The race of Jesus: Unknown, yet powerful

Debate over Christ's skin color is reminder of how difficult it is for anyone to transcend race
Associated Press
Dec 24, 2013


For two thousand years, he has been worshipped and adored. Multitudes look to him each day. And yet nobody really knows the face of Jesus.

That has not stopped humanity's imagination, or its yearning to draw Jesus as close as possible. So when this Christmas season brought a torrent of debate over whether Jesus was a white man, it struck a sacred nerve.

"That statement carries a whole lot of baggage," said Rockwell Dillaman, pastor of the Allegheny Center Alliance Church in Pittsburgh. "Political baggage, spiritual baggage, emotional baggage. Especially in a culture like ours where the relations of white people to other ethnicities has often been marked by injustice and distrust."

Why should we even care what Jesus looked like? If his message is God and love, isn't his race irrelevant? Some say God wanted it that way, since there are no references to Jesus' earthly appearance in the Bible.

But the debate was a reminder of just how difficult it is for anyone to transcend race — even a historical figure widely considered to be beyond human.

"I find it fascinating that that's what people really want to know — what race was Jesus. That says a lot about us, about Americans today," said Edward Blum, co-author of "The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America."

"Jesus said lots of things about himself — I am divine, I am the son of man, I am the light of the world," Blum said. "What race is light? How do you racially categorize that?"

Jesus can be safely categorized as a Jew, born about 2,000 years ago in the Middle East in what is now Palestinian territory. Therefore, many scholars believe that Jesus must have looked "Arab," with brownish skin.

"Today, in our categories, we would probably think of him as a person of color," said Doug Jacobsen, a professor of church history and theology at Messiah College.

That view was contested by Fox News host Megyn Kelly while critiquing a column titled "Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore."

"Jesus was a white man, too," Kelly said, launching a national discussion about history, tradition and just how white Christmas should be.

Her statement drew responses from impassioned rebukes to scholarly rebuttals.

"It's just an incorrect statement," Jacobsen said. "It's an ignorant statement, not an intentionally false statement."

Wrote Jonathan Merritt in The Atlantic: "If he were taking the red-eye flight from San Francisco to New York today, Jesus might be profiled for additional security screening."

If this is so obvious, though, why does a Google image search for "Jesus" reveal countless pictures of a European man with straight hair, fair skin and, often, blue eyes? Why is that the prevalent image in America, from stained glass windows to movies to children's books?

The first pictures of Jesus appeared several hundred years after his death, Blum said. Some depicted him in animal form, as a lion or a lamb. Blum said that from about 700 to 1500 A.D., various Jesus images proliferated throughout Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa — including hosts of black Jesus pictures.

"People in every culture portray Jesus looking like people they knew," said Jacobsen. "They depict him as one of their own."

Dillaman, the pastor, has a book that offers Bible images from different world cultures — a last supper where everyone is Thai; images of Jesus as Chinese or African.

"All these ethnicities are trying to capture Jesus in their own skin, if you will," he said.

But in humanity's yearning to identify with the holy, another path gets overlooked.

"Our calling is to know God as he is and to love God with all of our being and be conformed to the image of Christ," Dillaman said, "rather than to make him look like us."

By the 1500s, Blum said, 90 percent of Christians were European. As Europe colonized the globe, they took white Jesus with them.

In America, white Jesus images started to become widespread in the early 1800s, according to Blum, coinciding with a dramatic rise in the number of slaves, a push to move Native Americans further west, and a growing manufacturing capability.

Today, a white Jesus image is ingrained in American culture. "When we live in a world with a billion images of white Jesus, we can say he wasn't white all we want, but the individual facts of our world say something different," Blum said.

"Jesus is white without words. It's at the assumption level," Blum said. "Lodged deep down inside is this assumption that Jesus was a white man. That's where I think (Kelly) is speaking from."

There also is a desire to fit Jesus into modern racial classifications. In America today, this logic goes, Jews are white. Jesus was a Jew, so Jesus must be white.

Yet Jews did not originate in Europe, and for centuries were considered to belong to a non-white race of their own. Only recently have they been moved into America's "white" column, along with Irish and Italians.

"The categories of white and black, coming out of the American experience, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to apply them to Jesus," said Joseph Curran, an associate professor of religion at Misericordia University.

"The best inference is what part of the world he was from — he looked like a Palestinian because he was from that part of the world," Curran said. "Does that mean he was black or white? I don't think those categories matter much."

For Carol Swain, a scholar of race at Vanderbilt University and a "Bible-believing follower of Jesus Christ," the whole debate is totally irrelevant.

"Whether he's white, black, Hispanic, whatever you want to call him, what's important is that people find meaning in his life," Swain said.

"As Christians we believe that he died on the cross for the redemption of our sins," she said. "To me that's the only part of the story that matters — not what skin color he was."




Doesn't matter what color he was ..... he is now a heavenly spirit. My opinion, for what it's worth .... believe he is whatever color makes you feel better. Personally, I would guess he would have been brown like the people in that area but obviously I don't really know. And as for Santa ...... Santa has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus so what does Jesus' skin tone have to do with Santa? Santa can be green for all I care.

Raoul Duke



I get paid over $70 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. . I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Useful Reference


First, they have to prove, without a doubt, that Jesus actually existed.

Many of the traditions such as exchange of presents , Christmas tree and yule log amongst others, originated with Pagan traditions - which precede Christ by a few thousand years.

swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

Elephants precede Christ by a few million years.


Yep, and your idiotic point would be... what? So do cave man and dinosaurs which pretty much blows that whole" God created everything" and the talking animals and the whole guy in a whale out of the water, doesn't it.


starry, you really need to do some serious study. I think you'll find your supposed iron-clad arguments have a lot of gaping holes..... I've read on all of these issues from both sides of the fence for 20+ yrs now- and I can say you don't have a prehistoric evolutionary theological scientific leg to stand on.


I really don't care what you think. I thought I made that clear.


I am confused on how "God created everything" has anything to do with when Jesus was born? They were a few days apart according to the bible.


Mom25, I believe God (The Father) intentionally left out of the pages of the Bible and history any direct reference to Jesus' physical appearance. He is the Savior for all the world, not specifically for white, or black, or Asian, etc... It is the Word He spoke which changed the world.
Not to nit-pick your theological understanding, but Jesus presently is in bodily form and is not just a spirit. Remember what He spoke to the disciples in the upper room after His Resurrection; "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones..." Luke 24:39 I believe contrary to this article, that the Old Testament does give a slight descriptor of the One the Bible calls the Messiah, who throughout the O.T. was promised to come into the world. This reference is found in Isaiah 53: "...he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." I believe this is a direct reference to Christ (you should read the entire chapter), and it is basically saying that when the Messiah appeared, He would not come upon the world as a Mel Gibson type of individual- God did not want people to follow Him simply because He was tall dark and handsome. Have a Merry Christmas


Starry, that argument has long ago been exhausted. The absolute majority of even secular scholars no longer doubt the physical historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. In light of that fact, they have instead focused their efforts at disputing the claims He made considering His person (that He was the Son of God). They also have moved to attack the claims of the miracles He is said to have performed, but rarely do you hear of anyone in the higher academic circles disputing His existence anymore because it is a losing argument. There is far more evidence for His existence in history than what Julius Caesar or Homer have recorded about them- so if you wish to instantly dismiss Jesus- you've got to get rid of them from the pages of history also! There are even secular writers in Roman times who recorded the fact of Jesus Life, Death, and Resurrection- Tacitus comes to mind just off the top of my head, but I believe there are somewhere around 17 secular references to Christ in antiquity.


As I said, I want proof. Simple as that.


Re: "Starry, that argument has long ago been exhausted."

Outside of the Bible there is NO confirmable historical proof.

Any "proof" is third hand at best.

Regardless; the Nativity is a sweet myth.


"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."
(EX 20:4)

According to Judeo-Christian tradition, praying to statues is idol worship or paganism.

Feliz Navidad!


King: your information is almost entirely incorrect. In "Atheism and the Case Against Christ" by Matthew McCormick, an entire chapter is devoted to a lengthy list of academic studies done over the past 75 years on the authenticity of Jesus Christ. It states that "the body of information on Jesus is very small', and 'the existence of Jesus is an active point of some disagreement'.

What IS noticeable is the lack of mention in contemporary historical accounts. What we have are fragmented copies of copies of hearsay reports dating from 200-300 years after Jesus' death, and not even the original gospel writings which were all written 30-90 after Jesus' death. Given the many mundane things that contemporary historians DID document, doesn't it seem odd that no one mentioned that someone was reincarnated?

Furthermore, nearly all of today's scientific community are atheists or agnostics. These are people who apply the scientific method in everything they do: if there is no evidence or proof that something exists, they don't believe that it exists. They don't discuss it because the issue has been put to rest a long time ago: they don't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny, either.


Consider your tainted source. I can find just as many who will tell you the exact opposite and who have a far greater string of credentials behind their name.
The scientific method huh... Evolutionary theory, Big Bang, Global warming- what political footballs those issues are! I can again name scientists with fantastic credentials (from the highest universities) who will tell you it's all based in social and not empirical science methods. Yet their voices are being silenced within the scientific community- and their papers are being refused publishment- just as many are trying to silence any and all critical thought today.


King, you apparently don't know how the scientific community does things. If a hypothesis is presented, it next undergoes a significant amount of testing by other experts. Then, and only then, if the other scientists are able to replicate the same results, the hypothesis becomes accepted fact.

Some people attempt to make Evolution, Climate Change and the Big Bang Theory into political issues or religious issues, but as Neil DeGrass Tyson often points out, applying a a differing opinion to scientific facts doesn't make those scientific facts any less true.

Please do name the scientists with 'fantastic credentials who differ with accepted scientific research. Typically, 98% of scientists agree that Evolution, Big Band and Climate Change are all real. The other 2% typically were hired by Big Oil or conservative organizations like Heritage Foundation, who have vested reasons to deny scientific data.


I truly cannot copy the exhaustive lists of Scientists (many who are still with us today)- of which approximately 50 are Nobel Laureates. Look it up yourself- its readily available info. And yes, I understand perfectly the scientific method- and anyone who knows science 101 can tell you that a one time event such as big bang or the origin of first cell- can never be tested for validity! How many of your brilliant atheistic scientists have been able to create and then re-create a cell? - from nothing. RE: By the way, as far as big bang- if you wish to believe the ridiculousness that everything within the entire universe was at one time squished down much smaller than the period at the end of this statement- you've got much more faith than me. < there's your dot, now go ahead- fit the sun, planets, galaxy, and all of the other billions of stars, galaxies etc within it.... I'm waiting

thinkagain's picture

They’ll all be believers once they enter the afterlife, of course, then it’ll be too late.

1 Corinthians 1

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

If you haven't found Jesus, you haven't been looking very hard. He is, in fact, very easy to find.


So then, YOU mean that Jesus and God are racists -- if they don't accept Native American Tribes into the afterlife.




Actually, the one's who don't accept the Native Americans are the Mormons. Read their fictional Book of Mormons where it speaks of a perfectly white race coming to a land and smited the dark loathsome lazy people that were here already. Move over black race, we were hated here first.


"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." C.S. Lewis


What you do not understand starry is that the proof is all around you. You wish for Jesus to come to you in a blazing light surrounded by legions of angelic beings, but just as He came quietly to the world in a manger years ago, He approaches people just as quietly today- if they are willing to just listen. By all academic standards- the proof is there. By looking at the change He makes within millions of peoples lives; drug addicts, alcoholics, the poor, the rich, the educated and uneducated - the proof is there. He is a man who's very entrance into the world split time as we know it. Countless hospitals, soup kitchens, missionary endeavors, businesses, etc.. have been founded and operated because of this man and the words which He spoke. Poems, songs, books- more than could possibly ever be numbered have been written and sung because of this "man" Jesus. To instantly dismiss Him and the claims which He made concerning who He said He was- in my mind is foolishness on a person's part- look into it more for yourself, and quit listening to those who only wish to disparage Him.


Re: "change He makes within millions of peoples lives;"

Every major religion and cult can point to miracles, miraculous healings, sacred sites and divine inspired writings.

IMO, to think that one religious doctrine holds the keys to the secrets of life, death and the mysteries of the universe is foolhardy.


"Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10


Quoting a Biblical passage to make your religious & metaphysical point amounts to a tautology.


Who would ever think that to understand the God of the Bible, you should turn to what He claims to be His source reference- the Bible. It doesn't stop there however, as one can look at the created order and see the enormity and complexity of design contained within- and understand that it couldn't in any fashion have popped out of a mud puddle 4.5 billion years ago! This kills your circular reasoning argument, as you can look outside of the Bible for the existence of a God- you just won't be able to discover who that God is on a personal level- which is why I turn to the Bible- and not to the latest issue of popular mechanics, where I would learn nothing of who this "Deity" is. The same can be said when a person looks out at the heavens and observes the design and complexity in the night sky- who put the big and little dippers there? I believe there is plenty of evidence apart from the Bible to show that there is a higher power- but I use the Bible to understand who that higher power is. This in my sense (and I'm not that smart)- is not a true tautology at all. To not be able to turn to source documents is like telling a brain surgeon to learn his craft from a 1976 Chiltons manual for the repair of a corvette- you're not going to end up with good results. In my mind the logic breaks down and becomes nonsensical. A tautology defined is an explanation that says absolutely nothing- "boys will be boys" is a perfect example. What does that tell us about boys? Absolutely nothing. What I put forth was a statement- by One who claims that He is the God of all- and the only God- and is not circular reasoning. But lets have a little fun and apply this test to every evolutionists' favorite catch phrase; "Survival of the fittest" - What species survive? The fittest. How do you know they were the fittest? Because they survived! Now there's a true tautology for you...


Re: "as you can look outside of the Bible for the existence of a God-"

IMO, the universe it is FAR MORE complex than any 'neat' little explanation that can be found in the pages of a book written by man regardless of how "divinely inspired" one believes it to be.

Nothing is as it seems, nor is it otherwise - Zen koan.

Or, to put it another way:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

- Hamlet (1.5.167-8)


Thank you Contango, for you have actually proven the point that God is far more complex and infinite in power and wisdom than one could ever hope of discovering within the pages of even a million books- but at least He has given to us a glimpse of His majesty! I serve a truly AWESOME GOD!


Re: "actually proven,"

I've "proven" nothing and neither have you.

Naming something does not mean that you understand it.



I understand plenty. I also understand that you cannot force anyone to believe what YOU believe. DO NOT preach or shove your beliefs on me.

Your beliefs are YOUR own , and MINE are mine.

Native American tribes did not believe in Jesus. Neither did many other cultures.

Religion is man-made . Spirituality IS NOT!!

P.S. Both of my stepgrandparents were ordained ( Methodist) ministers. SO , I've heard it all before. They were Wise. They allowed people to make up their own minds.

Wow, I made one little generalized comment one here ... and all Hell Breaks loose with the bible thumpers. Geesh!



Kingsin, what you see as proof, we atheists see as selective judgement. You're like an archery judge who looks only at those arrows that hit the bullseye, pointing out how good the shooter's aim is (look at the lives God improved). Yet, you ignore the bad shots (what about the lives who were going well, and suddenly took a turn for the worse...what about the baby with cancer...what about the elderly couple who died on the Ohio Turnpike last month in a fiery crash through no fault of their own).

If you are going to give God credit for the good things that happen, we must be honest and give God credit for the bad things that happen. After all, he IS all powerful/omniscient, right?

Countless good things have happened without God, without the church's involvement. I'm living proof that you can be good without God. I was raised as a Christian, taught to never question the teachings of the church, and spent 25+ years as music minister in my church.

As soon as you understand why you don't believe in the Roman/Norse/Greek gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in the Christian god. I contend that we all are atheists. I just believe in one less god than you.


Ignore the bad shots? I've lived them- which is why I am widowed and childless right now. True story. But instead of giving up on God and walking away- I saw the many good things He began to do for me- some so supernatural that many would not believe if I told them. It's a tough agonizing world full of painful loss- but I didn't blame God (not after awhile anyways, at first I was very angry to be truthful)- and I will still gladly bow the heart before Him.... so don't talk to me about loss, I've had it worse than most will ever know.


Kingsin ,

I'm 48 god*damn years old. I listen to NO ONE. But me. Get OVER yourself. I cannot stand people like you who shove it down someone's throat.

You do not speak for me or think for me. I'd put my soul and salvation UP against yours' or anyone else's any day of the F**KING week.

I think you know in what orifice you can put your opinions. And your "wisdom" ( which isn't very wise ).

You sound like a deranged hypocrite who has drunk a little too much Kool-Aid.

Isn't that how Jim Jones got started?

I NO longer Believe .. I'm more of a Wiccan, Pagan, Heathen (as it were)...

Simple as that!

Show me PROOF !

Tangible proof.

Put up OR Shut up!


"I'm 48 G**D**.... and "I would put my soul and salvation up against anyone's.."

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for THE LORD WILL NOT HOLD HIM GUILTLESS (emphasis mine) that taketh his name in vain. Ex. 20:7

You're not getting that good of a start my little Wiccan friend


First off.. I'm not your friend. Second. Just keep shoveling and spewing your Bible Bullsh!T cause it's getting deep in here. It's the Biggest work of Fiction ever wrote. Although, when Charlton Heston parts the Red Sea it is pretty cool.

The Church and Man kind made up the Bible to control the masses and scare the hell out of everybody. Guess what, that method just doesn't work anymore.

I'll take anybody's name in vain, whenever I wish. Matters not to me.


* I had a whole response- but deleted it. Not going to get mean with you... no purpose in it.


You have heard of the Serenity Prayer haven't you? Maybe you should abide by it a little more. ..As for coffee--only if you choke. You're the one judging on here which doesn't make you a god of any kind only a sheep.

Seeing is Believing . Enjoy you own Bullshit, it stinks to high ,,um...whatever.

White Owl

Why the hostility starryeyes83? No one is trying to force their Christian beliefs upon you. Clearly, you are not at peace and not confident in your belief system.


Clearly, White Owl you are wrong. I tend to get hostile when people try to ram their beliefs down my throat. Why do you people always think your way or the highway?

Why don't you read your friend's previous replies.

dorothy gale

Name just one historian from antiquity who mentioned "Jesus of Nazareth." I believe a fellow named Josephus wrote quite a bit about that time period and never once mentioned Jesus. And none of the examples you give are proof of the intervention of a supernatural entity. Try again, please.


That's a pretty poor example since Josephus wasn't even born until 37 AD. However, that being said, you don't know what you are talking about. From Josephus himself:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Book IXVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).


Re: "a wise man,"

So not a god.

Thanks for the research.

Third person, unverifiable hearsay and potentially corrupted due to translation.

Repeated transcribing and possible unauthorized changes are other areas of contention.

The Hindus have thousands of incidences of god incarnate, i.e. avatars.

When the Portugese missionaries arrived in India to preach the Gospels, the Asians understood the concept quite well and simply placed "Jesus" among their pantheon of gods.


You seemed to have cut Josephus's statement off a little early; "if it be lawful to call him a man..." "He was the Christ..."


I knew somebody would end up quoting Josephus as "proof" sooner or later. Too bad that passage was long ago proved a forgery! Interestingly enough, the forgery dates from the time of the Nicean conclave where the early Catholic Church got together to decide what books would and would not be included in the Bible. That happened around 400 CE.

For the record, Rome (which kept VERY good records) did not conduct a Census, and other scholars who were more contemporaneous with the time didn't mention a "Jesus," a "King of the Jews," or a half man/half god at all. Odd, that, don't you think?


Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Pliny Secundus, Suetonius, Tertullian, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara-Bar-Serapion, Justin Martyr, the early Church Fathers; Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc... The twenty seven books of the New Testament, The Jewish Talmud... Some of these historical figures lived in the first century contemporaneously with the lifespan of the Apostles. As I said previously, If you wish to dismiss the historicity of Jesus out of hand- then you should be required to play by a fair set of academic rules concerning any other person of historical record- dismiss them all! No-one existed back then! Can't have it both ways folks, but I'm sure that you will demand it because it concerns Jesus. It's funny how people would never think to question the historicity of Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Plato, Socrates, Nero... the list is truly endless, but when it comes to Jesus....
I believe it is because Jesus requires an answer from every person; "..and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Eli'jah; and others one of the prophets." And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?".... So, who do you say that He is?... the question of the ages...


Re: "dismiss them all!"

A straw man argument.

Another major problem: No historical writings of Jesus exist (if they ever did) as opposed to many of those individuals you listed.

IMO, ya can't have any greater fun than debating politics AND religion. :)


Contango, the arguments posed for and against the God of the Bible bring me to think of one individual- Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. As the drugs were being administered which would end his life, his final words to God and humanity were this: ""I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." Those words come from a poem called "Invictus" written by British poet William Ernest Henley, and is a declaration of the unrepentant heart towards an Omnipotent and Holy God. This was his choice, to enter an eternity with his fists held high and spite upon his lips toward the One who gave him life; "My head is bloody, but unbowed..." This is the position the majority will take- fists held high, cursing the God who made everything. Jesus spoke concerning this also; "...there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 8:13 The gnashing of teeth here does not refer to physical pain- it refers to those who will go down swinging- cursing God to His face as they are being sentenced. You want to pit yourself against a Holy Omnipotent God- you go right ahead... I've made my choice, I've said that I will gladly, and in love trusting- bow the head.


RE: "ya can't have any greater fun than debating politics AND religion. :) Hey! Something we can agree upon! LOL Merry CHRISTmas!


Re: "Timothy McVeigh,"

Another straw man argument.

To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall as a classical liberal (libertarian):

I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

"Just don't try to lay no boogie-woogie on the King of Rock n' Roll."

- Long John Baldry


Re: "You want to pit yourself against a Holy Omnipotent God- you go right ahead..."

Not ONLY "omnipotent," but ALSO omnipresent and omniscient.

If such a powerful being needs lil' ol' me to bow down and expects me to kiss His *ss for all eternity or face eternal damnation then that sounds like one sick, mentally deranged, co-dependent diety and He ain't God.

"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

- Paradise Lost


The main fallacy in your thinking, Kingsin, is that you continually attempt to use the Bible as proof that the information in the Bible is true. This is a class circular argument.

The real problem is that there are no firsthand - or even 2nd hand - accounts of the resurrection. Some people are alleged to have witnessed it, and those people repeated stories about the event to others, and the story continued to be passed down verbally for the next several decades. The most interesting thing about the Gospels is that the contradict each other on a number of events surrounding the resurrection.

Around 65 AD, the author of the book known as Mark wrote down an account of the event, as passed down to him. Around this time, Paul was also writing letters to early Christians in which he described events he had heard from an unknown number of sources removed from the actual event by an unknown number of steps. During the next several decades, another account was written, that was later attributed to John. During the 2nd century, the end of the Gospel of Mark, containing stories about the resurrection, was added by an unknown author.

These early documents and many others with very different stories freely circulated and multiplied over hundreds of years, during which an unknown number of people corrected, "harmonized", added, subtracted and altered their copies. After around 300 years, some Christians deliberately collected one set of stories/writings they chose to accept as official doctrine, and destroyed/ignored/rejected a host of other writing with different accounts of the early years.

Although the church would have us believe that we have first-hand accounts, the earliest accounts were written in 65 AD or later. Today, the earliest actual manuscripts that exist are fragmented copies of copies written in the AD 200s. So, if anything, the Bible actually weakens the case for any sort of validity as far as Jesus and the resurrection are concerned.


Ahh, the Mysteries of Faith. It is refreshing to see Jesus portrayed as black or Asian. Really a silly thing to debate. I want to see an Irish Jesus, with red flowing hair and beard. Maybe it wasn't the wedding at Canaan, but the wedding in Dublin, Jesus turned water into Jameson. Maybe Jesus wore a Roundhouse Bar bucket on his head! That's my Jesus! But that's all a pipe dream. Live the teachings, be good to and love one another! On this the birth of our Savior, I say to you all, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


First of all, God did not write the bible. No one knows for sure the origins of it. Second, if Jesus were black, few white people would follow his teachings I guarantee it. The whole story of a baby being born by immaculate conception and then growing up to be Jesus is a bit far-fetched don't you think? And Noah building an ark and putting all those animals on it? Sure. Also, there is no concrete proof that Dec. 25th is Jesus' birthday. There's no proof that he rose from the dead. It's all conjecture. The bible translations are inaccurate and everyone blindly follows them. Some of the passages are controversial and spout violence against women. When you all get the chance, do some research.


Re: "The bible translations are inaccurate and everyone blindly follows them."

IMO, the Bible may not be 'true,' but there are many 'truths' contained therein.


Yes, it is because the Egyptians had a very similar story of Horus (?) which pre-dates Jesus by about 10,000 years.


Unassumer, there's one thing I can pull from your post which I will agree is false- Jesus was not born on the 25'th of Dec. The rest I can offer sound argument for- but you wouldn't listen anyways.....


Some Biblical origins are actually pretty clear. Consider, for example, the story of a half man/half god, born in December, to a virgin, in a stable, fated to be the savior of mankind. Consider the story of that man who died as a result of crucifixion. Now congratulate yourself: You've just heard the story of Mithras!

Interestingly enough, St. Paul — frequently credited with actually DEVELOPING Christianity — was from (are you ready?) one of the last regions on earth that still held to the Mithras mythology! What a coinkydink!

A special note for those who believe in the Bible's literal truth: In Matthew, it specifically says that God deliberately created some men NOT to believe and to serve as an object lesson to those who might be saved. What kind of loving God deliberately creates a man only to be condemned to endure torture for eternity? Even if he DID exist, are you honestly suggesting that kind of a monster deserves your worship? Really?


Re: "St. Paul — frequently credited with actually DEVELOPING Christianity,"

It's been said: Christianity could exist without Jesus, but not without Paul.

Read "Galatians" (NRSV).

In Chpts. 1 & 2, the word "revelation" i.e. channeling is used.

Paul essentially "channeled" Jesus (voices) and never met him.

H*ll, for all we know Paul mighta been schizophrenic?


Technically if you look at where jesus was born at, you would see he was born in the middle east meaning he wasn't white. He was a person of color.

The Big Dog's back

The right wingnuts would go wild if Jesus was a Muslim.


"if Jesus was a Muslim."

Obviously no need for teaching History in lefty wingnut school.

Islam was founded by Mohammed about the yr. 610 CE.


But the Muslims will say that Ibrahim was the first Muslim, far before Mohamed PBUH was born. Yet you should have dismissed the statement for being ignorant because the person readily exchanges "Arab" and "Muslim". Less than half of the World's Muslims are Arabs. Go to Bosnia and you can find many blond haired and blue eyed Muslims. Go to Kazan in Russia and you will see Muslims that look Swedish.


According to the song Jesus was a race car driver. LOL!

Raoul Duke

Jesus Christ...

Dr. Information

Jesus was a jew, therefore white. He wasn't black.


Okay, Jesus was said to be born in nazareth. That is in Israel. White people aren't born in Israel. It would make it difficult to believe that Jesus was born white in a coloured society.


Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM, not Nazareth. Just as foretold.

Micah 5:2

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”


swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

Dr. Information, with all your politically correct nonsense you write on these blogs, why do you still use the word Jew>??


People still use the word fat, right. Even Jews refer to themselves as Jews.


What is so mystifying to need to know his race? Isn't this a stereotype we're trying not to create within our own...


Jesus looked like Grimmace from McDonalds. You have no proof to say otherwise, therefore he must look like Grimmace! It's the 21st century folks! Why is race a freaking issue???

swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

dannytanner; Politically correct bots attempting to rewrite history.

red white and blue

I think debating his race or color is the dummest most useless thing we need to know.As far as did he exsist or saying there's only second hand information I leave you with this:Is there really other plantes other thsn the moon and sun? Have you seen them have you been there what facts Do you have other than second hand information from someone else ?


Uhm, the moon and the sun aren't planets. And yes, I've seen other planets with my own eyes (both naked eye and telescope).

Ladies and gentlemen of the Register blogs, I hereby present to you Exhibit A in "the U.S. clearly is falling woefully behind in science education."


There is both good and evil in this world. The faith that I have in the existance of Jesus Christ is from personal experience in dealing with both. For those who are sadly wrapped in the thoughts of evil, I feel sorry for you. Over the years it has been proven time again that those who rebuke Jesus as their savior are basically inviting evil to dwell in their lives. At this time of the year, we should remember why we celebrate, and that is the birth of our savior, Jesus Christ. Not for the toys, or the the imaginary Santa Claus, but because GOD saw fit to send us a second chance. All you have to do, is accept him! GOD Bless.


You know TopCop, I do my best to put across a decent argument for Christ in the supposedly "enlightened" times we live in. Most peoples extent of knowledge concerning theological issues is to simply repeat what their friends tell them, or what they heard some goofy "theologian" say in a Discovery channel special about aliens and God.

I am in agreement with you in believing that shunning Christ only takes a person down a destructive path. There is a verse of Scripture which has always intrigued me when I compare it to the many polarizing issues we face today. It is found in Proverbs, and I use it as a litmus test for deciding which side to fall on in any particular controversy; "But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." Prov. 8:36 "All those that hate me love death"

Abortion= Death
Assisted suicide= Death
Drug usage=Death
Embracing Evolutionary teaching=Death (If there's no God- there is no afterlife- everything just dies- end of story)
Illicit sexual behaviors (gay or straight)= Death (Aids is still a killer)

You can apply this verse to nearly all the questions on morality facing us today as a society and come out with the same ultimate conclusion: A life without Christ, and living ones best to His teachings, only leads to death- ultimately spiritual death.
People find it so easy to pooh-pooh everything about God and the Bible and to make fun of those who do believe- but they never look at the ultimate big picture... Sad


Please explain to me where evolution precludes the idea of an afterlife. I'll wait...

White Owl

The absence of life (order) is death (disorder). If one believes life (order) spontaneously arose from nothing (death or disorder) and evolved into the complex (highly ordered) forms of today without some energy force externally applied i.e the life force or God force from a dimension one cannot comprehend; it follows there can be no after life. Only belief in the Supreme Creator or God allows for the existence of an after life.


White Owl, good answer. The evolutionists' of all people should be able to readily deduce what the ultimate end-game of their own theology is. Not to put words into Sam Adams mouth, but it almost seems to me of being a case of "wanting his cake and eating it too". - "Well, I'm going to believe in evolution and a naturalistic explanation to everything, do whatever I want in my life, surely not serve some God from some old book,- but in the end, if there really is an afterlife- I hope it all works out well for me. Not going to happen...

White Owl

Thank you and Merry Christmas and a blessed New Year to you!

One of the most rational explanations for belief in God is Pascal's Wager. I hope Sam studies it and doesn't have to learn the hard way.

Like you, life dealt me some serious trauma and hardships for which I am grateful to God as it drew me closer and dependent upon Him. He in turn has blessed me with peace and even a miracle or two.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

How do you equate life to order and death to disorder? I don't follow your reasoning.

White Owl

I used an allegory. A living creature is very complex and all of its intricate systems work together to keep the creature alive. Once a creature dies, it breaks down into component parts without any order to the system.

Consider a new deck of cards. The deck consists of 52 cards in four suits in sequential order plus two jokers. It is in order because some external force did work to ensure it was in order.

Now a simple ordered deck of cards is far less complex than the simplest single celled organism with literally millions of molecules in an organized system to sustain life and reproduce life. If one tosses the organized deck of cards into the air thereby "killing" the organized deck, it is a random mess of disordered cards.

How many times do you have to throw the ordered deck (alive)into the air and it becomes disordered (dead) until it randomly reassembles itself in the original ordered deck neatly stacked (alive again)?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

The organization you illustrate, as I see it, is a finished product and not the current situation. It is also a condition for which you are looking specifically before you stop the experiment. You may find order when the numbers go 2, 3, 4, etc. but what if I really want evens and odds or that five actually makes for a better shape following three?

That's where I would see life as a beautiful chaos of chance, mutation, uncomformity, disorganization and the like. As for the tossing? It could only take the first attempt to do so. Improbable, but not impossible. This would make death orderly and the fact that entropy exists seems to support that. To me. Though this is why I asked for your take on it.

We are the lucky one time it has been observed to happen. That leaves open an active, guiding hand or a Clockmaker Theory should either appeal to you. Or if you want to support the cold hand of science, that door is open too through Chaos Theory, etc.

While the obvious opposite of life is death in terms of states of being (at least regarding creatures that were once alive, not sure if you can count rocks as "dead"), I believe that there is a truer opposite of life. Take that same rock comprised of matter.

Matter, as we know it, cannot be created nor destroyed. So what is the opposite of that in concept. Yeah, anti-matter is the obvious choice (and great propulsion material if Star Trek has any truth to it) but we're talking conceptually. What CAN be infinitely created and destroyed? Life. Because of that constant threat of destruction and hope for renewal into perpetuity, the flux of existence itself, I would make the case for life being disorderly if compared in such a way.

It's a fun thing to discuss for sure.

White Owl

Thank you for your comment and I understand your point about life being "disordered" if viewed from another perspective.

Actually I view all matter including rocks as part of creation and therefore "ordered". And at some point life did not exist at least not in evolutionists' terms.

So for me life itself is the manifestation/essence of God and His energy flows through every part of creation including the "rocks of ages". A spiritual exercise for me while walking is to search the face of every person I pass seeking Christ therein, as well as within even the rocks at times.

It's one reason I find communication on the internet so unsatisfactory as it does not allow one the use of all senses.

Happy and Blessed New Year to you!


Re: "I used an allegory."

We only know the universe through metaphor and analogies. They are not reality.


You are confusing the theory of evolution (for which there is mountains of evidence) with the hypothesis of abiogenesis (the notion that life first arose spontaneously from various chemical interactions). You are also misstating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which only applies in a CLOSED system. The earth isn't a closed system since it receives energy from the sun. Next?

P.S. You're right, though, about the notion of an afterlife, except for one word. The belief in a god allows the corresponding BELIEF in an afterlife, not provides for the EXISTENCE of it.

White Owl

1) There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution. Evidence is gained by reproducing the conditions with proper controls to prove your hypothesis or theory. Provide one controlled experiment and its evidence that proves a single cell with its irreducible complexity of components such as nucleus, mitochondria etc can be produced. Where's the reproducible data?

2) In order to evolve from a single cell organism, the theory of evolution still depends on abiogenesis to form the first cell.

3) The Universe (believed by evolutionary theorists to be formed by the Big Bang) is a closed system. Or do you still believe our Solar System, the Earth and you are the center of the Universe?

Your non belief in God and your belief in the theory of evolution is a form of religion too. You believe in the supremacy of man over your Creator, or humanism.

Please don't confuse your beliefs and unproven theories with knowledge. I experienced Christ, know His love and am confident of His promise of ever lasting life.

I wish you peace.


Re: "There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution."

The "evidence" is observable through geological methods.

Conversely, outside of the Nicene Bible, there is no historical "evidence" for Jesus.

Who were those bishops and how did they decide which books of the Bible were ‘true’ and which were apocryphal?

White Owl

How do geographical methods disprove the creation of life and man by God?

You can not begin to understand the supernatural by referencing the natural world and the limitations of the human mind. These are mysteries beyond human comprehension.

I wish you peace.


Re: "These are mysteries beyond human comprehension."

More like made-up nonsense in order to consolidate power and control over a populace.


Anytime an answer isn't known, it's typical of some to slap a "goddidit" label on it. Unfortunately for them, science isn't satisfied with that, and the REAL answers just keep being discovered. Simply because there are still plenty of questions out there DOESN'T mean that the "goddidit" label is necessarily any more appropriate or final!

The truth is that the natural world is wondrous enough without adding some supernatural suppositions to it. And the reality of the natural world is that supernatural explanations are unneeded. If you're a happy and decent human being, I don't care WHAT you "believe." Just don't present those belief as being synonymous with facts, and we'll all get along just fine.


RE: "How do geographical methods disprove the creation of life and man by God?"

They don't. They do, however, prove evolution.

P.S. A "theory" and an "hypothesis" are two entirely different things.

Stop It

Religion, especially if organized, makes a bad argument turn worse. What really sux is when it enters into politics as it often does. Combining those two creates war and havoc. Look at the mid and far east and even here in the USA.

It is said that when Constantine declared Christianity as a faith and all their churches and properties belonging to them, that he actually stopped the the underground movement of Christianity that was sweeping all the East, West, North and South. He actually halted the real reason.

I personally have my own idea of a higher power that one will never find in any organization of any type. That to me, is freedom of religion and I could care less how anyone feels about it. I don't preach my beliefs....I just hold them.

thinkagain's picture


Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you have a belief and have to keep it to yourself.

We, as American citizens, have a Constitutional right of freedom of speech as well as freedom of practicing our religion.


No matter what the naysayers spout I do believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that my life has been a good life fueled by my faith. My opinion like it or not.


One of Dan Barker's books has an entire chapter outlining an amazingly lengthy list of obvious contradictions between the 4 gospels. I was shocked and embarrassed to say that I didn't notice any of the contradictions back when I was a Christian.

Barker's situation intrigued me, as he was a lay minister and well-known Christian composer/music minister, and I was a church musician. In 2009, I read his book "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist", after reading an article in Psychology Today magazine about priests who no longer believed in God. In less than 2 weeks, I realized that I didn't believe in God or gods, but continued to read (A LOT) on both sides of the argument. Once you come around to Reason, it's hard to deceive yourself into believing in anything supernatural. The interesting thing is that I know a lot MORE about the Bible and religion now, than I did when I was a regular churchgoer.

I do agree that it's interesting to discuss religion and politics. I don't have a problem with anyone who wishes to believe in God. They are entitled to that, and I never bring up my beliefs until someone religious first broaches the subject. Where it becomes a problem is when people in power bring God into state or federal policy discussions.

I had a great Christmas and hope that you did, as well.


It is interesting that you, as a non believer, had a great Christmas which is based on the birth of Jesus Christ.


Sorry, but Christmas as it has existed now for hundreds of years is actually based on an even EARLIER mythology: The pagan winter solstice.

White Owl

Partially correct. Early Roman Catholic leaders adopted the Winter solstice as the day of the birth of Christ or Christ Mass.

Pagans worshiped the sun and miscalculated the Winter Solstice as December 25. (We know it to be December 21. In the dark days of winter, light begins to return after the Winter solstice.

Church leaders inspired by the Holy Spirit adopted the Winter Solstice as the Christ Mass or Christmas to celebrate the light of the world Jesus Christ as a means to help convert pagans to Christianity. It was inspired marketing.

Ironically, today, the forces of darkness (pagans)have corrupted the meaning of Christmas and reclaimed it for their own pagan marketing strategy. (materialism and egotism/selfishness).


"Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honor of the deity Saturn, held on December 17 of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through December 23." (Wiki)

Paganism & Christianity: The substitution of one mythology for another.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful"

- Seneca

White Owl

As stated above paganism is ego driven worship of self and the things of this world while a Christian's ultimate desire is to become Christ like i.e. to love God first and to love neighbor as self or ultimately death of self.

The people you quote are dead, while Christ was at the beginning of time, is here with us now, and will ever exist.


Re: "Christ was at the beginning of time, is here with us now, and will ever exist."

Other than repeat rhetoric you've proven nothing.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I will kindly call you out on your perception of pagans, though if that is your opinion of them you are welcome to it. I'd just suggest not declaring such things with certainty and in a manner condemning a swathe of the population.

White Owl

In what way am I condemning a swathe of the population? Do not pagans worship the things of this world or supernatural beings that promise them power in this world? Isn't it really about what is in it for them here and now?

Furthermore, you and others are not "condemning" Christians the largest religious belief system in the world by mocking and ridiculing Jesus Christ?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

From my understanding as a non-pagan (but someone who is open-minded, has researched it, and interact with practicing heathens per the definition regularly), the "things" that are worshiped are the understanding and celebration of nature and creation. Just as I presume you don't worship the cross for its shape, material composition, or whether or not it has a figure of Jesus on it, so too they don't worship the sun for its cosmetic appeal. Maybe cosmic, but that's just a pun.

Druids, pagans, etc. seek an understanding of/with each other and the world in which they inhabit (as most animist religions do such as Shintoism or the tribal beliefs of Native Americans). So there I would argue against them being ego-maniacs. Because of that seeking and celebration I have noticed a greater acceptance of others' ideas. This, I would argue, is why the Germanic and Nordic "barbarians" were (compared to other such cultures) converted rather easily - concessions and overlays of the church aside.

That's where my comment of condemnation originated and as for swathe, well, not everyone is Christain. There are many populations who don't practice any particular sect of that religion however you may define it. On a personal note I would ask you to produce a direct quote of ME ridiculing Jesus else not say such things. I can't account for others here who have openly made statements against Jesus but as I have not please don't include me in that broad brush.

I may be many things, but someone who openly ridicules another's religious faith isn't one of them.

White Owl2

Hey sorry about lumping you together with some of the posters on here who attack Christians. I noted it and meant to change it after responding to your other post but you beat me to it. Very appropriately I might add.

In any event, as you probably know, Christians believe Christ is the only way to salvation. It's not that we hate non believers personally but are taught to shun their ways and pray for them.

And to everyone who thinks that means I believe every non believer is going to Helsinki, I happen to believe only those souls who openly reject Christ and lead an evil life are doomed to have their souls destroyed. Everybody else gets a chance to see the light through that quaint place known as purgatory.


Re: "I happen to believe only those souls who openly reject Christ and lead an evil life are doomed to have their souls destroyed."

And you believe this WHY and based on WHAT?


Do you believe in the myth of gravity? It has not been scientifically proven and is just a theory after all. Probably you do believe in the myth of gravity because you experience the affects of the force of gravity.

Who are any of us to question the affect of a force on the life of another? And why if someone experienced something wonderful are they bad or stupid for trying to share it?


Partially correct. Church leaders didn't adopt the date for Christmas symbolically for reasons of "light" and "darkness" any more than they adopted the date for easter for reasons of the "resurrection" of flowers in springtime.

The Winter Solstice and the springtime honoring of the goddess Astare (note the similarity to the word "easter") were very much ingrained into the life of the lower classes who, in the extreme hardness of such a life, quite literally NEEDED the respite offered by such celebrations. If converting to Christianity meant losing those, it wasn't going to happen. The early Church co-opted holidays the peasants were used to so that they could continue to enjoy them and still be converted. Cheap and a little tawdry? Yep. But it worked!

thinkagain's picture

You were never a Christian, you simply deceived yourself for a while and now you finally see that you have never known Christ. You were just one of the millions who call themselves “Christian”.

True Christianity is not being a member of a particular religion, it is a new birth and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.


"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." 1 John 2:19

Mr. D

Heavenly Father, they are all Your children. You known them, more than anyone, You know them, who they are, what they are and why they are; and what can be.
None of us are above you. Father, lead us, guide us, direct us, protect us. . . Touch us with your unending love, mercy, forgiveness and guidance. This I ask in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ. . . Amen

Truth or Dare

Let's at least be fairly realistic here, because geographically speaking, my guess would be that Jesus, the Christ, sported a fairly good tan. His eyes brown and his hair black. It is said he couldn't be picked out of a crowd. You know, just another average Joe. It worked well for Him, as it was made more difficult for the religious and political authorities of His time that worked closely together to locate and arrest such a young upstart/heretic. They were looking for a more princely type man, and eventually resorted to bribery. He was Hebrew and a direct descendent of the Tribe of Judah, one of the 12 Tribes of Israel, thus a Jew.

It's a personal relationship and Faith is what makes us Sons and Daughters and Brothers and Sisters, no matter our color, lack thereof, our station in life. As for Santa, I do believe the blue eyes and white hair would be typical of Germanic attributes, which would be the origins of what/who we've come to know within our country as Santa Claus.


Actually, Saint Nicholas was the bishop of what is now Istanbul, Turkey.
Jews and Arabs are caucasians, hence white. It matters because portraying Jesus' race as mutable based on the audience denies that He was an actual person.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

You reminded me of the song (or at least the cover by They Might Be Giants) called "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)".

White Owl

Actually Hebrews and Arabs are Semitic people. They are not white or black, but brown, with brown eyes and black hair. Today's Palestinians would resemble the people during Christ's time. Thus Jesus Christ would appear Arabic.

Today's Jews are mostly descended not from the Hebrews (who are called Sephardic Jews) but from tribes in Eurasia and are thus white.

This entire article was IMO, merely an effort to race bait and create controversy.

Stop It

"jesus done left chicago and he's bound for new orleans...."

Stop It

Any religion that causes hate and and negative disposition to ANY one else on this planet has no place in making anything better. If you don't like it, leave. EZ way out.

Dr. Information

Historically speaking, Santa was based off of someone who was white. Now in households of another race, in these days, he can be whatever he wants to be. Jesus however, was not black or asian, he was white (tan or not tan).

There are plenty of teachings, sightings, meetings, and direct words from Jesus in the bible, over and over and over again. I guess the last supper was just made up? I see more people getting upset with people that believe on here than those who are upset with those that don't.


So, Jesus existed as depicted in the Bible because the Bible says so? And how do we know that the Bible is actually the truth? Oh, because it says that, too!

Way to "prove" something...

thinkagain's picture

Why don’t you supply convincing evidence to support your contention that Jesus didn’t exist?

The Christian church was born and spread through the Mediterranean world before the New Testament was even written, let alone compiled. Until a few hundred years ago, most Christians didn’t have their own copy of the Bible. Today there are still Christians in other countries, who do not have a Bible. Yet during all this time, God’s salvation was bestowed on His people, by His will and according to His plan and purpose.

I did not own a Bible, had never read from a Bible, but was a seeker of truth.

The night of my new birth, I remember the blinders coming off of my eyes in a dramatic and instantaneous regeneration of heart and mind. God became real and alive to me, not just off sitting on a cloud somewhere looking down… but next to me. God became as real to me as any person could be.

We are all born into this world, but there is a spiritual birth that awaits those that seek truth.

How can they understand before they are born again? Seekers must simply receive Him as their Lord and Savior. Even if the Bible didn't exist, I would still be a Christian.


You can't prove a negative. NO one can prove a negative. Since you're the one asserting a positive, YOU prove it! But fair warning: If you have PROOF, then you've no need of faith. And without faith, you're going to hell (yet another convenient nugget from your favorite book).

thinkagain's picture

I’m glad you admitted that you can’t prove the Bible is false or that Jesus never existed. Keep seeking truth, hopefully you’ll find it.

thinkagain's picture

The race of Jesus…human of course.

pigeon farmer

Every Jesus I know is hispanic. Whites need to keep their snoot out of religion.