JESUS'S/MARY'S COLOUR/PHOTO MISCONCEPTION "What is Jesus's Skin Colour?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter purestmoney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn’t talking about his Divine state. I was talking about what He looked like in the flesh on earth.
 
I suppose it depends on whether you interpret what she said as Jesus having a skin tone of white mixed with red (aka a brown/tan complexion) or being white with rosy cheeks. The latter I find completely implausible for the same reasons I don’t think Julius Caesar looked Japanese .
 
Fr David, do you also know that one cannot be 100% sure that there was no intermarriage? i will also try to get you my source that shows they were dark skinned
 
purestmoney said:
Fr David, do you also know that one cannot be 100% sure that there was no intermarriage? i will also try to get you my source that shows they were dark skinned
Click to expand...
There is no denying that they have inter-married.

I already said that when I wrote “While it would be untrue to say that they have never inter-married”

However, marrying outside of Judaism is still on the rare side–much more so than for most world cultures.

Sources attempting to prove that they were black-skinned aren’t worth my time to read. I already know that such is nothing more than wishful propaganda. That is IF by dark skinned you mean black race (as we now use the term).

If by dark skinned, you mean darker than the typical European, then of course, yes.

When you wrote “black skinned” most people (myself included) infer that you mean the word ne [then] groid (a word I intend here in the scientific sense, but feel uncomfortable typing). I have heard such claims and they’re not worth the time of day.

First you wrote “black” then you wrote “dark.” Two different meanings there.
 
Last edited:
I honestly don’t care what colour Jesus is, I care about the message.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I honestly don’t care what colour Jesus is, I care about the message.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. It does not matter. The message is more important. So let’s be absolutely clear about that. The message and the faith are what’s important.

However, in one very limited sense it does matter. It matters that Christ was a real person. Like every other person, he did look “some” way. He did not change (except for natural maturing) or look different to different people—because that would make him not-human. There is also the spiritual importance that he was a descendant of Abraham and a member of the Jewish nation. The spiritual significance of that is essential.
 
Who cares? Really?

OP, why does it matter to you? Think of him as you wish. I doubt you will actually be disappointed if you one day find that Jesus doesn’t end up looking as you thought. Don’t stress over it.
 
Egypt is on the continent of Africa, but Egyptians are not considered black.

I think Jesus and Mary were probably dark-skinned, though, probably dark olive, with black hair and dark eyes. They were Middle Eastern, and people from the Middle East, who have not intermarried, are usually dark.

I don’t really care what color skin, eyes, or hair they had, but I would love to know what Jesus looked liked just to know him better. Someone did recreate Jesus’ looks from the Shroud of Turin, but its authenticity has not been established. I think some day, we will know if the Shroud is authentic; however, we do not have Jesus’ DNA, so authenticity would have to be established in another way. I, myself, do believe the Shroud of Turin was Jesus’ burial shroud. Here is the 3D image of what Jesus looked like at the moment of his resurrection, provided the Shroud is authentic:
 
Last edited:
I don’t know why people keep referring to Jesus as Palestinian. He wasn’t, and there was no Palestine back then as there is now where they keep fighting about the territory.
 
Jesus’ ancestor, King David, had red hair! We really have no idea what he looked like or how tall he was, etc. Personally, I think he chose to reveal himself during a time when photography had not been invented, where portrait painting was not in vogue, and left no writings despite the fact that he could read and write so that FAITH would be a necessity.

That is just my belief, of course.
 
Last edited:
fin said:
I don’t know why people keep referring to Jesus as Palestinian. He wasn’t, and there was no Palestine back then as there is now where they keep fighting about the territory.
Click to expand...
That was the name of the area.

It’s merely a geographical description.

If we’re talking about the Jewish community in Alexandria, we say “an Alexandrian Jew” to cite a different example.

The Jewish people in Palestine were called Palestinian Jews.

It has nothing to do with modern-day politics. Nothing.
 
ConstantLearner said:
Jesus’ ancestor, King David, had red hair! We really have no idea what he looked like or how tall he was, etc. Personally, I think he chose to reveal himself during a time when photography had not been invented, where portrait painting was not in vogue, and left no writings despite the fact that he could read and write so that FAITH would be a necessity.

That is just my belief, of course.
Click to expand...
We can’t say that.

We cannot say that we had “no idea” what he looked like.

That would be do deny the truth of what we actually do know.

We can say that “it doesn’t matter” but that’s different from saying we don’t know.
 
ConstantLearner said:
Egypt is on the continent of Africa, but Egyptians are not considered black.
Click to expand...
Modern Egyptians yes. They are descendants of the Arab invaders from Saudi Arabia and Syria during the Muslim conquest of North Africa of the 7th century.

Ancient Egyptians (the people who built the pyramids and are on the hydroglyphs) were undoubtably Black. They paint themselves as black, statues depict themselves as black with black features of all sorts and lastly their contemporaries (Greeks and surrounding people who interacted with them) explicitly said they were black and were often equated with the Ethiopians and Cuhsites (Sudanese). In fact much of Sudan was part of Egypt for most of its history and they shared the same culture and even some pharaohs were Sudanese for a time. There are more pyramids in Sudan than in Egypt by the way.

No Jesus was not black that’s for sure. He was middle eastern. Modern Jews tend to be more white looking as most of them intermarried with europeans when in exile in Europe before the creation of the State of Israel.
 
Last edited:
There is really no way anyone can know for sure. I think a fair guess is that it is most likey that Jesus had typical semitic features. He was likely a pale tan to dark brown with dark hair. I don’t know how genetics would have worked in His situation but I think it’s fair to assume he would have looked like his mother. So he would’ve looked like a typical Jew of his day.

And I think that it’s pretty common to depict Jesus, God, Mary, etc. As the same sort of people the artist’s community is. Coptic icons depict him as black African, Asian icons depict him as Asian, etc. I think it’s a good idea in our modern world to try and remember that Jesus wasn’t “white” but I don’t think that has anything to do with religion. A black Jesus doesn’t change his message or teaching.
 
I was always taught that the Egyptians at that time would’ve been browner, and up the Nile into Nubia were the black Nubians.

Egypt in Jesus’ time was Hellenized. It was a Greek kingdom for like… 500 years? 400?

Pyramid building Egyptians might have been black but that was 1400 years prior or something to Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top