12:14

A couple of years either way doesn't make much difference.

reply
Rondolce to sadiesmom 2008/12/12 04:12:18

A couple of years either way doesn't make much difference.

reply
iPwn 2008/12/12 02:27:33

African in coloring

+1

reply
justmehere 2008/12/12 01:57:15

Middle Eastern in coloring

+1
and a carpenter

reply
vote mobile lady time to CYA 2008/12/12 01:41:04

Middle Eastern in coloring

+3
I am not positive but it certainly makes sense.

reply
PigsOnSoma 2008/12/12 01:22:33

Middle Eastern in coloring

+3
Uhh... I didn't actually see him, but I would guess he was semitic.

reply
YourObamaUpdate.com 2008/12/12 00:31:28

Middle Eastern in coloring

+4

reply
Körïnthïän 2008/09/16 08:26:58

Blond, blue eyed, of course!

+7
Whatever his color, he lacked magical powers. But if media gets to decide he's absolutely white as snow.

reply
Don - K.M.R.I.A. 2008/09/16 07:23:11 (edited)

Middle Eastern in coloring

+5
Last I saw and read, Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew/Semite/whatever you want to call it.

While Semites come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, chances are, he looked like an average man from Judea.
As a result, I'm pretty certain he wasn't Germanic, or African, or Asian in his features of skin tone.

reply
Körïnthïän to Don - K... 2008/09/16 08:38:56

+4
Ah, but what color is God? I'm pretty sure he's asian. Remember that Jesus was half-deity and half-adulteress.

reply
YourOba... to Körïnthïän 2008/12/12 00:32:30

+5
now don't get em started K :)

reply
Körïnthïän to YourOba... 2008/12/12 00:36:18

+4
I'm going to take a guess and say that god is transparent.

reply
Live Fr... to Körïnthïän 2008/12/12 00:44:58 (edited)

+2
No, and this is where scientists sometimes get confused. They think they can explain that which can't be seen. I had one run away from me the other day when I told him you could possibly get science to measure love in some physical way, but you could never get a true scientific measurement because you can't "see" it, you can only know it.

reply
PigsOnSoma to Live Fr... 2008/12/12 01:24:32

+3
I would argue the point with you. After all we only feel temperature.

reply
Live Fr... to PigsOnSoma 2008/12/12 01:31:24

+1
That's true, but it can be measured and is a property of something physical taking place, sun activity and other markers. There is always the possibility that science may one day be able to "measure" love. As it is, science is working towards being able to read minds. Maybe one day they will be able to "read" love and measure it in the physical world. But love is like a thought. They might be able to unscramble the Morse Code, but it doesn't change what it is outside of that, and it is something. You just can't measure it in the physical world. That's my thought anyway.

reply
PigsOnSoma to Live Fr... 2008/12/12 01:37:05

+2
Temperature can be measured by a tool we are familiar with. Maybe we can't measure love just yet - but we can measure heart rate when falling in love - we can measure pheromone and testosterone levels. Though it would be tough finding in love volunteers to be test subjects, I imagine.

reply
Live Fr... to PigsOnSoma 2008/12/12 01:42:42

+1
We have measured love; physically - heart beats get faster, rush of emotions, seen on brain waves or MRI and other imaging studies.

We have measured love psychologically; - Patterns of behavior based on certain criteria - genetics + environment.

We have measured love emotionally; - Moral question for each individual.

But we cannot "see" love - it is something unto itself; it exists beyond that which we can see, like thoughts do. This is why scientists can never come to any specific conclusion on whether or not we have "free will" despite all the evidence to the contrary.

reply
PigsOnSoma to Live Fr... 2008/12/12 01:50:50

+3
But we do know that women are not attracted to men who smell similar to their male family members, as with boys and their female family members. So there is something preprogrammed in us from the start. I wouldn't be surprised if on a very complex level there is a formula that attracts us. Children we automatically love when they are born - I would say this is also preprogrammed. (Otherwise we'd be ditching those crying little bundles of joy more frequently).

reply
Live Fr... to PigsOnSoma 2008/12/12 02:10:32 (edited)

+1
And I agree, but it's still a measurement of how it occurs, when it occurs, and why it occurs; none of this actually explains what love is. Love applies to two people "in love" yes, but it also aspires to something higher than that, in greater human understanding and compassion. I'm speaking more to the quality of what love is, not so much how or why it occurs.

reply
PigsOnSoma to Live Fr... 2008/12/12 03:33:20

+1
I see your points, as I said - complex. Of course this is more or less all still conjecture, since we cannot implement such measurements on a higher level (yet).

reply
Live Fr... to PigsOnSoma 2008/12/12 04:07:19

+1
From a purely scientific perspective, we are a long way off still, though nothing is impossible (I don't think), as long as we're here, and I see the points you made too and agree with you.

reply
PigsOnSoma to Live Fr... 2008/12/12 04:12:33

Nice to chat and disagree with someone who doesn't wish you in hell. :)

reply
KirbBrimstone 2008/08/24 17:37:00

African in coloring

+3
There is just too much evidence supporting this. By the way race is a figment of the mind. It is a poorly man made categorizing system for the one human race.

reply
Dennis 2008/08/10 02:00:55

African in coloring

+4
If it matters not what his skin looks like why do we continually depict him as having white skin, blue eyes and blond hair? It would be wonderful if people believed the color of his skin was inconsequential, but obviously this is not the case. The pictorial description of him arguably is that of a white male with European features, a description in stark contrast with that stated in the bible, and I believe therein lies the reason it matters to some what his skin looks like because the concept promotes and maintains the idea of white superiority.

reply
mmm 2008/08/03 02:38:54

African in coloring

+4
he was afro-asian dumbies not white!!! he wasnt even close to white....white people always trying to claim whats not theres how pathetic....he looked like a dark skinned arab....sort of like present day somali people

reply