I saw Jesus once in 1997! I was hit by a car going 155 mph. and killed! It doesn't really matter what color Jesus' is all that matters is if you're ready to follow his ways. Love all ! ! ! I also went to Hell & Heaven and I've been writing ever since. You'll hear more about it in my writings.
No way was that man white. No possible way. To think that he was, is just being stupidly one sided.
The man spoke Arabic. He was born in the Middle East. Hell at best he'd at least look European. But no- not here in America. He likes like an ex-Doors fan, still participating in Jim Morrison's look-a-like contests.
You are the white chick who brought up the fact that since he had the last name of Thomas, that????????????
What were you implying then Deborah? You're the one who suggested that people of color couldn't bear the last name of Thomas. Why else bring my hub up. If YOU did your research, you would know that they surname of Thomas is over 8,000 old.
So now what?
Argue with me some more, for you ill written terms? I don't think so. You cannot go around stereotyping people, and then blame it on somebody else. You also cannot go around behaving this way, and get away with it. Somebody has to call it out, and state it like it is. You undertone and meaning were quite clear. Denying it tells the world you are nothing but a liar. So deny it all you want, it is YOUR creditability at stake.
Wrong I said Jesus didn't have the last name Thomas as you said on one of your hubs. I don't call black people Colored either... you do. Stop trying to make me the bigot. Anyone who goes back to read what I said will know it isn't me but you.
Deborah is correct. People of Jesus' time did NOT have surnames.
Jesus was registered as "Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary and Joseph of Nazareth," not as "Jesus Thomas" or as "Jesus Christ."
If I were in Jesus' time, my name would be Pani of Waterloo because Waterloo is where I was born, not Pani (Surname). If I were married, I would take on my husband's name. I could then possibly be called Pani of Colorado Springs or Pani of Torrance, wherever my husband was born.
Furthermore, Deborah did not say anything about "colored" people. By the way, calling them "colored" nowadays is considered very racist. They prefer being called black or African American, but only African American if they actually hail from Africa.
Now to address whether Jesus was white or not. It is entirely possible that he was white, just as it was entirely possible that he was purple with pink polka dots. There are no photographs of him and there is no description of him in the Bible. Why? Because people of that time did not care what he looked like, only what he offered them: salvation.
Since Jesus was born in the middle east and his mother was Hebrew, it is most likely that Jesus looked like a light-skinned Middle Eastern man of today. The people who made paintings of Jesus most likely depicted him as their race or skin tone to feel more connected to him. I have seen paintings of the black Jesus in Baptist churches and I have seen paintings of Jesus as a Middle Eastern man.
(And dammit, I said I was taking a break from HP. I think I need to temporarily block this website so I can resist logging in and reading the forums!)
Thank you. I am glad someone can read and understand what was written. I was actually shocked that what I said was taken so wrong.
Here are some early depictions of Ancient Hebrews and Eqyptians and some modern day
YahShua was a Hebrew, born of a Jewish mother. He had a Hebrew family. He spoke Hebrew, lived the Hebrew culture, kept and taught Hebrew laws, had Hebrew followers, and quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures
Photos of Jews/Hebrews Some pages have the same pictures at the top an the newer ones at the bottom
Here is a question for you. Last name Henry. What race do I have to be, to have that last name?
According to your philosophy- not Jewish. Oh Hell Fire and Brimstone, I can't be black. And since I cannot be a man of color, we have ourselves a problem here people. I must be white.
"Hallelujah, I must be white." "Praise Jesus, I must be white." "Now brothers and sisters, can you say Amen!" Amen. "Now can you say Amen, Jesus." Thank you Lord, and Hallelujah I must be white. And, no black baptist preacher man, can marry a damn blue eyed jew, neither. So, I must be white. Yeah, yeah, I must be white. I (pause) must be (pause) white!
Kind of a catchy tune if you ask me.
Right? Wrong? No comment? What?
Now instead of apologizing for your ill written mis-step, you continue on here, pretending, and insulting our intelligence. It appears the only thing that you are an expert in, is posting web links in a hubpages forum.
************************************************* First I wasn't saying he couldn't have been black. I was showing pictures where they were both light and dark skin. Second, I'm not Christian, I am a Kabbalist, my Husband is Hebrew and I speak it. Third I don't believe in Hell fire and brimstone.
I'm not apologizing for anything because I haven't said or done anything to apologize for.
What am I pretending? and whose intelligence? Yours? You've misunderstood everything so I would check my own intelligence if I was you.
I posted links to pictures because I don't steal bandwidth by bringing the pictures here.
Very unlikely that if there actually really was a Jesus that he would have been white. He was supposedly born into the local Jewish community and so would have shared their physical characteristics. If he had looked radically different it would have been commented on.
Anyway what does it matter what colour his skin was? If he really existed, what he was like as a person is what would have mattered.
Jesus was supposed to have been born in what is now Israel in the 1st cnetury AD, and it is more than likely that he had a middle eastern appearance - I was not making any comment on the ethnicity and skin colour of any modern Jewish community.
Yah Shua wasn't born at the time you have stated. That was a miscalculation. It speaks of Herod and Herods son. Herod died in 4 BC and his son reigned while Yah Shua was around so he had to have been alive in 4-6 BC.
I dont think there is any question about the existence of the person known as Jesus - that is proven - the question that remains is whether he was the son of God - 17 people named Jesus were crucified in or around the time of Jesus this is historical record - the question is whether Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God I am not knowledgeable on these matters but I attended many interesting lectures and discussions about Jesus and Christianity
Aren't we all the son of the head honcho. Jesus was the representative of the lowly humanness we have inherited. Making him special by saying he is the son of God isn't fair, nor is it correct. You alienate every other man woman and child by not saying everyone is the son/daughter/whatever of the FSM.
Nonsense, there is no historical record to suggest the Jesus of Christianity existed. In fact, there is far more evidence to support that he was a myth. Nazareth didn't even exist as far as historical records are concerned.
17 people called Jesus being crucified in the same time frame does not necessarily make any of them 'the' Jesus talked about in the New Testament.
The Jewish people at that time were eagerly waiting for a messiah to fulfil their prophecies and release them from the yoke of the Roman Empire, so there were quite a few proclaimed. I believe that even one of the Herods became a contender and stirred up a bit of a revolt.
I dont disagree - I dont know if any of them where 'thee' Jesus - I was just making the point that Jesus was certainly about at that time - however - I suppose it could be compared to an Elvis convention - would the real Jesus stand up
earnestshub - did not realise they were that popular - I attended a lecture by a famous English footballer called David Ike - he was on eof the top footballers in England and gave it all up as he discovered God on mount Kilimanjaro - the lecture was very interesting and he seemed to know his stuff - well they all do dont they - but any way it was there that I heard about the 17 Jesus being crucified around the same period as 'Jesus' the 'real' was knocking about in his mosses sandles and doing good by turning water into wine - wish he would do it today we could make a fortune
Jesus.....white???? Yes and no. Actually, No and Yes, in that order. I doubt seriously he was white, as in Caucasian white. So, my answer is No on that one. As to His current state of Being, anyone that has ever had a vision of Him, He radiates pure white lght from every part of Him, esp. the face. Yes, white. :cool The Book of Revelation gives a description of this. Anyway, I would believe in Him even if He came as Chinese, Black African or Eskimo.
Caucasian |kôˈkā zh ən| adjective 1 often offensive of or relating to one of the traditional divisions of humankind, covering a broad group of peoples from Europe, western Asia, Israel and parts of India and North Africa. [ORIGIN: so named because the German physiologist Blumenbach believed that it originated in the Caucasus region of southeastern Europe.] 2 of or relating to the Caucasus. 3 of or relating to a group of languages spoken in the region of the Caucasus, of which thirty-eight are known, many not committed to writing. The most widely spoken is Georgian, of the small South Caucasian family, not related to the three North Caucasian families. noun often offensive a Caucasian person. • a white person; a person of European origin. USAGE In the racial classification as developed by anthropologists in the 19th century, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples whose skin color ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India). Although the classification is outdated and the categories are now not generally accepted as scientific ( see usage at Australoid and Mongoloid ), the term Caucasian has acquired a more restricted meaning. It is now used, esp. in the U.S., as a synonym for ‘white or of European origin,’ as in the following citation: : the police are looking for a Caucasian male in his forties.
The Greeks in my family, born in Greece consider themselves white. Not all of them have olive skin. Yes they are Mediterranean because their country borders the Mediterranean sea. The true Greek has red hair and green eyes. The dark Greeks have mixed with other nationalities.
Most Greeks have whitish skin. If I know about anything, it is the Greeks. I even speak it.
I grew up in a town with Hellenics that moved from Greece to America. I went to school with them. Most had light skin. Though many had dark hair and skin most had Light skin, reddish hair and green eyes. My Brothers in Law have light skin and dark hair with Hazel eyes. I'm not sure where you were in Greece? In Athens? If you were there you had to have seen many that were not dark. Read this. From http://www.white-history.com/hellenes.htm
HFK GŰNTHER'S WORKS
Although a Nordicist, and thus disparaging of White non-Nordic inputs into Hellenic society, Günther's works on the subject of Greek racial history (1927; 1928; 1929a, b; 1956; 1961), are particularly valuable. Günther performed a detailed analysis of Greek history, from a biological perspective. Utilizing craniological, literary, and pictorial evidence, he reconstructed the racial structure of ancient Greece. He concluded that the Nordic sub-race formed something of an ideal for the Greeks, and that the Nordic element was more influential than any other. At the summit of its achievements, Greece possessed a large Nordic element, but as this element declined, so did Greek culture and civilization.
"WHERE THE HELLENIC RACE HAS BEEN KEPT PURE"
In the 4th Century AD, the Jewish physician Adamantios, described what he called the "true Greek" – or where the “Hellenic race has been kept pure” as follows:
"Wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see proper tall men of fairly broad and straight build, neatly made, of fairly light skin and blond; the flesh is rather firm, the limbs straight, the extremities well made. The head is of middling size, and moves very easily; the neck is strong, the hair somewhat fair, and soft, and a little curly; the face is rectangular, the lips narrow, the nose straight, and the eyes bright, piercing, and full of light; for of all nations the Greek has the fairest eyes." [Günther (1927) 157.]
This quote is interesting as it shows that even then – some 800 years after the end of Hellenic Classical period – some Nordic Greek elements had survived. These elements can, of course, still be seen today as well, although much reduced in numbers.
For more literary descriptions of pigmentation in ancient Greek poetry and prose, as well as craniological evidence, the following works are recommended: De Lapouge (1899), Jax (1933), Myres (1930), Reche (1936) and Ridgeway (1901).
The one you say has brown hair also has green eyes. However there is not just one shade of each color. Even brown hair..the stereotype is black hair, dark skin, dark eyes..so the brown is not black. The green eyes are not dark.
I know that Moshe (Moses) Jacob, Isaac had dark skin. Solomon said "I am black, but comely" However Jesus lived a FEW years later...I do believe that science says all people had dark skin in the beginning because people lived mostly outside and was exposed to the sun. As people moved indoors and there was not that much melanin needed the skin began to lighten up. I read this many years ago in a science book. It also had something to do with Vitamin B.
Typically white artists portray Jesus as white, not for the purpose of historical accuracy, but for the picture to be more accepted by the white audience, or because the artist is white and is more comfortable with that image.
In African American churches, I often see pictures of Jesus that look black.
Most images of Christ are based on a faint image of what was presumed to be his burial cloth (see my hub on the Shroud of Turin) ... artists (rightly or wrongly) presumed that this was what he looked like and based their images on that. Extensive work has been done mapping the certain features of icons and pictures of Christ with each other and the Shroud.
The general consensus is that with the common features and proportions of all pictures of Christ there is one original "source image" somewhere ... Shroud believers presume the Shroud is the original source. Shroud skeptics say the forger used the same original source as other artists.
Racial features such as hair and skin color are variants on the main features and proportions and are typically based on the artist's own purposes and preferences.
My favorite image of Christ is the "Head of Christ" by Warner Sallman. In that image, many of his features are Caucasian but his skin color and eye color is much darker.
In reality, He would likely have had olive skin, black hair and dark eyes, as is common among middle easterners.
Jesus, if he existed, wasn't white. The proof of this is in that if he'd been anything like a caucasian he would have been a novelty amongst the people he was born in and someone would have mentioned it. There are no white people in the Bible- none!
The question wasn't what Jesus considered himself, the question was could Jesus have been white? No. No. No. In what Jesus considered himself, it is pretty obvious that he was far above such pettiness as to base him identity or anyone's identity off of a silly thing like skin color.
Sorry, I must disagree with your conclusions ... Romans, such as Pilate, would have been more or less Italian who are generally considered "White" by modern standards.
Additionally the Greek term used for nation in the NT is "ethnos", from which we get "ethnicity", thus racial variants were openly acknowledged and the conflicts between them recognized.
Races were generally referred to ancestrally for example "The Sons of Shem" (from which we get the modern term 'Semitic')... rather than by color, which is a modern, overly simplistic means of genetic identification.
Race, as we know, is a genetic trait, and the writers of the Bible had more concern and respect for the generational and ancestral issues that most modern "white people". Thus they referred to "races" by the names of ancestors they considered "Great".
This practice was abused in the fourteenth and fifteenth century to justify slavery, which people knew was wrong even then, and with the fall of racially based institutial slavery has fallen out of practice.
Thus the "White People" in the bible were called "Romans", though because of genetic drift they may or may not have appeared to be "White" as we see people today.
I admit, that if you include Italians, in your definition of "white," then there are white people in the Bible, but I believe that the reason Italians claim themselves to be "white," is due to the fact that "white," is still perceived as superior in western culture. It is all utterly absurd though.
Slavery goes back forever in history. It wasn't widely perceived as wrong. "They," thought it was perfectly morally acceptable. Homosexuality, "they," thought was wrong and "they" imprisoned and killed people for it.
Just a slavery note - nowadays we view slavery with pictures of american black slavery, superimposed with the recent history of its aftermath. Ancient (and not so ancient) times it was just a living condition of the 'workers'. We superimpose our modern idea of freedom on those slaves and so cannot see how our workers are enslaved in the same way - just tied to their job and house by different bonds. To test the idea, just look at what happens when the modern job, the service, goes - so does everything else.
We are FREE .... to serve whomever or whatever that our heart desires. We are slave to our desires. When our desires are those things that money can buy .. we are slaves to our sourse of income. When our bank account is sufficient to meet our desires it becomes more difficult to distinguish what we serve to the greatest extent.
Kinda what I was saying in my post - it is just how we view things through the wrong end of the telescope mostly, slave was just a living condition at one time, I don't see any real difference between that social group and this. I just get pissed when people start babbling about freedom who have no idea of what freedom is, and as I say above I agree (generally) with you.
The post was about some supposed political agenda not freedom.
Solomon wrote it, but he was quoting his bride. Evidently, Solomon figured black was beautiful. This is one of the biblical cases "for" inter-racial marriage. Solomon, we presume, was middle eastern as well.
Your basic conclusion, is correct, however, there was a difference in skin color between Solomon and his bride.
Hi Irish, Jesus is colorless hehe, thats because his hearts color is red, skin color doesnt matter, and everyone of us, human beings has a color red in their heart, is all that matter the color of his skin is pointless
"Caucasian" refers to a person who hails from the Caucasus Mountain regions..like myself...like Armenians, Georgians, and the like..
Somehow Americans have twisted this word into something else, but Jesus, if he ever lived, was not Caucasian....
If Jesus descended from Abraham, and was a Semetic speaking person...which he had to be, his features would most likely represent those of people living in the Middle East...like Arab peoples, or something close to Assyrians....but a far cry from the Anglo-Saxon/Western European model....
While some Jewish people did live in Europe,many did not, and did not interbreed with Europeans...
Secondly, there are also Jewish groups that share no Jewish heritage with those who have existed for thousands of years....there are populations who converted to Judaism....but who were something else completely not too long ago, historically speaking....
"white" is a social construction invented by Europeans in the last 500 years, and should not be used in they way that this forum denotes.....and, again, Caucasian is not the same as "white"....
Because of this very problem, we usually have the option to NOT answer such questions about demographics (even though that's not always made clear). If everyone (or even most people)would stop answering the demographics questions, the people who collect demographics info would be forced to stop, and perhaps there would be a message given.
How deluded can you be. White Jesus is not possible. Pure fiction.
The whole idea is just not reasonable. Religion serves only one purpose a means to an end. Be good and go to heaven. I think the nature of our world has the best answer. Death and rebirth. Never ending cycle. Even Jesus said " You must be born again"
I don't know what you think you're responding to. My statement was in response to mikelong's KKK photo and HIS statement that that's who the "white Jesus followers are."
I am white. I follow Jesus, and I am not a member of the KKK nor do I approve of them, so I thought mike's picture was in poor taste, as I said. I know damn well Jesus wasn't white, thank you; I didn't fall of the turnip truck yesterday. I don't give a flying flip what color he was, that's the least important thing about him or anyone anyway.
Jesus was Jewish and a Nazarene. Jewish men of the time were very dark, with fairly short hair (not the long hair you see depicted in pictures) and a closely cropped beard. Chances are his facial features were rugged, not angelic like you see in pictures. But who knows?
YahShua was a Hebrew, born of a Jewish mother. He had a Hebrew family. He spoke Hebrew, lived the Hebrew culture, kept and taught Hebrew laws, had Hebrew followers, and quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures
For those who feel you can get in my face and say I said things I didn't say as 2 people have.. The question was could Yah Shua have been white..since the question was posed I have a right to give my answer. Israel has always had white and black people who are Jews. Since that is true than yes he could have been white. I posted links to pictures to show there is art from a long time ago showing white skin and red hair in the Jewish people. He could have been black and he could have been white.....
To say I have said anything other than what the question posed is malicious slander.
Note to Deborah - I think you were perfectly clear and made some excellent points. I saw nothing remotely racist or unreasonable in anything you said. You gave modern and historical examples of why people may have had different colored skin etc.
I'm can't see the source of the misunderstanding or the reason for the vehemence of the attacks.
Prosperity? I question that if wealth can be considered a form of prosperity. Jesus spoke out more against being rich than any other sin. There is the most famous of his quotes, "It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to jump through an eye of a needle."
Thanks Tantrum. I have to stop this though and have contacted staff. She convinced someone else I am a racist too. If hubpages bans me even though they won't find anything I've said racist than I guess it's goodbye. Nice to have met you guys.
Personally, this is a cruel thing to say. but my husband has his head bent on it. He says that because the Jews were the ones who crucified Christ back then, that the holocaust was karma. He is not excusing hitler...
What if this happened today. All the news networks, all the world leaders, all the scientists, all the leaders of churches announced that it was proven that God does not exist. Proven beyond any reasonable...
...would it destroy your life? So many people these days seem so dependent on God for everything, so wrapped up in letting him solve all their problems for them. It absolves them of so much responsibility for their own...
In a startling book titled "What if...: the editor Robert Cowley invited several well respected historians and authors to posit what he called counterfactual arguments against what we all now accept as...