Jesus Was Not White
 

Okay, so becasue of my avatar and title I got in a conversation about this in #tfp. And I figured it was a good topic for Black History Month.

Now we all know that Jesus was Jewish... and becasue of the time he was born in there was no way that he was white... but for some reason over the years he has lost all traces of being dark skinned. Why do you think this is? He went from looking like he should to looking almost like Brad Pitt. It makes me sick.

EDIT: Avatar and title have since changed.

He was not black either. Have you ever seen an Arab??? Because thats what he was, and thats what he would've looked like. Darker features, olive colored skin. He definently wasn't seem Shaka Kahn looking mofo.

I've got to agree that he wasn't white. Your avatar is probably an exaggeration as well. I think "Jesus was black" is misleading, at least since most people associate black with negro, which Jesus was not.

You do make an interesting point though. I think history, specifically the European dominated papacy of the 12th-15th centuries, made images of Jesus that the average European could associate with.

I saw a special about Jesus on the Discovery Channel a while ago. They made a image of Jesus on the computer of what he should look like and the man turns out to have curly hair, bushy beard, and a round, chubby face, yeah dark skin like the Arabians too.

:lol: those silly artists back in the day in Europe and their wild imaginations :lol:

Now, I do agree he wasn't black... as we know black today. Evolution does funky things to people.

Now part of the reason Jesus has become white over the years is that every sect of religion has their own opinion of what Jesus looked like. For some he always wore white and looked like a king... others make him out to be a poor looking begger in ratty clothes and messy hair.


Oddly, my avatar was stolen from a Google search... I typed in "black Jesus" and that's what came up. It's a perfect picture for the statment.

GREAT thread WK... :)
not sure what to even say here... for i'm afraid i would fill pages with emotion and rhetoric...
evolution is a cool and crazy thing you are right... and the way human beings have needed to categorize and "box things up" never ceases to amaze me...
Christ's image has inevitably changed as the power and leadership in the church needed and ultimately influenced it' to change.

really interesting stuff... looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this one.

Skin color evolution... puh-leaze.

Why do you think there is a differnce in skin color in the first place? The less sun you see the more pale your skin. This is why Africans have dark skin. It's called pigment.

What does that have to do with anything? Evolution??? I somehow doubt that the skin color of Arabs has greatly changed greatly in 2000 years. He wasn't from Africa. He was from the land of Palestine, right by the Sea of Galilee, not Ethiopia.

Yes... but at the time Jesus was born Earth was further away from the sun... so the Middle East wasn't the dessert wasteland that it is today. And as the Earth moved closer to the sun thier skin pigment adapted to the increased Utra-Violet radiation.

And because now most of us live our lives indoors in climate controled/neon light bliss... our skin has become more and more sensitive to the sun. We've become more pale and pasty. That's evolution.

And as we've become more white so has Jesus. It's a shame.

there's some great theology that deals more with the idenity of the risen Christ as opposed to the human Jesus, and Christ's racial idenitification with all groups. Jesus was a semetic Jew. Christ is black, jew, arab, asian, native american...well, even white too.

Likely Jesus was dark skinned as was the entire local population. In response to the thread, European leaders of the church have rewritten virtually all aspects of the origional teachings. The appearance of christ was likely changed to make the leaders seem more connected to god and his son.

just reminds me so much of the movie"Dogma", amongst the best ever made in my opinion.

Jesus became white when the importnat white people in charge fo the church paid for paintings of him.

His face isn't important, the message of loving your neighbor and doing good is what matters.

if you'd like to know how jesus looked, the most probable appearance would be like a jew who is native to the galilean area of palestine. i'm certain that is different than what the average arab looks like.

those middle-easterners who live nearer the mediterranean (like palestine) often have a more olive skin tone and hair that is still dark but more reminiscent of a caucasian than an eastern arab.

if jesus fit that description, then he certainly wasn't white in the European sense, but i think many would categorize a person with those features as "white" in a general sense. i say this only because many lump people into 3 or 4 groups, not accounting for the many racial varieties that exist.

WTF!?

So black parents who move to a cooler, less bright climate will give birth to white kids?

evolution doesn't happen in a day, but it does explain the difference in skin pigment throughout the regions of the world, what you might call races.

here is a picture of a caucasian australian, approximately 200 years after the first europeans migrated:
http://www.lynnejames.com.au/images/Shelly%20White3.jpg

here is an aboriginal australian, whose ancestry in australia dates back about 50,000 years.
http://www.presenciataina.tv/aborigine.jpg

wait a few millennia and the white australians might not be so pale.

bermuDa, in order for that to happen, white australians would have to be dieing in droves before managing to give birth. I am aware that skin cancer is a major problem in Australia, but I don't think it could really be though of as a slection pressure.

I give up.

-never give up....never surrender!-

You actually did a great job with this topic....and I think your point is taken if not proven. Never let the unconcious racist preferences of those less endowed with an open mind get you down.
There are actually quite a few people with low melanin levels who put little or no thought into skintones. I personally dont know or care if Jesus was black or white, and I doubt he did either.

ever notice that likenesses of jesus often is modeled after the congregation?

but hey, we can't even figure out when the gospels were written so i don't know how we're gonna figure out what he looked like.

as for educated guessing, i'd be interested in seeing the discovery channel thing. note that the ancient egyption race was blended into extinction as many native american tribes have- who knows. i bet his complexion was arabic but maybe his features were quite different than the people in the regions today.

bermuDa, you're my hero! ha!

lookee... WK inspired me... ;)
don't give up WK... or else i might become emotional *wink*

Uh...no. You started the debate in this thread, and from what I can see, it's a damn good thread. It's a very good topic, and it's right up your alley. Now get back in there.

*shoves TOK back into the fray*

Hmm, perhaps the idea that god created man in his own image is the wrong way round. Maybe it is man who creates god in his own image.

I think that bermuDa might have a good point on the evolution of such things. It tends to take a long time in that we don't evolve as an individual we evolve as a race.

In this sense the idea that Australians won't be so pale in a few millennia seems quite plausible. The problem of skin cancer reduces the chances that the susceptible (paler) people will pass on their genes. It doesn't mean that paler people are wiped out, only that their gene pool becomes less prolific, reduced through the environment. Although this is only my understanding of the subject which may well be flawed.

Back to the question at hand I think that the reason for Christ been white is one of early forms of marketing and branding. Prejudice is still a big problem in today's society, back in the day it is unlikely that a true picture of Jesus would have taken off. Many Europeans would not have even seen a black person so the idea that they would accept something alien to them as their saviour may have prompted the PR exercise. This may be less a problem of prejudice and more a problem of exposure and experience.

I agree with many of those views above, great thread TOK. Very interesting indeed.

I agree with Parkhurst... it is all about Marketing and Branding (even if they didn't call it that at the time).

The chuch, in an effort to sell the idea and ideas of Christ had to make him more palitable to their congreation or potential congregation. In Western Europe that means he had to be white.

First of all, the earth is not significantly moving closer to the sun. The earth was cooler back in the day because of natural processes, the same sort of processes that create ice ages.

And the fact that he was depicted as white has more to do with the nature of medieval art than anything else. Until the renaissance, and the "Age of the World Picture", painters painted everyone (that's right, everyone, not just Jesus) as a European, most often dressed as a typical inhabitant of that reason. So a Tuscanese painter would paint Charlemagne as a Tuscan nobleman, a French painter would paint Caesar as a French nobleman, and so on. They didn't have the same sense of historicity as we do, and so were quite freely anachronistic.

You know why I give up on this topic?

Because therecan be no worse topic then one that involves race and religon. And you can tell just by reading the thread. No one knows why we have race or why we have religion and to put them in the same question is asking for a flood of ignorant comments just to keep the argument going. Its almost a waste of time. I thought this would be a good place to start this conversation seeing as how most of my friends would think I was nuts even suggesting that Jesus wasn't white. This is the reason this was the first time I had ever posted in Tilted Philosophy.

I think everyone agreed with you that he wasn't white. I personally just think your insane and off base saying he was "black". For the third time this thread... he was an Arab, and he would look as such.

I can see your point, but please dont give up on this board. We need people of intellect here.

The whole fertile crescent area used to have lots of vegetation, the land of milk and honey and so on but I really doubt that the Sun caused much of it to turn to desert. It was most likely caused by environmental rape by the ancient civilizations.

You're also mixing up Darwinian and Larmarckian evolution. While living under neon lights might affect our skin, it certainly won't affect our children's skin. The only way it would would be if pale and pasty skinned people had more children than other people.

Right on virus, I noticed that too, Jesus takes on the appearance of whoever is worshipping him. I guess it's just more comforting to have your savior look like you instead of some other race.

Sorry to go off topic.

Jesus was a Jew.

Most Jews tend to be whitish (outside of Ethiopia).

Jesus may well have been white.

Maybe, maybe not, but white people were living in the same area at the time.

I really don't care.

most jews tend to be whitish?

judaism is a religion

Actually traditionally being Jewish is an ethnicity. The core of the religion is passed through marriage and heritage. Only way you can be a true member is to be born as one or to marry in.

Listen here sweetheart, for the 400th time in this thread. I know he wasn't black. It was a joke and meant to get a rise out of people that assume he was white. Now, I'm not sure if your goin' for a Nobel Prize here or not but we know you what you think... He was Arab... he would look accordingly. But what you've seemed to miss for the, again, 400th time in this thread I wasn't asking what he looked like I was asking why over the years he has become a fuckin' honkey. You understand... for the 400th time?

Now that the thread is answered im gonna hijack it a bit more :P

I have a question.
Before the Jews lived in the Middle East they were slaves of the Egyptians, right? Therefore, to really find the true color of Jesus, wouldn't you have to find out where the Jews were taken from by the ancient egyptians? That would narrow down his color a bit more if you were really trying to look into it.

The fact that the Jews were living in so many places before they settled down in the mid-east also holds the possibility of lots of different colored people mixing together with them. This would make one individual person's skin color pretty hard to pin down. You would, however, have to take into account the fact that many Jews probably would not have married outside of their own.. but it does happen (people converting.. etc)

Jews came from Israel. Moved to Egypt, later were taken as slaves. At this point Canaanites & Philistines moved into the land. Then you have the exodus and all the fun afterwards.

There was also time in Persia too.

I saw the 'face of Jesus'on discovery as well and felt they may have over done his 'arabness' a bit. While the face they gave would look very normal there now, the Arab invasions we well after Jesus's time.

About the only thing we can be sure of is he didn't look like me Irish white :)

I think jesus probably looked a lot like James Caviezel.
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RADOAjYVGu0Cy04C3QBrORgOWR7XlWM3Naaf55Zn0!EGzr75Ty4uujPbfR383k*Og721Bqto9rSsHQRU3uNkKK3qdRdVEECnAXVEjphFw6Q/mp_passion.jpg?dc=4675458432761358475[/IMG]

Notice his initials.

:hmm:

And Babylon, unless that was the same incident.

The Original King
So basically this thread was nothing more than blatant trolling?
Well done.

However, I still don't get it. Why is it such an "outrageous" question to ask if jesus was black?

When you consider the number of people who, without even thinking about it, assume that the classic depiction of christ is accurate, it seems to me a genuine thing to discuss.

I also failed to see the "flood of ignorant comments" in this thread. The general concensus was that he was probably not "african" black, but rather was "tanned".

The only ignorance I saw was the inaccurate statements with regards to the significance of the immesurably tiny difference in the distance from the earth to the sun 2000 years ago, and the claim that race not genetic but rather is an aquired characteristic no different to a tan.

Fascinating. Would you say this was on the basis that the people wouldn't want to see such art, or that the artist was not exposed enough to the world to conceive of the possible differences?

Or indeed is there some other reason behind this fact?

Perhaps taking this point the question could ask 'why has the depiction of Jesus remained Caucasian, despite evidence to the contrary?'

I'm not sure of the the answers to your questions, actually. I'm a philosopher, not an art historian! But it just seems that people in the medieval era (and even the renaissance, for a bit -- the two can be hard to distinguish), people just didn't think about other times being different from their own.

As to why he remained Caucasian, there's probably two main reasons for this (though I'm really just pulling this out of my ass). First of all, anti-semitism, which had long been a feature of European Christianity. And second, anti-arab feeling, which was particularly strong in the 1600s, given the Turkish siege of Vienna. So people weren't really terribly eager to see their Lord and Saviour portrayed like one of the infidel invaders of Christian Europe. But again, that's just a guess.

And, of course, you don't want to discount the force of tradition, of "we've just always done it this way" either. My guess would be that the first non-white images of Christ may have been produced around the turn of the 19th century, since that's really when you get a historical consciousness in Europe, as well as a much heightened willingness to criticize tradition. But again, I'm no art historian.

My main point is just that the origins of "Christ as white" were not particularly racist, not that the continuation of such wasn't racist.

Who could argue with Ras Kass??? ;)


Christians get your facts right
Cause Christ was not his name
That's Greek for "One who is anointed"
Yoshua Ben Yosef was his name, do Christians know this?
So who do you praise, do you know his name?
Or do you do this in vain?
Accepting the religion they gave slaves to behave
Peep the description of historian Josephus
"Short, dark, with an underdeveloped beard was Jesus"
He had the Romans fearing revolution
The solution was to take him to court and falsely accuse him
After being murdered by Pilate how can it be
these same white Romans established Christianity
Constantine would later see the cross in a dream
In his vision, it read "En Hawk Signo Wonka":
"In this sign we conquer" - Manifest Destiny
In 325 he convened the Nicean Creed
And separated god into three
Decided Jesus was born on December 25th
and raised then on the third day is a myth
Plus to deceive us
Commissioned Michelangelo to paint white pictures of Jesus
He used his aunt, uncle, and nephew
Subconsciously that affects you
It makes you put white people closer to God
(Yo, 'The Man' got game like a mother******!)

Can I give you a hug?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KellyC
I saw a special about Jesus on the Discovery Channel a while ago. They made a image of Jesus on the computer of what he should look like and the man turns out to have curly hair, bushy beard, and a round, chubby face, yeah dark skin like the Arabians too. [/QUOTE}
Yup, just about has I pictured him, just as soon as I got old enought to realize what people in that area of the world looked like. When you're young, I think you put all things unknown in a context that you're familiar with. Don't know what someone looks like, you think they look in a way you understand.

When I understood what people from the middle east looked like, I revised my image of him.

Then I started thinking about the fact that it was 2000 years ago, and on top of his looks, I bet he was dirty, and slightly smelly, just like I'm sure eveyrone else was then. Whether or not you believe he was the son of God, if you accept the human part of him, you gotta accept that.

I didn't say that race was an acquired trait, but evolution does play a role in what genes are more successful in getting passed on. Modern medicine and technology might retard the process of evolution, but natural selection has played a larger role in the past.

As for jesus, I think it's easier for a congregation to accept their deity if he looks like them. Less so that "God created man in his own image", more like "Man created God in his own image."

Interestingly enough (and as a bit of aside), there was a (very) old school of thought that believed Christ had leprosy.

And, Strange Famous, rant aside, many of us are perfectly aware what Christ's real name was (Jesus being the Greekified version of Joshua), and that "Christ" is an honorific, not a name.

Don't get so hung up on the unimportant points. Focus on the message man!

Race is a pretty silly thing anyways.

Jesus was definitely not white, that misconception is part of da white mans conspiracy. Plus the bible claims He had hair like lambs wool.

Blame it on Constantinople, the guy that twisted Paganism and Christianity together at some point after 1,000 AD so he could mesh the politics of his power base together. Much of what is in the current bible started with what he decided to do. Interesting since the white Jesus example is indicative of the accuracy of the modern day bible.

Jesus was a Hebrew. He was a Galilean Hebrew man who was olive complected, probably very tan from living and working outdoors, dark brown to Black hair, probably bearded, with brown eyes. The Bible says he was very ordinary looking and you wouldn't have noticed Him at all as he didn't stand out in a crowd until His ministry began and the Holy Spirit came upon Him. Then people were drawn to Him in droves. The Bible also says that after His beating and scouring, He was nearly unrecognizable. But as far as his pigment, He was a Nazarite Jew.

Hehehe, what the hell... I'll say Jesus is white.
Yep, that's right... ALBINO.

The images of Jesus bear a striking resemblance to the greek statuary and portrayal of creator zeus.

Coincidence? No.

Thats all I've got.

Very interesting point. The anti-arabic feeling was also pretty strong during the couple of crusades back in the 1000s and 1100s and so on. Imagine if they had picutred Jesus as an Arabic looking person. Then during the crusades they'd be killing thousands of guys who looked just like Jesus...

As far as religion goes, it doesn't matter one bit what Jesus looked like. Historically, he looked like all the other people living in ancient Judea back then.

He looks white now because of King James and lots of others who desided to redo the Bible as they thought it should be.

Jesus was only Half Jewish. I don't know if God was jewish...

Jesus was most likely really dark skinned, He spend 40 days in the desert with no shelter, He spent countless hours outdoors in the sun, everyone was pretty dark, but to say that Jewish people of 0 AD looked like anything other than Jewish people of 2000AD is a little far fetched.

The Arab invasion of Isreal had not happened yet, so its rather doubtful he looked like one.

I agree with CSfilm's sarcasm. I honestly don't believe that the the earth has moved that much farther away from the sun in 2000 years to cause people's skin colour to significantly lighten. . .and what the does the thread poster mean when she say's that the less sun one sees the more pale ones skin? Yeah, it is true that if a white person would stay indoors during the summer he/she wouldn't get much of a tan, but I don't think this has any bearing in arguing why Jesus is portrayed as white nowadays. Maybe he always was. Perhaps he was Arab. I don't know.

Arabs are committing genocide in Darfur, Africa right now and guess what...
They're black arabs. This isn't any different than past historical events involving arabs. There are alot of truly black African Arabs, as well as Turks, and Moors.

Samson of the bible was a Nazarene from the tribe of Dan. The African tribe of Dan do not cut their hair to this day and their hair naturally forms about seven dreadlocks just like samson had; and that fact is written in scripture. Do you not believe Adam, Moses, Noah, and king Solomon to be black as well. I got news for ya... THEY ARE.

I can dig it. Maybe he had biblical leprosy aka vitilago aka the michael jackson skin disease. But I doubt it since this is the illness that god gives people who are to be cursed like moses's sister who disagreed with him marrying a midianite/ethiopian woman. 2 kings 5:27 is where the pale one originated as a race of man anyway. Read it for yourself, it says white as snow and there's more about it in Leviticus. I love white people myself though. And if the bible is made up by the true jews, then maybe this is a tell-tell sign that they don't like white people as much as white people would hope they do being that they take part in their religion and all. These true jews I speak of are the genetically proven Lemba in Africa and not the eukrainian converted ashkenazis that Hitler tried to off; hence giving them stolen ownership over palestinian lands in 1948 and calling it Israel.

I'm sure every race wants to claim that Jesus is somehow there’s, but Jesus lived in HISTORICAL times, not pre-history, in one of the greatest empires that has ever existed. His disciples spread across this empire and beyond.

If he were anything but a 'typical Jew' it would have been recorded. He wasn't arab, he wasn't ethiopian, he was Jewish of a type that has lived there for generations.

I may not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but I do believe in his existence, an existence that has been recorded.

My opinion: If you want to argue why he was portrayed as white, you needn't beat your head on the wall- the rich people who wanted paintings made him white. Done.

If you want to argue whether he was of typical jewish appearance or black, or something different, then you're just splitting hairs.

If you believe at all in jesus, you should know that he would likely slap his forehead and stand there in disbelief that people care what color his fuckin skin was, but don't give a shit enough about his teachings to be decent people. I've known plenty of people who i'd have to laugh if i ever reffered to them as decent, who have had this conversation. I don't understand it.

This is like the argument of whether God is male or female, both, neither, etc., in that it doesn't matter! It doesn't change anything!

If your faith is stronger because you believe he's purple, so be it. Go forth and love one another, with your purple Jesus.

It turns out that we really have no clue as to exactly what Jesus looked like or what race we would consider him today. Our concepts of race are catagories based on what people look like today and are completely inapplicable to how people looked 2000 years ago. The traits we consider in our concepts of race do in fact change drastically in only a few generations especially in an area of social tumult like Israel.

Were the ancient Egyptians black or white? Arab or persian? We don't really know despite some of the best preserved human remains and artifacts from the ancient world: mummies and hieroglyphics. Most likely they had a racial makeup that we simply don't have a concept of today.

Biblical concepts of race stem from Noah's three sons (by three wives) Shem (where "semite" comes from), Ham, and Japeth who were told, after the flood, to spread out and populate the earth. Older books will refer to blacks as "Hammite" and Japeth's descendants apparently spread out over all of Asia. Was Noah a real person? Possibly, but certainly his story and that of his sons is creation myth with very little present day application.

So the short answer about Jesus's race: we don't know and it doesn't matter.

Jesus was the descendant of King David, he's lineage is outlined quite well in the New Testament. As people began studying the Bible, especially the artists, they came across descriptions of David and liked what they read. So, to make Jesus even more desirable to the masses, they used the descriptions of David to paint Jesus.

I have included a couple of references for a physical descirption of David, these are what the artists based their paintings on.

1 Samuel 16:12
And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

1 Sam. 17: 42
And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.

In King James' time ruddy meant a fair complexion that had been exposed to the sun. So in other words, a white person who had spent time outside.

In the Queen Valera translation of the Bible these two verses use the word blonde (rubio).

Whether Jesus fit the description of his forebearer, we don't know. Really the question is an acedemic one anyway, not truly important.

a) 2000 years doesn't amount to much evolution.

b) Evolution has everything to do with skin color. *boggle*

c) Yes, and remember that people from that region today are lighter skinned than 200 years ago due to the influx of Europeans. Hell, look at Italians. A lot, especially Sicilians have pretty dark skin, and they're technically European.

d) Do you think that 2000 years ago people (because of relation, not evolution) from Egypt, Ethiopia or Palestine looked THAT much different? If so, can you present any data that might suggest so?

Actually with the artwork from the time, we have a pretty good idea of everyones color in the area.

Ultimately, who cares what colour he was... as it stands few care who the real man was anyway. The whole point of Jesus, at this point in time, is symbolic.

It almost doesn't matter who the historical Jesus was... almost.

I fyou believe in evolution why ask about jesus? Isnt that a contradiction in itself. Think about it. The area of the world where they believe Jesus lived is still there and people still live there. If what we know as black today is what African americans are then it may be safe to say that they looked like that 2000 years ago. and it might be safe to say that people in the "holy land" do not look so terribly differant that you might confuse them as Africa American. I know caucasin ( I think thats how you spell it) that have curly hair and bushy beards. My Father for example. Anyway Hope you don't hate me just adding my two cents. Even though it wasnt asked for. And no I dont believe Jesus was White. i believe he was Middle eastern looking like everybody else who was born where and lived where he did. Stupid arrogant europeans. Nothing really existed till they acknowledged it. what a bunch of idiots.

Welcome to TFP, florida0214...


kind regards,

your new friend in Europe.

Personally, if I really need to base any kind of belief in the guy, I think I'll trust Josephus, Jewish and hebrew historians and Egyptian records that refer to the HEBREW people.

Lets get a few things right.
White is too general. Stand an Iraqi next to a Nigerian and the Iraqi can be tarred with the white brush.

Black is too general too. Put the Iraqi next to a blonde Swede and he is tarred 'black'.

I think we all ageree that he is not caucasian, but that he's also not negroid.

Check out this link if you really are bothered by the whole deal. Hebrew scholar that has REAL references, not half-assed 'we all used to be kings and queens Janet Jackson' bullshit.
http://britam.org/anthropology.html

That link points out that there's a lot of diversity and skin shading amongst the Hebrew tribes, going from very blonde with blue eyes to red hair and over to dark 'mediterranean' features.

Also remember that the Hebrews at the time of Christ were not fresh out of Egypt, they had been taken to Babylon as slaves and released few hundred years before.
The persians are the original Aryan people and would have contributed a lot to the then hebrew genetic makeup and features. Remember that word Aryan... some other guy was on about it half a century ago and it's funny what the considered features for Aryans were...

PS: dn't think I'm saying that Aryan was blonde and blue eyed and thus jesus was the same.
That's hitler's view, but he also got it from somewhere, probably modern christianity.

I'm sying the original Aryan blood would play a large role in the Hebrew features of the time.

Sorry for that i am sure you can understand becuase well lets face it Americans did the same thing. well i think Americans were europeans at the time or mybe later on we were not. think about this was Victoria falls named anything before it became victoria falls? or did half-dome ever go by another name. or the mississippi river. Not to insult you or your family. but that is the way happened I believe.

A. Exactly

B. Duh. However I don't really recall there being any pressing evolutionary challenges presented in the Middle East in the last 2,000 were skin color would greatly alter. If anything the skin color of the region would only have gotten darker as a result of the great Arab influx in the last 1500 years.

C. I would bet the farm the majority of European immigrants are Jewish, stemming from the Zionistic movement which really only has the steam of about 100 years (Maybe 130 if you want to get hardcore). Being Jewish, and all there resulting problems with the Arabs, I highly doubt there has been much inter-racial mixing, Jews rarely delve outside of their own mix as far as marriage and breeding, I doubt the Arabs in the region are any different.

D. I would think that people from Egypt and Palestine (those two looking similar) looked way different from cats in Ethopia, in that they weren't black. They were tanned ass mediterranian(sp) types, not straight up African Horn types.

The only data I have to support this is common sense. Have you ever seen an Egyptian? have you ever seen an Ethiopian, Or Somalian? They are BLACK, people on the mediterrian(sp) are not pure and simple.

I know plenty of egyptians, they are not black.

I saw a very interesting special on the Shroud of Turin. Somebody had taken the image of the face from the shroud, and compared it to some early (5th or 6th century) artwork and coins, which very much resembled the face on the Shroud. Very middle-eastern looking.

There's an interesting site about it at http://www.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/

Actually Egypt is a pretty big ass country - many Egyptians are, in fact, pretty well black. It's like the US - is "white" what Americans look like?

Most are, however, more Arab looking.

I know plenty of Palestinians and many of them are whiter than I am, being a fairly typical northern european myself.
The Islamic prophet Mohammed is (according to some sources) from a nomadic group of people out of what is now southern russia, so he wasn't as arab looking as people make out. Likelihood is he was whiter than Jesus, so maybe we should just swap the two round and call it a day.
Perhaps this is all just bullshit made up by people who like stirring trouble. Not that any of it makes the slightest bit of difference to anything. Religion is just another excuse for people to form groups and bash each others heads in.
We probably all came from the same place originally a few hundred thousand years ago, so a debate about the skin colour of some jewish nobody is a waste of time.
That probably won't go down too well as I'm guessing a lot of people here are rooting for the Dover School Board.

WTF does it matter what color Jesus was?

Does his color make what he said any more or less relevant????? Well to neo fucking Nazis, skinheads, the KKK and fucking prejudiced assholes on both sides I guess it would.

However, to the people that truly follow HIM and try to the best of their ability to live the way he tried to teach, color and looks are as unimportant as whether HE was right or left handed.

It's what HE TAUGHT that matters, nothing else. To argue about what he looks like is about the stupidest and most inconsequential thing that one can do.

Accept what HE taught, try to live by what HE taught, not how some organized profit, political machine wants you to (Jesus was against any political machinations, he believed man's purpose was to help fellow men, not to rule over them, instill fear into them or take arms toward another).

Believe him to look anyway you like if you truly need him to look a certain way in order to believe. Hell, if you need to believe Jesus or your God are women..... so be it.

To me Jesus is pure light...... that's it nothing more, no human form, just pure light.

On a side note, I can almost guarantee the second people stop believing in organized religions and stop donating monies to these "religious" political machines, religion will be outlawed by any and all governments.

Jesus, Buddha, God, the Mythological deities of Greece, Rome, Norse, China, and so on, were all formed and drawn, sculpted, etc. to look like the targeted followers. That's what the people had to go by. But the looks of whichever you choose to believe should mean nothing..... the true value is believing what the deity you choose to follow taught.

Do you also get sick looking at buddha statues from east asian countries, where he doesn't look at all indian??

It's evolution of an icon, refined over centuries. It's not racism to forget jesus' original color anymore than it's hypocrisy not to remember the original intent of christmas trees.

Mind you, it's an interesting footnote, but "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

It wasn't my point to say there are no black egyptians :thumbsup:

As for a lot of other posts, I look at this question from a historical stand point, I could care less what color he was, but its an interesting question. What Jesus taught doesn't matter when you are just wondering what color he was. You can ask the question of his race without belittling his message.

His message was to keep yourself in check from a moral standpoint without overly focusing on all the traditional rules and to love your fellow man. That's fine and dandy, but has anyone ever heard of an ebionite? Do any of you know that Nazarenes wear their hair in dreads.
This is a little off topic but I think the John of revelations was a false prophet. There aren't supposed to be any more prophets after jesus, yet this guy has visions from god while banished on the island of patmos. I also heard that the mark of the beast is a numeric/alphabetical translation of nero caesar. Hebrew and Greek letters also have numeric value and somehow he added up the letters of nero's name and came up with 666. I saw this on the history channel.
Also, zoroasterism played a major part in forming the semitic religions but thiswas the religion of the romans before constantine converted it to catholicism. Maybe this played a part in his decision to convert.

Who said there weren't supposed to be any more prophets after Jesus? Doesn't Paul say that God appoints some to be apostles, some prophets, some teachers, etc.?

Jesus was not white until he became Irish.

Who cares what color one of the greatest magisters this world has ever known was? He wielded power, and his message was one of love. That's all that matters.

every culture makes 'Jesus' in their image... he has appeared as asian, 'white' or european looking, dark skinned, light skinned, very dark skinned and anything in between.... It's natural for cultures to make their leaders in their image.

historically though, there is no way he could have been light skinned due to the geographic region he was born in.

Sweetpea

You and I are in agreement. To bad that Bush doesn't hear this when he gets his daily briefing from Jesus every morning. :rolleyes:

I have a question to ponder to all of you...

Assume for a minute that Jesus was black. How would that sit with all of you? From what I've read in this thread, you all seem to be shocked at the idea. I believe that this goes back to the fact that there is still prejudice in all of us and since we were all taught that Jesus was white, anything else is just unacceptable.

Example...

Excellent point. Although I'm not so certain that many were actually shocked at the thought of Jesus being black, because geography seemed to rule out that possbility (or at least didn't rule it in), and thus the question didn't need to be addressed. For example, there is a large percentage of blacks in America who pray to Jesus, and it doesn't seem to have occurred to most of them that Jesus could have been black. The irony is that most don't seem to have seen him as brown skinned either. It seems that in a choice between seeing Jesus as white, and non-white (but other than black), white is preferable. So prejudice is indeed alive and unwell among us.

Sweetpea did you know there were a lot of white people living all over that region, including all of northern Africa?

Greeks, Romans, Phoenician just to name the big ones were all white, and lived in all parts of the mediterranean world. This is prior to the arab invasions which changed the skin tone of the area quite a bit.

Which arab invasions?
You mean the Moors?

Don't confuse arabs and islamics.

At the time Isreal was a Roman protectorate and therefore had a HIGH percentage of roman citizens and soldiers present. One doesn't normally class the Romans as 'non-white'.

The Roman Empire only really started to collapse and withdraw from distant regions around 400AD.