Jesus was white

95% of Turkey is in Asia.

 

Well isee Turkey as eurasian. You can call it whatever you like it really has no significance to the discussion.

 

You said Ashkenazi were the majority, in your own post you say they make up 45% which is the minority and then you suggest I need a math class?

 

the majority ethnic group yes.

 

Turkic people do however have an important place in this discussion, as I have shown, turkic people including the khazars have origins in or around mongolia, not europe. There is actually a person on youtube who is anti-zionist but still is angered by those who say the khazars are ashkenazi because he takes it as a slight to his own khazar ancestry, himself being of central asian stock, turkic-mongol stock. He is kazakh and very anti-zionist, but I actually agree, that the kazakhs are closer to the khazars than any ashkenazi could ever be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVavcccUeZg

- - - Updated - - -

If they make up 45% of Israel, then they are the minority, not the majority.

 

is there a larger single ethnic group in Israel that iam unaware of?

 

there are now in 2014 more Mizrahi than Ashkenazi and Sephradic Jews.

 

if that is an answer to my question then im sorry, youre on ignore.

 

Its simple math, 45% is the minority. If ashkenazi jews made up more than 50% they would be the majority. Back in the 70s mizrahi jews made up like 70% of the population. In the 80s that changed with the large influx of russians and africans. Overall, Israeli culture is mizrahi now, its in the music, the food, everything. Believe me, hummus is much more popular than gefilte fish lol. Btw, sometimes the term 'sefaradi' refers to 'mizrahi' (perhaps inaccurately) and vice-versa. But as ronstar pointed out, as of 2014 mizrahi are the majority still. I don't know what the point to any of this is though. Now the intermarriage rates between the three different groups are so high, in a decade or two the terms will become obsolete. 'Ashkenazi' is more of a religious rite as is 'Sefaradi', for instance the 'sefaradi' chief rabbis of Israel have always been technically mizrahi, but they follow spanish-jewish customs, or minhag that is very very similar. The current 'sefaradi' chief rabbi is actually of Iraqi Jewish descent, but iraqi jews minhag are closest to sefaradim, so they are sometimes called 'sefaradi jews' even though they don't know ladino and never had ancestors that set foot in spain (sefarad). And yes, the early zionists chose 'sefaradi hebrew' to be the official language, so I hardly see how they are 'racist'. Everyone speaks sefaradi hebrew today, with the exception of the anti-zionist hassidim of mea-shearim who still speak mostly yiddish for religious reasons.

 

if we consider all lighter skinned Caucasians to be white, than yes....Jesus was white.

 

How light-skinned does one have to be to be considered White? Caucasian isn't a valid scientific classification. Caucasian has been used in reference to people from Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, East Africa and India with the idea that they have a common ancestral tie based on craniofacial features when in reality such traits are the product of convergent evolution. Indians range from very light to very dark.

Are some Indians White?

Jesus was not a European. That much is clear. Whether one considers light-skinned Middle Easterners to be White is debatable.

 

Well, the term caucasoid is no less scientific than white. Physical anthropology came with darwinism.

 

I have seen some Kurds & Arabs that could pass for Italians, Spanish, Portugeese, even French.

 

Garbage.

Race is defined by ancestry not skin color. Albino Negros are not White. Caucasoid is a valid classification. Genetic similarity based ancestry inference shows Caucasoids have common ancestry. Where is your evidence of 'convergent evolution'? Oh, you are just making up crap. Why would Indians and Europeans evolve the same skull traits independently, but not other races? Indians and Europeans share traits because they share ancestry.

 

The funny thing is when they came out with that reconstruction of Jesus of Nazareth, I was thinking, its not needed. Why not just look at the current dark skinned israeli jews of today?

He probably looked like this in terms of facial features, minus the modern clothes and glasses, plus a sun tan since he was a carpenter.

 

Some kurds could even pass for germanic people.

 

Because the messiah was an Israelite, not an edomite, assyrian, hittite, roman or greek. In case you forgot, those were the ones who persecuted Israel. Not the other way around.

 

Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Sorry.

and even if he was, he still wasn't black. Such is a silly idea.

 

jesus was a roman politician of the late 15th century [not to be confused with yahshua hamashiach]

 

Wisdom of Solomon 14:17

“Whom men could not honor in presence, because they dwelt far off, they took a painted counterfeit of his image from far.”

- - - Updated - - -

Wisdom of Solomon 14:12

“For the planning of painting idols was the starting of spiritual fornication, and the invention of them the corruption of life.”

 

Jesus was a Roman politician of the 15th century???

the Romans didn't exist in the 15th century, bro.

 

italian/roman same thing. they crucified the messiah, then they tried to take his place but many know the truth now, information is spreading.

 

no, Romans and modern Italians are different people.

 

WOW. You just proved Jesus isn't the messiah.

 

euro-americans are Romans too, thats just my language, its my prerogative.