If Jesus was depicted as black...

reply to post by Carseller4


A perverse sense of humor?

I've heard tell he works in mysterious ways.

What difference does it really make? Black, brown, white, pink, etc… we are people, human beings. The only thing that makes a difference is whether you are a good person or bad person.

Reminds me of something a female friend said to me when she was a bit too out of it at a party:

"Imagine what it would be like to have sex with a black female Jesus...."

Probably the strangest thing i've ever heard. I was in stitches.

I did retort that it would probably be a brown, as in arabic, female Jesus but i think that was a bit lost on her.

Would blacks follow Jesus if he were portrayed as white?

Would people admire Ghandi if he was portrayed as white?

Would thousands of blacks have sacrificed life and limb to free white slaves?

Would Jesus be a Saviour if He were depicted as black?

Sure... why wouldn't He be?

That's like saying Americans wouldn't vote for a presidential candidate because he is black.

Originally posted by randomname
that's it, focus on Jesus' skin color not what he stands for.

I said in and earlier post that it means little in the whole scheme of things. I also stated that i thought people were fickle minded and that racism has more then likely been alive and well probably even before his appearance - Im discussing the idea that if he was depicted as a black male, would christianity have thrived and survived for hundreds of years in the western hemisphere which largely consist's of white skinned Caucasians.
In someway i am simply asking, if he was depicted as black, would white people have accepted him and the religion?

You people have no GRASP of religious art, it was common for people to make religious drawings that place Jesus in their own time and make him look like themselves.
In china he was depicted as being Chinese




A roman Jesus wearing the wrong clothes for his time and holding a book with the wrong alphabet



Black jesus painted by Ethiopians



another picture of jesus in the wrong time



So since the white man pretty much pwned the world Jesus was made to be white.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
You mean Jesus wasn't a blonde haired blue eyed German Hippie?

He must have been!

Everyone knows that god was an Englishman, and Jesus was both the son of god, and god. However, the Norse had an annoying habbit of coming over here to rape and pillage, and the Norse were of Germanic descent... So logically, Jesus was a German hippy!

His color wouldnt matter even if he was GREEN. The thing is would his genetics matter also if say he wasnt fully of human 3dimensional make up. Or does his deeds overshadow any issue that would or could risen from him being more different then previously known. Again the shell or 3d vessel shouldnt matter. Its the energy or spirit / soul inside working for the better that does.

NAMASTE*******

If jesus WAS real, he would CERTAINLY not look similar as the way the religious establishment has made him out to look. And of-course the foolish religious folks buy into the nonsense without looking into any of it as usual.

And in regards to the possibility of our white jesus fella being black (or at least of a darker skin as he would be), somehow I think that the conservative right-wing Republicans and Tea Party fans would have an INSTANT change of heart for their affiliation of those parties if they discovered that Jesus was in fact BLACK and not that typical white fella that they so adore!!!

Because ANYONE who is NOT wealthy and is a fan of the Republicans and/or Tea Party is obviously in it for the delusion that the right-wing devils are of their religious views.

The right-wing cannot be any MORE ANTI-JESUS than it is. Everything that the jesus fella did and said is the complete OPPOSITE of the views and actions of the right-wing parties!!!! [color=gold]THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE!!!!!!

How IRONIC, eh?

They reel the non-wealthy in by playing the 'religion-card' and of-course they know that the mindless, uneducated religious folks will bite. Hook, line, and sinker.

What a world!!

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
As we head towards Christmas i always recognize and remember how christians stole pagan traditions/holidays and twisted them into there own version - and then claimed their book was gospel for all people.
But when i think of this, and the hundreds of years that Christianity dominated the western hemisphere, i have to wonder, If Jesus was depicted as a black male, would christianity have survived at all??

Personally, i think it would have died out pretty quick, Which to me also suggests that Jesus was intentionally drawn and painted white in order to gain and maintain followers - More followers, more control.

This question isn't important in the whole scheme of things. Its just a passing thought that ive never really talked about with other people, would quite like to know what others think, No flags or stars necessary.

Then why is it that so many people hate Him today?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


If you approach your question from another angle, then there's an alternative to your conclusion that Christianity wouldn't have been as popular if Jesus had been depicted as black.

At the time that Christianity spread to Europe, most people wouldn't have ever seen a black person, so negative thoughts about a black saviour may not have even entered into consideration. It's easy to make the mistake of looking at historical situations with modern-day attitudes.

If Jesus had have been black, then you could ask whether the transatlantic slave-trade would have ever come to fruition or whether anti-black racism would have been prevalent.

It's unlikely that white Christians would have considered enslaving or discriminating against a race of people who physically resembled their Lord.

Also, I find it highly doubtful that European Christians would have been that bothered by what race Jesus was. Some of the most devout Christian countries in the world, in Latin America, Africa and Polynesia, are largely non-white, and they don't have any problem in revering a ''white'' Jesus. Why would it be any different for Europeans ?

The liniage of Christ is recorded thoroughly in scripture. He is decended from David, who was fair skinned with reddish/brown hair. Research any comtemporary king during the time of David and you will see David described by them as a fair skinned ruddy man with blue eyes.

I know many Brits that live in South Africa that are not black, the color of your skin is based off of genetics passed down from your parents, not the region of the world you live in. If a white family moves to the middle east they do not become arabic, they just live there.

The Israelites were not from Israel, they migrated to Israel through Egypt from the area of Mesopotamia near the Caucus mountains of Armenia and Turkey (the region where the term "caucasian" originated).

Abraham (father of all Israelites) was blond haired with blue eyes as well as his wife Sarah, when in Egypt it was Sarah's fair completion that most allured her to Pharoh and Sarah was Abrahams cousin.

Conclusion:
History texts from non-Israeltie artifactes state that Both Abraham and David were fair skinned blue eyed men, with Abraham being blond and David beign red haired. Jesus Christ as a direct decendant of these men has there genetic code in his body and therefore would be fair skinned blue eyed as well. And Moses who decended from Levy son of Jacob, would also have been white, however Moses had black wives and black children.

Aside:
The thing about the image of Christ that I DO have issue with is that he is pictured as having long hair and a pagan sun holo around his head. Jesus NEVER would have had long hair as to do so as a jew at his time would have been sin unless he took the oath of the Nazarene, of which he did not do.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD


Hi Elohim

You wrote - QUOTE

The liniage of Christ is recorded thoroughly in scripture. He is decended from David, who was fair skinned with reddish/brown hair. Research any comtemporary king during the time of David and you will see David described by them as a fair skinned ruddy man with blue eyes… UNQUOTE

This is complete utter nonsense and is one of your most distorted fantasies.

Also the ‘lineage’ of ‘Christ’ in the 1st canonical Greek gospel and the 3rd canonical Greek gospel (‘according to Matthew’ and ‘according to Luke’ whoever they were) do NOT match each other very closey. The 1st canonical Greek gospel (‘according to Matthew’) leaves out at least 3 Judaean clan chiefs namely Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah - which should come between ‘Yehoram’ and ‘Uzziah’ just so he can make his fake-groups of ‘14’ king sets – so these genealogies are far from accurate.

(By the way, “Lineage” is spelled ‘l-i-n-e-a-g-e’ in modern English.)


Also – you did know, didn’t you, that there are NO contemporary physical descriptions of ‘David’ by any of his clan chief contemporaries in the Levant, so we have no way of determining not only what he may have looked like, or if he even existed at all.

How much less can we know what his remote descendants may have looked like, e.g. R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gr. Iesous), who was called a ‘Samaritan’ i.e. ‘a racial half-breed’ by the Judaean sons of Zaddok (‘Zadokkim’ or ‘Saduccees’) in the Temple at Jerusalem (see the 4th Greek canonical gospel, ‘according to John’ whoever he was – chapter 8:48 etc.) – so no one knows for sure whether the man had red hair or black hair or brown hair or NO hair !

If the book of RUTH is to be trusted at all, the lineage of the house of David was ‘Moabite’ through Jesse his father – Moab is a non-Israelite gentile nation in present day Jordan – take a look at a map of the ancient Levant to get a feel for where these ancestors hailed from.

Thus ‘the Davidds’ were Jordanian Arabs, and not true Israelites (what ever a true Israelite is !!)

Google JORDANIAN MEN (under ‘images’ if you want to know what Moabite-Jordanian males look like – they are certainly not all blue eyed blondes !

Also, the supposedly ancient Torah specifically states that MOABITES are to be EXCLUDED from the Congregation of YHWH (i.e. Yisro’el) , even BEYOND the 10th generation !

“No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may EVER enter the assembly of YHWH , even beyond the tenth generation, ever !.” = Deut 23:3

The Mesha stele does not specifically mention the house of David – the text letter D (or E or any other letter) is obliterated in the stele.

The Older mis-translation which some rightwing Christians and Jews like to mis-quote to show there were written conirmations 'of King David in the Bibile' usually try to force the text to read:

"As for Horonen, there lived within it the house of [D]avid" = reading (paleoHeb [d] + ‘VD’)

BUT...modern scholarly translation however has it now as:

‘Now Horoneyn was occupied at the en[d] of [my pre]decessor['s reign] by [Edom]ites.” reading paleoHeb ([e] + ‘VD’)

But back to the point: Don’t even try to claim that you could re-create anything like a physical image of ‘David’ or his ancestors since we have ZERO contemporary witnesses from antiquity – they do NOT exist.

All we can do is line up some physical characteristics of R. Yehoshua's supposedly Daviddic ancestors – who were Arabic Shemites, and NOT at all like modern day ‘white’ Ashkenazim in physical characteristics !

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I never get this whole Jesus is White/Black thing......he was Jewish...from the middle east...no white...no black...middle east. Therefore, this argument is useless. And I'm so sick of hearing about how "christians" stole pagan holidays and turned them into their own......God is great..and can do anything....a God who created the universe and our little planet...made himself into a human, dying on a cross for our wrongs and then returning 3 days later, is more than capable of making his life and pointed times fall on any day he wants to. For example: when the 10 plagues of Egypt occurred...each plague was a direct attack on the Egyptian Gods...to show that he was the one true God..so it would actually only make sense for the savior of the entire world the MESSIAH to over come every single God and religion on Earth, which would include their festivals.

reply to post by Nkinga


...or it was an elaborate political ploy to move the holidays, by a struggling new church to gain adopters, to pagan dates so that pagans could adopt the new religion but still keep their previous holy days. But hey, screw it. let's go with the explanation that is way out there.

Relevant:

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Hi Elohim

You wrote - QUOTE

The liniage of Christ is recorded thoroughly in scripture. He is decended from David, who was fair skinned with reddish/brown hair. Research any comtemporary king during the time of David and you will see David described by them as a fair skinned ruddy man with blue eyes… UNQUOTE

This is complete utter nonsense and is one of your most distorted fantasies.

Also the ‘lineage’ of ‘Christ’ in the 1st canonical Greek gospel and the 3rd canonical Greek gospel (‘according to Matthew’ and ‘according to Luke’ whoever they were) do NOT match each other very closey. The 1st canonical Greek gospel (‘according to Matthew’) leaves out at least 3 Judaean clan chiefs namely Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah - which should come between ‘Yehoram’ and ‘Uzziah’ just so he can make his fake-groups of ‘14’ king sets – so these genealogies are far from accurate.

(By the way, “Lineage” is spelled ‘l-i-n-e-a-g-e’ in modern English.)


Also – you did know, didn’t you, that there are NO contemporary physical descriptions of ‘David’ by any of his clan chief contemporaries in the Levant, so we have no way of determining not only what he may have looked like, or if he even existed at all.

How much less can we know what his remote descendants may have looked like, e.g. R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gr. Iesous), who was called a ‘Samaritan’ i.e. ‘a racial half-breed’ by the Judaean sons of Zaddok (‘Zadokkim’ or ‘Saduccees’) in the Temple at Jerusalem (see the 4th Greek canonical gospel, ‘according to John’ whoever he was – chapter 8:48 etc.) – so no one knows for sure whether the man had red hair or black hair or brown hair or NO hair !

If the book of RUTH is to be trusted at all, the lineage of the house of David was ‘Moabite’ through Jesse his father – Moab is a non-Israelite gentile nation in present day Jordan – take a look at a map of the ancient Levant to get a feel for where these ancestors hailed from.

Thus ‘the Davidds’ were Jordanian Arabs, and not true Israelites (what ever a true Israelite is !!)

Google JORDANIAN MEN (under ‘images’ if you want to know what Moabite-Jordanian males look like – they are certainly not all blue eyed blondes !

Also, the supposedly ancient Torah specifically states that MOABITES are to be EXCLUDED from the Congregation of YHWH (i.e. Yisro’el) , even BEYOND the 10th generation !

“No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may EVER enter the assembly of YHWH , even beyond the tenth generation, ever !.” = Deut 23:3

The Mesha stele does not specifically mention the house of David – the text letter D (or E or any other letter) is obliterated in the stele.

The Older mis-translation which some rightwing Christians and Jews like to mis-quote to show there were written conirmations 'of King David in the Bibile' usually try to force the text to read:

"As for Horonen, there lived within it the house of [D]avid" = reading (paleoHeb [d] + ‘VD’)

BUT...modern scholarly translation however has it now as:

‘Now Horoneyn was occupied at the en[d] of [my pre]decessor['s reign] by [Edom]ites.” reading paleoHeb ([e] + ‘VD’)

But back to the point: Don’t even try to claim that you could re-create anything like a physical image of ‘David’ or his ancestors since we have ZERO contemporary witnesses from antiquity – they do NOT exist.

All we can do is line up some physical characteristics of R. Yehoshua's supposedly Daviddic ancestors – who were Arabic Shemites, and NOT at all like modern day ‘white’ Ashkenazim in physical characteristics !

Thank you for your reply and the spelling correction, you are kind to care about my grammer so thoroughly.

"According to Genesis 19:30-38, the ancestor of the Moabites was Lot by incest with his eldest daughter."- Wikipeadia Moab

Lot was the nephew of Abraham, they are related. The Arabs that live in Jordan today are not the Moabites that were there in 1400-1500 B.C. Ruth is Moabite and the grandmother of Jesse father of David, this is why David does not look as fair as Abraham.

I will add simply that the question I posed was researching contemporary kings not tribal Israelite leaders at the time, the king of Assyria the Pharoh of Egypt etc. there are stone etchings that clearly show David as a white man with reddish brown hair from non-Israelite artifacts.

I do not want to argue, I was trying to help add some clarity. You are free to believe what you like I am not here to convice you otherwise. Clearly you have made up your mind and are willing to insult anyone who says otherwise due to your pride.

God Bless

reply to post by ElohimJD


Hey Elohim -

Pride has ZERO to do with it - only hard FACTS -

And you seem to be very short on them.

For Your Information (FYI) there are NO contemporary etchings of any clan chief or 'king' David anywhere in the world from antiquity.

If you claim to have found one (even a faked later one, with or without red - or even green - hair), feel free post it with a REPLY and then we can show you where you might have been led astray....

Just don't make crude mis-statements you cannot back up - you're bound to be found out sooner or later on ATS - we don't take kindly to that kind of thing, in case you haven't noticed !!

reply to post by Rook1545


Lets put it this way...to believe that a band of 12 nobodies, with a leader who was crucified could simply keep a religion going by moving holidays around,...and have it last until present day 2011 is "far out there"

I think the only important thing to notice hear is how strongly people feel about this.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


What we don't know is exactly what skin tone that Christ wore. he may have well been darker than portrayed by western cultures. But for those of us who follow his example, this has no meaning because the Bible doesn't paint the portrait of a man, but of a ministry and a path... neither of which require the shallow physical display.