Jesus

PissedChicken

Was Jesus black or white?

In pictures and statues hes white but if he was born in Iserael he was most likely black or tanned.Mary was probably tanned aswel so thats where i got the idea for the question.

Please vote and say why you think black or white or even tanned.

Töpher

White

If he existed, black. It makes logical sense. The whole population would have been, including Moses and the like.

Sandals

what you mean by tanned i voted tanned as in asian like. saw a documentary on it once.

PissedChicken

White

Einst&#252 wrote: »

If he existed, black. It makes logical sense. The whole population would have been, including Moses and the like.

Thats what i have thought for ages.All the pictures and statues have him as white which is stupid.coz it just dont make sense.

Kare Bear

Tanned

If he existed, black. It makes logical sense. The whole population would have been, including Moses and the like.

Not black there tanned out there.Like other arab people.

mr_angry

Einst&#252 wrote: »

If he existed, black. It makes logical sense. The whole population would have been, including Moses and the like.

Depends on how long the Israelites lived in that location. Literal interpretations of the Bible would have you believe it was only a couple of thousand years. Science on the other hand indicates that Ireland had been populated for about 7500 years before the birth of Christ - easily enough time for the human race to have developed different racial characteristics.

Given that his conception was immaculate (assuming you believe the Bible), its impossible to say what effect that had on the genetic makeup of Jesus, if any. The very thought of it almost causes my eyes to roll. Apart from that, we know almost nothing about the genetic background of Mary - how long her family line had resided in the area, etc. Really, she could have been black, white, or half-cast.

Assuming (and its a big assumption) that her family had lived in the area for several thousand years, interbred with people from both northerly and southerly regions, and the immaculate conception had no effect on his complexion, I would guess that Jesus was probably arab in appearance. In any case, I don't see what real relevance the appearance of Jesus should have to a debate.

Excelsior

Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. Therefore, he looked like a Palestinian Jew. What difference does this make? None.

http://www.wischik.com/irene/cross/11-jesus-is-nailed-to-the-cross.jpg

Sapien

PissedChicken wrote:

Was Jesus black or white?

In pictures and statues hes white but if he was born in Iserael he was most likely black or tanned.Mary was probably tanned aswel so thats where i got the idea for the question.

Please vote and say why you think black or white or even tanned.

I was under the impression there were more than three ethnicities heretofore recorded. Though, this new ethnicity, "tanned", is news to me. To what areas is it indigenous?

airetam_storm

Sapien wrote:

I was under the impression there were more than three ethnicities heretofore recorded. Though, this new ethnicity, "tanned", is news to me. To what areas is it indigenous?

Middle eastern?

Ania

Tanned

Einst&#252 wrote: »

If he existed, black.

Jesus is a historical fact, so feel free not to doubt that he might have not existed.
... also based on plenty of non- bibical evidences: the Koran, Plinius, Tacitus, Roman historical writers, itd.

It's pretty unimportant to debate what "race" Jesus was.
On many work of arts he's painted white with blue eyes, but there are also many paintings where he appears with a dark skin, for instance the famous Black Madonna in Czestochowa (Poland) or many paintings in Russian Orthodox churches.

It's just amazing that there are people of all races in this world who follow this man- that's the only thing that counts for really religious people.

NeilJ

White

One thing that should be pointed out is that the Arab skinned people of today who live in that region did to a large degree displace those living in the area Christs was from. Therefore to assume that the modern inhabitants of the region are the same skin colour is not necessarily true.

Neil

mmcgaley

Here's a very interesting article about Jesus' colour:
http://www.ethnicharvest.org/links/articles/learner1.htm

For those of you with limited time/attention spans, it ends like this:

So the question remains: What color is Jesus? For the cross-cultural witness the color is always neutral. When Christ is in the culture, He will look just like the members of that culture. He will represent God and His righteousness to the culture. He will become the measuring stick by which everyone in the culture is measured.

Seaneh

This is roughly what he would have looked like

It's how the avrage Jew in Isreal would have looked in the day.

and this is where you can learn more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1251512.stm

solas

he was much better looking than that in my dream....;)
tanned, eastern mediteranian look (like the iraqi in "lost")

Manach

Given that that Palestine was/is a major migration nexus for millennia + fought over for just as long, it could be anyone of the choices above.

Mazikeen

Manach wrote:

Given that that Palestine was/is a major migration nexus for millennia + fought over for just as long, it could be anyone of the choices above.

It was a major migration nexus for millennia in the Middle East. Thus the racial influences would have been largely Semitic (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian) with some Aryian influences from Persia and Europe (Macedonia, Rome). So it would be highly unlikely that he would be black, most likely he would have been Mediteranian or Arabic in looks.

NeilJ

White

But you definetly couldn't have mistaken him for the standard white man he is often portrayed as.

Neil

solas

mr_angry

Hey, wasn't he black in Madonna's "Like A Prayer" video?

If she says it, it must be true.

THE DUDE.......

do ye believe dat dere really was such a person called jesus?

think about it like this:
2,000 years ago dere cud have been a writer like da modern day j.k.rowling who decided to invent up jesus like she invented harry potter and den eventually as da years passed people gradually forgot dat da bible was just fiction and started to believe in it.nobody knows if this has happened or not............................................................ :eek: :eek:

THE DUDE.......

do ye believe dat dere really was such a person called jesus?

think about it like this:
2,000 years ago dere cud have been a writer like da modern day j.k.rowling who decided to invent up jesus like she invented harry potter and den eventually as da years passed people gradually forgot dat da bible was just fiction and started to believe in it.gets ya thinking dosent it....................................................... :eek: :eek:

catholicireland

Tanned

do ye believe dat dere really was such a person called jesus?

Well what do you call the bible?! Do you think people just made that up!! Jesus is the son of God..


I think Jesus was white. I mean with a bit of a tan. Why would he be black? He wasnt born in Africa.

THE DUDE.......

"88.4% of Irish people are Roman Catholic"





maybe so,but how many are actually practising roman catholics??????????????

Sapien

THE DUDE....... wrote:

do ye believe dat dere really was such a person called jesus?

think about it like this:
2,000 years ago dere cud have been a writer like da modern day j.k.rowling who decided to invent up jesus like she invented harry potter and den eventually as da years passed people gradually forgot dat da bible was just fiction and started to believe in it.gets ya thinking dosent it....................................................... :eek: :eek:

While this may be true of Jesus' lesser known exploits with the Sorceror's Bedpan, the Closet of Dreams and the highly apocryphal episode concerning the Convict of Uzbekistan - all of which are described in the dubious Gospel of Terence - the more mundane details of his existence are pretty well corroborated by contemporary sources.

THE DUDE.......

true,but you have to remember dat da bible was written by humans not by "god" and we all know dat human nature isnt exactly prone to honesty

Seaneh

The fact that The Emperor of Rome became a christian less than 200 years after Christs Death kind of implys that the man lived.
After all its not hard to trace historical fact back 200 years and the Roman emperor was hardly like to be the most gullible person on the planet.

Playboy

Seaneh wrote:

The fact that The Emperor of Rome became a christian less than 200 years after Christs Death kind of implys that the man lived.
After all its not hard to trace historical fact back 200 years and the Roman emperor was hardly like to be the most gullible person on the planet.

Thats a super reason to believe in Jesus

THE DUDE.......

perhaps, but how do you know dat dis emperor actually existed?once again, we have to rely on what somebody dat lived in dat era has written.its very easy to make stuff up

Puck

How do you know anything? How do I know that you're not a figment of my imagination and I'm really just talking to myself? In the end, everything requires a little faith. I don't know anything really but I beileve things based on what I think is true.

In answer to the original question of what colour Jesus is - he's red on the inside like everyone else, other than that I don't care.

Time Magazine

Man was made in the image of God, and Jesus was the son of God.

To see what man originally looked like we should study the inhabitants of the region that is least evolved on the planet. Thus, Jesus came from Westmeath and was white.

QED.

Kevin_rc_ie

Yes I've discussed this before, those as a child. A lot of icons you see in Ireland are of a pale Jesus Christ with Blue eyes and rosey cheeks with long brown hair and a welcoming smile.

I hope I don't make too many biblical/historical mistakes but Mary was from Bethlehem wasn't she. Who did she descend from, I can't remember. To look at modern day Israeli jews, none are black, as in western/southern african black. They certainly aren't celtic/nordic/irish in apearance either. But tanned, tanned to me, means people like Spaniards or Italians.

I'm not sure what you call people from Iraq/Iran etc. in terms of their "colour".

Mazikeen

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

I'm not sure what you call people from Iraq/Iran etc. in terms of their "colour".

Jews and Arabs are termed racially Semitic. Historically Jews are just another Arabic tribe that adopted monotheism earlier than the others.

Iranians are Persian. While there may be Semitic influences to their racial makeup, they also have strong Aryan linage and are generally considered a different to Semites. Indeed, unlike Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, they speak Farsi, which is an Indo-European language.

Kevin_rc_ie

Yep that explains it very well but what "colour" are they. I think the poll is highly flawed.

They don't speak Iranian? or Persian?

Mazikeen

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

They don't speak Iranian? or Persian?

Parsi is Iranian/Persian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language

Kevin_rc_ie

Farsi Parsi, thanks for that.

rsynnott

THE DUDE....... wrote:

do ye believe dat dere really was such a person called jesus?

catholicireland wrote:

Well what do you call the bible?! Do you think people just made that up!! Jesus is the son of God..

Well, obviously some religious books aren't founded in the truth; after all, there is more than one religion.

However, I'd say it's moderately likely he existed all right; it's just debatable whether he was the son of a god or not.

Stabshauptmann

catholicireland wrote:

Well what do you call the bible?! Do you think people just made that up!!

To be brutally honest, yes. I think that the Old Testement started out as with all other religions. An attempt to rationalise what cant be understood. thats all my beliefs are too if I analyse them, an attempt to rationalise a higher power I cant begin to understand. Some would argue that there is no hiogher power, that that itself is an invention born out of my ignorance. But I digress.
So the old Testement comes up with stories like Adam and Eve, Noah etc with an underlying moral message. This moral message is an attempt to interpret the will of God but I dont believe god actually told these stories to someone, I believe some one divined them / made them up.

As for the New Testement. I believe that Jesus did exist and I can believe in his miracles. But what I dont believe is that the gospel is an accurate and complete account of his life. I know it was written after his death, by those who didnt know him and that they're accounts contradict each other. I believe that there was another version written by the aposthels that hasnt survived. I believe that Paul's vision telling him that he was to become leader of the church directly contradicts "Simon (Peter) you will be the rock upon which I found my Church" (sic).

So I belive in Jesus, but I dont belive the Bible.

Dades

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I believe that Jesus did exist and I can believe in his miracles.

So I belive in Jesus, but I dont belive the Bible.

When you say you believe in Jesus, do you just believe that he existed, or that he was the son of GOD? If you believe he performed miracles I guess you must believe he had some kind of divinity.

So what I can't understand is how you believe the the Old Testament was "made up" yet put some weight to the argument that Jesus perfomed miracles in the name of that fictional God.

Just interested.

Stabshauptmann

I dont believe God is fictional, but I belive that the Old Testament is an attempt to understand God, not the word of God.
All this being said, Im not exactly a Christian, however I do believe in a higher power which Im as happy to call God as anything else. For me the name is arbitrary.
Why do good works have to be in the name of anyboy. Again this is comming back to the message of the old Testament which says everything should be devoted to God. Cant ppl just do good for the sake of doing good.

Dades

I guess that's fair enough.
As usual different definitions of the term "God" lead to confusion.
As you were!

ps Atheists/Agnostics or Christians who want to see the back of us - click HERE

Excelsior

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

So the old Testement comes up with stories like Adam and Eve, Noah etc with an underlying moral message. This moral message is an attempt to interpret the will of God but I dont believe god actually told these stories to someone, I believe some one divined them / made them up.

No one can read the Gospels deeply without realising that Jesus believed that the Old Testament was in some real way a set of divinely inspired texts.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

As for the New Testement. I believe that Jesus did exist and I can believe in his miracles. But what I dont believe is that the gospel is an accurate and complete account of his life.

Have you any rationalisations for this belief?

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I know it was written after his death, by those who didnt know him and that they're accounts contradict each other.

You know what isn't to be known then since the Gospel of John and of John Mark were probably written by people who followed Jesus' ministry.

K R wrote:

I believe that there was another version written by the aposthels that hasnt survived.

Most biblical scholars agree and they call it Q, for the german word for "source", quelle. The reason they call it source is that it seems to be the largely shared foundation for the first 3 gospels. Should it ever be found (should it ever exist) it is likely to offer a few new insights but not to differ substantitively in any way from the canonical gospels.

K R wrote:

I believe that Paul's vision telling him that he was to become leader of the church directly contradicts "Simon (Peter) you will be the rock upon which I found my Church" (sic).

Such a Pauline vision doesn't exist.

K R wrote:

So I belive in Jesus, but I dont belive the Bible.

With all the respect in the world, I ask you what Jesus you are believing in, seeing as the NT record is by far and away the strongest historical source (almost to the extent of being the only historical source).

One of the other historical sources might be interesting for those posters who seem to consider it possible for Jesus to be a fabrication is a letter sent from prison by a Syrian names Mara Bar-Serapion to his son Serapion, encouraging him to follow wisdom and to remind him that great men are often persecuted. He cites Socrates, Pythagoras and then Christ;

Mara Bar-Serapion wrote:

What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? ... nor did the wise King die for good

Scholars agree that this letter, possessed by the British Museum, can't have been sent much later than 73AD, which makes it only 40 years after Jesus' death. This is clear non-Christian witness to the existence of Jesus and to the common belief that he was a man of great importance.

solas

took me a while to get this done, apologies for dragging the thread up would like your opinions if any.



..I may have romaticised slightly.

Beer is Life

Seaneh wrote:

The fact that The Emperor of Rome became a christian less than 200 years after Christs Death kind of implys that the man lived.
After all its not hard to trace historical fact back 200 years and the Roman emperor was hardly like to be the most gullible person on the planet.

Correct me if im wayyy off the mark here, but could it not be said that Christianity was adopted by the Romans purely as a form of mass control? Chrisianity with its 10 commandments as laws, and people would police themselves (or so it was hoped) because they believed there was a God always watching their actions? Just a thought.

Excelsior

It seems like a good idea at first but it turns out you are way of the mark since Rome had a very excellent pluralistic religious system with complex moral codes. I think a very strong case can be argued that official Rome's adoption of Christianity was a cynical move to delay the imminent collapse of the empire but it would be important to realise that that does not suggest anything about the 290 years of history the churches had already amassed.

robindch

> I think a very strong case can be argued that official Rome's
> adoption of Christianity was a cynical move to delay the
> imminent collapse of the empire

...which is, perhaps, a slice of Gibbon's view too. See the notorious or scintillating (according to taste), chapter 15 et seq, of Decline and Fall:

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap15.htm

> it would be important to realise that that does not suggest
> anything about the 290 years of history the churches had
> already amassed.

About which history Gibbon had few good words to say. Here he is in top form from the head of chap 15, bending himself backwards -- or is it forwards? -- in the service of History:

The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church. The great law of impartiality too often obliges us to reveal the imperfections of the uninspired teachers and believers of the Gospel; and, to a careless observer, their faults may seem to cast a shade on the faith which they professed. [...] The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings.

Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth. To this inquiry an obvious but unsatisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great Author. But as truth and reason seldom find so favourable a reception in the world, and as the wisdom of Providence frequently condescends to use the passions of the human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind, as instruments to execute its purpose, we may still be permitted, though with becoming submission, to ask, not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth of the Christian church? [...rest of chapter...]

Excelsior

Sounds like great history where the author is striving towards that elusive stance of the unbiased Robin. Seriously though, I got a lovely copy of the book in the Penguin issue of their Great Ideas series. You should track it down.

Secondary causes are a vital place of study. I whole-heartedly embrace organisations like Evangelical Alliance Ireland that seek to develop a thourough ecclisiological sociology in Ireland. But whatever impact they have (which is large) on the receptivity to the primary causes (the truth claims of Christianity to encapsulate them), people become Christians when they are convinced by Jesus.

But all of this and the sections of Gibbons you have quoted are, to my mind, a little irrelevant (though fascinating) because regardless of why people became Christians, when they did, their lives changed and it affected those around them. Wether you describe this as a political or social or some other kind of movement or you describe this as a religious frenzy or whatever you like, lives were valued, equality was reached for and individual people seem to have been cherised within community.

So what I'm saying is that the early church bore a remarkable resembelance to a meeting of Irish Skeptics.

robindch

> I got a lovely copy of the book in the Penguin issue of
> their Great Ideas series. You should track it down.

Ach, twice in ten days, I find Excelsior and I agreeing on a point. This will have to stop, lest I find myself sheepishly (how else?) returning to the warm bosom of the mother church!

Regardless, a short collection of worthy Gibbonalia can be found at:

http://www.his.com/~z/gibbon.html

Actually, while praising topic-relevant books, I can't let William Dalrymple's outstanding From The Holy Mountain slip past (reviews here and here). While recounting his journey from Greece's peculiar orthodox monks on Mount Athos to some equally antediluvian copts in Egypt, he tells the story of some parts of the early church, and its exotic present-day remnants up and down the Middle East. It's a thoroughly absorbing read by a sympathetic author (he's a scottish catholic).

> lives were valued, equality was reached for and
> individual people seem to have been cherised
> within community.

Not from any attribute of the early church that I'm aware of, but rather, I suspect, from the nature of the roman empire itself, as mentioned in another recent thread.

> So what I'm saying is that the early church bore
> a remarkable resembelance to a meeting of Irish Skeptics.

Hey, we're a friendly bunch of folks -- and we don't even have an impenetrable, yet inerrant, holybook to tell us how to do it!

Anyhow, to demonstrate this, do feel free to come along to the next public lecture, where Dick Taverne (an English Lord, no less, and author of the recent 'The March of Unreason - science, democracy and the new fundamentalism') will speak on some enlightening topic or other. Takes place at 8pm on Wednesday, November 16, probably in the Davenport Hotel, close to Trinity College.

Excelsior

I would love to come along and will provisionally pencil it in. Davenport Hotel, you may be aware of already, began life as a Wesleyan revival hall.