Everybody throughout history has depicted Jesus Christ as looking like they do, because they knew nothing else.

In Sweden, he looked like a Swede, in Spain, he looked like a Spaniard, and in Ethiopia, he looked like an Ethiopian.

"what race was jesus christ from"

I think he was formula 1 but moved to nascar later

The passion of the christ

hurches are reserving entire theaters for opening day. A national evangelical organization is helping sell tickets from its Web site. Pastors are planning sermons timed to the movie's Ash Wednesday release.

Mel Gibson's epic, "The Passion of the Christ," is the subject of an unprecedented marketing effort that has inspired everyday Christians and their spiritual leaders to sell the film and its message — both to other faithful and the nonreligious.

Excited that an Oscar-winning, Bible-believing director is using his own millions to portray Jesus' torture and crucifixion, and roused by the controversy over the film's depiction of Jews, these evangelical volunteers could well make the movie a huge box-office success, marketing experts say.

"They're going to bus them to theater.

They will give assignments in many churches — go to the movie, we're going to talk about it," said Josh Baran, a New York public relations executive who helped publicize "The Last Temptation of Christ." "I think it's going to be one of the big movies of the year."

The groundswell is stunning considering the once-dismal expectations for the film, which is in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic with English subtitles and is rated R for violence. It is set to debut Feb. 25 on 2,000 screens — an unusually large release for an independent religious film.

Gibson's team has fueled the fervor by teaming up with evangelical marketing firms that have been providing free promotional kits, movie-related sermons and tips on how pastors can buy out an entire theater. The personal publicist for the Rev. Billy Graham has been hired to help.

Yet pastor Cory Engel, of Harvest Springs Community Church in Great Falls, Mont., who is using the free kit and plans sermons linked to the film, said he did not feel that he was selling a movie. Members of his church have raised $12,000 to stand by a box office and buy tickets to "The Passion" for filmgoers.

"This is a window of opportunity we have. Here's a guy who's putting his money into a movie that has everything to do with what we do," Engel said. "Churches used to communicate by having a little lecture time on Sunday morning. People don't interact that way anymore. Here's a chance for us to use a modern-day technique to communicate the truth of the Bible."

Christian Booksellers Association, as part of its broader "Reclaiming Easter" campaign, is asking its 2,500 U.S. retailers to consider selling tickets and posting displays about the movie in their stores.

The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents more than 50 denominations with 43,000 congregations, has posted a link on its Web site for buying tickets. The price includes a $1 donation for the group.

Arch Bonnema, an insurance executive and Southern Baptist from Plano, Texas, is spending $42,000 of his own money to buy about 6,000 tickets, reserving all 20 screens of a local theater for an opening day showing.

"As a Christian, you hear the term 'Jesus sacrificed his life for us.' We say it so many times that it's routine," said Bonnema, who saw a version of the film a few weeks ago. "I walked out of the theater and thought, `This is incredible.' I thought, `Man, this really puts it in perspective.'"

Some Jewish and Christian leaders disagree, warning the movie could revive the idea that Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Christ — which many Christian denominations now reject.

Gibson, who is Roman Catholic, has repeatedly denied that his film maligns Jews: He sees the movie as a reflection on Christ's sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Many conservative Christians support him, viewing the criticism as an assault on the Bible and one of the central events of their religion.

"When they attack him, they attack millions of people in middle America," said Jennifer Giroux, a Cincinnati nurse and Roman Catholic who created seethepassion.com.

"We have watched films concerning the Holocaust with compassion, concern and with sorrow, and we just want to be able to watch this beautiful, beautiful movie about our faith."

For months, Gibson has shown rough cuts of the film to select audiences, mostly with strong Christian backgrounds. He's won the endorsement of local pastors and major figures — including Graham.

Outreach Ministry Inc., an evangelical organization, sent DVDs with a trailer from the movie to "most churches in the United States," according to its Web site, thepassionoutreach.c om. The site calls the film "perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2000 years."

Merchandise related to the film is being produced for the evangelical market. The International Bible Society will sell a version of the New Testament that contains images from the film. Movie-related jewelry, prayer-cards and tracts — Christian pamphlets used for evangelizing — are also planned.

Representatives from Outreach referred calls to Gibson's spokesman, who did not respond to requests for comment.

Said Kyle Fisk, spokesman for the National Association of Evangelicals: "Churches are intending to use this film to share their faith with people in their community who would never go into a church but would take a free ticket to go to `The Passion.'"

Jesus was from Palestine.

Who cares!

Or is it some contest where one race gets tons of $$$ and a trophy if Jesus was from that particular entity???

how can they honestly call him son of ''God''

the christins htink god is some sort of a 3 IN 1 combo....(astaghfirullah)

Aik kehta hae kay jee maira mulla aur arabian islam is dee best! tay bhancho doosra jackass thinks his kaaley maan is awesome! And then these jahil christian fundo's believe in their own chutiappa! I mean no one has proof to back up any of their outrageous medival as hell and very jahil claims, but hey, I guess blind faith in middle eastern myth is a good substitute for science?

Has any of you ever throught about that what a bunch of total bullshit all this actually is?

Every single year, more and more ppl are rejecting jahil religion totally! A time will come pretty soon when this jahil medieval menace will be wiped out from the face of this planet! All the civilised nations have thrown religion out of their lives and government! now in Pakistan also this same thing will happen, whether you like it or not! kuttay key tarha maaray gaa musharraf in sub ko ab! under the guise of progressive islam. Just watch and see.

Lulldapull is correct is saying that there should be a seperation of church (Masjid) and state (Government) in Pakistan

This duniya was NOT made as a play or a joke. There is a purpose of creation. have u ever wondered what is it???

Why do we have the sense of GOOD and BAD???

this duniya is a test. After death....ONLY UR DEEDS will save you.

And all of us have to die. remember

nothing..
sorry, wrong post.

Lulldapull i would also like you to enlighten us on what YOU think happens after death??? and the purpose of life.....and from where did u and i come into being??

i wanna hear this.
thank you.

hey tauseef,

nice to see that verse.

can you provide for all of us a word to word translation of that verse into english ?

common, everyone knows Jesus is Chinese

His Chinese name is He Chu (translate to Jesus).

and everyone know Judas is Indian.

dont mind, just kidding and it's a friendly joke

Yes, you're right. His father (god) did arranged him to travel to Qufu, Shandong to became a student of the late Confucius.

Abaay Allah key taufeeq!

Kitna bara jahil hae yaar tu! Ufffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffff fffffffff

you have been brainwashed by araanbs beyond belief!

Lulldapull....what about JAHIL? you tell me ur scientists have just discovered that the universe is expanding...and i showed u that Allah stated THAT very fact in the Quran some 1400 years ago.

stop insulting him

just because some are content with believing that a monkey was there forefather (no not hindus, be it atheists or darwinists) doesnt mean they take it out on those who actually have a belief.

are your insults trying to cover your lack of knowledge on anything but decals?

Lulldapull....there is no proof that u have a brain....because none of us has seen it. does that mean u REALLY DONT HAVE A BRAIN??

think man. where did u come from? look at urself....u r perfect.......a nose, eyes, nose hair to block dust from entering ur lungs, kidneys.......taste sense.....where did all these perfections come from??

If u go into a far away lonely desert and find a simple clock.......will u say it came there all by itself...and it had no creator??? a fine working clock??

But we humans are engineered FAAR to perfection that that very clock. where did we come from??

where does the water coem from? the earth?? the sun rises and goes down how??

Lulldapull...u know what is HAQ. prove to me that any other way of life has more HAQ in it than Islam. then we will talk more.

BECAUSE i want to hear ur point of views on this DUNIYA and purpose of creation. otherwise this conversation is getting monotonous

Here you go Allah key taufeeq! ...He's a nice little passage that might help you quit your terrorist arabian ways! Suck on it, and its about fukkan time you quit believing in gaandoo bullshit! Quit it already iss say pehlay mainay teri gundee shalwar khainchnee shru kar dainee hae, and the next thing you know tu nay Indian movie key tarha bhancho naachna shru kar daina hae Now suck on this boy, this is my personal best so far:

God..... what have we done?
I have not believed in god from the time I was about 12 years old. However, until recently, I have never thought of god as a serious threat to humanity. I was wrong, and I regret my stupidity. All I can do now is try to work through this belief with you, and show you what it really means to believe in god. I cannot change what you believe, only you can, but I might be able to show you some of the flaws in how you think, and more importantly feel, about god.
Many people think that they have nothing to loose by believing in god, and everything to gain. I believe the exact opposite. Theists, not just Christians, are followers; they live their lives as sheep being led by a Shepherd. The only problem is that if there is no Shepherd then they are being led by only their belief in the Shepherd. They cannot see him…. but they keep following the rest of the sheep, even if it leads them off a cliff.
So, if you believe in god, I will first try to explain to you what it would take to change. After that, if you decide to continue, I will attempt to show why the belief in god may not be as valid as you may think. Lets begin with one of the most simple yet powerful quotes by one of the first real philosophers.

Will it make you feel better if you stop believing in god? Will it make you “happier”? I doubt it. However, in a certain way it may satisfy you more knowing that you believe in the right and not the wrong. To trust your own beliefs may be much more important that blindly being happy. I personally place truth far above happiness, and I wish that everyone did. One of my most important principles is honesty, but if you cannot be honest to others then at least be honest to yourself, be true to yourself, and never live a lie.
One of the most interesting arguments I have heard for god is what I call the “feeling” argument. Some say that god must exist because they can “feel” him. When I try to probe further I understand that the feelings they are referring to are things such as comfort, safety, security, and so on. They believe that these overwhelming feelings must be a result of god being “in their lives”. May I suggest another possibility? Maybe it is not god that produces these feelings, but simply the BELIEF in god. The very fact that these people have chosen to believe in a god allows them to feel all these reassuring emotions. It is similar to “believing in” doctors, and then finding out that they can and do make many mistakes. They are quite flawed, just like everything else in the world. But with doctors, you can see the missing foundation in your beliefs as soon as you or someone close to you gets very sick or dies. With the belief in god, you can only realize the flaws in your beliefs when you die, by which time it is far too late.
I can understand how hard it must be to accept the possibility that god does not exist. With it you must also accept that you are vulnerable, unsafe, insecure, and alone. But what is important is that if you shed these emotions you can begin to try to regain them in a real and concrete way. You can make yourself and your society safer; you can be with others and love others to reduce loneliness; and you can determine and choose your own destiny knowing that only you, and other caring people of the world, have the power to make you safe, secure, and ultimately truly satisfied.
If you do decide to carefully examine your beliefs then try not to be afraid. If you feel overwhelmed then try to get help from others. If you have no one, then ask me; I will always be there for whoever needs me. I may not be able to fly to wherever you live in the world, but I will certainly spend as much time as you need talking with you over the Internet, and I will try to help you through any problems you may have as a result of re-evaluating your outlook on life. I have very limited resources, but this is more important to me than anything else, and no amount of time is too much when it comes to these matters.

Is there a god? Well, the simple answer is no! Why would there be such a thing. I have not seen evidence for a god, and see no reason for one to support any basic logical or experiential axioms. To me, and many others, many of which are theists (YES theists), god is a myth... a Santa Claus for grown ups. It doesn't give physical gifts but the reassurance of an eternal life and an explanation to many things through unsupported beliefs. At first it seems that god is a way of explaining many things, but if you look closely you will see that science and logic can explain much more, using far fewer axioms, and can generate a more coherent and consistent world view. So maybe the main reason for a belief in god is salvation. Human kind has reached a point where they think ahead in time, and can see more than just their lives, but also their death. All living things have a will to survive, and when death is seen as inescapable, and end which will come no matter how hard one tries, then life falls apart. People loose their sanity trying to imagine and come to terms with their existence and the fact that they WILL come to an end. It may seem far away, but when one sees the death around them, they realize that no matter how long they keep it off, death will catch up, and life is finite. It seems certain that one day you will be lying in a bed as life goes on around you, and you will feel your own leaving... slowly, painfully, and if you're lucky you don't realize that there is no light at the end of that dark tunnel. In the end, you will be no more, and so no one and nothing will be anymore. When you die not only are you out of the picture but relative to you the picture itself no longer exists... there is no darkness, there is absolutely nothing at all.

Now that you're all cheered up an ready to move on, I will get to the heart of the matter. For whatever reason more than 95% of the worlds population believes in some sort of god or deity. Well, if your one of them, let me try to convince you that you may very well be wrong. I will cover all the arguments I have heard from theists and if I don't cover yours then please e-mail it to me.

First Cause Argument: “All events have a cause. The universe is not eternal and so must have started to exist at some point. The cause of the universe is something outside and above of the universe itself, and this cause must be god.”
Well, there seems to be is a lot of support for the theory that the universe had a beginning, in the form of the big bang. Some evidence for the big bang is the cosmic background radiation, the relative expansion of the universe, and many exotic particles that could have only been made in conditions such as those provided by the big bang. So when you hear a bang something must have caused it… it would be insane to suggest otherwise… right?
Of course, in the macroscopic universe all events are causal, things that happen do so for a reason, an event that precedes them. The big bang happened, it was the start of the universe, and so it must have a cause… or are we missing something? Yes, we’re missing something very important. The flaw with this line of reasoning is in its most fundamental assumption that the universe began. To assert that something had a beginning implies that at some point in time it did not exist, and at some point in time it did, and somewhere in the middle is a point that can be defined as the beginning. But there was no point in time when the universe did not exist. Well, what about before the big bang? There was no before… simply because there was no time. The universe contains time, just as it does space, matter, and energy. Therefore its completely meaningless to say “before the big bang”, because it would be like saying “before time”.
But when one pictures the big bang its usually something like an explosion… and wasn’t it? Wasn’t the big bang a huge explosion? Absolutely not! The only way to even attempt to describe it would be to use pure mathematics. The big bang did not “happen”, it did not “occur”, it did not “take place”. It wasn’t an event INSIDE space and time, in fact it wasn’t even and event; it was something containing both space and time. It may seem confusing, and it is, but that’s because all human languages, and even our thoughts, are highly dependant on linear time.
So the universe is eternal? In a way it is. It has existed for all TIME, which means there is no point in time when the universe did not exist. This in no way contradicts the big bang theory, however it clearly and conclusively shows the major detrimental flaw in the first cause argument.
There are other problems with the argument as well. Even assuming that the universe is independent of time and that it did really “start” at some point in time there is still no reason to assume it must have a cause. Many things in the microscopic world are seemingly random, such as certain particles coming in and out of existence. If these things can happen at random, then why can the universe not be born at random? It may very well be just another one of these exotic particles in another universe, or within itself.

Intelligent Design Argument: “There is far too much complexity in the universe, which seems to be clearly fine-tuned to support life. This can’t be natural and must be because of an intelligent creator.”
The “complexity” here usually includes things such as the relative strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the equivalent number of electrons and protons in the universe, the relative masses of subatomic particles, the expansion rate of the universe, and so on. The argument generally goes about showing how improbable it would be for all of these systems to be exactly matched for the universe to exist as it does. I have never really seen a very consistent form of the argument but I’ll try to address it nonetheless.
One very quick and dirty way to explain way all these “improbable” events is to assume that there are either an infinite number of universes, or one that is continually created and destroyed. In that case then it would be no problem to think that this particular improbable configuration of the universe occurred in one of the infinite universes… in fact probabilistically speaking it had to occur. Although this is a perfectly valid explanation some people find it hard to deal with an infinite number of universes (although personally I think it makes a lot more sense than dealing with a magical guy in the sky) and so they reject the idea. For those people I’ll suggest another possibility, one that I prefer myself.
Let me start by a question. Why is it that when any two positive numbers are added together the sum is greater than either two numbers? Isn’t it very strange and unlikely? You can do this a million times, and it seems like every time the sum is larger than both number! Well, you could try to answer this by drawing upon the fundamental axioms of mathematics, but the simple answer is that the sum MUST be larger than the two numbers; it is a property of addition. So when you add two more numbers and the sum is greater than the number you shouldn’t be surprised and think that another unlikely event occurred… the result was the only possible result… it was the only thing that could have happened.
What about the radius of a coin… if you measure it from one side you get the exact same result as if you measure it from the other side. How unlikely is that? Well… not unlikely at all. In fact, again, this is the way it MUST be because of what a coin is. The two measurements of the radius are not independent, so you can’t simply treat them as two independent random variables.
What if the forces of particles are linked in the same way, maybe not to be identical like the radius of a coin, but compatible in the only way in which they can be? What if the number of electrons and protons are not two independent variables each randomly determined when the universe “began”, but are necessarily linked like the two sides of a coin? Maybe these things that seem improbable are not really improbable because they aren’t random, but necessary as part of the existence of the universe. So a universe that exists must have the particles that it does, defined the way they are, simple as the property of the universe itself. To ask why these forces are the way they are, or why the numbers of particles is what it is, would be like asking why the universe exists at all.
So as you can see there are two somewhat compatible explanations for the seeming complexity of the universe. But what about the complexity of life itself? Some argue that the amount of information present in life forms cannot have occurred naturally. The argument tries to demonstrate this statically using information theory. However I have yet to see a version of this where “information” is clearly defined as being relative to something, whatever that maybe. Another flaw in the argument is that it assumes that the universe is non-constructive. That is that any information that is formed in the universe is immediately destroyed and does not contribute to or influence the information formed after it. That is completely wrong, and frankly it’s quite amazing how some people build up arguments on such shaky foundations. To sum it up, the answer to the complexity of life is evolution, the building of useful information within organisms with respect to their environments.

The Ontological Argument: "A god can be conceived in thought. This entity can be assigned properties such as to make it the greatest entity in every possible way. One of these properties must be that it exists, for something which exists is obviously better and greater than one that does not. Therefore god must exist."
The most obvious objection to this argument is that just because a concept must have an associated property does not make that property "true", in any sense of the word. The concept may require a certain property, such as existence, so that it is internally coherent. However this does not make it externally coherent with the rest of ones set of concepts. To understand this counter argument properly you must read the page about truth.
There is another, more subtle yet rigorous, argument. This follows directly from the ancient Greek proof that omnipotence is a contradiction. The Ontological argument attempts to use pure logic to construct a valid argument demonstrating that there must exist a god which is the greatest entity in all possible ways. This would mean that this god must be omnipotent, which is clearly a self contradiction. So the very thing that the ontological argument relies on, logic, is what so easily defeats it. If you're unfamiliar with the omnipotence argument here is one short and convincing version: "Can god create a rock which he can not move?". Both answers to this question, yes and no, imply that god can not do everything and hence can not be omnipotent.

Historical Evidence: “The bible proves the Christian god” or “The Koran proves the Muslim god” and so on…
Do the ancient Greek texts prove the existence of Zeus and Hercules?
Do the comic books, which have many series dated every week all of which support each other and form a coherent and consistent “story”, prove the existence of Superman or Spiderman?
The Bible and Koran and other religious books may be great works, but they definitely do not act as supporting evidence or reason to believe in god.
These documents, and supporting documents are far from being valid historically. They lack far too much and contain too many inconstancies.
Some people argue that we read books at school and blindly accept what they say, so why not do the same with the bible. For example I may read history books and I would usually never question them or try to find inconsistencies and attempt to validate all of their references. Or I may see something in the news and just believe it to be true, taking the reporters word for it. Why? I simply don’t care! If the book claims there was a war in 1453 and it was really in 1435 or if there really was no war it really doesn’t make much difference to me. I do assume it to be true, but at a very superficial level. If I had to bet my life on it I would definitely do more research to make sure the “facts” were in fact solid. But to believe in books such as the bible IS to bet your life on it. It is something that, if true, should change your life. It is not to be taken lightly… the bible is NOT the afternoon news and the existence of god is not the same as your local weather report. So if I am to believe something like that I need it to be solid and easy to validate, which none of the religious books come even close to being. I wouldn’t base my most fundamental beliefs on comic books or myths, and I suggest that you don’t either.

“There is no reason to believe in god, but there is no reason against it either. If you want me to stop believing you must prove to me that he does not exist!”
Well, no… it doesn’t quite work like that. I don’t need to give any evidence against god; I must simply show that there is no good evidence for god. This is because of the way beliefs and concepts work, and I have discussed this in the section about beliefs. Basically beliefs are built up through supports from other beliefs and experiences. They are only valid and can be considered “right” if they reinforce and strengthen the concept system as a whole. It is not enough if they simply don’t contradict with any other belief, and they definitely need positive support.
Maybe you don’t agree with what I just suggested. Fine, lets work through a couple of examples. Do you believe in invisible flying unicorns that live around Pluto? Well, there is no reason to believe, and no reason not to believe. They’re invisible, so the fact that they haven’t been seen is no good reason. They fly so they leave no footprints. Basically they are something completely abstract, an idea I created. So do you believe or not? If no, then obviously you see that it makes sense not to believe in things even if there is no reason for or against them. If yes, then HAH… that was just a test to see if you’re honest… in the next example I’ll not only show you that you’re wrong but also that you just lied to yourself.
Now I’ll give you another example, one similar to the unicorns, but with a twist. Here it goes… there are invisible walls which can materialize and dematerialize at any time. They are all over the place, trillions of them on this planet! Until right now they were all inactive and never materialized, but from now on they can materialize. And just to make it more interesting, lets say the matter that they’re made of only interacts with your body. So everything and everybody else can walk right through them and not know it. You have no reason to believe or not to believe this, so what do you do? Even if you claim that since you have no evidence either way then there is a 50% chance that it’s true then you must be very careful when walking around. There are trillions of walls, and 50% chance for each to be real, so chances are very high you’re going to walk into one. The question is are you now going to wear a helmet and hold out your hand as you walk around the world to protect yourself, or laugh at this entire paragraph? It’s quite obvious what the sensible answer is.
So can I prove there is no god? No, and I don’t need to. All I have to do is show why it makes no sense to believe in one.

"I think of god as an axiom."
I don't accept god as an axiom because all my axioms are either directly related to my observations or are requirements for "proofs" which also support my observations. I have never seen or experienced god in anyway, and therefor I do not consider god as an axiom. If you wish to do so, then so be it.

"God will come to you when you are ready."
What the hell does that mean!? I'm as ready as I will ever be, and I would love to believe in god, what else do I need to do?

"God will come to you when he is ready."
Well, then I will just go on being an atheist until he shows up... and could someone please tell him to hurry the hell up! (politely of course)

Strike two, you are trying very hard to get my attention. i told you it is not a good thing, but you dont understand. so be it. strike three and you are out.