u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things:

• Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ. What is more : Christ offer was and is originally especially for them.For free,and they (Jews!) don't want it ?

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are. After all - if god himself died to liberate you from consequences of your evil, if gives you his mercy - then rejecting so generous gift... moreover gift being gift from GOD... who DIED to give it to you...

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionists

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing good/better bad subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH. And both sides together make it MORE than one side alone means.

• traditional family unit ? well: yes and not. It is more about tradition here. Doctrine-first (doctrine>family) according to teachings but not so anti-family like are for example marxists. &Bible view about for example active homosexuals is obvious...

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword - BUT he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice. And there are loopholes big enough to defend yourself what is fine. According to Christianity it would be better to proselytize or reconcile the enemy that to fight,but defence isn't sin.Hating enemy from the other side - definitely is.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things:

• Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ. What is more : Christ offer was and is originally especially for them.For free,and they (Jews!) don't want it ?

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are. After all - if god himself died to liberate you from consequences of your evil, if gives you his mercy - then rejecting so generous gift... moreover gift being gift from GOD... who DIED to give it to you...

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionists

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing good/better bad subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH. And both sides together make it MORE than one side alone means.

• traditional family unit ? well: yes and not. It is more about tradition here. Doctrine-first (doctrine>family) according to teachings but not so anti-family like are for example marxists. &Bible view about for example active homosexuals is obvious...

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword - BUT he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice. And there are loopholes big enough. According to Christianity it would be better to proselytize or reconcile the enemy that to fight,but defence isn't sin.Hating enemy is.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things:

• Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ. What is more : Christ offer was and is originally especially for them.For free,and they (Jews!) don't want it ?

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are. After all - if god himself died to liberate you from consequences of your evil, if gives you his mercy - then rejecting so generous gift... moreover gift being gift from GOD... who DIED to give it to you...

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionists

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing good/better bad subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH. And both sides together make it MORE than one side alone means.

• traditional family unit ? well: yes and not. It is more about tradition here. Doctrine-first (doctrine>family) according to teachings but not so anti-family like are for example marxists. &Bible view about for example active homosexuals is obvious...

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice. And there are loopholes big enough. According to Christianity it would be better to proselytize or reconcile the enemy that to fight,but defence isn't sin.Hating enemy is.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things:

• Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ. What is more : Christ offer was and is originally especially for them.For free,and they (Jews!) don't want it ?

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are. After all - if god himself died to liberate you from consequences of your evil, if gives you his mercy - then rejecting so generous gift... moreover gift being gift from GOD... who DIED to give it to you...

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionists

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing good/better bad subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH. And both sides together make it MORE than one side alone means.

• traditional family unit ? well: yes and not. It is more about tradition here. Doctrine-first (doctrine>family) according to teachings but not so anti-family like are for example marxists.

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice. And there are loopholes big enough. According to Christianity it would be better to proselytize or reconcile the enemy that to fight,but defence isn't sin.Hating enemy is.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things:

• Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ. What is more : Christ offer was and is originally especially for them.For free,and they (Jews!) don't want it ?

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are. After all - if god himself died to liberate you from consequences of your evil, if gives you his mercy - rejecting it...

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionists

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing good/better bad subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH. And both sides together make it MORE than one side alone means.

• traditional family unit ? well: yes and not. It is more about tradition here. Doctrine-first (doctrine>family) according to teachings but not so anti-family like are for example marxists.

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice. And there are loopholes big enough. According to Christianity it would be better to proselytize or reconcile the enemy that to fight,but defence isn't sin.Hating enemy is.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things:

• Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ. What is more : Christ offer was and is originally especially for them.For free,and they (Jews!) don't want it ?

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are.

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionist

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing better a subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH.

• traditional family unit ? well yes and not. It is more about tradition here.

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things:

• Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ.

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are.

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionist

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing better a subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH.

• traditional family unit ? well yes and not. It is more about tradition here.

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things:

-Christian vs Jewish ? **Why not both ?! **Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ.

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are.

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionist

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing better a subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH.

• traditional family unit ? well yes and not. It is more about tradition here.

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things: -Christian vs Jewish ? **Why not both ?! **Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ.

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are.

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionist

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing better a subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH.

• traditional family unit ? well yes and not. It is more about tradition here.

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things: -Christian vs Jewish ? **Why not both ?! **Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ.

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ.

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are.

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionist

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing better a subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH.

• traditional family unit ? well yes and not. It is more about tradition here.

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice.

u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)

Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !

By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.

Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on.

So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...

Now - next things: -Christian vs Jewish ? **Why not both ?! **Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ.

• Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.

• Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin

• killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ.

• friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are.

• liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionist

• subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing better a subversion ?

• king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH.

• traditional family unit ? well yes and not. It is more about tradition here.

• holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword he was NOT rejected for that.

Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice.