[Jew]

Re: Jesus was not white.

If that is true than it would be safe to say that he also would not have blonde hair. Again genes would not have it that way. If he did have blonde hair then people would have probably thought of him to be extremely unusual and maybe evil? Dont get mad at me i am just thinking logically. It also seems he would be much shorter that depicted. Since in that time period the average man was somewhere around 5 feet tall. If a man had blonde hair, was white, and was around 6 feet in his time period people would have feared him. Again im just thinking out loud please dont take offense to what i say.

[Homertard]

Re: Jesus was not white.

You think Jesus spoke Italian?

Probaly spoke a little. The guy was living with the great Roman lords, after all.

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: Jesus was not white.

If that is true than it would be safe to say that he also would not have blonde hair.

It's never safe to say anything that goes against common decency and God's word (KJV1611):

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;

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: Jesus was not white.

You think Jesus spoke Italian?

Probaly spoke a little. The guy was living with the great Roman lords, after all.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid.. you STILL manage to surprise me, Omerta.

[Joo (Quarantined)]

Re: Jesus was not white.

Could you please make an effort to reread your message before posting it. I honestly have no idea what you are saying here since you have no punctuation in your message at all.

Here, I'll do it for you:

Well let me take a moment to prove YOUR stupidity. Jesus was probably black or a least darker in complexion just from the region he lived in and the bloodline (genetics) of the area in which he lived. Thus, he didn't speak English (American as some of you morons put it, is not a language, we speak ENGLISH), and even if Jesus did speak English, then no one else could have understood him because they spoke Latin and Arabic, probably even a little Italian. Also if all black people are gay, then calling you retarded is an understatement, also news flash: due to the culture of the area that Jesus called home, he was probably married. Read the books like I do and it all makes sense.

That better?

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Jesus was not white.

If that is true than it would be safe to say that he also would not have blonde hair. Again genes would not have it that way. If he did have blonde hair then people would have probably thought of him to be extremely unusual and maybe evil? Dont get mad at me i am just thinking logically. It also seems he would be much shorter that depicted. Since in that time period the average man was somewhere around 5 feet tall. If a man had blonde hair, was white, and was around 6 feet in his time period people would have feared him.

He walked on water, turned water into wine (not while He was walking on it, though) and beat penny-pinching Jews like yourself with whips, and you're saying that people would have got all worked up about the fact that He was slightly taller than average?

[Homertard]

Re: Jesus was not white.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid.. you STILL manage to surprise me, Omerta.

It is in theory possible, if you'd kindly put that book down for a few minutes and listen to a thing called comon sense.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Jesus was not white.

It is in theory possible, if you'd kindly put that book down for a few minutes and listen to a thing called comon sense.

Yes, it is in theory possible, since Jesus Christ is omnipotent and omniscient it is possible for Him to do anything He likes. Still, it does seem very unlikely that He would have any reason to speak a language which can only be traced back as far as 960 AD and was first formalised in the 14th Century.

[Homertard]

Re: Jesus was not white.

By Italian, I mean, early versions. In a country such as his, governed by Roman's, who stem from Italy, it is possible, that the Roman's introduced an early form of Italian to his country. Probaly not the lanuage we know today, but probaly Italian all the same. If installed by them, you can see how he may of learnt some of it, if a very little.

Again, we both don't know for sure, do we?

[Sister Noddy]

Re: Jesus was not white.

Here, I'll do it for you:

Quote:

Well let me take a moment to prove YOUR stupidity. Jesus was probably black or a least darker in complexion just from the region he lived in and the bloodline (genetics) of the area in which he lived. Thus, he didn't speak English (American as some of you morons put it, is not a language, we speak ENGLISH), and even if Jesus did speak English, then no one else could have understood him because they spoke Latin and Arabic, probably even a little Italian. Also if all black people are gay, then calling you retarded is an understatement, also news flash: due to the culture of the area that Jesus called home, he was probably married. Read the books like I do, and it all makes sense.


That better?

Yes, that's perfect, Joo. I was going to do it myself, but you beat me to it.

By the way, Jesus spoke Aramaic.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Jesus was not white.

It is in theory possible, if you'd kindly put that book down for a few minutes and listen to a thing called comon sense.

Common sense is to be found in God's teachings, not the empty-headed prattle of a 16 year old eurotrash boy.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Jesus was not white.

By Italian, I mean, early versions. In a country such as his, governed by Roman's, who stem from Italy, it is possible, that the Roman's introduced an early form of Italian to his country. Probaly not the lanuage we know today, but probaly Italian all the same. If installed by them, you can see how he may of learnt some of it, if a very little.

Again, we both don't know for sure, do we?

Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire, you ignorant plebeian. That is why Pontius Pilate placed the titulus "Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm" on the cross of Jesus (historians also claim that it was also written in multiple languages - Greek, Hebrew, and possibly Aramaic).

Perhaps it would be appropriate that you have the titulus "Dare pondus idonea fumo" above your avatar to give warning to all that might read your posts.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Jesus was not white.

By Italian, I mean, early versions. In a country such as his, governed by Roman's, who stem from Italy, it is possible, that the Roman's introduced an early form of Italian to his country. Probaly not the lanuage we know today, but probaly Italian all the same. If installed by them, you can see how he may of learnt some of it, if a very little.

Again, we both don't know for sure, do we?

No, not having been there, I suppose it's possible that, although the earliest surviving writings in something recognisable as a form of Italian date back to the 10th century AD, and the language was not formalised until the 14th century, people were speaking the language for 1000 years before that and just never felt the need to write anything down at any point ever. It doesn't sound very likely though, does it?

[Homertard]

Re: Jesus was not white.

No, not having been there, I suppose it's possible that, although the earliest surviving writings in something recognisable as a form of Italian date back to the 10th century AD, and the language was not formalised until the 14th century, people were speaking the language for 1000 years before that and just never felt the need to write anything down at any point ever. It doesn't sound very likely though, does it?

In theory, in evolvion of lanuages, it may of gone from an early form of lanuage into Italian. Maybe someone got the facts wrong? Maybe they put AD instead of BC? It is possible Brother. It's probaly wrong, but nothing is certain.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Jesus was not white.

In theory, in evolvion of lanuages, it may of gone from an early form of lanuage into Italian.

And maybe one day your posts will evolve into English, but I'm not holding my breath.