Jesus Was Not Black

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
First, Egyptians were a cosmopolitan society with light and dark skinned African citizens and Pharoahs. Look at the Sphinx closely, the face is almost certainly that of a black African. Abraham's wife Sarah has been portrayed as being black. And Mary Magdalene is seen by a great many people as being black. Your claim that he was definitely not black is on thin ground, imo. I do agree that the odds on favorite, best bet as to his physical appearance is Middle Eastern. But, we have no record of what he looked like, and since it is pretty well established that there was at different times intermarriage between the rulers of Israel and Egypt. It also seems pretty clear that there were blacks in the area during his lifetime.
Regarding Mary's delicate condition, there is a far tamer reason. In the 9 months between the conditional marriage and the conclusion of the marriage vows which then make it an official marriage, the bride is watched to see if she shows any signs of being pregnant. After nine months, they give the marriage approval. If Mary was pregnant before the final ceremony, then Joseph would be in trouble and the marriage would be off. It could be that Joseph swore he didn't do it, and Mary swore no one did.... or that it was divine intervention. The story might pass, and the marriage be official.
Regarding the physical characteristics of a population of an area 2 000 years ago, it could have been quite different. Look at America, for instance. The ethnicity has completely changed in 2 000 years.

The sphinx looks ... egyptian? or in other words Middle Eastern.

Mary being black? ok now please.. I have to have a link or something if you throw something like that in here never heard that tale before but it sounds good. I have heard many sayings that she had red hair, given the region she could have been from Iran, many in Iran have red hair. But I hav never seen a black with red hair. made me smile.

Sorry but what does it matter if Jesus was black or white?

Jesus is black.
Jesus is brown.
Jesus is red.
Jesus is white.
Jesus is yellow.
Jesus is orange.
Jesus is blue.
Jesus is purple.
Jesus is green.

Jesus is all of these colors and more, or Jesus is a liar.

"For whatever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me"

I couldnt care less if Jesus was black or not, but didnt the bible say somethin about Jesus has bronze colored skin, and hair that felt of wool or somethin? ive never seen a white person have such traits.

I agree it didn't matter then and matters not still.

Was this the passage?

"I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters." - Revelation 1:10-15

Seems to suggest his feet were a different color than the rest. It doesn't say "skin" but is specific to the feet. Sounds albino, no? Gives new definition to "white man". Some comparitive photos:


"eyes were like blazing fire"


"his head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow"

reading further, it reveals the living Christ...

"In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. " - Revelation 1:16-18

I think it's a cool look personally.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by saint4God]

It does matter what he WAS. Why? because symbolism is everything in religion that's why. I can't believe anybody here would say otherwise? Are they not paying attention?

Jesus was an Aryan of the essene religious sect (similar to christian gnosticism), but was raised in the Aramic Rite (ancient Jewish..).

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
First, Egyptians were a cosmopolitan society with light and dark skinned African citizens and Pharoahs.

The sphinx looks ... egyptian? or in other words Middle Eastern.

Mary being black?

ok now please..

I see an African face when I study the Sphinx, but the reason I mentioned the possibility was that when a US police specialist, trained in the skill of reconstructing faces, used his abilities to replace the Sphinx's nose as closely as possible to what used to be there, he arrived at a very distinctly African nose. It was his conclusion based on modern reconstruction techniques, without any historical or cultural motive behind it. If the Sphinx portrays an African, it makes sense, and is the most likely facial type anyway, since the edifice is located in Africa. As for Egyptians being Middle Eastern... of course there are a great many Egyptians who come from elsewhere, especially the Middle East, but the Egyptians who have been there since time has been recorded, and did not migrate there from elsewhere... they are obviously not Middle Eastern, but African. This is true if you can accept that Egypt is in Africa, which I accept as being hard to dispute. If you read a book called 'Black spark, white fire' by Richard Poe, you will find it filled with information about the misconceptions that the west tend to have about Egypt. Also, it details how the ancient Greeks, whom we credit as the fathers of civilization, credit Egypt as the place they learned their knowledge. If true, Africa is the birthplace of western civilization, not Greece. Of course, you have to trust the ancient Greek teachers are not lying about where they got their knowledge.

As for Mary Magdalene being black, I know that this is something not commonly alleged. But, it is very possible, and one question I have on the subject is this. Who is the black madonna to whom the gothic cathedrals are dedicated to and at the least, referring to?

[edit on 9/9/2006 by BlackGuardXIII]

Originally posted by plague
JESUS WAS NOT A BLACK MAN ...THIS IS PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT HE IS HEBREW AND HEBREWS ARE NOT BLACK.......THE 12 TRIBES DID NOT ORIGINATE IN AFRICA....THIS IS A RUMOR SPREAD BY WORD OF MOUTH NOT HISTORICAL FACT .....YOU CAN START BY READING THE BIBLE ....REMEMBER KIDS...IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO BELIEVE SOMETHING YOU READ THAN TO PREACH SOMETHING YOU HAVE HEARD

Well if we go to the Bible it says that he had feet of bronze and hair like wool. But besides that isn't the Bible just a collection of what the disciples heard and saw. It is always better to be there to see for yourself. Do you read Hebrew? If not then how can you know what the true scriptures say about the man? Last I checked, the Bible is written in English yet the original books are not. I just don't get it either way. Probably why I don't subscribe to organized religion. Oh well, carry on with your rant.



[edit on 9/9/2006 by Infra_red]

Mod Edit: to fix quote box

[edit on 9-9-2006 by kinglizard]

Seriously, why is this not dead yet? Arguments like this are retarded.

Jesus was a human. Not black, not white. An ordinary human who preached some good stuff.

Enough with the colour arguments already!

Interesting. From my knowldge, the 1st human species came from Africa.
Also, after watching an episode on National Geographic,some scientist was talking about a gene that has remained in all of us, from an African man that had survived after a catastrphic volcanic expolosion. After tests were done on nearly thousands of people thoughour the world, of ALL races, this gene was still present, despite how white the person looked. Please note that this scienntist guy was white, or seeing that he has this African gene in him, he's aslo black. So...am...get the point.
I think the truth should never be altered, it's one of the reasons why life is so backward. It does matter if he was black or white, to a certain degree.
I think Africa is much closer to Jewruslaem than America is(Not sure).
Also, is it possible that Adam & Eve wre black? If so, aren't we all?

Holy cow, this thread is still alive?

I have always had this funny internal joke that Jesus probably looked like a Lebanese cheese vendor.....

In other words, Jesus looked like Max Klinger!

Originally posted by Pyros
Holy cow,

I thought that was Hindu in origin. Or perhaps it refers to the golden calf in Exodus. I don't know which.

Originally posted by Pyros
this thread is still alive?

I have always had this funny internal joke that Jesus probably looked like a Lebanese cheese vendor.....

Probably pretty accurate as he was from that area, though I don't know what it is about a cheese vendor that gives distinct physical characteristics.

Originally posted by Pyros
In other words, Jesus looked like Max Klinger!

Could be how he looked during his time here. Revelation gives a different description of how he looks now (or when he comes again). See quotes in my previous post.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by saint4God]

I also find that the Bible does not speak as man for their colours have you noticed that? Maybe their tribes and bloodlines which would be quite mixed anyway. No way does the Bible put people down or up for their colour and I know one Book that does and will let you figure that out which one.

I don't think God says we are in colour schemes for man kind. One theory suggests we have lost the genes that could have produced different races from early man as a Cat or dog would and as the suttle differences of Children in families one who is blue eyed one who is brown eyed? Are they different races? Could be in theory but we have lost the major genes of variety as God intended.
We were and animals were genetically varied to produce new types its was and is in the animal world normal.

I guess he could have looked like a Rastafarian if they did not comb their hair and lived outside in the mid east heat and became bronze in colour due to weather conditions.

Was Mary Black? He did have her traits too remember and you have to look back at the bloodlines once more. One thing for sure Arabs and Jews almost look alike cousins don't they? But Arabs have deeper slightly unaligned eyes compared to how Jews look. So as a fact we know there are these two half brothers from Abraham and the Jewish or Arab bloodlines stayed the same colour through out history majority wise.

Originally posted by The time lord...and as the suttle differences of Children in families one who is blue eyed one who is brown eyed? Are they different races?
Was Mary Black? He did have her traits too remember and you have to look back at the bloodlines once more. One thing for sure Arabs and Jews almost look alike cousins don't they? But Arabs have deeper slightly unaligned eyes compared to how Jews look. So as a fact we know there are these two half brothers from Abraham and the Jewish or Arab bloodlines stayed the same colour through out history majority wise.

I see only one race, the human race. As for what Jewish people look like, I don't think there is such a thing. They range from Ethiopian Jews who are as dark skinned as can be all the way to European Jews who are as white as can be. The Middle East, even 2 millenia ago, was a crossroads, or gateway region. Trade from north to south, east to west, and vice versa resulted in people of almost every ethnicity existing there. Mary may well have looked Arabic, but she may not have. Same goes for Jesus. I don't see Arabic traits the same as you, and have not noticed the eye thing personally. Woody Allen and Sammy Davis Jr. look pretty different, and neither of them fits your image of what a Jew looks like.

So what colour was Jesus?
By Giles Wilson
BBC News Online Magazine

Jesus, ancient and modern
A traditional Jesus, left, and the BBC's image of what he might have looked like
Jesus has been named the top black icon by the New Nation newspaper. Their assertion that Jesus was black has raised eyebrows in some quarters - so what colour was he?

Just as no one will ever produce proof for the existence of God, the question of Jesus's colour may always be a matter for personal belief.

Was he white, white-ish, olive-skinned, swarthy, dark-skinned or black? There are people who believe he was any one of those shades, but there seem to be only two things about the debate that can be said with any degree of certainty.

First - if the past 2,000 years of Western art were the judge, Jesus would be white, handsome, probably with long hair and an ethereal glow.

Second - it can almost certainly be said that Jesus would not have been white. His hair was also probably cut short.


I think the safest thing is to talk about Jesus as 'a man of colour'
Dr Mark Goodacre
Yet the notion that Jesus was black - highlighted this week in a survey of black icons by the New Nation newspaper which ranked him at number one - is genuinely held by some. One school of thought has it that Jesus was part of a tribe which had migrated from Nigeria.

And Jesus probably did have some African links - after all the conventional theory is that he lived as a child in Egypt where, presumably, his appearance did not make him stand out.

Blue-eyed and brown-eyed Jesus
Blue-eyed Robert Powell, left, and brown-eyed Jim Caviezel
The New Nation takes it further: "Ethiopian Christianity, which pre-dates European Christianity, always depicts Christ as an African and it generally agreed that people of the region where Jesus came from looked nothing like Boris Johnson," the paper says. As light-hearted evidence that Jesus was black, it adds that he "called everybody 'brother', liked Gospel, and couldn't get a fair trial".

But the truth, says New Testament scholar Dr Mark Goodacre, of the University of Birmingham, is probably somewhere in between.

"There is absolutely no evidence as to what Jesus looked like," he says. "The artistic depictions down the ages have total and complete variation, which indicates that nobody did a portrait of Jesus or wrote down a description, it's all been forgotten."

Traditional depictions

Dr Goodacre was involved in the reconstruction of a Middle Eastern first century skull for the BBC's Son of God programme in 2001, which resulted in a suggestion of what a man like Jesus might have looked like. He advised on hair and skin colour.

Mullet-wearing T-shirt
People - even mullet-wearers - project their ideal on to Jesus
"The hair was the easiest - there's a reference in Paul which says it's disgraceful for a man to wear long hair, so it looks pretty sure that people of that period had to have reasonably short hair. The traditional depictions of Jesus with long flowing golden hair are probably inaccurate."

Deciding on skin colour was more difficult, though. But the earliest depictions of Jews, which date from the 3rd Century, are - as far as can be determined - dark-skinned.

"We do seem to have a relatively dark skinned Jesus. In contemporary parlance I think the safest thing is to talk about Jesus as 'a man of colour'." This probably means olive-coloured, he says.

'Fascinating' debate

Professor Vincent Wimbush, of California's Claremont Graduate University, who is an expert on ethnic interpretations of the Bible, says the matter of the historical colour of Jesus seems to him a "flat, dead-end issue".

"He's of Mediterranean stock, and it's quite clear what that means. We see people like that in the world today, and that should end the matter." The fact that the debate rages on regardless is fascinating, he says, because of what it says about people's other issues.

The artistic representations of Jesus which are so familiar are not necessarily

wow this many pages about the color of a man know one knows even existed?
Interesting indeed. Even if he existed does it really matter if he was pink or blue?
(The latter would be good for alien conspiracies. )

Peace

Dalen

That would be noteworthy. Of course, his ethnicity, heritage, skin color, etc. don't matter. But if he was a real person, I think it is important to point it out when you find someone claiming they know he was 'white' or whatever. That kind of misinformation can be harmful.
Does it matter if he was even real? The message is the same either way. If he was not real, it wouldn't change the message.

The reasons he would not be blue are three-fold. It's not in the Christian or Hebrew religon for God to be blue contrary to the Hindu beliefs of their gods' appearance. The Bible makes 15 references, beginning to end about the color blue. None of which describe a person's appearance. Logically speaking if Christ was so strikingly different looking than anyone else around that time, do you think it would be noted? Further, on many occasions Christ slipped away from great numbers of people:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." - John 8:58

How difficult is it to find a blue man among Hebrews?

Finally, there are a number of instances where Christ was not immediately recognized. In fact, looked very much like others to where people were comfortable sharing information about him until they realized it was indeed Jesus:

"It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

"Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.
He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?"

They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?"

"What things?" he asked.

"About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."

He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?" - Luke 24:10-32

It is easy to say someone we do not know is not real, but it is impossible for one who tells the truth to say someone is not real when they know him. But, you may wonder of me, how to YOU know? I know because he is not dead, but alive. Not in outer space, but can be reached in a very personal way.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by saint4God]

It has always been my contention that Jesus being a Jew was midrange in color. Therefore He would be a combination of ALL race colors.

The average Jewish person of the time in Egypt was median brown in color to speak in plain shade terms.

Speaking in important color though, His message is 'crystal clear' and that should be the focus.

I must say though, I have enjoyed reading responses by some of our most gifted Christian posters. At the very least this thread has given us some excellent explanations of Scripture.

As always this is JMO.

Be Well & God Bless!

Long time since I have been to this thread and I still see that no one has come to the conclusion of what Yahshua's skin tone was. I have read the responces in this entire thread and could not come to any conclusion based on the Scriptural and historical references given.

As to the Scriptural reference given in Revelation as his skin tone being "black", I do believe that one who comes to this conclusion is reading something into that passages that is just not there. They conclude that he was "black" because of the reference to the VISION Yahchanan [John] saw or to the VISION that Danyah saw. Pay close attention to the context of the three passages of Scripture that follow.

Come now, and let us reason together, says Yahweh: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool (Isayah 1:18).

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire (Danyah 7:9).

His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; ... (Revelation 1:14).

Now, since the last two of these passages are VISIONS, can the colors discribed in these VISIONS be taken literally? If so, then may we say that our Heavenly Father and Creator's throne was literally like the firey flames and that He had wheels as burning fire. Note that the *cherub in Ezekyah's VISION also had wheels (cf. Ezekyah 1:15-16; 1:9,10,13). Comparing Danyah 7:9 and Revelation 1:14, is the discription of wool in reference to the COLOR or in reference to the TEXTURE of the hair. In the Revelation passage it is obvious that is in reference to the the COLOR and not the TEXTURE of the hair, right? Now, in the Danyah passage it seems to be in reference to the TEXTURE of the hair, but could this not be a mistranslation, since both passages make reference to the COLOR being "white as snow"? Note that there is no reference to skin tone in neither of these passages.

Now, look at the passage of Isayah 1:18. Are our sins literally the color of red and leterally can become the color of white? Is it not obvious in this passage that wool is in reference to COLOR and not TEXTURE? Let's say that in this passage that wool is in reference to TEXTURE. Can our sins literally become the TEXTURE of wool as opposed to being the COLOR of crimson (red)? This simply would not make sense in context of the passage as a whole. It also does not make sense in the context as a whole that that wool is in reference to TEXTURE of the hair, but is in reference to the COLOR alone.

*cherub
plural cherubim, the name of certain symbolical figures frequently mentioned in
Scripture. They are first mentioned in connection with the expulsion of our
first parents from Eden (Gen. 3:24). There is no intimation given of their
shape or form. They are next mentioned when Moses was commanded to provide
furniture for the tabernacle (Ex. 25:17-20; 26:1, 31). God promised to commune
with Moses "from between the cherubim" (25:22). This expression was afterwards
used to denote the Divine abode and presence (Num. 7:89; 1 Sam. 4:4; Isa.
37:16; Ps. 80:1; 99:1). In Ezekiel's vision (10:1-20) they appear as living
creatures supporting the throne of God. From Ezekiel's description of them
(1;10; 41:18, 19), they appear to have been compound figures, unlike any real
object in nature; artificial images possessing the features and properties of
several animals. Two cherubim were placed on the mercy-seat of the ark; two of
colossal size overshadowed it in Solomon's temple. Ezekiel (1:4-14) speaks of
four; and this number of "living creatures" is mentioned in Rev. 4:6. Those on
the ark are called the "cherubim of glory" (Heb. 9:5), i.e., of the Shechinah,
or cloud of glory, for on them the visible glory of God rested. They were
placed one at each end of the mercy-seat, with wings stretched upward, and
their faces "toward each other and toward the mercy-seat." They were anointed
with holy oil, like the ark itself and the other sacred furniture. The cherubim
were symbolical. They were intended to represent spiritual existences in
immediate contact with Jehovah. Some have regarded them as symbolical of the
chief ruling power by which God carries on his operations in providence (Ps.
18:10). Others interpret them as having reference to the redemption of men, and
as symbolizing the great rulers or ministers of the church. Many other opinions
have been held regarding them which need not be referred to here. On the whole,
it seems to be most satisfactory to regard the interpretation of the symbol to
be variable, as is the symbol itself. Their office was, (1) on the expulsion of
our first parents from Eden, to prevent all access to the tree of life; and (2)
to form the throne and chariot of Jehovah in his manifestation of himself on
earth. He dwelleth between and sitteth on the cherubim (1 Sam. 4:4; Ps. 80:1;
Ezek. 1:26, 28).

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary


Also see the dictionary definition for:
CHERUBIM

[edit on 9/15/06 by Frank4YAHWEH]