In fact, the spelling is just a translation, and there is the same in other languages (John can be Jean, Иван, Hans etc.) and what makes it sound like "white" names is just that white people from Medieval time to the industrial revolution at least gave such names to their children.
If 'white' means Caucasoid, Jews of the time were. So were Arabs, Persians, and Hindus. Ask your African (not African-American, the sub-sahara African) friend.
Anglo-American, Western-European concept of 'white' is not scientific but political.
This isn't true. Race wasn't seen in the same way back then. Greeks and Romans are prominent in parts of the Bible and other races as well. Persians (Arians), for example.
Since the bible (in its multiple versions), the book of mormon, the talmud, & the quran are all works of fiction, it truly makes no difference (to anyone of even slight intellect) what color characters are depicted.
How many paintings & representations of white Jesus are there historically? Arrogant white people made assumptions that suited their need for superiority and here we are. You are being purposefully obtuse.
The Romans were Italian, there were Romans in the bible. This is a pointless argument. The Middle East was and IS a major crossroads.
That said, Jesus (whose existence is debatable) would probably have looked more like bin Laden than any white Hollywood hunk that's ever been cast in the role.
Christian nationalists, evangelicals, white supremacists, and phony GOP nationalist would be shocked if you told them there aren't any white people in the Bible.
Actually, know there are white people in the Bible, but they’re the bad guys.. the white people were the Romans and they were the villains of the whole book.
Looking at your bio I would think you’d be the molester. I mean you brought it up so I’m sure that thought is rattling around your fucked up head. Seek mental help
This is untrue. The area of mythology was full of Aryan tribes. There are fair hair mummies from China to Middle East. It's why Iran is called Iran. We call them Indo European now. The people there now weren't all always there. Like the Turks weren't in Turkey. People politicise ancients. Why?
“The area of mythology” - The era of myths? Yep, those early times were full of made-up stories, with the bible being probably the most prominent manifestation of that.
The Bible is made up of older mythology, renamed and re-appropriated. The 'Old Testament' was written much later than claimed. Jews still worshipped Baal, Dionysius, etc. a couple of hundred years before Jesus.
All right, but apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
"Yet how many pages will be devoted to the greatness of Rome! And how many pages to the technological ingenuity of Rome’s war engines! Why not praise death itself?"
Sadly only a few, not very bright people care about that at all... they just want the money and they want that Little SAfrican fella to squeeze out every bit of it... dont' they know he has NO INTENTION OF SHARING with any of THEM?!
I kind of disagree with this post. Just who are the "white" people? Where I grew up, if you suggested that Jews, Italians and Greeks aren't white, you were looking for a fat lip.
• However, the Bible does not focus on race but rather on nations, tribes, and faith.
• The earliest biblical figures were from the Middle East and North Africa, meaning they likely had varied skin tones.
Would you like more historical context on how biblical ethnicities evolved in later history?
Conclusion
• Yes, there were people in the Bible who would be considered “white” by modern racial terms, particularly among the Greeks, Romans, and some descendants of Japheth.
3. Early Christian Expansion into Europe
• Christianity spread rapidly into Europe, particularly among the Greeks, Romans, and later the Celts and Germanic peoples.
• Paul’s missionary journeys (Acts) reached Italy, Greece, and possibly Spain.
2. Biblical View of Skin Color
• The Bible does mention some people with dark skin, such as the Cushites (Ethiopians) in Jeremiah 13:23 and Moses’ Cushite wife (Numbers 12:1).
• However, the Bible does not describe anyone as “white” because skin color was not a defining factor of identity.
• The Roman Empire, including its elite rulers and citizens, is frequently referenced in the Bible.
• Pontius Pilate, Roman centurions, and various Roman officials interacted with Jesus and Paul.
As a conflict of laws nerd, the funniest bit of the Bible is Acts 25.14 to 20. Poor perplexed Festus, stuck in court with a bunch of loonies. 25.19 sums up the cray cray. But he shows himself to be a fair man at 25.27.
✔ Festus wasn’t confused—he was politically maneuvering.
✔ Paul wasn’t crazy—his argument was based on reason, witnesses, and faith.
✔ The resurrection wasn’t superstition—it changed the world.
Would you like more guidance in your relationship with Him? I’m a mere dentist. But God is working thru me right now. If you have any pressing questions for Him, let me know.
❌ Paul was not delusional—his message was logical, evidence-based, and historically impactful.
❌ Festus was not “just busy”—he understood the gravity of the case.
✔ Christianity’s survival proves Paul’s belief was far more than wishful thinking.
📌 Biblical Truth: Paul’s belief was not delusion—it transformed history. If Festus was “busy,” he was busy handling one of the most important legal cases in history.
✔ Instead, Christianity became the dominant faith in the empire within 300 years.
✔ Paul’s letters are still studied worldwide 2,000 years later.
✔ Festus is only remembered because of his brief interaction with Paul.
• If Paul was just an annoying lunatic, why involve a high-ranking Jewish king?
• Acts 26:32 – Agrippa tells Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
• This shows Festus respected Roman legal procedure and did not view Paul as a trivial problem.
✔ Festus Did Not Dismiss Paul as a Mere Nuisance
• Festus could have easily thrown out the case—but instead, he held a formal hearing before King Agrippa (Acts 25:23-27).
✔ Acts 26:24-25 – Even when Festus later calls Paul “mad”, Paul responds:
• “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.”
• Paul’s defense was calm, logical, and based on reason, not hallucination.
✔ Based on eyewitness testimony (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
✔ Publicly verifiable—Paul was not the only one preaching it.
✔ So convincing that it spread throughout the Roman Empire despite persecution.
The claim suggests that Paul was delusional, which did not help Festus, a “busy man” who had better things to do. However, a biblical and historical analysis shows that Festus took the case seriously, and Paul’s belief was not delusional but well-reasoned and transformative.
📌 Biblical Refutation:
❌ Paul wasn’t crazy—he was defending a truth attested by hundreds of witnesses.
✔ Festus wasn’t “dealing with loonies”—he was handling a case that would shape world history.
✔ Was Paul’s claim “crazy”?
• Paul wasn’t just preaching blindly—he was a former Pharisee (Acts 23:6), well-educated in Jewish and Roman law.
• Paul’s claim that Jesus rose from the dead was backed by eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
• To a Roman, disputes about resurrection were foreign and strange, but that doesn’t mean they were irrational.
• Festus does not mock Paul—he just doesn’t grasp Jewish-Christian theology.
Resurrections pop up in Graeco-Roman mythology, but many if not most educated Romans were probably atheists. Festus, holding the dead end job of procurator of a minor province, may have been wryly amused by the religious squabbles.
❌ Resurrection was NOT common in Greco-Roman thought—Paul’s claim was revolutionary.
❌ Educated Romans were not atheists—they were religious pragmatists.
❌ Festus did not treat Paul as a joke—he escalated the case to King Agrippa and followed legal procedure.
📌 Biblical Refutation:
❌ Festus is not an overwhelmed judge confused by “crazies.”
✔ He understood that Paul’s claim (Jesus is alive) was the core issue and that it was not a crime under Roman law.
✔ Acts 25:27 – “For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.”
• Festus shows fairness here, realizing it’s unjust to send Paul to Caesar without formal charges.
✔ Acts 25:25 – “But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him.”
• Rome’s policy was not to interfere in Jewish religious matters, yet Paul’s case had political implications.
• The Jewish leaders wanted Paul executed (Acts 25:3), but Festus found no crime deserving death.
📖 Acts 25:18-19 (KJV)
“Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.”
✔ Festus does not understand Jewish theology, so he finds their arguments strange.
✔ He acknowledges the core issue: Paul preaches that Jesus, whom the Jews say is dead, is actually alive.
✔ Paul is on trial before Festus, the Roman governor of Judea (A.D. 59-62).
✔ The Jewish leaders accuse Paul of breaking Jewish law and stirring up trouble.
Poor Festus, stuck in Judaea with bickering locals and their bonkers beliefs. Once Paul says "Civis Romanus sum", Festus sees an out and sends the case to Rome. Next case!
The claim here is that Acts 25:14-20 portrays a scene of confusion, where Festus, a Roman governor, is stuck in court with “a bunch of loonies” arguing over religious matters.
• The Greeks (Acts 16:1, Romans 1:16)
• Greece and Macedonia (home of Alexander the Great) were influential in the Hellenistic world and were mentioned in the New Testament.
• Japheth’s Descendants (Genesis 10:2-5)
• The sons of Japheth are linked to areas in Anatolia (Turkey), Greece, and possibly beyond into Europe.
• Nations like the Greeks (Javan), Medes, and other Indo-European groups descended from Japheth.
It depends on what you mean by “white.” If you’re referring to lighter-skinned people of European descent, then yes, some biblical peoples would have been historically lighter-skinned than others.
Instead, the Bible primarily identifies people by nations, tribes, and ethnic groups (e.g., Hebrews, Egyptians, Cushites, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans).
Skin Tone: While some Greeks had fair skin, the majority likely had skin tones ranging from fair to olive, similar to the Mediterranean region.
Hair Color: Dark hair was common, but some individuals may have had lighter hair colors,
Eye Color: Brown eyes were likely the most common
The Bible does not categorize people by modern racial constructs, as race, in the way we think of it today, was not a primary concept in ancient times.
✔ However, Romans themselves were never directly categorized this way since they existed long before American racial classifications.
✔ Today, Southern Europeans are widely accepted as white, showing how racial categories are social constructs that evolve over time.
✔ True in a historical sense: Italians, Greeks, and other Mediterranean groups were not always considered “fully white” in the U.S. before the mid-20th century.
"What the bible say about this", it's a culmination of stories & diary entries of a time & specific location LOOOOOONG ago. Heavily rewritten and misinterpreted (intentional and not), yet there are themes & such that are relatable, & patterns to warn us about (Revelations) once we get past the BS.
📖 Isaiah 55:8-9 – “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
❌ Humans are NOT divine (Isaiah 45:5, Jeremiah 17:9).
❌ God is revealed to us—we do not discover Him by self-awareness (1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 1:19-20).
❌ The Bible is divinely inspired, not just a human document (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21).
Why can't it be both? Divinity resides within us, what we call it is nuance. But to the core, humans can not perceive a Divinity w.o bringing ourselves, our actions, and an awareness to them first. To have an awareness of Force, Universe, Source, we have to have a base level awareness of ourselves.
✔ Its fulfilled prophecies prove divine authorship (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9).
✔ Jesus treated it as absolute truth (John 17:17, Matthew 5:18).
✔ Revelation confirms the Bible’s ultimate purpose (Rev. 22:18-19).
Revelation cannot be separated from the rest of Scripture—it builds upon Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jesus’ own prophecies. If Revelation is true and significant, so is the entire biblical narrative leading up to it.
▶ Biblical Refutation: Revelation Is Part of God’s Ultimate Plan
• Revelation 22:18-19 – “If anyone adds to or takes away from the words of this book, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”
5. The Warnings in Revelation Are Not Just Patterns, But Divine Judgment
The claim acknowledges that Revelation warns about future events, but dismisses much of the Bible as unnecessary. However, Revelation itself depends on the truth of all Scripture.
If the Bible contained significant falsehoods, Jesus—who affirmed its authority—would be wrong. But Jesus repeatedly treated Scripture as final and trustworthy.
▶ Biblical Refutation: The Bible Is the Ultimate Truth
• John 17:17 – “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”
• Psalm 19:7-9 – “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.”
• Hebrews 4:12 – “The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword.”
• Daniel 9:24-27 – Accurately predicts the timing of Jesus’ coming and crucifixion.
• Ezekiel 37 (Dry Bones prophecy) – Predicts the rebirth of Israel, fulfilled in 1948.
▶ Biblical Refutation: The Bible’s Prophecies Have Come True
• Isaiah 53 (700 BC) – Prophesied Jesus’ crucifixion, rejection, and atonement for sins centuries before it happened.
3. The Bible’s Prophecies Confirm Its Divine Origin
The claim suggests the Bible is a collection of stories with “patterns to warn us.” However, prophecies are not just patterns—they are specific, fulfilled predictions.
• Over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts – The Bible is the best-preserved ancient text, with 99.5% accuracy across copies.
• Jesus affirms the Old Testament’s accuracy – “Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law.” (Matthew 5:18)
▶ Biblical Refutation: The Bible Has Been Accurately Preserved
• Dead Sea Scrolls (1947 discovery) – Show Isaiah and other Old Testament books were nearly identical to later manuscripts, proving minimal changes over thousands of years.
2. The Bible Is Historically and Textually Reliable
The claim suggests the Bible has been heavily rewritten and misinterpreted. However, the manuscript evidence overwhelmingly proves its consistency and preservation.
• 2 Peter 1:20-21 – “No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
▶ Biblical Refutation: The Bible Is Inspired by God
• 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
The claim suggests that the Bible is merely a historical collection of stories, diary entries, and rewritten texts, rather than a divinely inspired, authoritative guide. This misrepresents the Bible’s origin, accuracy, and purpose. Here’s a biblical and logical response.
I mean, the Bible also advocates for slavery, sacrifice, and loving your neighbors, and there's precious little of THAT going on in "Christianity" but go off
📖 Galatians 5:13 – “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.”
🚨 Misrepresenting the Bible’s teachings does not invalidate Christianity—truth remains truth.
3. Rejecting all gods is not wisdom, but spiritual blindness (Psalm 14:1).
4. Christianity is historically and spiritually unique, proven by Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-6).
Final Verdict: The Statement Is False and Logically Flawed
1. God is not a “Sky Daddy”—He is the eternal Creator, evident in creation (Romans 1:20).
2. The Christian God is not comparable to false gods—He alone is eternal, sovereign, and real (Isaiah 45:5).
❌ The Bible does not promote slavery—it condemns forced enslavement (Exodus 21:16, 1 Timothy 1:9-10).
❌ Sacrifice in the Bible points to Jesus’ redemption, not human sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10, Jeremiah 19:5).
Because it's such an authoritarian work. Oh, I mean it's the authority on work, or it authorizes bad behavior, or was it saying it's OK to kill your kids? 🤪
Comments
Romans.
This Not this👇 👇
New Testament...the main character was definitely not a white boy. But those white boys went after him...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCoTVCgWX90
Right?
PLEASE repost x googleplex
Anglo-American, Western-European concept of 'white' is not scientific but political.
White used to mean WASP.
I don't recall ever reading it.
Fucking clown level dumb shit.
The Latin versions are translations.
Greeks were white
Romans were white
Also Scythian’s etc eg Scythopolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_She%27an#History
Jesus spoke Aramaic not Hebrew
The Romans who created the Bible, translated the Bible from Greek into Latin.
The Old Testament was Hebrew translated into Greek.
The New Testament texts were written in Koine Greek.
You know that right ?
Possibly the Philistines as well.
That said, Jesus (whose existence is debatable) would probably have looked more like bin Laden than any white Hollywood hunk that's ever been cast in the role.
I couldn't figure out what she was talking about.
Turns out they were Italian.
Also, a friend would say, "I'm no white boy. I'm Sicilian!"
Fascinating...
Which version are you referring to?
https://youtu.be/b-2dKOfbC9c?si=QKR4_zOTzEFN69Lw
Easy to say for those who aren't religious but tell it to the believers....
I call you a child molester and your best come back is "no, you are!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Read description of John the Baptist.
So all the favored people talk?
It ain't white Jews..
Yer point?
All right, but apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan
Nobody is black.
Those are racial categories.
I'm not white, I'm Irish, and my skin honestly is kind of pink.
• The earliest biblical figures were from the Middle East and North Africa, meaning they likely had varied skin tones.
Would you like more historical context on how biblical ethnicities evolved in later history?
• Yes, there were people in the Bible who would be considered “white” by modern racial terms, particularly among the Greeks, Romans, and some descendants of Japheth.
EARLY drawings of Greeks very much show them as dark hair, normally black with tones of olive or medium dark.
• Christianity spread rapidly into Europe, particularly among the Greeks, Romans, and later the Celts and Germanic peoples.
• Paul’s missionary journeys (Acts) reached Italy, Greece, and possibly Spain.
• The Bible does mention some people with dark skin, such as the Cushites (Ethiopians) in Jeremiah 13:23 and Moses’ Cushite wife (Numbers 12:1).
• However, the Bible does not describe anyone as “white” because skin color was not a defining factor of identity.
• Pontius Pilate, Roman centurions, and various Roman officials interacted with Jesus and Paul.
✔ Festus wasn’t confused—he was politically maneuvering.
✔ Paul wasn’t crazy—his argument was based on reason, witnesses, and faith.
✔ The resurrection wasn’t superstition—it changed the world.
❌ Paul was not delusional—his message was logical, evidence-based, and historically impactful.
❌ Festus was not “just busy”—he understood the gravity of the case.
✔ Christianity’s survival proves Paul’s belief was far more than wishful thinking.
✔ Paul’s letters are still studied worldwide 2,000 years later.
✔ Festus is only remembered because of his brief interaction with Paul.
❌ Never spread across the Roman Empire.
❌ Been disproven immediately.
If Paul were just a deluded man wasting Festus’ time, Christianity should have:
• Acts 26:32 – Agrippa tells Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
• This shows Festus respected Roman legal procedure and did not view Paul as a trivial problem.
✔ Festus Did Not Dismiss Paul as a Mere Nuisance
• Festus could have easily thrown out the case—but instead, he held a formal hearing before King Agrippa (Acts 25:23-27).
• “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.”
• Paul’s defense was calm, logical, and based on reason, not hallucination.
✔ Publicly verifiable—Paul was not the only one preaching it.
✔ So convincing that it spread throughout the Roman Empire despite persecution.
A delusion is a false belief maintained despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, Paul’s claim about Jesus’ resurrection was:
❌ Paul wasn’t crazy—he was defending a truth attested by hundreds of witnesses.
✔ Festus wasn’t “dealing with loonies”—he was handling a case that would shape world history.
• Paul wasn’t just preaching blindly—he was a former Pharisee (Acts 23:6), well-educated in Jewish and Roman law.
• Paul’s claim that Jesus rose from the dead was backed by eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
• Festus does not mock Paul—he just doesn’t grasp Jewish-Christian theology.
❌ Resurrection was NOT common in Greco-Roman thought—Paul’s claim was revolutionary.
❌ Educated Romans were not atheists—they were religious pragmatists.
❌ Festus did not treat Paul as a joke—he escalated the case to King Agrippa and followed legal procedure.
✔ Festus calls it “their own superstition” (δεισιδαιμονίας, deisdaiamonias), which means “religious beliefs,” not “cray cray.”
❌ Festus is not an overwhelmed judge confused by “crazies.”
✔ He understood that Paul’s claim (Jesus is alive) was the core issue and that it was not a crime under Roman law.
• Festus shows fairness here, realizing it’s unjust to send Paul to Caesar without formal charges.
• The Jewish leaders wanted Paul executed (Acts 25:3), but Festus found no crime deserving death.
✔ Festus is not just “stuck with loonies”—he is handling a high-profile political case.
“Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.”
✔ He acknowledges the core issue: Paul preaches that Jesus, whom the Jews say is dead, is actually alive.
✔ Paul is on trial before Festus, the Roman governor of Judea (A.D. 59-62).
✔ The Jewish leaders accuse Paul of breaking Jewish law and stirring up trouble.
• Romans (Book of Acts, Paul’s Letters)
• Greece and Macedonia (home of Alexander the Great) were influential in the Hellenistic world and were mentioned in the New Testament.
• The sons of Japheth are linked to areas in Anatolia (Turkey), Greece, and possibly beyond into Europe.
• Nations like the Greeks (Javan), Medes, and other Indo-European groups descended from Japheth.
Several groups in the Bible came from regions that today are associated with Europe or lighter-skinned populations:
It depends on what you mean by “white.” If you’re referring to lighter-skinned people of European descent, then yes, some biblical peoples would have been historically lighter-skinned than others.
Hair Color: Dark hair was common, but some individuals may have had lighter hair colors,
Eye Color: Brown eyes were likely the most common
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
We The People. Right now! 32 million signatures or bust!
https://www.impeachtrumpagain.org/
✔ Today, Southern Europeans are widely accepted as white, showing how racial categories are social constructs that evolve over time.
✔ True in a historical sense: Italians, Greeks, and other Mediterranean groups were not always considered “fully white” in the U.S. before the mid-20th century.
If I wanted SPAM, I'd ask the grocery attendant to unlock the case it's located in. Please stop or be deleted
❌ God is revealed to us—we do not discover Him by self-awareness (1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 1:19-20).
❌ The Bible is divinely inspired, not just a human document (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21).
✔ Jesus treated it as absolute truth (John 17:17, Matthew 5:18).
✔ Revelation confirms the Bible’s ultimate purpose (Rev. 22:18-19).
✔ It has been accurately preserved (Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscript evidence).
The claim that the Bible is just diary entries, rewritten stories, or misinterpretations is factually and biblically incorrect.
• Revelation 22:18-19 – “If anyone adds to or takes away from the words of this book, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”
The claim acknowledges that Revelation warns about future events, but dismisses much of the Bible as unnecessary. However, Revelation itself depends on the truth of all Scripture.
• John 17:17 – “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”
• Psalm 19:7-9 – “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.”
• Hebrews 4:12 – “The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword.”
The claim suggests the Bible contains themes and warnings but is mixed with “BS”. However, Jesus and the apostles treated Scripture as absolute truth.
• Ezekiel 37 (Dry Bones prophecy) – Predicts the rebirth of Israel, fulfilled in 1948.
• Isaiah 53 (700 BC) – Prophesied Jesus’ crucifixion, rejection, and atonement for sins centuries before it happened.
The claim suggests the Bible is a collection of stories with “patterns to warn us.” However, prophecies are not just patterns—they are specific, fulfilled predictions.
• Jesus affirms the Old Testament’s accuracy – “Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law.” (Matthew 5:18)
• Dead Sea Scrolls (1947 discovery) – Show Isaiah and other Old Testament books were nearly identical to later manuscripts, proving minimal changes over thousands of years.
The claim suggests the Bible has been heavily rewritten and misinterpreted. However, the manuscript evidence overwhelmingly proves its consistency and preservation.
• 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
The Bible is not just human writings—it claims divine authorship.
Biblical Refutation: Is the Bible Just a Collection of Stories, Diary Entries, and Misinterpretations?
🚨 Misrepresenting the Bible’s teachings does not invalidate Christianity—truth remains truth.
🚫 Atheism is not the ultimate step of logic—it is a rejection of truth. The evidence for the God of the Bible stands unmatched by any other claim.
4. Christianity is historically and spiritually unique, proven by Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-6).
1. God is not a “Sky Daddy”—He is the eternal Creator, evident in creation (Romans 1:20).
2. The Christian God is not comparable to false gods—He alone is eternal, sovereign, and real (Isaiah 45:5).
❌ Sacrifice in the Bible points to Jesus’ redemption, not human sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10, Jeremiah 19:5).
Final Biblical Verdict: The Claim Is Misleading
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015&version=NIV
Iberian people, Spain, Portugal, Rome, Greece.
They were considered "White People".
People of Norther Europe, were considered "Pale Northman"
Because it's such an authoritarian work. Oh, I mean it's the authority on work, or it authorizes bad behavior, or was it saying it's OK to kill your kids? 🤪
[🖊️|⚔️] ⌛ 🇺🇸