Although I was raised Catholic I am no longer part of that religion, as I believe religion comes from ones self.

Living in the southern US(aka Bible belt) I come across many people who seem to think the people discussed in the Bible are in fact white. In fact it is prevalent in all the art showing Jesus and the 12 apostles, Mary, Moses, Noah, Adam and eve and so on as white. Anytime I refute Jesus's "white status" down here in the south I get lambasted about how I am a liberal(go figure huh). Was not Jesus born in Bethleham? Wouldn't he actually be of middle eastern dissent?

Most of you know I stand on the right of most issues dealing with economics and social policy. But when it comes to the controlling nature that is religion it disgusts me.

How do you feel? Was Jesus a white guy like all those paintings tell us?

Sleeper

You bet. He was a white guy with flowing blonde hair

You won't be able to reform the idiots with logic (especially in the south... I can say that because I'm from the south, originally)
I think Moses was actually black, but I'm not sure. You could tell 'em that, then they'll really think you're a radical liberal

My guess is Jesus looked a lot like Cat Stevens (AKA Yusef Islam) when he was young.

Cat Stevens = Greek with curly hair and beard.

Billy Graham wrote a book on what Jesus was like as a person, including appearance, and his conclusion was that he was a short swarthy typically Middle Eastern guy. What else considering where he was from and who his ancestors were?

It's typical--why pay attention to what he said if you can speculate on what he looked like? And that's unfortunate, because slave owners used the artwork to press their belief that the race of Japheth (Caucasian) was superior to the race of Ham (African).

Of course Jesus wasn't white but Semitic! The hot sun beat down on his skin just like it would on anybody else's.

But then you can look at the pictures of Jesus in South Korea and Japan. They portray an Asian-looking Jesus. And on the one hand that's good. It means that the believers in those cultures have adopted him as one of their own.

I do not take offense in seeing pictures of a black Jesus. I believe he would be flattered.

I think it is OK to adopt the man into pictures that look like us as long as we don't claim that he belongs to us exclusively.

Not only was Jesus semitic, he was a Nazarene. If I am not mistaken, the Nazarenes did not bind, cut, or comb their hair. Jesus probably had dreadlocks. Yes I!

C'mon - of course he was white. And he spoke English, voted Republican, and drove a Chevy pick-up.

Seriously, though, I think a lot of the notion of Jesus as Caucasian comes from early Church iconography - which carried right the way through most Renaissance religious art and so on up to Sunday School pamphlets today. I don't think the intention was to be revisionist as much as it was to make Jesus seem more familiar to the faithful. As Jews were frequently seen as "enemies of the faith" - and Moslems even more so - the Church could hardly be inspiring her parishioners to worship some olive-skinned brunette who looked more like the opposition than the clergy. In Christian art in many eastern countries, Jesus is often depicted with Asiatic features - and in Africa, icons of a black Christ are not unknown.

I would protest the impulse to attribute positions and opinions to a pasty-faced, blue-eyed Jesus which would be in keeping with his WASP-ish appearance (like imagining that Jesus would support any kind of military action anywhere ever - or would endorse segregation - or would hate queers) - as Woody Allen once wrote, "If Jesus came back and saw all the things that are being done in his name, he would never stop throwing up." But I think it is only natural for religion to try to "sell" its icons through more familiar or "acceptable" images. For people to believe that such depictions are historically accurate, though, is just silly. He probably looked a lot like Yassir Arafat.

Jesus was a guy who wore long hair and sandals, and preached love and peace...therefore, Jesus was the first hippie!

I can't imagine someone being so deluded as to think Jesus was white. Like someone else said I can see making him look that way as long as it doesn't manipulate their common sense. However, as a non believer I don't think there is much common sense to most of the things people believe about the Bible.

My first wife liked to sleep with a television on. There used to be an evangelist on television in the wee hours of the morning. I always referred to him as "Doc Stogey," as it seemed that he delivered all of his sermons through cigar smoke. He was very careful to tell you that if funds were sent to his "non-profit organizational name" they would receive tax-exempt status, and the money would go towards his fund to "Buy Los Angeles for Jesus." Any money sent directly to him, however, would be deposited in his bank account. He had books that he sold which outlined his personal theory that Jesus and the apostles were all white men, natives of England, and spoke English.

Every other source that I have ever seen has stated that Jesus parents were Jewish, and that it is likely that his apostles were also.

An interestng web site if you're interested in images of Jesus is: http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/223/index.html

Popular Mechanics had a great article regarding this issue last December. The folks at PM are nice enough to reprint their articles in their entirety on the internet so may you read it here The Real Face of Jesus

If anything, check out the link for the image that the forensic anthropologists and medical artist, Richard Neave, determined was the "real" face of Christ. He's much more Middle Eastern/Semetic looking than most American bible beaters would prefer

I remember checking that Popular Mechanics issue out while in line at Kroger when it came out. Unfortunately, while at least escaping the myth of a white Jesus, even their forensic folks who compiled the image relied on pictures of Jesus to make their composition. The rest was based on the remains of skulls in the region, seemingly making their depiction of Jesus that of an Israeli mutt.

As it's been stated, it's pretty obvious that neither Jesus or anybody else from the region would have been a white guy unless they were albino. And were this the case, Jesus would have done a much better impression as the burning bush than the only son of god.

The fact that remains throughout any attempts to depict Jesus is that there were never any accounts given of his appearance. Not too surprising when you consider something like 90% or more of his life is left out of his "life story." You see him briefly at birth and age 12 in the temple, and scattered tales from what scholars presume to be the last 3 years of what most assume to have been a 33 year life span.

Was just thinking something abs. Your avatar pic depicts Jesus, as a white guy!!

Ah! This is true!

I hardly notice it anymore, let alone give it much thought! Thanks to Wertz for the avatar, btw.

I dont know if Jesus drove a Chevy pickup truck but his Apostles drove an Accord:
"They were all together in one accord" (Acts 2:1). The late Dr. Walter Martain once said that there was no way Jesus had long hair. The Pharasees would not have called him Rabbi if he had long hair because it was against some written code they had.

The glorified Christ as haveing face like "the sun shining in all its brilliance" (Rev. 1:16)
I dont mind him being depicted as caucasion, asian or black. I think there is a fair amont of poetic liscense that is used. My guess is that he was olive skinned with black hair, but that is just one persons opinion.

It's true enough that, throughout Christian history, the iconography that surround images of Christ generally reflects the local people - an attempt to make Him "one of us", presumably. So, you get Northern European representations with blond hair and blue eyes (probably responsible for most of the American images, since most Americans have Northern European ancestry); Southern European ones with dark hair and brown eyes; Eastern Orthodox images with distinctly Slavic features; African images with distinctly brown or black skin and facial features; and so on.

We would no doubt see the same in Islam, if images of religious figures were not specifically forbidden. We DO see the same in Buddhism, where Japanese and Chinese images of Buddha look distinctly Oriental (slanted, hooded eyelids, etc.), which would be very odd in a Northern Indian (where Buddha lived and died).

It has always struck me as odd that the Abrahamic religions have had so much conflict over the centuries in and around the Holy Land, all fighting so that THEIR ideas should dominate, yet if you could invent a time machine and gather Moses, Jesus and Mohammed at about the same age - say, 30 - and assuming they were all real historical figures- and line them up, any modern observer would be hard pressed to tell who was which.

And they'd ALL look like Yasser Arafat (or Tony Shalhoub, or Klinger from M*A*S*H)

But the real question is.. what color was Apollo?

A little more substance to your posts would be nice.

Hmmm, easy enough. I'll take a stab at it. It is possible that Jesus was caucasion in appearance because many Hebrews (not european Jews) have light skin and blue eyes etc. However it is most likely that he was darker skin. Definitley long hair and probably a beard seeing as how all the evidence points to him having been a Rabbi of the Pharisee's sect. Probably missing some teeth? Probably. Definitley muscular or at least well defined body because he walked a lot and ate fish and good vegetables. Not to mention that he was a carpenter and back then you had to do most of the work by hand. You could even be able to tell what garb he would have likely worn if I knew what tribe he was from.

Jesus was not attractive, not effeminate nor was he a brawny man's man. He was not white. He looked like the average run of the mill middle eastern. He was a Nazarene, which means he had a split beard, like a dwarf. The Nazarene's were a Jewish sect and that was sort of their trade mark. He was a hard working carpenter, probably had rough, worn hands. He didn't wear a pure white robe with a sash accross his chest. He probably just blended in physically with every one else.

I sort of skimmed through everyone's replies and I didn't see this (though I could've missed it), but Jesus supposedly had skin like bronze and hair like sheep's wool, I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere in that damned book we like to call the Holy Bible. I'm thinking since he was a Palestinian Jew, he probably looked Palestinian.

Actually Jesus wasn't of the Nazarene sect as best as anyone can assert.
He was however from Nazareth. As best as anyone can tell he was probably raised a Pharisee.

johnlocke,

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you but according to http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0234600.html



Pharisee

1.A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form.

2.A hypocritically self-righteous person

I highly doubt Jesus was raised by the very people that turned him over to Poncious Pilot. Jesus had several debates and confrontations on the interpretation and observances of the Mosaic law with the Pharisees. Also, usually in the Bible, or ancient times in general, a persons name usually includes the town they are originally from.

Billy,
Actually all the bible says is that Jews and more specifically Judas Iscariot betrayed him. But he did have a lot of encounters with Pharisees and was best versed in Jewish Pharisee law which if you ask any Historian would make him most apt to be a historian.

By the way I love Micheal jackson and I love your screen name!

johnlocke
[QUOTE]
Actually Jesus wasn't of the Nazarene sect as best as anyone can assert.
He was however from Nazareth. As best as anyone can tell he was probably raised a Pharisee.
[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE]
I highly doubt Jesus was raised by the very people that turned him over to Poncious Pilot. Jesus had several debates and confrontations on the interpretation and observances of the Mosaic law with the Pharisees.
[QUOTE]


johnlocke
[/QUOTE]
Billy,
Actually all the bible says is that Jews and more specifically Judas Iscariot betrayed him. But he did have a lot of encounters with Pharisees and was best versed in Jewish Pharisee law which if you ask any Historian would make him most apt to be a historian.

By the way I love Micheal jackson and I love your screen name!
[QUOTE]

When Jesus was a boy, his parents took him to Jeruselem and were at the market and Jesus wondered off and his parents found him having a philosophical conversation with the Pharasisees. Since Jesus was the Son of God, how could He have been so well versed to carry on such deep debates? By being God.
Jesus was a carpenter before He started his ministry. His earthly(step) father, Joseph was a carpenter. It takes years being an apprentes to master that craft and He would have been raised by Mary and Joseph. Not the Pharisees.

There were many, many confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees. It's quite obvious of Jesus's distain with the cooruption and sourness of the Jewish clergy. Look at what Jesus did at the temple market place, He nearly caused an all out riot.

Jesus was betrayed by Judas and was brought infront of the Pharisees. The pharisees accused him of being a blasphemer but some of them were afraid that He could possibly be the Son of God and didn't want to have His blood on their hands so they turned him over the the Roman Govenor for crucifiction for claiming to be the King of the Jews and for stirring up the people (unrest). Pilot questioned Jesus and found that He wasn't guilty of anything but the Jews wanted Him dead for blaspheming, so because he didn't want to cause an uprising with the people, he let the Jews have a choice between releasing the murderer Barrabas or Jesus. The Jews, including the Pharisees, chose Barrabus.

btw, I'm happy to see another MJ fan! I don't think there are many of us at this site!

Is Jesus a white guy? I suppose he is. I don't know for sure and I don't think anyone knows for sure. But I have a question and maybe it doesn't belong here. If not Jaime of Mike will let me know. I was taught Jesus was the son of God. If that is true, Then who did Mary and Joseph give Birth to. I thought their son was Jesus. Did I miss something?

Jesus was the Son of God. Mary was a virgin and had an emaculate conception because God found found favor with her. Joseph was the "step-father" to Jesus. Joseph and Mary were betrothed to each other, but hadn't yet married. When Mary told Joseph that she was pregnant, she was afraid that Joseph would have her stoned because of fornication, but an Angel of God came to Joseph in a dream and told him that she was carrying the Son of God. Jesus, btw COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHITE. He lived in the middle east. How could he have been born in bethlehem by a Jew, lived among the Jews in israel and not have looked like them with out the Bible mentioning it. He would have been an oddity.

My understanding was that it was the birth of Mary that is known as the immaculate conception. And while I doubt that Jesus would have been white, I'm not sure it can be argued definitively either way. While he would have been growing up in the Middle East, there would also have been the heavy presence of Roman centurions and officials. It's speculation on my part, but it doesn't seem too far a stretch to imagine there were some soldiers who took Jewish women either as wives or as entertainment, possibly leading to a common enough occurance of mixed children in the community. A white -- or at least whiter -- child growing up may not have been all that unusual.

I think the argument for a white messiah could also be argued on the grounds of one Jesus de Pandera, who I believe was mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I may be wrong on the origin of his being mentioned, but as I do recall he was the product of a Jewish woman who had relations with a Roman soldier. According to the story his family fled to Egypt for a time. He supposedly returned with some kind of stolen magical script under his skin and performed miracles of sorts for the people in his original homeland. While the reasons for his execution escape me, the story I came across depicted him being hung from a tree for his accused crimes.

I bring him up because there have been some who argue that perhaps his story was later converted into the story of Jesus through the faults of oral tradition. In either case, such a story would present us with the idea that perhaps not all children or adults in the region were necessarily of the same complexion as the majority.

Actually it was Mary's pregnancy that was the "immaculate conception".

one thing is certain though... he looked jewish.

Actually, johnlocke, the "immaculate conception" referred to Mary. She was "immaculately conceived" in Anne's womb. This, in Roman Catholic tradition, made her a 'pure enough' virgin to bear the Son of God. It is the Catholic way of absolving her from the stain of 'original sin.' That's why when St. Bernadette asked the apparition of Mary her name (on advice from the parish priest) she said, "I am the Immaculate Conception," something a little peasant girl could not have made up.

At least I think it was St. Bernadette...lots of saintly little girls in Spain, France and Portugal!

But back to the question, if a white Jesus is important to some, chances are he wasn't white enough to suit them. I highly doubt that he was a blond with blue eyes ala da Vinci, and in fact one of the Old Testament prophecies says that he wasn't someone who would be distinguished from others by his looks.

Perhaps a Bible scholar out there can pull out the verse. It's probably in Isaiah.

Here it is:

Revalations 13 & 14? says Jesus had hair like wool and feet of brass. Sounds East African to me.

That's referring to the second coming, when he rides on a white horse holding a sword and conquers Satan during armageddon.

There are a lot of people here in East Tennessee who seem to think that he was also a Baptist.

You'd be surprised at how many people really think Jesus was white and spoke English. Chances are that he was quite dark and likely illiterate.

I agree, sort of. Jesus was probably dark and Moses could quite possible have been black. But I don't think Jesus was illiterate, He knew the laws too well and by being God Himself, I think He automatically could read, but He didn't brag about it to his disciples!

usually white supremacy dorks try to use Jesus for their own sick reasons and "paint" him into this perfect creature, almost effeminate. He was just an average guy, that happened to be divine!

Since I'm not all that knowledgeable on the History of Christianity, Jesus, etc. I can't offer much to this discussion. What my limited knowledge tells me is that he is not white (as we define "white"), but probably at least as dark as your average Palestinian given the geographical location...but anyone's guess is as good as mine since I certainly wasn't there

However, I looked up the "Black Madonna" in Poland (I learned about it in a college Antiquities/Classics course) and found an interesting article about Mary/Madonna paintings and the "history" behind the various "features" of Mary in these paintings. There are TONS of Black Madonna paintings/sculptures throughout Europe (I only knew of about 5 or 6).



I'm a huge MJ fan as well! He was my very first celebrity crush as a young girl, really my ONLY celebrity crush until I was in high school and in love with model Tyson Beckford (before he was "famous" he was on a cover of Essence or Ebony, forget which one, and I was in love ) - oh yeah I loved Milli Vanilli too (oh brother!)

The majority of common people in Palestine at the time were illiterate. Only those in the priesthood or in professions where reading and writing were necessary were usually taught and Jesus, being the son of a carpenter, certainly wouldn't have been. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have learned the law verbally, as most people did, he just couldn't read or write it himself.

Very true, but as a youth He sat with the Pharoses and debated with them and confounded them with his extensive knowledge of the law and Torah. Throughout His ministry He quoted from the Torah, the prophets and continued to debate the pharoses to the point that He became dangerous. Now, he either had a photographic memory, which to me would be divine in nature for him to NEVER deviate from the laws and scriptures or he was literate. I would rather say he was illiterate and divine! Thanks for reaffirming that!

If anyone wants to debate if Christ was literate or not, start a new thread. Please continue to debate whether or not he was a 'white guy' in this thread.

I don't think anyone has argued that he *WAS* white yet, have they? Not much of a debate since everyone agrees he wasn't.



That assumes that the stories in the Bible are accurate, which is questionable. More likely that the stories were simply told to demonstrate a point.

I think the best evidence that Jesus was illiterate is that he never wrote anything himself. It would be interesting to see what he really taught and believed, rather than the interpretations given by later believers, most of whom never knew Jesus.

FINAL WARNING. This thread is about whether or not Jesus was white. Stay on topic.

The thread is about whether Jesus was white or not.

BTW, it is obvious, according to all the threads concerning the Bible that you don't believe them at all and you are going to argue any point based on any evidence brought before you. The belief in the Bible as truth comes down to a matter of faith, plain and simple. In all honesty, either you believe or you don't. And if you don't, no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise, only the love of Jesus and the selfless sacrifice He gave will do that. I'm not going to argue with you anymore because that is not being a good testament for Christ.

As far as Jesus being white, he wasn't. Caucasians weren't from israel.

As people already know I sit atop a very high horse I don't mind saying that my original description is the end-all, be-all.

True, but it's also about how people tend to anthropomorphize their belief structures regardless of the reality thereof. People believe because it makes them feel better. If you look at the black Christian community, you find a lot of pictures of a black Jesus. Not swarthy, not middle-eastern, but definitely black. I've seen pictures of an *ASIAN* Jesus as well.

If it were just a question of whether Jesus was white, that can be answered in a single word: NO. The question goes beyond that however, to *WHY* some people feel the need to anthropomorphize Jesus to fit themselves. Is the *IDEA* of Jesus more important to some people than the real person?

Hey thanks for changing my topic...

Really Cephus. The debate isn't about whether or not Jesus existed, and it's certainly not a thread for you to continuously attempt to debunk the Bible. The debate on THIS thread is:



I agree with you though on one thing, it seems that every race has their own interpretation of what Jesus looked like! I don't think Jesus ever made it to Asia during his ministry...

jesus was from the middle east, he might ahve been some kind of arabic person, like the sefarad of something like that, in any case a white man