The Instigator
whitesworstnightmare
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
matty_ice
Con (against)
Winning
55 Points

lf Jesus Was White! He wouldn't Have Been Crucified

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
matty_ice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,652 times Debate No: 63560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (53)
Votes (11)

 

whitesworstnightmare

Pro

My conclusion is,,,Jesus was black! White man killed a Black Jesus!
matty_ice

Con

I accept this challenge with the stance that Jesus was not Black, he was Middle Eastern, or as you call it, "white".
Debate Round No. 1
whitesworstnightmare

Pro

The first middle easterners where black. and what evidence do you have he was white.Don't give me Micheal Angelo painting, you used to promote your white Jesus! An dont give me american references because this where the white Jesus sh?t started. Give me any evidence from the middle east and africa where Jesus walked.
matty_ice

Con

Ok. First off, I was never going to mention either of your examples because, obviously, they are flawed. Michelangelo was an artist, therefore he took certian artisitc liberties and made God and Jesus white.
Let me state the facts for you:


    1. He was the son of a Hebrew woman from the town of Nazareth in the modern-day nation of Israel. He would have been from Jewish descent, and therefore of Jewish complexion, which is light brown skin tone, comperable to a person of hispanic descent.
    1. Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah, therefore He had to be Jewish.
    1. The messianic prophecies could not be fulfilled in Jesus unless He was physically Jewish. To be from the tribe of Judah required Jewish lineage. It is evident from passages such as Hebrews 7:14," For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah," that Jesus was ethnically a Jew.


I challenge you to find biblical evidence proving he was black.
Debate Round No. 2
whitesworstnightmare

Pro

The general public has been manufactured as a Nation of Ventriloquists. The same "so-called mysteries" harbored by Scientists should be no mystery at all if you got an "A" in World History. When something teeter totters into a realm that can't be linked back to mainstream history, scientists make the statement: "We have our team of experts working on that." Therein lies the carefully constructed hitch. Everything documented in history is measured to and from Europe because of European mapmakers of the day.

Sheer evidence shows the EXODUS was FROM Africa--NOT TO AFRICA. If you know anything about the color theory, you would know every color comes from black--meaning that Africans produced all members of mankind. When the historians FINALLY GOT BACK TO AFRICA, Africans had already migrated to all parts of the world. Modern humans originated in Africa. Bands of hominids migrated first to the Middle East, then throughout Europe and into Asia. But exactly who moved away?
The Earth is filled with yellow, brown, and black people strategically stationed as the 8% hangs on by a thread trying to dominate and change history in its tracks. Can it be said that the global world has become one of Ventriloquists?

In biblical times "Africa" included much of what European maps call the "Middle East." European mapmakers determined regions on the top of Africa would be divided according to distances from Europe: "Near East," "Middle East" and "Far East." Remember, the name Africa is actually of Latin origin and was imposed on the great continent by European explorers. That brought to the surface many more "Harbored Mysteries."

In November 2002 the replica of an ancient Chinese map that included a recognizable outline of Africa was unveiled in South Africa's Parliament. The Amalgamated Map of the Great Ming Empire (Da Ming Hun Yi Tu) dating back to 1389 was made decades before the first European voyages to Africa. THEREIN LIES THE HITCH. The European scientists present at the unveiling of the map had "egg in the face" because they couldn't explain how the Chinese had a map dated decades before the Europeans sailed BACK to Africa. Names on the map were written mostly in Manchu, a virtually extinct language that needed to be translated. Remember the words, "FROM AFRICA--NOT TO AFRICA."

A picture dated 11 November 2002 shows a detail on the Da Ming Hun Yi Tu (The Amalgamated Map of the Great Ming Empire) dating back to 1389 which is arguably the oldest world map in existence that accurately reflects the African continent
The skeletal remains from Southern China are predominately Negroid. The people of that era practiced single burials which is an African ritual. In northern China Blacks founded many civilizations. The three major empires of China were the Xia Dynasty (c.2205-1766 BC), Shang Yin Dynasty (c.1700-1050 BC) and the Zhou Dynasty. The Zhou dynasty was the first dynasty founded by the Mongoloid people in China called Hua (Who-aa). The founders of Xia and Shang came from the Fertile African Crescent by way of Iran. Chinese civilization began along the Yellow River. By 3500 BC. Blacks in China were raising silkworms and making silk. The culture hero Huang Di is a direct link of Africa. His name was pronounced in old Chinese Yuhai Huandi or "Hu Nak Kunte." He arrived in China from the west in 2282 BC and settled along the banks of the Loh River in Shanxi. This transliteration of Huandgi, to Hu Nak Kunte is interesting because Kunte is a common clan name among the Manding speakers. The Africans or Blacks that founded civilization in China were often called Li Min "black headed people" by the Zhou dynasts. This term has affinity to the Sumero-Akkadian term Sag- Gig-Ga "black headed people."

China was occupied predominately by Blacks from West Asia to China. Blacks were forced from East and Southeast Asia by the expansion of the Thai, Annamite, Bak and Hua Mongoloids. Blacks ruled China until around 1000-700 BC. Blacks of China were known in historical literature by many names, including Negro, Austroloid, Oceanean, etc. by the Europeans. The East Indians and Mongoloid groups had other names like Dara, Yneh-chih, Yaksha, Suka, K'un-lun, Lushana and Seythians.

Hawaii's last Queen and her Black brother

The original Black population lived in China and were the Negritos and Austroloid groups. After 5000 BC, Africoid people from Kush in Africa began to enter China and Central Asia from Iran, while another groups reached China by sea. This two-route migration of Blacks to China led to the development of southern and northern Chinese branches of Africoids. The Northern Chino-Africans were called Kui-shuang (Kushana) or Yueh-chih, while the southern tribes were called Yi and li-man Yueh and Man. In addition to the Yueh Tribes along the north east coastal region, Blacks also lived in Turkestand, Mongolia, Transoxiana, the Ili region and Xinjiang Province.

Fifty thousand (50,000) years ago, the earliest forms of man were believed to have migrated from the Asian Subcontinent to the Philippine Islands via land bridges formed during the Ice Age. People of the Negrito Race came to the Philippines. Negritos can be described as a generally under five feet tall, flat nosed, dark-skinned with curly brown hair.

A number of factors lend support to the out-of-Africa hypothesis. The Negrito *look* African. Their skin color is light by African standards (though pygmy skin color is also lighter than their Bantu neighbors), but the rest of their physiology appears African. An interesting detail is the fact that the Negrito *sit* like pygmies, with their legs stretched out straight in front of them; I know of no other people who sit that way. The socio-economic relationship between the Negrito and their neighbors is strikingly analogous to that found in Africa. The relic populations of Vedda peoples found in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Arabia. The logical explanation for the presence of Blacks worldwide is part of a great migration.

In Southeast Asia and southern China, ancient skeletal remains represented the earliest inhabitants to be Austroloids and Negrillo/Negrito. By the beginning of the Present (Holocene) Period the population in China could be differentiate, and placed into categories designating Mongoloid in the north, and Oceanic on Black Races in the south. Below is an excerpt from Nsaka Sesepkekiu -Student of African and Asian Studies - University of the West Indies -Trinidad and Tobago who validates what is being said:

The original, first, native, primitive inhabitants of China were black Africans who arrived there about 100,000 years ago and dominated the region until a few thousand years ago when the Mongol advance into that region began. These Africans who fled the Mongol onslaught can still be found in South East Asia and the Pacific Islands misnomer Nigritos or "small black men." The Agta of the Philippines is one such example. Indeed archeology, forensic and otherwise confirm that China's first two dynasties, the Xia and the Ch'ang/Sh'ang, were largely Black African with an Australoid, called "Madras Indian" or "Chamar" in Trinidad, present in small percentages. These Africans would carry an art of fighting developed in the Horn of Africa into China which today we call martial arts: Tai Chi, Kung fu and Tae Kwon Do. Even the oracle of the I-Ching came with a later African group, the Akkadians of Babylon.

Around 500 BCE an African living in India called Gautama would establish a religion called Buddhism which would come to dominate Chinese thought. Any one who is in doubt should consult Geoffrey Higgins's Anacalypsis, Albert Churchward's Origin and Development of Religions, Gerald Massey's, Egypt the Light of the World, Runoko Rashidi's African Presence in Early Asia and J A Roger's Sex and Race Vol. 1. Many Africans survived the Mongol invasion into the twentieth century only to be exterminated by Chairman Mao's program of Cultural cleansing. Under this program millions of Africans and Afro-Asians were killed from 1951-1956. Contribute we still did, giving the People's Republic of China its first Chief Minister in the name of Eugene Chen, a Trinidadian of George Street, Port-of-Spain, who was of an African mother and a Chinese father.

The facts are well recorded in African, East Indian and African-American history books. China also has a series of pyramids and groups of people "minorities" in the South such as the Moi of Vietnam and the Nakhis of Southern China. Cheikh Diop's points are well made when he stressed that the Yellow Race has racial characteristics of both Negroid and Caucasian Races. The mixture of the two races created the Yellow Race. Below are pictures of Black Chinese from:

http://community-2.webtv.net...

This picture below of Buddha portrays him as a Negroid individual with kinky, coiled hair, flat nose, full lips. According to sources from India (M. Gopinath, "Nagaloka: The Fractured History and Forgotten Glory of the Bahujan Indians," published by Dalit Sahitya Sanghatane, No. 8, North Street, Neelasandra, Bangalore, India - 560 047 India ) Buddha was, "an Enlightened Master from the Sakya clan of Naga Race, he was the first man on earth to preach the great principles off equality, liberty and fraternity. He made the Nagas to realize their own "mind power" as against the "mantra power" (P 13).

Several years ago a major television network covering then President Clinton's trip to sub-Saharan Africa captured him being greeted by dignitaries. A young girl dressed in a traditional skirt made from reeds wa
matty_ice

Con

First off, you did not present biblical evidence to support the fact that Jesus was white. Therefore, there is no for sure evidence that Jesus was in fact Black.
Second, your whole argument hinges on one big assumption; everyone from Africa is black. Africans toward the Mediterranean would have a look similar to that of the Jewish population, light brown skin.
Since this is a debate about Jesus, I would expect you to mention Jesus at least once in your pervious argument. However, nothing you said relates to religion at all. I admit, it was a very impressive listing of facts, however those facts hold no weight in a religious debate. Therefore, since you have provided no evidence that proves Jesus was indeed black, except for the assumption that blacks migrated from Africa and ended up with the same color thousands of years later, I will chalk this up as a win and hope that you think about what you are actually debating about next time.

Thanks for playing.
Debate Round No. 3
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whitesworstnightmare 2 years ago
whitesworstnightmare
@goordin you won the debate but you loose your soul!
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
@Whitesworstenightmare: I believe I won a debate vs you.
Posted by FantumHeist 2 years ago
FantumHeist
lol he or she did
Posted by FantumHeist 2 years ago
FantumHeist
lol what website
Posted by matty_ice 2 years ago
matty_ice
Can I point out that WWN copy and pasted the whole website he cited...
Posted by FantumHeist 2 years ago
FantumHeist
That's both racist and random Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be the son of god and the people did not take it that well long story short they was pissed of and he was crucified
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Oddly, this debate had some good troll value.
Posted by Gaming_Debater 2 years ago
Gaming_Debater
WWN is clearly a troll.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Never said he was white or black. Never mattered to me.I follow Martin Luther King. Judge a man by the content of his character ( or the words he speaks ) not by the color of his skin. I actually will not buy a bible that has any pictures in it. I want to know God by his word, not what someone thinks he looks like.
Posted by whitesworstnightmare 2 years ago
whitesworstnightmare
King James Version (KJV)

14) His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow;

15) And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

If Jesus had "hair like lamb's wool" and skin "of bronze", why is he depicted with caucasoid features?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by CullenWoodward 2 years ago
CullenWoodward
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was more rational, true and not based on solely personal belief. Pro was way too extreme and didn't provide any good backing. Easy win for con.
Vote Placed by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't really think Jesus "white" and I definitely don't think he was black! He lived in the Middle East for crying out loud! I think he was more of a tan color. Anyway, con is more on track than WWN.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: the primise alone is bull
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: really poor debate. con didn't make a whole lot of sense, but pro didn't do anything to prove him claim at all. it wasn't even mentioned
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't make his claim. . .
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con excellently pointed out the fact that Pro's evidence of black people in Africa did not apply to Jesus; pro didn't use any biblical evidence, and thus he failed to prove that if Jesus was white he wouldn't have been crucified.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: What a non-nonsensical monologue by Pro. Didn't even mention Jesus, and tries to rewrite history to make it sound like black people were every where. Not a single source for anything said on both sides, but Pro was the only one making outlandish statements. By the way, I looked up Eugene Chen, the supposed black Chinese who was a member of the people republic of China. Both his parents were Chinese, and he died in 1944 working for the nationalist party. he was not a member of the peoples republic of china. Why was pro even talking about China??
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Good thing Pro cites sources as sound as "sheer evidence". This is in the "so bad it is good" category of terrible debates with a certain entertainment value.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
whitesworstnightmarematty_iceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used absolutely idiotic arguments, and the sources were so bad they served as a negative rather than positive (citing some personal blog site, really?) Most middle easterners have olive skin, not black, as pointed out by Con. The claim black skin is a default is disproved by cases where black parents have white babies (e.g. Nmachi Ihegboro). Pro's arguments would only work on simpletons who desperately want to believe such claims out of a racist belief in superiority due to skin color. Their arguments held no water whatsoever.