Was Jesus Christ white?
In the English language, people have been called “white” only since the 1600s. Race is a way of looking at people to excuse slavery and genocide, an idea from Western imperialism. No one back in the time of Jesus thought that way. Furthermore, Jesus’s part of the world is at the wrong end of Western imperialism. In this sense Jesus was not white at all – wrong time, wrong place.
The paradox is that most white Westerners are Christians. To square the circle they picture him as white, as something like this:
- skin: white
- hair: long, flowing, brown
- eyes: sometimes blue (as in Joseph Smith’s vision)
- robes: white
- body: tall and thin
- nose: narrow and pointed
That picture of Jesus is dangerous and wrong.
Dangerous because of the part White Jesus has played in dehumanizing people of colour, through internalized and externalized racism.
Wrong because as best we can tell he probably looked something like this:
- skin: light brown
- hair: short and black, maybe curly. St Paul condemned long hair, so it is unlikely Jesus himself wore his hair long.
- eyes: brown
- robes: not white. The New Testament points out when people are dressed in white, so it was pretty rare.
- body: short by current Western standards, as anyone knows who has visited Pompeii, destroyed some 35 years after Jesus died on the cross.
- nose: somewhat broad
That is what Jewish men from Jesus’s time and place generally looked like. One had his appearance forensically reconstructed for the BBC in 2001 (pictured above).
The key is that Judas had to betray Jesus with a kiss. That meant Jesus looked pretty much like everyone else of that time and place. A White Jesus would stick out like a sore thumb. No kiss necessary.
The same goes for a Jesus who looked like St John’s vision (Revelations 1:14-15):
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
In the earliest pictures we have of Jews, from the 200s, they were brown-skinned. They were markedly darker than most Jewish Americans, whose ancestors had lived in Europe for nearly 2,000 years before coming to America.
In short, Jesus was Awkwardly Brown. Awkward, that is, for white racists.
The U.S. Census would currently count him as white, as it does all Jews and all people from the Middle East. But the New York police and American airport security would currently racially profile him as a possible threat to white people.
Theologically, a white Jesus is a perversion. James Cone:
Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man’s depravity. God cannot be white, even though white churches have portrayed him as white.
– Abagond, 2013.
See also:
- Jesus Christ
- Megyn Kelly: Santa is white
- Was Cleopatra black?
- Jews
- terms
- The three pillars of American white supremacy – where brown people fit in
- white racist guide to writing history – honorary whites
- The most beautiful white women – definition of “white”
- racial profiling
- Pompeii
The U.S. Census would currently count him as white, as it does all Jews and all people from the Middle East. But the New York police and American airport security would currently racially profile him as a possible threat to white people.
True, If Jesus were alive today, he would be detained at an American airport and probably sent to Gitmo,
Jesus wasn’t white, nor was Saint Nicholas, they both were ‘Brown’.
LikeLike
The same goes for a Jesus who looked like St John’s vision (Revelations 1:14-15):
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
————————————————————————————————-
There’s a white woman who actually claimed on Youtube that Jesus was black – based on the above passage of St.John who describes Jesus’ hair to be of a wooly texture…..
My Christmas love to all readers!
LikeLike
As a Christian, I’ve revisited this subject often and I’ve seen this image over and over again (pale skin, narrow nose, blue eyed Jesus)…and questioned it because it simply made no sense in reality of the past but a lot of sense in reality of our present world. Viewing Jesus as a “white” man is just easier on the white psyche. I’d tell myself and I’d hear people exclaim that it doesn’t really matter what Jesus looked like, but it sort of does for a couple of reasons:
1. It’s not a accurate depiction of his physical appearance which was made very clear in the Bible and if all things are to be considered and we are to not change things in the Bible in terms of wording and essence, reasoning should stand that depictions should also reflect the words of the Bible and not what we’d merely like it to be–unless, of course, you believe Jesus to be like the tooth fairy: purely imaginative so he can look however you want him to look in your mind.
2. If you are a believer and truly have a problem with seeing Jesus as he was based on the physical descriptions in the Bible, would you love or honor him any less looking nothing like the pale skin, narrow nose, blue eyed Jesus you’ve always thought of? That just may be a problem in the hearts of many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@indigoblu
Absolutely love the way you put it.
@the topic
The thing I have found is that many take the metophoric use of white and black literally. Good must be white bad must be black and so and so on. This may be the very reason many many believe Jesus to be white. They feel that anything good must be of white or of white skin. My 6 year old recently struggled with this concept and I asked my husband, who she fashioned to be “white”, to exlain to her the idea of white and black as presented in the bible vs this false idea of white good black bad.
LikeLike
Good post Abagond.. Some people have gone the other way, for what I believe to be their own racist reasons, and depicted Jesus to look like a Jamaican guy with dreads. I was always under the impression that he was probably somewhere in the middle and said the same as you that “it wasn’t as important at the time”.
I don’t believe all of the depictions have racist origins… If you go around to other cultures around the world Jesus is usually depicted to look like them. Some of that could be racial reasons, but some could be that Jesus can take any form he wants and he is within all of us no matter the color.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChineseJesus.jpg)
LikeLike
@AJNC by the way the book of revelations is from the second coming that apparently hasn’t happened yet. I don’t think he comes back in his same exact form. I don’t think that should be the proof for the black racist who want him to look like Wesley Snipes with long dreads. Sorry to single you out personally I just have seen that argument used alone (The Revelations vision) with no historical basis as Abagond has used here.
LikeLike
@dave
You said: I don’t believe all of the depictions have racist origins… If you go around to other cultures around the world Jesus is usually depicted to look like them. Some of that could be racial reasons, but some could be that Jesus can take any form he wants and he is within all of us no matter the color.
—-In the Western world, no matter the what part, Jesus is USUALLY depicted as a white man, not Latino, not black, not other.The Bible CLEARLY STATES HIS PHYSICAL APPEARANCE and it’s not white. You’d certainly would be one of those people whose heart would be troubled as I a spoke of earlier.
LikeLike
“The Bible CLEARLY STATES HIS PHYSICAL APPEARANCE”
Where?
LikeLike
@King
Do your own homework; I’ll help you a little this time; make sure to look into historical and realistic depictions of Jesus considering the part of the world he lived in and then read Abagond blog post all over again. You’re welcome.
Revelation 1:15 ESV
His feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.
Revelation 1:13-14 ESV
And in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire,
Daniel 10:5-6 ESV
I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude.
LikeLike
If you’re not sure of what bronze looks like, please — just google it.
LikeLike
@indigoblu… I’m saying he was somewhere in the middle. Obviously you want to say he looked more like you.. if he did I have no problem with it. I also wouldn’t have a problem if he was lighter either and neither should you. He’s my lord and savior and I really don’t want to argue in that manner. He loves all of us no matter the color.
LikeLike
@ dave
Nothing I said implies I WANT him to be anything–lol, and that is actually the point; I just know that he WASN’T a white man with blue eyes living in the middle east, sticking out like a sore thumb, as he is oh so often depicted. I, unlike you, am not turning a blind eye to this reality nor am I making excuses for it. I’m going with the Biblical description and what historically makes sense; if you have issues understanding that, I can’t help you, and I don’t think anyone could.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Peanut
That is a good way to go about it.
LikeLike
smh peanut…I just read your second post, lol…a mess.
LikeLike
Both Daniel and Revelation are prophetic books, filled with symbolic imagery. Jesus is also called ‘The Lamb of God” Revelation 5:2; Revelation 5:9; Revelation 5:12—It doesn’t mean that Jesus’ physical appearance is that of a sheep.
One hint should be the description in your very own text: Daniel 10:5-6 ESV
I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist.
Beryl is a green semi-precious stone.
What color is lightning?
LikeLike
Jesus can. He can help you to let go of your anger too.
LikeLike
@King that’s pretty much what I was trying to say earlier.. you just did it more eloquent than me. Revelations is a dream or a “vision” that is about when Christ comes to save us at the end times. The book of Daniel has similar implications.
LikeLike
@Dave
If only I were angry about anything, I’m sure he could. 🙂
LikeLike
Ok then Merry Christmas to you.. and have a safe and happy new year. 🙂
LikeLike
I watched a documentary on CNN last night titled After Jesus, it was mentioned that depending on the region he was from, his skin color would be swarthy/dark with dark hair and eyes.
LikeLike
@ King
Are you even aware of what you are arguing and what my point is? I’m not arguing that Jesus was black; I’m simply arguing was not white. Rather or not you see the biblical description as imagery or not–if you look purely at this historically—people in that part of the world are simply not white.
LikeLike
…extenuating circumstances, of course, could change that. “White” tampers on relativity now, unless it’s brown enough to be called black. LOL
LikeLike
@indigoblu: Very eloquent words,
LikeLike
@ indigoblu
It’s not really a question of “whether or not Isee the biblical descriptions as imagery.” Any careful reading of the text will reveal the green beryl, the white lightning, and the fact that the gleam of bronze is being referenced rather than the color. Given these multiple colors it would be impossible for anyone to make ANY racial point whatsoever using these texts.
Race (as we see it today) was not a concept back in the biblical era, and I think it is probably wise not to use the bible as a determinant do what modern race we think a person might be or might not be associated with today.
LikeLike
However, I think anthropologically, from a what we know of the region and time in which Jesus lived, he was almost certainly of a darker, Semitic complexion with darker, somewhat curly hair. Not that his race is ultimately important, of course.
LikeLike
@King
I don’t see the text a pure imagery. Of course, at least in part, it HAS to be but it doesn’t have to be entirely, especially seeing what part of the world Jesus lived in.
Revelation 1:15 ESV
His feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.
Who is to say that this is not also in reference to his skin tone, as this particular passage is NOT referring to gleam or shine of the skin but the skin itself. Yes, I know how burnished bronze appears and it’s not white.
LikeLike
But that is exactly the point Indigoblu. There is no way that you can make the point textually, simply based on picking and choosing which texts you believe to be literal and which ones you do not. (on what basis?)
(Note: Again, BURNISHED bonze is not brown, it looks more like like a dull brass (not quite as bright)
A person could just as easily point to “his face like the appearance of lightning” and argue that he was White. It seems far wiser to just let descriptions in prophetic books alone as determinants of what phenotype someone was.
And as I say again, just because it bears repeating, it really shouldn’t be that big a deal whatever race he was.
LikeLike
Ooops, somehow missed understanding you last sentence, so forgive my beating a dead horse on burnishing.
But really, I think most people today get the fact that jesus was not White intellectually. It’s just that with centuries of art portraying him as White, it’s hard to get it visually. Most people probably still see Jesus as White, based on all the images portraying him as such.
LikeLike
@King
…but isn’t that what you just did with the scriptures I provided you? Of course.
It’s your opinion that it’s purely imagery and it’s my opinion and it’s not necessarily purely imagery especially in light of historical context;
If lightening was white–that may be something worth thinking about.
No, it doesn’t “matter” what race, that’s where we agree, but he was not a pale skin, blue eyed man with a somehow vastly different phenotype from his counterparts in the same part of the world.
LikeLike
@ King
Yes, an obvious social fact but not the obvious historical fact;
LikeLike
No, not really.
What I did was to say that all of it was within a context that would be unreliable for using to determine race. The “color coding” in the texts points to several varying colors, therefore no specific “race” can be determined or eliminated. So, the texts probably aren’t talking about race (based on the given scriptural context—not on my own selective choosing)
No, I totally agree, based on history and geography that he was not a pale skin, blue eyed man with vastly different phenotype from his counterparts in the same part of the world.
LikeLike
@ King
Lol, of course you did; you took the passages that would make your argument the strongest about imagery and left out the one that would not. It does reference several different colors (and in reference to several different things other than skin tone); agreed. Is pure imagery the only way to look at it these passages? Absolutely not. By thinking that all of it was imagery, does that make it correct, right, completely sound? No, not really. I can use the “bronze” in regard to skin tone referenced in that text to say that he was not a white man and actually be correct in how the writer intended the description outside of imagery, again also considering the historical context.
LikeLike
@ dave
Don’t assume she is angry simply because she chose to address you. You know what they say about assumptions.
LikeLike
@ king
Thank you. Symbolic is a more appropriate term to use instead of metaphoric.
LikeLike
@ indigoblu
I think I’ve gone as far as I am going to into biblical interpretation, because it gets to be “in the weeds” for most, and I think the main point of the will get swallowed up in a particular use of a few texts.
Of course, I could go deeper into the principles of eisegesis versus exegesis, but imagine how boring that would become… So I’ll choose to just leave it at that. If you wish to believe that the burnished bronze has some racial connotations, then so be it.
LikeLike
There is nothing about religious art that seems to accurately portray Jesus. I mean shouldn’t be a wild man who loves to party. Very social, had tons of friends from both the wrong and right crowd. Yet, religious art is stuck at the point that he goes and prays for another way to forgive sin, one that doesn’t take his life. I truly believe that Jesus was not his best at miracle time but when he was expressing his human side. When he was talking, partying, and socializing. I always thought the white guy hands clenched in desperation looking up at heaven was the image that Martin Luther feared. Appealing to an angry person up in heaven. The miraculous part is always missed to me, here is god but he is human. It is the human part that is impossible to understand. Miracles are not if he is God, that is divine happening in which any good theology book of any religion can show us. White Jesus then just looks flashy instead of being a humble and important show of Christ.
Instead of being with the people religious art stands him aside and makes it an impossible fantasy to be Christ like.
LikeLike
@ “No one back in the time of Jesus thought that way. ”
That’s just not true. I could name multiple ancient writers who described people by the colour of their skin. Herodotus, Siculus, and Ptolemy come to mind.
@ “Wrong because as best we can tell he probably looked something like this”
How on earth could they determine how “Jesus” looked “from a first century Jewish skull.”
What skull could possibly tell what colour skin someone has? Melanin determines skin colour, not skull dimensions, and it’s pure speculation to assume “Jesus'” skin colour was “light brown.”
Also, what’s a “Jewish skull”?
LikeLike
@Sharina *sigh* go back and read what I wrote… after that some assumptions were made about me… “No one could make me understand” … “I’m just like the people she’s referring to”…
LikeLike
@ resw77
The point being made is not that nobody ever noticed skin color in those days, but that peoples were separated by many things; geography, languages, and religions, as much or more than mere pigmentation.
People who had less pigmentation did not say, “Hey, we are all White people!” For example, the Romans thought much higher of the Brown and Black Egyptian civiliization than they did the uncivilized Northern Barbarians who were to become the modern “Europeans.” They would have been shocked to think that one day they would both be considered members of the same gigantic “race.”
LikeLike
@dave
“*sigh* go back and read what I wrote”—I saw that you wrote and this was the last thing I read in your writings “Jesus can. He can help you to let go of your anger too.”
Now are you going to then try to convince me I did not see what I did? or are you going to claim that because you said “Ok then Merry Christmas to you.. and have a safe and happy new year.” then it makes what you said all better?
In the end none of that matters as I was not talking to her, but you. You should know by now that I don’t tale kindly to “but he did it first” rebuttals. 🙂
LikeLike
Correction What* and Take
LikeLike
@ Dave
I agree that there are extremes in the depiction of Jesus but it more centers on believing him to look like them (which is completely understandable). I had someone on another thread say he could not be (racial slur) because no white person would follow (racial slur). Though the post itself was not about Jesus or what he looked like I have found the debates surround whether he was white or not to be extreme. More on to what you were saying I agree…no matter what color we see him as he loves us all.
@ KOT
“There is nothing about religious art that seems to accurately portray Jesus.”—I agree. Most art (as I am sure others have pointed out) show and depict what they want Jesus to be or believe he is. The biblical text simply does not provide adequate information in truly determining how he looks. I was also once told that the bible is not complete. Many of the passages and text have been lost and the king James verse is close to accurate, but not completely accurate. Perhaps in those missing books there is more to go by on how he looked, but I have to agree with indigoblu in that considering the time I don’t think it is correct to say he is white.
LikeLike
version*
LikeLike
@ king
Abagond’s point appears to be that people in “Jesus'” day did not have racial prejudice by saying, “Race is a way of looking at people to excuse slavery and genocide, an idea from Western imperialism. ”
Ancient Roman and Greek writers specifically assigned mental/behavioural characteristics to people based on their physical characteristics (including skin colour) which they believed were influenced by climate. So they did have racial prejudice.
Your statement that “Romans thought much higher of the Brown and Black Egyptian civilization than they did the uncivilized Northern Barbarians…” seems to be corroborative.
LikeLike
The paradox is that most white Westerners are Christians. To square the circle they picture him as white…
And they also paint him (especially those on the right) as a straight white male supremacist who loves and support the rich, also to justify their genocide, racism and hatred of all things not straight, not white, not male and the poor.
LikeLike
I went to a Christian book store and saw a portrait of jesus and he looked like a blond surfer dude.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw77
The opinions that the Romans had of the Egyptians was not based on their coloration but upon their achievement. It was a non racial assessment. They simply said, “These people have pyramids and cities and these people have rough villages. The Egyptians were more like the Romans in this way, and their civilization preceded the Romans. Therefore the Romans did not see these darker skinned people as savage, stupid, or unrefined. Achievement trumped skin color.
In this way, the ancient world differed from today’s world in which shades of pigment come with almost automatic assumptions of inferiority. People’s were just as prejudiced against one another, it just wasn’t based on the macro race theory.
LikeLike
@ Mary
Impossible! The Sea of Galilee was no good for surfing!
You must be mistaken!
LikeLike
@King: LOL!
LikeLike
@ King
“The opinions that the Romans had of the Egyptians was not based on their coloration but upon their achievement.”
Restating my argument that ancient Roman and Greek writers “assigned mental/behavioural characteristics on physical appearance (including skin colour) which they believed were influenced by climate.” Ptolemy, for example, said of the Scythians (northern Europeans):
“their constitutions, therefore, abound in cold…not exhausted by heat: hence they are fair in complexion, with straight hair, of large bodies and full
stature. They are cold in disposition, and wild in manners, owing to
the constant cold.”
Clearly if Ptolemy saw a straight-haired, “fair” complexion person, then he’d assume such person were “cold in disposition, and wild in manners.” How is that not racial prejudice?
LikeLike
I think most people that have become Christian have modeled Jesus into something that fits their views of how “people” look like. I have seen old Church frescoes in Sweden where Jesus is depicted as haveing hilariously golden hair and blue eyes. Because thats how “most people” looked to them.
Take a look instead at the beautiful ancient frescoes in Ethiopia, Bet Maryam for instance (or Lome Cathedral in Togo etc etc). You dont find any blond-pale-brad-pitt -Jesuses there xD Quite the opposite 🙂
LikeLike
To me, it makes little difference. I still have a hard time believing in him, if he is, or was, a loving person.
LikeLike
Brothawolf is closer to the point, despite the correct historical, political, and social aspects of Abagond’s blog. The white Christ is more than just another group of people’s interpretation of Jesus. The white Christ is the icon of white supremacy and the politicization of Christianity (i.e., Christendom). But at the end of the day, you can have a sound sense of the ethnicity of Jesus and completely miss the question. Do you or not believe in his unique and absolute claims? Jesus was a loving person, but he is the most expressive and detailed of all the biblical figures in warning about the judgment to come, the terrors of hell, and the perpetuity of judgment upon those who reject him as “the way, the truth, and the life.” The correct ethnicity and color of Jesus is very important; but either affirming or rejecting his claims is far more important, certainly according to his own words.
LikeLike
@ resw77
Actually, the Scythians were a grouping of Iranic equestrian tribes who inhabited the areas of the central Eurasian steppes. They dwelt more to the east of the Romans—from the Black Sea to southern Siberia (although that is also slightly to the north of Rome) They were never one specific people, but rather variety of peoples who lived in that area historically. If you doubt me, feel free to look it up. They had NOTHING to do with what we would consider to be “Northern Europe” today.
That is not so much racism as “climatism!” Ptolemy believes that the climate effects their disposition, their growth and their manner and custom. That would be like me saying that people who live near the equator are effected by the heat hand have adapted to it’s extremes in many ways. It’s not really the same thing as racism. Racism does not equal human differences, racism assigns a higher value to certain differences and to those who possess them.
LikeLike
@ Mary, we always loved the buddy Christ look. Look more at home with sunglasses and surf shorts. Yet, I have to agree with King no surfing maybe a little wake boarding. Maybe he was just having an endless summer and the message ended up being, Dude where did my tan go!
LikeLike
@Brothawolf
You brought in something very interesting. I am now curious on how people who don’t believe in him or have a limited view of him see Jesus……
LikeLike
I remember seeing a show “reconstructing”Jesus and if I am not mistaken I believe the statement was made that many of the women in Jesus’ line were Afro Asiatic.
LikeLike
Afro-Asiatic refers to a language group. Jesus is said to have spoken Aramaic, a Semitic language in the Afro-Asiatic family of languages.
LikeLike
Paul / Saul was a Romanized Jew, which might account for his distaste for long hair on men.
My on view as a non-religionist/ non-believer is that Jesus bar Joseph probably
had long hair and a forked beard as, according to my understanding, unlike the cropped haired and clean shaven Romans, the Jews of that era did not believe in cutting either the hair of the head or the beard. And, while I, like most everyone else here, am accustomed to depictions of a white-skinned, golden-browned haired Jesus, my view is that he most probably was somewhere between light olive and brown-skinned in complexion, and that his hair was curly in texture and very dark in shade.
LikeLike
*My own view*
LikeLike
Some Jews are still that dark. This lovely lady is a Yemenite Jew. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRhWzHX_fIk
LikeLike
Not that it means anything with regards to the phenotype of Jews who lived two millennia ago but when I vacationed in Jerusalem (we did not visit Tel Aviv), the majority of the people I came across were olive skinned to brown-skinned (our tour guide was a solidly brown-skinned Jewish man, darker than my own Black self, who introduced himself as “Solomom”). Very few could be classified as ‘white’ in complexion. The whitest ones I myself happened to see were milky skinned Hasidic Jews, with many of the prepubescent boys among them donning apricot or bright red forelocks.
LikeLike
Numbers 12:10 When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous –it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease.
6 Then the LORD said, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, the skin was leprous[a]—it had become as white as snow.
7 “Now put it back into your cloak,” he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh.
If He restored his hands to be in sync with the rest of his flesh, well then, it couldn’t have been originally white because He turned it to white from something other than white. Additionally, from a biblical standpoint, whiteness is associated with being diseased, a disorder or sickness. Moreover, defile means to spoil, impair, poison, taint or tarnish.
Furthermore, if God was white, (which I seriously doubt), He certainly had one hell of a tan considering the Middle East’s warm climate.
LikeLike
i don’t deal with all this stuff its sad to see black ppl with white jesus in their house smh. my parents have a white nativity outside the house right now smh.jesus was a man of color that is all i wanted to know because i knew dam well he was not pale white like they love portraying him as. That is white supremacy for u, lie and say he was white and looked like the whites of today when that isn’t 100% true. If jesus was around now they would not recognize him the same way they didn’t recognize the first time. And yes if he got on a plane they would hassle him and call him a terrorist.
also whites claim anything that is good, they have black north africans check the white box when they come here. to keep up their lie.
LikeLike
Of course that is a language class, but the people in those regions have been mixing since time immemorial.
LikeLike
@Dave
Hi Dave, Thanks for your comments.I’m a Catholic from India and I don’t have strong views on this subject. I just came across that Youtube video quite recently. I personally reckon that Jesus would have the same complexion as today’s Palestinians, but perhaps more tanned considering the traveling He undertook in those days “He walked on Earth”.
If one takes the Shroud of Turin seriously, as many of us Catholics do, then the structure of His face face does not correspond to the one published by the BBC in 2001. That structure is more in keeping with images of the Sacred Heart and that of The Divine Mercy. His complexion is another matter.
As an aside, there are Catholic people ( I was one of them some years ago!!!) even here in India who get all worked up if Jesus is depicted as a brown/darkbrown man, and sometimes in traditional Indian garb. In this respect the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) has positively encouraged this sort of depiction.
God bless!
LikeLike
WHAT??!! Kiwi, can you give a few examples?
LikeLike
@AJNC
I absolutely agree with everything you wrote. I identify as a white american though half my family is from southern Italy and I can get pretty dark myself during the summer spending time at the pool with the kids. So if you go by that I myself am not white.
LikeLike
I think quite a few Asian-Americans are Christians, esp. Korean-American and Filipino Americans and a large proportion of Taiwanese-Americans. Most Japanese-Americans are 2nd- 5th generation and most have become Christian or Atheist (ie, not other religion).
I attended some Asian-American christian churches in the past, and yes, most of them depicted Jesus as white. I noticed it also in some of the churches I visited in the Philippines and Hong Kong.
LikeLike
@ King
“That is not so much racism as “climatism!””
I clearly stated they “assigned mental/behavioural characteristics on physical appearance (including skin colour) which they believed were influenced by climate”. Not sure what your counter-argument is.
“Actually, the Scythians were a grouping of Iranic equestrian tribes”
I see you visited Wikipedia, but what proof do you have they are “Iranic equestrian tribes”? Saulius was a Scythian, and anyone from Lithuania will tell you Saulius is a popular Lithuanian name.
@ blakksageblakksage
Good points, and hopefully people will realise that that skin colour was addressed indirectly throughout the King James Version of the bible. But of course this is not an original source.
@ Chris
“Some Jews are still that dark. This lovely lady is a Yemenite Jew.”
There are also many other “dark” Jews such as the Beta Israel and Limba. Jews are not a race but followers of a religion/culture.
LikeLike
Actually I own a History Channel DVD series on the Roman Empire that has a chapter mentioning the Scythians. That is where I first checked,
Then I went to the Iran Chamber Society
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/scythians_sacae.php
And then the Ancient History Encyclopedia
http://www.ancient.eu.com/Scythians/
And then I looked at several maps
Yeah, and “Mohamed” is a popular name in Indonesia, so that must mean that it is part of Arabia. 😮
The first Saulius that I find historically was a Scythian Prince who ruled in about the sixty century B.C. near the Black Sea. Herodotus writes extensively about the Scythians, and I’m pretty certain that he never visited Lithuania. The name may been popularized in Lithuania centuries later through migration or through emulation, but it is b=quite obviously not a proof that that Scythia was located in Lithuania.
No. I’m afraid that trying to claim the Sythians as a Northern European empire is just very wishful thinking.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
Thanks! You saved me on some research time! I’m shocked.
LikeLike
hey abagond, i don’t know how else to send you stuff, so i used your most recent post, but what did you think about this?
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/italian-company-apologizes-for-controversial-12-years-a-slave-poster-1201001022/
i burst out laughing. it’s so incredibly bad that it’s comical. it’s like something you would see on saturday night live. but sometimes it feels like a reflection of real life, don’t you think?
LikeLike
wow, jesus is getting the paper bag test by black people, interesting…
LikeLike
@ King
None of that proves Scythians are “Iranic equestrian tribes,” as you claimed. I’m not claiming they are Lithuanians per se, I just said that Saulius is a popular Lithuanian name b/c Lithuania happens to be north of the Black Sea (where historians place “Scythia”) and Scythians were supposedly NOMADS. So then what makes Scythians “Iranic” and what makes me wrong for calling them “Northern Europeans”?
Back to topic, various ancient writings, other than the Ptolemy quote above, clearly show that people did indeed have racial prejudices in “Jesus'” time. Vitruvius also said:
“although southern nations have the keenest wits, and are infinitely clever in forming schemes…they succumb because all manliness of spirit is sucked out of them by the sun…men born in cold countries are indeed readier to meet the shock of arms with great courage and without timidity, but their wits are so slow…In fact, the races of Italy are the most perfectly constituted in both respects—in bodily form and in mental activity to correspond to their valour”
How is that any different from, e.g., Hegel or Montesquieu’s racist views?
LikeLike
@ resw77
“I’m not claiming they are Lithuanians per se, I just said that Saulius is a popular Lithuanian name b/c Lithuania happens to be north of the Black Sea (where historians place Scythia)”
Yes, and Alaska is north of Buenos Aires, so maybe the nomadic Gauchos are Eskimos… Do you have any idea how far North and West of the Black Sea Lithuania actually is????
Lithuania has NOTHING to do with Scythia.
Northern Europe has NOTHING to do with Scythia.
I have given you 3 or 4 credible sources already, but I could give you 15 or 20 that ALL state that the Scythians were or Iranic origin.
*Please produce your credible sources that state that they were Northern European instead*
____________________?
We are not arguing that regional prejudice did not exist in Jesus time. We are arguing that “Racism” per se, did not exist.
LikeLike
Map displaying the location of Lithuania
LikeLike
@ King
“Lithuania has NOTHING to do with Scythia.Northern Europe has NOTHING to do with Scythia”
That’s your opinion, not fact. “Scythians” were supposedly NOMADIC and located somewhere NORTH of the Black Sea, which could have included the Baltic states. Lithuania is only a few hundred miles from Ukraine, and so it’s not implausible that the nomadic Scythians wandered there too. And, yes many Baltic and Scandinavian historians claim Scythian ancestry.
But again, how are they “Iranic”?
“I have given you 3 or 4 credible sources ”
But you haven’t given proof for your claims
“We are not arguing that regional prejudice did not exist in Jesus time. ”
LOL. Did you not state, ” racism assigns a higher value to certain differences and to those who possess them” ? And how is that different from the Ptolemy or Vitruvius quotes above?
LikeLike
.King said: ” People’s were just as prejudiced against one another, it just wasn’t based on the macro race theory.”
The roman Empire was racist just as much as the Jewish temple system was racist. It was a system of hierarchy’s and privileges intent on economic domination. This is where the Western Empire got their macro race theory from. Whites at that time had no written language and were illiterate of architecture, mathematics ect. As the Roman Empire declined, the church and European nations adapted the structural institutions of Empire and applied them to their culture and this is where we are today.
LikeLike
No. It’s not my opinion it’s the opinion of The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia – Sinor, Denis (1990).
You can also find this opinion in The Encyclopædia Iranica http://www.iranicaonline.org/pages/about
What is it that you consider proof? A trip in a time machine to the Black Sea in the 6th Century? How do you know that George Washington wasn’t an android? How do you know that Julius Caesar was an Emperor and not a salad chef? We must all rely upon the research, the sources, and the opinions of those who study the sources, UNLESS there is a compelling reason not to…
So what is your compelling reason to ignore all the experts?
Your own imagination?
I could go on and on… This is not something that I surmised myself. It is the predominant and long-standing opinion of the majority of historians.
You, on the other hand have not come up with even A SINGLE SOURCE for your theories about Lithuania and Northern Europe.
Are you really so desperate to not be proven wrong that you will argue, without a single blessed source, against the cumulative consensus opinion of the entire field of world historians?
LikeLike
@ Michael Jon Barker
You have to understand what I mean when I say “racist” in this sense. The Romans and the Hebrews were both prejudice, of course. In fact, most groups tended to be tribal and xenophobic to a degree. But that is not the same thing as “racist.”
Romans allowed non-Italialn to become full Roman citizens (the Apostle Paul) Jews also allowed no Jews to become full Jewish citizens (Rahab). It was about nationality, custom, language etc. But they did not have any idea scout macro races.
These massive groups of people are all “The Black Race” and all these people are all “The White Race.” That is not how they thought.
LikeLike
@ King
Again, those aren’t proofs. Neither Denis Sinor nor the authors of the Encyclopædia Iranica know exactly where “Scythia” was, and even the ancient writers largely opined about its location. And you still haven’t proven how Scythians are “Iranic.”
But if you want to know my sources, they are Strabo and Ptolemy’s writings, which are much older than yours.
Strabo calls Scythians “nomads” and calls that a “general” name for several nomadic tribes in his Book 11 and says they live somewhere north of and between the Caspian and Black Seas in both Books 7 and 11, in a region that can best be described as region between Russia and the old Soviet States like Ukraine, Belarus, etc. I consider it northern Europe, you might call it Easter others central, who cares, this is where so-called Scythia supposedly was, not in Iran.
“You, on the other hand have not come up with even A SINGLE SOURCE for your theories about Lithuania and Northern Europe”
LOL. Again, never said Scythians were Lithuanian, btw, but Strabo also says “the whole of this country, together with about all the country outside the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes, was called Little Scythia.” The Borysthenes of course being the Dniepr River, and this is “Little Scythia” not Scythia. And if they’re Nomadic, surely they could’ve roamed over to neighbouring Lithuania
LikeLike
Sigh… It appears that your position here is intractable.
I can see that no matter what argument is offered you will not accept it.
I’ll give in one last try, but to be honest, I don’t have much hope.
LikeLike
Oh… sorry, I forgot
They are classified as “Iranic” because their spoken languages fits within the Indo-Iranic language grouping—the predecessors to languages like Farsi and Dari, but unlike like Ukrainian, Polish, or Romanian.
LikeLike
@Daniel Bryant: That is funny. I saw that and I laughed too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@King
“It’s “Near Asia” or “The Middle East” as we most often call it today. ”
No, both Ptolemy and Strabo place it in Russia/Ukraine. Is Russia/Ukraine now considered Middle East?
“Well, it says somewhere that they were ‘nomads’”
No, I provided a quote from an ancient Greek historian who lived at the same time people were still being referred to as “Scythians.” Much of the knowledge modern historians have about these Scythians comes from Strabo, Herodotus, Homer, Ptolemy, etc. btw.
“They are classified as “Iranic” because their spoken languages fits within the Indo-Iranic language grouping”
LOL. Not only is that not proof, but you have no clue what kind of language they spoke. Not a clue, nor does anyone living today. You can make all kinds of assumptions but they are just that.
Even if you did know what language they spoke, it still doesn’t make these “Iranic” people. For example, I speak English, but I’m not an Anglo.
LikeLike
Regardless of his race, the bible & the christianic religion has no place in the Africans heads nor hearts. It’s slavery by another name. Mental.
Churches like liquor stores only exist in abundance in our slave quarters bka the hood.
We create any and all as a people yet we follow the white man and his religious construct, without a leash, like a well trained animal.
No African in Africa or amerikkka talks nor writes the way the bible is written.
LikeLike
Actually we know exactly which language they spoke, and where it was that they spoke it. But it doesn’t matter if you’re not looking for the truth… but a way out.
OK, I’m done.
LikeLike
@ King
LOL. And what language is that? So is that an “Iranic” language?
Back to my original point, the writers around the time of “Jesus,” including Ptolemy and Vitruvius had racial prejudices as demonstrated by their writings about “Scythians” and other races.
LikeLike
Ooops! Sorry, I accidentally liked to the wrong coins.
This is what I meant to link to.
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/indo_scythians/spalirises/i.html
YES, this is Scythian Indo-Iranic language.
LikeLike
@ King
It’s so “Iranic” that Zeus is on the front with Greek script.
You should write a book about this “Scythian” language you were able to decipher from Greek script.
LikeLike
Indigoblu, don’t set too much confidence in that burnished bronze, the greek word translated here is only used in the Apocalypse, and its meaning is thus somewhat unclear, it implies a copper-based amalgam to which fire and or heat applied. Whether this meant it has been darkened by fire, or that it is glowing hot, white-hot, red-hot or even that it is fluid is unclear… I personally go with the color of dangerously hot metal, though I wouldn’t guess how hot.
LikeLike
Yes, you may have heard of the word “Hellenization” at some point, the Greek pantheon influence a good part of the ancient world at the time.
I have already posted several academic sources that reference the Indo-Iranian language, if you can’t figure out that the Indo-Iranian language existed, because you read Ptolemy in your spare time, then I can’t help you. One more time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages
If you have problems with Wikipedia as a source, then you just follow the little numbers in blue, they’re called “reference notes” and they will led you to actual books the that the statements are based on.
LikeLike
Looking at the statement; doesn’t seem to be based on race…..but on environment.
They seemed to believe the warmer environment was better for intelligence than colder environments and applied that to all who lived there regardless of race.
It is saying “races….” isn’t it? It would almost seem to be the opposite of racism in a way.
They aren’t saying that due to this; all their descendants would be inferior…..if their descendants grew up in their environment they would be equatable to them.
LikeLike
Fascinating commentary.
@King and Dave
You’ve made a though provoking point about the symbolic physical descriptions of Jesus vs. the literal in their contexts. I hadn’t thought about that before. It’s interesting to note that the Bible left out describing what he (Jesus) looked like.
Great post @Abagond.
LikeLike
@ King
Is Greek “Iranic”? And how did you decipher the “Scythian” language from that Greek/Macedonian coin?
@ V-4
“Looking at the statement; doesn’t seem to be based on race…..but on environment.”
Ptolemy used environment to explain the physical and behavioural differences between races:
“…their constitutions, therefore, abound in cold…not exhausted by heat: hence they are fair in complexion, with straight hair, of large bodies and full stature. They are cold in disposition, and wild in manners.”
And environment continued to be used to explain the differences between the races during the transatlantic slave trade:
Georg Hegel: “According to the concrete differences of the terrestrial globe, the general planetary life of the nature-governed mind specializes itself and breaks up into the several nature-governed minds, which, on the whole, give expression to the nature of the geographical continents and constitute the diversities of race.”
LikeLike
@ King
“If you have problems with Wikipedia as a source”
Why would I rely on Wikipedia, when it has blatantly illogical crap like this:
“The ‘Scythian languages’ are essentially UNattested, and their internal divergence is difficult to judge. They belonged to the Eastern Iranian family of languages.”
Since there were NO references in that paragraph, how on earth can anyone determine that an unattested language is Eastern Iranian? That’s what I’m trying to get you to understand.
LikeLike
@resw77 & King: You guys have this dialogue going about the Scynthians, I am wanting to learn about them now.
LikeLike
@ Mary
Yeah, they really were an interesting empire. I also like the Etruscans who preceded the Romans. Both definitely worth reading about. 🙂
@ resw77
This is from The World History Center’s website:
“The Scythians were members of a nomadic people originally OF IRANIAN STOCK WHO MIGRATED FROM CENTRAL ASIA TO SOUTHERN RUSSIA IN THE 8TH AND 7TH CENTURIES BC.”
“Not long thereafter, tribes speaking an Iranian language, which the Greeks called Scythians, conquered the Cimmerians and in turn became lords of the Ukraine. According to Herodotus, who is the principal source of information on these events, the Scyths (or at least some of them) claimed to have migrated from the Altai Mountains [Modern day Mongolia] at the eastern extreme of the Western Steppe.”
http://history-world.org/scythians.htm
This is from CAIS website – Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies:
“The first sign that steppe nomads had learned to fight well from horseback was a great raid into Asia Minor launched from the Ukraine about 690 BCE by a people whom the Greeks called Cimmerians.
Some, though perhaps not all, of the raiders were mounted. Not long thereafter, tribes speaking an Iranian language, which the Greeks called Scythians, conquered the Cimmerians and in turn became lords of the Ukraine.”
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Scythian/introduction.htm
LikeLike
@King: I read that same information that you posted on the encyclopedia Britannica site.
LikeLike
@ King
“Not long thereafter, tribes speaking an Iranian language, which the Greeks called Scythians”
Since you refuse to answer my questions, how do you or the writer of that nonsense know that the “Scythian” language is “Iranic” or “Iranian” with no evidence of a “Scythian” language?
“According to Herodotus, who is the principal source of information on these events, the Scyths (or at least some of them) claimed to have migrated from the Altai Mountains”
Since you now contend they are Mongolians, is the Mongolian language now “Iranic” and is Mongolia in the “Middle East” (b/c you earlier said these Scythians were from the Middle East)?
Also, when did Herodotus say Scythians were from Altai mountains? Here is what Herodotus said about the presence of Scythians in Asia (book IV):
“The Scythians in truth, as I have before said, had ruled over Upper Asia for eight-and-twenty years; for they had INVADED Asia in their pursuit of the Kimmerians, and they had deposed the Medes from their rule, who had rule over Asia BEFORE the Scythians CAME.”
LikeLike
@ mary burrell
You won’t find much apart from the accounts of Greek historians like Herodotus, Strabo, etc. This is where most knowledge of these so-called “Scythians” comes. Most else is complete theory and speculation.
King is just speculating about their language and quoting modern historians who are also speculating b/c in fact, there is no evidence of a “Scythian” language.
This is all an aside to the broader context about race in “Jesus'” era. Many Greek and Roman writers described Scythians with the complete opposite attributes as the Ethiopians, and themselves as a mixture of the two, with the best attributes, and therefore the most superior people.
LikeLike
@ resw77
Allow me to once again explain to you how evidence works. I am assuming that neither one of us is a linguist, specializing in antique Asian languages? So in such a case, we must appeal to the academic sources available. But, of course, not a single source, because that could be an outlier or minority opinion. We must seek out multiple, reputable sources, and base our conclusions on what they all agree upon, UNLESS there is specific and compelling reason to suspect that they are all wrong.
Now, are these sources likely to try to explain to laymen the EXACT linguistic forensic process used to formulate their assessments? No! Because without extensive training in linguistics, we couldn’t follow what they were saying anyway… we don’t have the necessary academic background. If that is what you require as “Proof” then it will only prove a very convenient way of making most specialized and complex things unprovable to you.
So no. No one is going to explain to you, step by step, exactly how the professional linguists came to determine that the Scythians spoke a language that they now categorize within the ancient Indo-Iranic language group, any more than an astrophysicist is going to explain to you every mathematical detail as to why he believes in the existence of black holes.
However, these are the sources, and I have sited these to date:
– The Iran Chamber Society
– The Ancient History Encyclopedia
– The International World History Project
– The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia
– The Encyclopædia Iranica
– Wikipedia
You, on the other hand, still have not sited ANY SOURCES. All you have been doing is reading your pocket Herodotus and placing your own untrained conclusions above those of the experts. You are not a professional historian, you are not a linguist. I am not either, but I am siting the sources, not my own untrained logic.
No… Herodotus contends that at least some of the Scythians originated from the Altai Mountains, which in present day are located within the national borders of the state of Mongolia. That is a world away from saying that they were “Mongolians.”
Did you not understand that the Middle East has been a cultural crossroads for many centuries, and that many different ethnic populations have been mingled together there? Nobody said that the Scythians were the exact same thing as the modern Iranians, they simply preceded them as residents to that geography (among others). But they were certainly not Northern Europeans
Allow me to ask you a question?
Exactly what is it in the writings of Herodotus that leads you to defy all academic sources, and declare them to be of Norther European origin? Whatever it is must be quite compelling?
LikeLike
@ King
So again, no answers to any of the basic, logical questions that arise from your bogus statements.
“No one is going to explain to you, step by step, exactly how the professional linguists came to determine that the Scythians spoke a language ”
You’re right, b/c you can’t. That’s my point. You have no way of determining what kind of language Scythians spoke b/c you have no historical evidence of the language they spoke. If you do then you could get a good book deal b/c that’d be groundbreaking.
“on the other hand, still have not sited ANY SOURCES”
I’ve actually cited and quoted Herodotus’ Book IV, Strabo’s Books 7 and 11, which constitute the majority of the sources modern historians use to obtain knowledge about the Scythians.
You, on the other hand make statements like:
“Herodotus contends that at least some of the Scythians originated from the Altai Mountains” but can’t simply tell us where he stated that.
LikeLike
I occurs to me that I could make something in my reply a bit plainer.
An origin is not a definition. For example, I could say that the Aztecs originated from Siberia, or if I go back farther, I could say that they originated from the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia, of if I reach back far enough, I can say that they originated on the African Continent. None of that means that Aztecs were Siberian or Middle Eastern, or African. An ORIGIN is just a snapshot of where an existing population has come from in the past.
That is why the Scythians were not Mongolian.
LikeLike
resw77
What you’re saying is ridiculous.
If I was to make an argument that took into account Einstein’s theory of relativity, because I couldn’t personally go through all of the mathematics of his calculations, I couldn’t make the point? It wouldn’t be enough to point to the fact that the entire physics community accepts the theory as true. I must personally explain relativity!
This is just a rather obvious dodge.
How about before I go digging out any more sources YOU come up with just one? Not your own interpretation of what you think Herodotus might be saying, but an actual source that says:
– The Scythians were Northern European
– The Scythian Language was not of Indo-Iranic origins
It’s time to stop asking for proof upon proof upon proof, and actually come up with something.
I’ll wait.
LikeLike
@ King
“An origin is not a definition. ”
OK, where did Herodotus say Scythians came from the Altai Mtns?
“Not your own interpretation of what you think Herodotus might be saying”
I actually quoted him from his Book IV above, without any interpretation, btw.
“If I was to make an argument that took into account Einstein’s theory of relativity…”
I said you’d get a good book deal if you presented some “historical evidence” not a theory about the “Scythian” language being Iranic b/c that’s speculative.
See, we have historical evidence for a Kemetic language, for example, and can make determinations about its linguistic relationships with other languages b/c we have archaeological documentation.
Since you have no archaeological documentation for a so-called “Scythian” language, what’s the basis for your theory that it’s “Iranic”?
LikeLike
^Come up with evidence for your point of view and we’ll talk,
LikeLike
@ King
You’re the one who claimed the Scythian language was “Iranic.”
l didn’t make any claim about the Scythian language b/c I know that there’s no archaeological evidence of a “Scythian” language.
LikeLike
You claimed that the Scythians were “Northern European.” Lets have some proof now.
LikeLike
@ King
No, what I said was, Ptolemy said or Strabo said or Herodotus said they lived “…in a region that can best be described as [a] region between Russia and the old Soviet States like Ukraine, Belarus, etc. I consider it northern Europe, you might call it Easter[n], others central, who cares, this is where so-called Scythia supposedly was…not in Iran.”
Herodotus (Book IV) said exactly where “Scythia” was and gave boundaries:
“These agricultural Scythians occupy the region which extends Eastwards for a distance of three days’ journey, reaching to a river which is called Panticapes, and Northwards for a distance of eleven days’ sail up the Borysthenes.”
and “After one has crossed the river Tanais the country is no longer Scythia ”
You can easily see that these rivers are the Latin names for rivers that flow through Europe, not Asia.
But I do understand why the revisionist writers you quoted want to place this “Scythia” in Asia even though the Greek writers who introduced the world to these so-called Scythians clearly placed them in Europe. The reason is the negative behaviours that the Greeks attribute to the Scythians. And you’ve fallen into the trap of these eurocentric historical revisionists.
LikeLike
Argh!!!! I just finished a reply post and then it crashed!!!!
LikeLike
@resw
“Since you now contend they are Mongolians, is the Mongolian language now “Iranic” and is Mongolia in the “Middle East” (b/c you earlier said these Scythians were from the Middle East)?”
“OK, where did Herodotus say Scythians came from the Altai Mtns?”
Christ, you have no idea what are you talkng about, right? I know that the history of the great steppe is not particularly known outside of Russia, but, seriously…
Herodotus had no idea about the existence of Altai mountains or Mongolia whatsoever. (he likely was not aware of the existence of Baltic sea, for that matter, or what is today Lithuania) At at that time Mongolia was likely inhabited by Tocharans (who, incidentally, were likely related to Scythians, as they were also Indo-European), completely different people from Mongolians.
And yes, you can claim that Pontic Steppe is northern Europe. You can also claim that the Earth is flat, it would had about as much to do with reality. Black sea steppe is eastern Europe, and was considered such in antiquity, too.
(btw, King, it was not near east, either!)
LikeLike
“It’s interesting to note that the Bible left out describing what he (Jesus) looked like.”
_ _ _
A fact which is likely due to the Commandment that admonished the Hebrews not to engage in idolatry, i.e.: “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANYTHING* that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God[….]”
[emphasis mine]
LikeLike
@ TMK
“Herodotus had no idea about the existence of Altai mountains or Mongolia whatsoever. ”
I agree, and it was King who made that claim, not I. Better to read next time.
“And yes, you can claim that Pontic Steppe is northern Europe. ”
According to Herodotus, Scythia extended “Northwards for a distance of eleven days’ sail up the Borysthenes.” Sounds like that goes beyond the Pontic Steppe well into Belarus. I consider that Northern Europe, but you can call it Eastern Europe. It really doesn’t matter what you call it b/c neither N. Europe nor E. Europe is a geopolitical region with a defined political boundary, btw.
LikeLike
Resw77, King wrote something about Scythians coming from Altai mountains, whereas you asked if where Herodotus wrote something about it. Either you are disingenous trying to ask King question without meaning (like: how did Archimedes apply General Relativity while constructing his famous machines), or you dont even know that the qeustion is very silly, which would betray your ignorance about this topic.
And geez, you consider Ukraine to be northern Europe? Sure, you can do that. Even though it actually borders Asia to the south (Anatolia just across the sea). But sure, go ahead, i bet you also consider Bornu to be south African state. Or something.
I mean, i agreed that you had some ponit in insisting that papyrus should be also called paper, as a very general (if a bit less accurate) descriptor of writing material, but i am not sure what your reasoning would be here. Ftr, Belarus is not northern Europe either. You could call Zalesye northern Europe (in fact, prior to XIX century Russia was considered northern European country, not eastern, Ottoman Empire was the east), but that much farther to the north.
And btw, we dont know that Scythians came from Irtysh valley or whatever because some horribly unreliable dude from Greece wrote about it(personally, i think the origin is a bit further west in western Asia, east of Southern Urals), but because of archeology and linguistic analysis.
LikeLike
Actually, I know that Herodotus at least described that a neighboring tribe, who also were also equestrian, wore similar clothing, but who spoke their own language, came from the Altai Mountain region. The neighboring tribe is named the Argippaei and you can find the source here in Google Books.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mqxDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA451&lpg=PA451&dq=Herodotus,+Altai+Mountains,+quotation&source=bl&ots=PoQWfUiWQp&sig=xODGKvxyEhzCSPyPKiPYWcb6XHQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KJ7AUo_SKYb1oATm8oG4Bg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Herodotus%2C%20Altai%20Mountains%2C%20quotation&f=false
[Herodotus: With a Commentary, Volume 1
By Herodotus]
So Herodotus did, in fact, have an idea about the existence of Altai Mountains, I’ll just need to dig up the common thread to them and the Scythians. Again, this was not my own claim. I brought it in because the claim appeared in several academic sources. But I will try to pinpoint it for you later.
I’ll begin reformulating that detailed post that I lost to a crash yesterday.
LikeLike
@ TMK
It’s not rocket science: he claimed Herodotus said it, I simply asked where Herodotus said it (i.e., in which book). Get it now?
“And geez, you consider Ukraine to be northern Europe? Sure, you can do that. Even though it actually borders Asia to the south (Anatolia just across the sea). ”
No it borders the Black Sea and there are “European” countries further east and further south of Ukraine.
But I specifically said Belarus and Ukraine, but again, it doesn’t matter b/c N./E/ C. Europe are not defined regions with any political boundaries. Latitudinally, Kiev and Minsk are farther north than Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna, Prague, etc., but it doesn’t matter.
“And btw, we dont know that Scythians came from Irtysh valley or whatever because some horribly unreliable dude from Greece wrote about it”
I never said they did nor did I make any claims about where they came from.
But the only reason we know anything at all about any “Scythians” is b/c Homer and Herodotus introduced them, gave them the name “Scythian,” and told us where they lived. Who knows what these people called themselves or where there original home is, but the ancient Greek historians were the ones who invented the “Scythian” name, btw.
@ King
I understand you are able to find authors who misinform you that Herodotus said something about the Altai Mtns. But if you’re so sure he said it, it should be easy for you to find out where he said it, just like it was easy for me to provide you an exact quote of his description of Scythia.
LikeLike
@Pay it forward
Yes, I agree, I do believe this to be part of the reason, but also, considering the fact that Seraphim angels are described in detail, perhaps it was also due to avoiding people groups from adopting supremacist views via descriptions of Jesus’ appearance. (Although that has not been successful thus far).
But the blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus images are quite funny, considering how unlikely that would have been, at that time, in that geographical region.
LikeLike
@ resw77
Maybe my ‘lost post’ was a bit too long anyway. So let me concentrate first on just on a portion of what I covered, and that is what I believe to be an extremely flawed methodology on your part.
Nobody uses ancient historians as a filter through which to strain modern historians, as you have been doing. It doesn’t make sense, and it supposes as if, in the field of History, we are gaining less and less knowledge and information instead of more and more.
For one thing, we have to be realistic about Herodotus’ resources. He was the ‘father of Western history,’ but he was not the head of a Western History department with a large staff. He was not an anthropologist, and he couldn’t compare and verify historical accounts through colleagues around the world. He didn’t have access to DNA testing or comparative genetics—in a word, the type of history that he could do (by modern standards) was “Limited.” What Herodotus could do was travel the ancient world and gather stories people told about themselves, their neighbors, and their enemies. Most of the things he wrote about he could not have observed first hand, and so they were subject to exaggeration, puffery, prejudice, and pure fantasy.
– For example in Book 4 Herodotus describes a war between the Greeks and the Amazons. Do you believe that there was a war between the ancient Greeks and a nation of Amazon warriors?
– In Book 3, passages 102 – 105, Herodotus talks about a “fox-sized, fur covered ants” who live in a sandy desert, containing a wealth of gold dust. The giant ants (according to Herodotus) unearthed the gold dust when digging their mounds, and the people nearby would then collect it.
Herodotus, The Histories 3.102-105
Do you believe this should be taken at face value as accurate history???
But you can also easily see that Herodotus got things wrong even is some simple descriptions he gives. For example, this is his inaccurate description of a Hippopotamus:
.
The point here is not to run down Herodotus, but rather, to recognize that the standards of proof have evolved quite a bit since his time. That is why it doesn’t make sense to take today’s history—derived from anthropology, artifacts, corroborative histories, and by other authoritative sources—and judge it’s veracity based on one ancient historian who thought that hippopotami have horse’s mane’s and tusks.
It’s not his fault for simply recording what he was told. But it is our fault if, millennia later, we refuse to to realize the inaccuracies prone to his limited methodology. When the preponderance of modern historians disagree with Herodotus,on something, it’s not “revision,” it’s “correction” of his inaccuracies.
LikeLike
I’m100 percent on the idea of a historical Jesus. But the record tells us that his parentage is unknown. Speculation ranges from an unknown local man to a soldier from another part of the empire to an unknown biological process to a purely supernatural process. Truth is, we don’t what his mother’s descent was nor what the paternal side was. Odds are, he was like the majority of the people in the place where he came from. But that’s only the odds. He could have been part Gaul, German or British. He could have been part Black African. part Persian, Indian or East Asian. Or some mixture of any or all of the above. We just don’t know. What I do know is that it is just fine and okay with me if different people to represent him in different ways.
I’ve seen the Three Wise Men represented in different ways too. Sometimes as all three Middle Eastern as we understand that concept today. Recently, I saw them represented in a mass market Nativity Scene as a tall Black African man, a tall blond Nordic white man, and a stout Middle Easterner. A few days ago, I saw an animation of “The Little Drummer Boy” The boy was represented as Middle Eastern or Mediterranean urchin and the Wise Men as two Middle Easterners and an East Asian.
Since we don’t know, no one can tell you what representation of Jesus, the Wise Men or any other Biblical figures is accurate. Unlike many Egyptian, Greek and Roman historical figures, we have no surviving contemporary representations of them. The image of the long-faced, long-haired Jesus was based on the visions of Medieval European persons.
LikeLike
@ King
“Most of the things he wrote about he could not have observed first hand, and so they were subject to exaggeration…He was not an anthropologist, and he couldn’t compare and verify historical accounts through colleagues around the world. He didn’t have access to DNA testing or comparative genetics”
I wouldn’t say “most” b/c Herodotus talked about Egyptians a lot and said he went to Egypt. He also said that he would compare whatever he was told with multiple historians/priests in different locations in Egypt, and then draw his own conclusions. The reason many modern eurocentric historians discredit him is b/c they don’t like what he says.
But that’s all irrelevant. What you still don’t seem to grasp is that Herodotus and Homer introduced the world to the whole notion of “Scythians,” and so WHETHER OR NOT they were making it up, it’s THEIR story! Who are you to say that you know more about their real or fake story!
Here is what Herodotus said about the term “Scythian”:
“the Hellenes gave them the name of Scythians.” (Book IV)
So do you get it now? Can we move onto why no one knows what colour “Jesus” was?
@ Anonymike
Great summary and key word: speculation.
LikeLike
@resw77
“Can we move onto why no one knows what colour “Jesus” was?”—-And what is your theory on why no on knows what color Jesus was?
LikeLike
Also is your theory one of non-religious or a religious man?
LikeLike
Except you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with:
– The Iran Chamber Society
– The Ancient History Encyclopedia
– The International World History Project
– The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia
– The Encyclopædia Iranica
– Wikipedia
– Herodotus: With a Commentary, Volume 1
You keep trying to make this about “my opinion” by ignoring the fact that I come with actual credible sources and you come with nothing but your own amateur opinion based solely on Herodotus’ writings.
Then, when I point out the notorious inaccuracies found in your ONLY source, you come put with the idea that Herodotus and Homer introduced the world to the whole notion of “Scythians” which is something of an overstatement.
What can be said is that of the ancient writings that have survived into the modern era Herodotus and Homer were the first to mention the Scythians.
That does not mean that it’s THEIR story. It also doesn’t mean that if Herodotus was inaccurate that is doesn’t matter. Because the Scythians were a real people, with real facts associated with them. Modern archeology, anthropology, genetics, linguistics, and comparative history, have gone further than Herodotus could have in his time, and THEY are now telling the story based on evidence, not on ancient hearsay. This is the information that you continually set aside, in favor of your own uninformed opinions on the subject.
The consensus of agreeing sources should be a reasonable basis of proof. If not, then find the sources that disagree instead of harping on Herodotus.
LikeLike
@ King
“You keep trying to make this about “my opinion” by ignoring the fact that I come with actual credible sources and you come with nothing but your own amateur opinion based solely on Herodotus’ writings.”
I directly quoted Herodotus. If you have a problem with what he said, take it up with him, not me LOL.
But how can you discredit Herodotus but then list a bunch of sources that use Herodotus as their main source? That’s just sloppy, and you’re better than that.
For example, Iran Chamber Society: “The first to describe the life style of these tribes was a Greek researcher, Herodotus, who lived in the fifth century BCE.”
And they even tell you they are speculating about things that Herodotus never said: “Although he concentrates on the tribes living in modern UKRAINE, which HE CALLS Scythians, we MAY EXTRAPOLATE his description to people in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and possibly Mongolia.”
“Extrapolate.” They are speculating about Scythians in the “Stans” countries. It’s as simple as that.
Ancient Greeks invented the notion “Scythian,” and I’m using the most detailed authority on that matter, Herodotus, b/c nobody on earth named “Scythians” left any known historical documentation about themselves, but AGAIN, if you have some evidence, show the world b/c that’d be groundbreaking.
“Modern archeology, anthropology, genetics, linguistics, and comparative history, have gone further than Herodotus ”
Then why do your own sources rely so heavily on Herodotus?
And it should be very easy for you to show us some archaeological evidence that clearly identifies a “Scythian” and show us some archaeological documentation of a “Scythian” language. I asked for this before, but you still haven’t provided it.
LikeLike
Or rather I would like to throw that question out to anyone willing to answer. what is your theory on why no on knows what color Jesus was?
I am in fact curious on why the bible did not leave much of a description.
LikeLike
I personally speculate that his description was lost in translation or perhaps even that it was lost with the books that were lost (or believed to have been lost)
LikeLike
Sharina, if i had to make a guess, i would say he was an average for the area, so there was no point in describing his skin colour, eyes, etc, not any more than stating he had two arms and two legs. Instead we got some stuff about his striking appearance (as quoted above, gleaming bronze, beryl, lightning), which apparently gives an impression of looks.
For example, 200 years ago in central Europe no one would describe a random person as white skinned, because almost everyone was, so they would describe a unknown (say, trying to describe a criminal or fugitive) by height, hair colour, or other things that set that person apart (or missing hand, as per my above mention of two arms…)
Thus i think Jesus was, when it comes to skin colour, falling into average for people inhabiting Palestine 2000 years ago.
LikeLike
@TMK
Thank you for the response. Much appreciated.
LikeLike
I recall, while waiting for the start of a college class, listening to some guy’s hallway chatter which regarded parthenogenesis as a possible explanation for virgin birth, such as Mary’s to Jesus. One fact which seemingly escaped this guy – and if parthenongenesis is in anyway even possible in the human female – is that Mary would / could only, by necessity of the process, have given birth to female offspring.
LikeLike
@Pay it Forward
Do you believe Jesus as a son of god or do you see him as just a mere man labeled with this greatness?
And if this is off topic please let me know abagond.
LikeLike
It was the Romans that bestowed him with the whole son of god theological concept.. Many claim he was just a prophet. Correct me if I’m wrong, sirs and madams huehuehua
LikeLike
Sharina,
It is my belief that Jesus was 100% human and that much of what he preached is commonsense and / or concepts taken from the precursor religious philosophies, such as Zoroastrianism, which predates Christianity by at least 600 years.
The concept of virginal / miraculous births also did not originate with Judeo-Christian religions. Many ancient pagan cultures / religions also had stories of great men having been born in one miraculous way or another. Some of those stories might have had influence on specific New Testament writers to include Jesus among these great men.
LikeLike
I forgot to mention that I believe the Roman Catholic Church actually celebrate the crucifixion of Jesus and that’s why they have the fake and crude crucifixion scenery behind the main podium..Do you think Jesus will be happy when he sees you have crosses nailed to the walls of your house? I dont think so.. ha ha ha
LikeLike
@Pay it Forward
Thank you. I am interested in finding out more about Zoroastrianism. My curiosity is highly peaked.
@anonapoc
I can’t correct you on something I am finding I know little about, so you won’t get that from me. For someone who is a believer I am really intrigued on the idea of him being simply an average man (which is making more sense).
“Do you think Jesus will be happy when he sees you have crosses nailed to the walls of your house?”—Interesting that you bring this up as I was looking at one of my usual horror movies and the individuals thought that putting a crucifix up around the house would ward off the demons. The thought that came to mind was “I don’t think Jesus is happy with you people for displaying his crucified body.”
*rambling off*
LikeLike
In biology, there are ways of creating male and female other than through the transmission of the X and Y chromosomes. I don;t think any other means exists in mammals. What might be possible is another question entirely, and one I am not qualified to speak to. But doesn’t that somewhat beg the question? The point of Jesus is that he either was or was proclaimed to be the Christ. Isn’t how he became the Christ, either in actuality or in belief, more important that how he came to be as phenotypic male human being?
LikeLike
@Sharina It’s good to know I’m not the only one that sporting crosses is kinda uum weird.. ha ha
LikeLike
@Anonymike Umm I think both are important, maybe one more than the other.. It’s similar to the case of Siddharta who became the Buddha, who according to many was a dark-skinned man with brown eyes.. But then, as it usually happens pseudo scholars transform historic figures of color into whites with blond hair and blue eyes.. not cool, not cool.
LikeLike
Well maybe not blond hair, but yeah you get the idea ha ha
LikeLike
You’re welcome, Sharina. 🙂
@ anonapoc
From what I’ve heard, the crucifix (which features the body of the crucified Christ) symbolizes Christ’s sacrifice for the salvation of those who believe in him, while use of the cross (sans Christ figure) might symbolize Christ’s triumph over death.
There is also the belief by certain Protestant denominations that, as a symbol of faith, the cross is non-idolatrous in comparison to the crucifix.
LikeLike
@ Pay It Forward Thanks for the insight. I’ve heard about the crucifix and how it symbolizes his death for our salvation. The triumph over death idea is new for me.. There is also this astrological concept were the center of the cross symbolizes Earth’s equator. The Christ symbolizes the Sun. Add those two concepts and you get the equinox..
LikeLike
Isn’t how he became the Christ, either in actuality or in belief, more important that how he came to be as phenotypic male human being?
_ _ _
Well, I have to tell you that I’ve forgotten a whole lot more than I remember, and it is a bit too late here for in depth research but, from what I do recall, there were certain prophecies that had first to be fulfilled / realized by the man who would be called “the Christ” (“the Anointed One”). Virgin birth may or may not have been one of them. I’ll do some research on it and comment tomorrow.
[ Hi, Anonymike, re-reading this last post of yours, and my apologies if there’s been a misunderstanding, but my comment concerning the overheard Jesus & parthenogenesis conversation was not meant as a challenge or direct response to your comment. I see that I should have prefaced it as being a sidenote and a memory brought to mind by reading your own comment, one that I found interesting — I think I remember reading before that Jesus’s father had been rumored at the time to be a Roman soldier or centurion. 🙂 ]
LikeLike
anonapoc writes:
“There is also this astrological concept were the center of the cross symbolizes Earth’s equator. The Christ symbolizes the Sun. Add those two concepts and you get the equinox..”
_ _ _
Wow, thank you, anonapoc! I’ll have to do some research on the above as it is news to me!
LikeLike
@ Pay It Forward, You’re welcome : ).. Another thing I want to add is the cross and sun layout is found in the astrological wheel, with the four divides symbolizing the four seasons(?). The 12 signs are present (12 months?12 houses?).. Now there’s something odd, a whole turn of this wheel is 360 degrees and there’s 365 days (awfully close?).
LikeLike
@ Pay It Forward, There’s something else that’s been gnawing at me.. I was reading earlier in this blog about the mutation that supposedly happened in Eurasia.. Some thoughts is that astrology is linked with time: the age of pisces, the age of aquarius, etc.. There are 12 houses, one for each sign.. Each house symbolizes different themes..
Now the 8th house is and I quote “The eighth house represents a point in time or space where some significant transition or mutation takes place. It therefore represents some crisis or catastrophic event or happening, where one form of something stops or dies and another takes over. This can be a form of rebirth or a devastating revelation to the native. It can be triggered by an event or it can come from within. The eighth house is known as the house of death, and it generally describes the nature of the native’s death. But it also describes important changes in the native’s life and his\her reaction to them.”
From about.astrology.com: “House of :
Pluto and Scorpio
Life Themes:
sexuality, secrets, taxes, inheritance, the occult, shadows of the psyche, emotional intensity, transformation, intuition, joint finances, death, healing”..
Just some thoughts.. no conclusions 😛
LikeLike
“There is also this astrological concept were the center of the cross symbolizes Earth’s equator. The Christ symbolizes the Sun. ”
And Dec. 25th is when the ancients celebrated the birth of the sun, and the Bible frequently compares Jesus to the sun.
And that’s not a unique concept to Christ. It is a copy of ancient Egyptian deity symbolism. No surprise, considering Christianity probably started in Egypt.
LikeLike
@anonapoc
12 seems to be very symbolic. There is talk of the 12 tribes of Israel in the bible (I know may be a little off topic). Thanks for the information on the houses of from about.astrology.com. 🙂
LikeLike
@Pay it Forward: I am interested here mostly in noting that there was an historical Jesus (the person Jesus), and that we do not anything about who he was in terms of his ancestry. Or even if he was conceived in the normal way, or was the product of an unknown biological process or even a frankly supernatural process. We know more about how he became the Christ, or at least the perceived Christ, than we know about his phyletic origins, except that he was alleged to be a descendant of King David on his mother’s side. I have another post here where I go into a little more detail, if you want to look for it
LikeLike
If white means did he look like a icelandic blonde the answer is No. He was a first century jewish man. Very likely looked something like that guy on the BBC picture.
Today he would have been killed long time ago: religious fanatic who preached holy war against overseas empire, who preached his own radical form of judaism etc. In short: middle eastern religious radical!!!
Send in the drones!
LikeLike
@Sharina Oooh yeah the 12 tribes! This is very interesting! One giant puzzle 😛
LikeLike
@resw77 I wonder if it existed before the Egyptians, the world is sooo old…
LikeLike
Jesus was a black man, there is not nor has there even been a white man alive who embodies the core values and beliefs that Jesus espoused. Jesus being “white: is a distinct impossibilty, and that “image” of Jesus Christ u have all come to know and love is Cesare Borgia.
LikeLike
If white means did he look like a icelandic blonde the answer is No. He was a first century jewish man. Very likely looked something like that guy on the BBC picture.
that is amusing since the word, “jewish” did not even come into the lexicon of spoken language ubtil some centuries later. Jesus was a nazarene a descendant of hebrews/Israelites. He was a black man his ritual sacrifice @ the hands of the wicked roman empire is pretty much indicative of the fear and hatred demonstrated towards the “original” man which is the BLACK man.
LikeLike
blakksageblakksage
Numbers 12:10 When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous –it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease.
6 Then the LORD said, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, the skin was leprous[a]—it had become as white as snow.
7 “Now put it back into your cloak,” he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh.
If He restored his hands to be in sync with the rest of his flesh, well then, it couldn’t have been originally white because He turned it to white from something other than white. Additionally, from a biblical standpoint, whiteness is associated with being diseased, a disorder or sickness. Moreover, defile means to spoil, impair, poison, taint or tarnish.
Furthermore, if God was white, (which I seriously doubt), He certainly had one hell of a tan considering the Middle East’s warm climate.
3 And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.
4 If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days:
5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin; then the priest shall shut him up seven days more:
6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.
LikeLike
There’s a white woman who actually claimed on Youtube that Jesus was black – based on the above passage of St.John who describes Jesus’ hair to be of a wooly texture…..
My Christmas love to all readers!
I mean, so? Why do we need white people’s “validation” all the damned time?
LikeLike
It is natural and very simple to some of us that Jesus’ appearance was not that of a white person, with long straight hair, straight nose and beautiful (in some people’s eyes). Abagond is right Jesus looked just like other jews at that time and probably was not very special looking either (not what we would call handsome).
This is a serious case of ‘white is right’ and ‘white by default’. The character Rue from the ‘Hunger Games’ book is depicted as black, yet she became white in the view of white people (beware not just white people saw her as black before the movie came out). Jesus may not have been black as an Egyptian or Ethiopian but I believe that he looked like a Jew in that age which is not white. To think that he looked like the first image in this post is both irrational and racist.
@ Pay it Forward
“My on view as a non-religionist/ non-believer is that Jesus bar Joseph probably
had long hair and a forked beard as, according to my understanding, unlike the cropped haired and clean shaven Romans, the Jews of that era did not believe in cutting either the hair of the head or the beard.”
Actually jews were commanded to cut and keep their hair and beard short (I can’t remember where in the old testament I read that). Paul was very Jewish, he was raised in the Jewish religion, he even took Nazarene vows at times which was the only time a man or woman was not permitted to cut their at all (they grew their hair long).
LikeLike
Truth be told, perhaps the very reason why no artist carved or painted the accurate image of Jesus when he lived on earth (at least none that we know of), is that people have a habbit of idolizing things (pictures or otherwise), something that God hates. Even without an accurate image (black, brown or white) we still make pictures of Jesus and view it as something divine or holy.
John 4:21, 23, 24. “The hour comes when you will neither worship in this mountain nor in Jerusalem, worship the father.”
” The hour comes and is now when the true worshipers will worship the father in spurit and in truth; for the father wants such to worship him. God is a Spirit; they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”
It is difficult to seperate our imaginations from spritual things but I say when it comes to spritual/religious matters faith will do.
LikeLike
Sharon,
Exactly.
To my mind it is no oversight that the Bible does not inform its readers of Jesus’s physical appearance, and that this fact is – without a doubt in my mind – due to the commandment to the Hebrews not to worship images / likenesses. Racial appearances were never a consideration, as idolatry was strictly forbidden without regard to reason or notion (and, yes, commandments, as with rules, are /were sometimes broken).
LikeLike
A cursory Google search returned contradictory info with regards to the grooming laws of religious Jewish males of Jesus’s era. Realistically though, long hair would need occasional trimming if for no other reason than to keep it from dragging the ground. I recall now having read years ago that Jesus probably wore his hair long and with “a tail” in the back, perhaps due to regional custom. Anyway, the excerpts below concern the apostle Paul (who indeed was a citizen of Rome) and possible reasaons for his observance of Jewish religion customs / rites:
“There are some great lessons that can be learned from examining a controversy, about the length of the apostle Paul’s hair. One of the arguments anti-Pauline theologians use to re-invent Paul as a Torah observant Rabbi, is based on his Nazarite vow. Paul let his hair grow at Corinth, to fulfill a vow, which some try to claim as evidence that Mosaic laws must be followed by Christians. Others claim, that Paul was never a Christian, since he continued to observe Jewish customs.”
“1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
“Take note of an important concept here. Paul distinguished himself from the Jews, by saying he was not under the law (of Moses), but said he was not free of God’s law, since he was now under the law of Christ. However, at times, he behaved like a Jew under the law (of Moses), in order to win them.”
http://indiegospel.org/forum/topics/pauls-haircut-a-lesson-in-freedoom
LikeLike
That one might observe religious custom does not constitute proof of faith or even religiosity. I myself was raised a Baptist, went to church on sundays, wore a head covering and, as previously mentioned by me in other comments, I was baptized in the River Jordan even though I was never much of a believer and have never been what anyone might call “religious”. Being the child and young person that I was, I pretty much just did what was expected of me.
[Anyway, the actual reason I return to this thread is to fulfill a promise even if a few days later than expected….]
The following passage shows that being born of a virgin indeed is among the Old Testament prophecies concerning the arrival of a Messiah:
Isaiah 7:14, KJV
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
LikeLike
Whites particularly white men do not have the level of consciousness to be a Jesus Christ. White people are not melinated and they exist within their lower selves , their history and actions throughout time demonstrate that, there is no way in hell esus was a white man. No way.
LikeLike
@Abagond, I don’t kno how people view it in Us but Western Euros have portrayed Jesus as white in the midlle ages an renaiscense not out of racism but because every people portreyed the religious figure as resemblant to them. Look at Virgin Mary of Guadelupe, looking like a native mayan, or Ethiopian Jesus and virgin Mary black, I have also seen Chinese Jesus with epicanthic fold and slanted eyes and so on and so forth. your depiction is probably accurate though, he looked more like a Mediterranean Arab or palestinian than a western european.
@deepdkchocolate . I am a “white guy” (for non whites, mixed race for western european whites) with light skin, dark hair and brown eyes. does that mean, I will not enter the kingdom of heaven because of the way I look?
By stating that white men are not as humans as everybody else, thus inferior to every other race, you prove that you do not understand what Christianity means. If whites are “a symbol of depravity” or inferior because they don’t have melanin, than why did Jesus said that he came for all people. why did Peter and Paul went to Rome and Europe, why did St. Andrew went to Britannia? Your hatred and your statement of generalizing white people as inferior, subhuman, evil are contradictory with the message of Jesus Christ, as he viewed all men, all races as equal and called in the kingdom of heavens. so what you are doing is creating this racist version of Christianity, hmm just like white american racists.
Conclusion? It proves you are as dumb and uneducated and intellectually inferior as the white racists who created their own white racist version of Christianity. Christianity is for everyone. God calls everyone! Just read the Bible and, read the Koran.
Stop spreading a message of hatred! Melanin doesn’t mean shit and it don’t make you superior, just like blonde hair and light skin don’t mean shit and don’t make no one superior and are influenced by environment and nutrition.Get a freakin education..wherever!
Sorry for the bad language Abagond.
LikeLike
Teodor Constantin B:
Okay to make your point, but aren’t you going over a little over the top? The idea that there are certain types of knowledge, and that there have to be classifications of the types of knowledge and ways of identifying who possesses them is the beginning of a theory knowledge. This idea is essential to both Plato and Aristotle, not that I think that they are quite in accord with each other as much as people are told.
The idea that all people are identical regardless of their race or descent is merely the tenet of a social ideology called democratic or liberal universalism. Putting that idea in dispute does not make one a racist. That someone does not have very well developed idea does not mean they are entirely wrong.
You’re welcome to pick on someone your own size, shape and color, if you want. Or try it anyway. Not that you’ll get very far.
LikeLike
@Anonymike
I dont ‘ understand what you are refering to with the knowledge theory. My point is that race does NOT make you superior. The idea that race makes you superior makes you be exactly like the “KKK and Nazis”.
I didn’t say that all people are identical. Of curse all people are very different! I said that whatever makes you different doesn’t make you superior. I don’t think race makes anyone superior.
rac·ism
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
The fact is people like user “deepdkchocolate” believe that whites are born subhuman, evil, unworthy of God. ” White people are not melinated and they exist within their lower selves , their history and actions throughout time demonstrate that, there is no way in hell Jesus was a white man. No way.”
Of course the fact that white people are not melinated is once stupid because there are native people in southern Europe and southeastern Europe that have darker skin and do have melanin.
How idiotic is that to say that because they don’t have melanin they re inferior. this is exactly the belief that race accounts for differences in human character. If you don’t see that this is racist you’re a hypocrite. This is exactly what the Nazis said. Because you don’t have blue eyes and blonde hair you are inferior.
Listen, all great men, holy men accepted races as equal, All with the right to follow God: Lord Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammed, Martin Luther King. the idea is you can be better than someone through your deeds not because your race makes you superior. And User’s “deepdkchcolate” theory sounds like some “Nation of Islam” indoctrination. This general demonization of whites as evil and subhuman is stupid. I can show you examples of a lot of nations of “whites” in eastern and south eastern Europe and Caucasus (Armenians, Georgian and Chechen) that didn’t colonize, didn’t genocide on no one, didn’t have no slave trade, have no history of racism but were constantly oppressed by Westerners, Arabs and Turks, and I can give you tons of examples of what white people contributed in science,medicine, arts, literature, philosophy and culture in general, just like every race had its great contributions.
People, melanin has a bodily function, that is to protect your skin from the sun, it doesn’t make you great. It’s just a function, that is all! It won’t help you achieve something. It don’t make you smarter. It won’t help you be a cultured person, a scientist, a businessman, whatever. There are lots and lots of people with abundant melanin that didn’t achieved shit just like there are lots of people with very light skin and blonde that didn’t achieve shit. Your characteristic doesn’t make you better, you make yourself better with the gifts God gave you and your mind and will.
Anonymike , I do pick on my on size, shape, color all the time, and if I want to pick on others , I will pick on others. I don’t get what your obfuscation is. I will say whatever I want and like, I am not a Westerner wimp, to be pollitically correct, I do say what I damn please, and if you don’t like it you can ask Abagond to kick me out or ban me.
However what I wrote in this comment and the above I believe is perfectly reasonable and true because I do think racist people are the scum of the earth.
LikeLike
@deepdkchocolate . I am a “white guy” (for non whites, mixed race for western european whites) with light skin, dark hair and brown eyes. does that mean, I will not enter the kingdom of heaven because of the way I look?
DDC:No, rather because of what u r.
LikeLike
By stating that white men are not as humans as everybody else, thus inferior to every other race, you prove that you do not understand what Christianity means. If whites are “a symbol of depravity” or inferior because they don’t have melanin, than why did Jesus said that he came for all people. why did Peter and Paul went to Rome and Europe, why did St. Andrew went to Britannia? Your hatred and your statement of generalizing white people as inferior, subhuman, evil are contradictory with the message of Jesus Christ, as he viewed all men, all races as equal and called in the kingdom of heavens. so what you are doing is creating this racist version of Christianity, hmm just like white american racists.
White people are not as “everybody” who visits nations and repays the kindness of simple tribal people with genocide? who uses the name of God and Jesus Christ to practice evil subjugate the masses and set themselves up as gods over other? U benefit from the white supremacist paradigm every day u walk this earth and u teach ur children to walk in that stead as well, don’t u talk down to me and don;t u ever think I exist to placate ur whims, ur a devil u come from a race of devils . u know it I know it, get over it. I am not saying people like u cannot repent or atone for ur crimes against God and man, but if u cannot acknowledge the sins or the crimes how can u repent and atone for them?
I rest my case.
LikeLike
@George Ryder
“do you see how ridiculous this sounds????”—While I do not necessarily agree with deepdkchocolate, the truth of the matter is what she said sounds no more ridiculous than the bible.
LikeLike
” I do pick on my on size, shape, color all the time, and if I want to pick on others , I will pick on others. I don’t get what your obfuscation is. I will say whatever I want and like, I am not a Westerner wimp, to be pollitically correct, I do say what I damn please, and if you don’t like it you can ask Abagond to kick me out or ban me.”—-Then why are you whining about what people in here say about you? I am sorry but I found this funny. Oh and if you care to read back Anonymike or anyone else never said you couldn’t do all those things nor has westerners been stopped from doing those things. *shrugs*
LikeLike
@deepdkchocolate
I am sorry for insulting you. However I still stand by what I said but I apologize for insulting you.
LikeLike
@Teodor Constantin B
I respect you apologizing for that.
LikeLike
@George Ryder
I know. I am a Mormon of christian faith. 🙂
LikeLike
You’re gracious, Mr Teodor Constantin B. Respect.
LikeLike
wow deepdkchocolate, really?
DDC: Yes Really.
we’re a race of devils? but we came from you, all races originally come from the black race. so that devil is in you too! sorry to break that to you.
DDC: U do not come from us, u know that I know that.That is the white man’s propoganda to keep us bound to u.
did you repent for chasing your albino brothers and sisters out of Africa?
DDC: One of the more inane comments I have read on these abysmal blogs.
we came out of your gene pool and you excommunicated us because you believed we were cursed or somethin
g right? you knew our nature wayyyy back then!
DDC” U do not come from us u r nothing like us and u know that. that is why u r busy accessing our DNA in record numbers.
do you see how ridiculous this sounds????
DDC: Yes all ur commentary is stupid, u really think black people r this dumb? lol..
LikeLike
@deepdkchocolate
I am sorry for insulting you. However I still stand by what I said but I apologize for insulting you.
Well opinions are like u know what’s, we all have one. This is a blog discussing a decidedly black point of view, the problem with many whites who choose to visit this blog is just how dismissive and downright nasty u all are when we express our views..It’s not necessary and demonstrates a toltal lack of regard and respect for black people then u turn around and call us the racists and discussing racism does not make ur “black supremacists” I mean we can’t trust u and ur race when u wallow in fear all the damned time.
LikeLike
@George Ryder
I can honestly say no. There are some things in the book of Mormon that I question and have been questioning for some time. In my mind certain things are lost in translation and I feel there is much in the book of Mormon that is left out or left up for interpretation. There are certain texts from the bible that you can find in the book of Mormon, but there is much speculation in regards to Joseph smith simply placing them in their rather than it being translated as such. Though I tend to believe there is a flaw in all religion as men are flawed.
LikeLike
@George Ryder
Agreed. That is pretty much how I feel.
LikeLike
In response to Teodo Constantin B
DDC;
Well, it is what it is, a day doesn’t go by that one of ur kind doesn’t get off completely and totally by either talking down to my kind or degrading and humiliating one of my kind. U don’t feel u have to have any respect for someone like me and u know what , that is ur problem, because just as ur ancestors tried to sell my ancestors that god and religion crap u just tried to sell me that god and religion crap but I am allegedly so weak-minded, according to u , that somehow u overtures yo guide me back into the flock by not condemning the white race “since we r all equal” totally showcases the lack of respect for me and my mind body and spirit because of the color of my skin…U can take ur little apology and cram it up ur u-know-what because it means nothing to me just as u mean nothing to me… Carrying on..lol.
LikeLike
@deepdkchocolate
It is clear you haven’t read the messages above. Please read this with attention.
I am sorry if people are degrading you or your kind, but I didn’t do that, I just responded to your offensive comments to how all white people are a bunch of devils.
Please read my comment with attention and the above.
I am NOT American white, I am NOT westerner white, neither I, nor my ancestors have NEVER ever set foot in USA or Africa for that matter.
You are insulting a whole race, worse you are condemning a skin tone for what some ethnic groups did: European to me means from Dublin and Lisbon in Portugal to Armenia and Georgia in the Caucasus and Istanbul in Turkey. You meant Anglo Saxon and Spaniards who colonized and did slave trade. Us Europeans in the east and south and Caucasus had nothing to do with that. Read some real history. Don’t take it out on a whole race of what an ethnic group, the Anglo did to your people, alright?
Don’t generalize and respond with a hate on an entire people or race, or someone you don’t know because of some idiots. It gets you at the same level as them. You have to better than that. I didn’t want to harm you with my words, and i am truly sorry if I did that. I don’t really know how it is to be in America , maybe white americans are a bunch of idiots, but I do know how it is to live in Western Europe as a Romanian or Bulgarian or Albanian and the fact that we are experiencing racism from westerners all the time and even from minorities who suck up to them. But I don’t take it out on any westerner or minority I meet. I get that people are different, and it is about a mindset that makes people bad not because race innately makes you bad.
Listen, I don’t wanna fight you, I am not your enemy I apologize for being an jerk earlier and I understand now that stupid people hurt you, I get it that people have harmed you and your kind but you have to overcome this, because once we get trapped in hatred, there’s no way out, the devil got us.
The people who insult you, are inferior to you, don’t take the hate that they give you.
I wish you peace and good things and may God protect you.
LikeLike
Its weird that this post was made, because a new movie witha blonde haired blue eyed Jesus is coming to theater soon.
LikeLike
@ anonapoc
“I wonder if it existed before the Egyptians, the world is sooo old…”
I think you’re right…even “Egyptian” dynasties can trace their traditions 10,000 yrs earlier to Sudan.
LikeLike
@deepdkchocolate:
Well, according to the jewish texts Jesus was a jew, albeit heretic. He was also direct line from king David, that is, he really could claim to be the king of Jews by his enheritance.
Jews, as we call them, where know to be a separate people by the egyptians who called them as habiru, as did the philistenes in their correspondence with their masters the pharaos. There are several stone carved letters from the philisteans to the pharaos about the habiru, that is the hebreans, which in our language is the jews.
Jesus, or Yeshu, was not a blond nordic dude nor he was a black sudanese. He was a jewish man. I understand that this might be a hard fact to swallow but that is the historical fact.
He most likely had brown eyes, brown complexion, perhaps black hair, just like most of the semitic people in his times, but he was no more black african than he was a swedish male model.
LikeLike
Jesus was Black. Period. Stop trusting a buncha’ whites to be honest about these things.
LikeLike
Lighten up the picture’s skin a bit and he looks quite similar to what modern-day Jews look like. In fact, he could convincingly play Tevye in the musical “Fiddler on the Roof.”
@Deepdkchocolate,
“that is amusing since the word, “jewish” did not even come into the lexicon of spoken language ubtil some centuries later.”
You’re wrong. The Bible itself (Isaiah 36:11; Isaiah 36:13; 2 Kings 18:26; 18:28) already uses “yehudit” when referring to Hebrew, though King James Version translates it as “Hebrew” (the language of Judeans, those who lived in or came from Judea).
LikeLike
I’ve been in a church where a picture of Jesus was white and I’ve been in a church where a picrute of Jesus was black and I was offended by neither.
It’s natural for cultures to identify with Jesus as one of their own.
LikeLike
Ironically, I found this entry when I was googling around for images of what someone from the middle east might look like (minus 2000 years of migration). Of course, obviously, these days, looks don’t tell you a thing about whether someone is Jewish or Muslim or Christian or anything; I’m still a bit shocked when someone speaks in a modern context of “looking jewish” or “looking muslim”.
I remember that years ago I saw an image of Jesus and his apostles from an African church, and of course all of them looked African. Why not? As a result I’m a bit less shocked about the middle-eastern Messiah looking quite so northern European; only when seeing that dark-blond, blue eyed version of him on the cellphones of Indian priests I work with I feel weirded out.
But the looks… as you stated, the whole sordid black / white separation came up in modern times. The image of Jesus (and his parents, and apostles) being light-skinned is much older, you can see it on all the medieval illustrations.
I’m really more put off by the sight of the inevitable freshly-laundered robes, shampoo-commercial hair and spotless bare feet found on a young out-of-work vagrant trouble-maker who spend his time wandering around a very hot and dusty country. Face and hair isn’t hard to wash, but I just can’t get over this neat, manicured, middle-class Messiah.
LikeLike
i met him. and photographed him.he had zero sun-did you think he got sun like you today.could have been olivish.i dont really get a kick out of the dna-good graves maybe robbed.sick left-my dna is unknown origin in part.if you see him take a photo its kinda easy you know
LikeLike