How Black Was Jesus?

Procrustes Stretched

And you say, "Oh my God, am I here all alone?"
Dec 1, 2008
58,695
6,587
1,840
Positively 4th Street
I remember reading something by an early church father, or a monk who described Jesus as very dark skinned.

By today's standards how black would Jesus be? Blacker than Obama?

seriously.


Profiling at an airport: would Jesus fit the description of a suspected terrorist?


The race of Jesus has been a subject of debate since at least the nineteenth century. The physical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth was debated by theologians from early on in the history of Christianity, though with no explicit emphasis on race.

Different societies have depicted Jesus and most other biblical figures as their own ethnicity in their art; for example he is primarily white in the West. The current dominant opinion among historians and scientists is that he was most likely a Galilean Jew and thus would have features which resemble modern-day persons of Middle Eastern or Semitic descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus


---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus
Race_of_Jesus

4th century depiction...

---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Saidnaya_Jesus.jpg

Middle Eastern icon of Jesus from Saidnaya, Syria
 
Last edited:
No I do not think Jesus was from the Congo.

He probably looked like a Mexican wedding.

The History Channel did computer forensic model from the shroud of Turin (which was almost certainly not Jesus but use the will to believe Luke) and he looked remarkably like Festus from Gunsmoke.

I wonder if Jesus called his ass Ruth?
 
No I do not think Jesus was from the Congo.

He probably looked like a Mexican wedding.

The History Channel did computer forensic model from the shroud of Turin (which was almost certainly not Jesus but use the will to believe Luke) and he looked remarkably like Festus from Gunsmoke.

I wonder if Jesus called his ass Ruth?

lol

The Shroud has a fascinating history.
 
I just read an article where it is asserted Hilter spent a lot of time trying to steal it.

I would have thought his time would be better spent trying to figure out how to win the battle of Stalingrad.

Or how to paint.
 
Last edited:
Is the Shroud of Turin true or fraud?

There is no record of the shroud during the first centuries of the Christian era, it is first mentioned in the 14th century, having been found in the Diocese of Troyes. Originally, the shroud was believed a forgery, even by the Church. The pope set up an inquiry to formally examine it and from their findings it was soon believed authentic.

WikiAnswers - Is the Shroud of Turin true or fraud

Some tests, conducted by three prestigious laboratories in Switzerland, England, and the United States, found the shroud to contain spores and evidence pointing to the medieval era, a period long after the death of Christ. However, spores and evidence of Palestine were also found on the shroud (plant life, coins dating to the era were placed on the body's eyes and reproduced on the shroud) indicating the shroud was much older and had been in Palestine. The medieval evidence is circumstantial to the shroud being exposed to the contaminations of where it has been.

When I was thinking of becoming a monk, I was fascinated by John Chrysostom (c. 347–407, Greek: Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος), Archbishop of Constantinople

I was influenced by the Orthodox church teachings.
 
What about the Book of Mormon? Did Joe Smith ever speak about the color of Jesus' skin?

I wonder because for ages the Mormon Church would have prevented Jesus from entering their Temples.


Brigham Young University professors like Dr. John Sorenson and Dr. Hugh Nibley never accepted the "Lehi Tree of Life Stone" theory. Dr. Sorenson even said, "Most LDS literature on Archeology and the B. of M. range from factually and logically unreliable to truly kooky" (Dialogue, Summer 1969, p. 81).

LDS frequently refer to stories of Quetzalcoatl or some "new archaeological discovery" which "proves the B. of M. is true." Thus far, every "proof" has turned out to be a forgery or a biased interpretation of some ancient material. There has never yet been one B. of M. name, event, place, or anything else verified through archaeological discoveries! Often LDS claim that the reason nothing in the B. of M. has been verified by archaeologists is because it has not been around as long as the Bible. But, archaeology is a relatively new science. The Archaeological Institute of America was only incorporated in 1906, long after the B. of M. was published. Thus, there has been just as much opportunity to find archaeological and historical evidence to support the B. of M. as there has the Bible. Numerous Biblical sites have been located by using the Bible as a guide - but no B.of M. site has ever been found by using the B. of M. as a guide! If God is the Author of both, why is that true?
 
What about the Book of Mormon? Did Joe Smith ever speak about the color of Jesus' skin?

I wonder because for ages the Mormon Church would have prevented Jesus from entering their Temples.

Hell, Jesus turned water into wine.

That alone would have fucked him with the Mormons.
 
I don’t know, a lot of alcoholics end up on crosses.

And I know there were a lot of times when I too thought a piece of toast was my body, a glass of wine my blood.

He who is without life cast the first boring pebble.
 
I remember reading something by an early church father, or a monk who described Jesus as very dark skinned.

By today's standards how black would Jesus be? Blacker than Obama?

seriously.


Profiling at an airport: would Jesus fit the description of a suspected terrorist?


The race of Jesus has been a subject of debate since at least the nineteenth century. The physical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth was debated by theologians from early on in the history of Christianity, though with no explicit emphasis on race.

Different societies have depicted Jesus and most other biblical figures as their own ethnicity in their art; for example he is primarily white in the West. The current dominant opinion among historians and scientists is that he was most likely a Galilean Jew and thus would have features which resemble modern-day persons of Middle Eastern or Semitic descent.

Race of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


---
Race of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Race_of_Jesus

4th century depiction...

---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Saidnaya_Jesus.jpg

Middle Eastern icon of Jesus from Saidnaya, Syria

What's with Dems and their obsession with color, and people's "degree of blackness"?
 
I remember reading something by an early church father, or a monk who described Jesus as very dark skinned.

By today's standards how black would Jesus be? Blacker than Obama?

seriously.


Profiling at an airport: would Jesus fit the description of a suspected terrorist?


The race of Jesus has been a subject of debate since at least the nineteenth century. The physical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth was debated by theologians from early on in the history of Christianity, though with no explicit emphasis on race.

Different societies have depicted Jesus and most other biblical figures as their own ethnicity in their art; for example he is primarily white in the West. The current dominant opinion among historians and scientists is that he was most likely a Galilean Jew and thus would have features which resemble modern-day persons of Middle Eastern or Semitic descent.

Race of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


---
Race of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Race_of_Jesus

4th century depiction...

---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Saidnaya_Jesus.jpg

Middle Eastern icon of Jesus from Saidnaya, Syria

What's with Dems and their obsession with color, and people's "degree of blackness"?

Can't wear anything darker than khaki to a tea party.
 

Forum List

Back
Top