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.
Without a doubt all Egyptians were black for most of its history besides some mixed race people here and there like anywhere in Africa today due to the presence of Greeks and Europeans in northern Egypt.

However the argument that black people aren’t lighter brown which somehow means the Egyptians in lower Egypt weren’t black is a non stater. Just travel to east, central and southern Africa and on the general most people look like the paintings on the Egyptian hyroglyphs.
Especially in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, South Africa and some parts of Congo. Black people have a range of complexiOne and depends on the region. Generally dark Africans come from west Africa .

By the time of Jesus it still seemed to be the case despite the Greek and Roman invasions bringing intermarriage as the historians of the time said :

Herodotus (484– 425 BC):
“For the fact is as I soon came to realise myself, and then heard from others later, that the Colchians are obviously Egyptian. When the notion occurred to me, I asked both the Colchians and the Egyptians about it, and found that the Colchians had better recall of the Egyptians than the Egyptians did of them. Some Egyptians said that they thought the Colchians originated with Sesostris’ army, but I myself guessed their Egyptian origin not only because the Colchians are dark-skinned and curly-haired (which does not count for much by itself , because these features are common in others too) but more importantly because Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world who practise circumcision and who have always done so.”

Xenpohanes (570 – 475 BC):
”… the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny desiccated look.”

Lucian (Roman era scholar in his work Hermotimus):
“If an Ethiopian had never seen other men, such as we are, because he had never left home, were to affirm and say, in an assembly of Ethiopians, that nowhere on earth are there white or brown men or anything else besides black men, would he appeal to their reason?”

Aristotle (384–322 BC):
“Those who are too black are cowards, this applies to the Egyptians and Ethiopians”

Aeschylus (525/524 – 456/455 BC) , Greek poet, describing the Egyptian sailing away “I notice the crew with its black members bringing out the white tunics”

Lucien the navigator, Greek writer, wrote a scene between 2 Greeks and made one of his characters describing an Egyptian:

“This boy is not only black but is also sloth with too slender legs … his hair gathered back in a braid”

Diodorus (1st century BC) Sicily, who thought that the rest of Africa was populated from Egypt, reports the testimony of other Africans:

“The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their colonies which was conducted in Egypt by Osiris “

Even during the Roman occupation, that is to say 250 years just before the Arab invasion and despite the massive and uninterrupted presence of whites in Egypt for 600 years, Ammian Marcellin, a friend of the Roman Emperor Julian says ” the men of Egypt are, for the most brown and black”. At this stage, therefore, the Egyptians were much like the West Indians.
 
Last edited:
Pure curiosity. That’s all. However, at the end of the day his teachings are what matter the most.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I don’t think Jesus or Mary are going to appear like they did in “real life”. Either our glorified bodies will all be completely different or they will appear like us.
 
Sure we do. However, I think that it is a curiosity that will always end in frustration because God has made in clear in the past 2,000 years it is not something vital, necessary or even perhaps valuable to know.
 
Why does any of this matter?
It’s a mixture of “doesn’t matter” and “matter a whole lot”

Of course, for our salvation, the physical features of Christ are irrelevant. I don’t think that needs to be explained. Let’s be clear, any racist applications of this must be dismissed off-hand.

The other part does require some explanation.

It matters that Christ was an actual individual person. Whatever He looked like, He looked like THAT. One person. If we deny that He had a physical appearance, then we deny that He was a real human being.

He was not just a mythical figure.

It also matters because His resurrected & ascended body, now in heaven, is the exact same body He had on earth. Christ, in heaven, does not have thousands or millions of different bodies, but instead has one body, the same exact one He had 2,000 years ago.

Finally, salvation history is clear. Christ was born into the Jewish nation. He was a descendant of Abraham. He was a descendant & member of that same nation which is recorded in the Old Testament. We cannot say “it doesn’t matter if He was Jewish or not.” It does matter.
 
We cannot say that we had “no idea” what he looked like.
We don’t know what he looked like. That’s the truth. What truth is denied?

We can say we probably know he had olive skin, dark eyes, dark, long hair, etc. but then so do I, and I don’t think he and I look alike. That doesn’t tell us what he looked like.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I don’t think Jesus or Mary are going to appear like they did in “real life”.
If you think that through to its logical conclusion, that denies the Ascension of Christ and the Assumption of Mary.

I don’t think you would deny either.
 
40.png
FrDavid96:
We cannot say that we had “no idea” what he looked like.
We don’t know what he looked like. That’s the truth. What truth is denied?

We can say we probably know he had olive skin, dark eyes, dark, long hair, etc. but then so do I, and I don’t think he and I look alike. That doesn’t tell us what he looked like.
I said: We cannot say that we had “no idea” what he looked like.

Then you said: we probably know he had olive skin, dark eyes, dark, long hair, etc.

So what’s the difference?
 
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Honestly, I don’t think Jesus or Mary are going to appear like they did in “real life”.
If you think that through to its logical conclusion, that denies the Ascension of Christ and the Assumption of Mary.

I don’t think you would deny either.
What?

Sorry, no.

Jesus and Mary were real people. But in 2000 years they have consistently appeared with the racial makeup of those who they appear to. There is no evidence that they would all of the sudden become exactly as they lived on Earth. Perhaps it will be like the gift of tounges where everyone hears words in their own language. Perhaps it will be that we all have a glorified appearance as with us that forges race.

Who knows. But I think that twenty centuries of visions give us a better idea of what’s going to happen than some sort of guess based in no reality.
 
We can’t say that.
“And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.” – 1 Samuel 16:12-13
 
What?

Sorry, no.

Jesus and Mary were real people. But in 2000 years they have consistently appeared with the racial makeup of those who they appear to. There is no evidence that they would all of the sudden become exactly as they lived on Earth. Perhaps it will be like the gift of tounges where everyone hears words in their own language. Perhaps it will be that we all have a glorified appearance as with us that forges race.

Who knows. But I think that twenty centuries of visions give us a better idea of what’s going to happen than some sort of guess based in no reality.
Then you deny the Ascension.
 
40.png
FrDavid96:
We can’t say that.
“And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.” – 1 Samuel 16:12-13
It’s quite obvious that you’re doing nothing more than trying to be argumentative for its own sake.

You’re not making any sense.
 
You’re not making any sense.
Of course I’m making sense! I’m showing you where, in the Bible, it says King David was “ruddy.”

And I did study theology for six years, with a special emphasis on the historical Jesus.

Of course I’m not being argumentative just because our opinions differ. I asked you for a clarification, which you chose to ignore. That’s your right, I ignore some posters, however, of course I’m not being argumentative by pointing out a bible passage.

What about that biblical passage does not make sense?

https://americanzionism.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/king-david-and-the-red-headed-canard/
 
Last edited:
Isn t it that look like when you are outdoors as David was tending sheep?
Could the word " ruddy " be applied to Jesus since He was coming and going outdoors almost all the time?
I am just asking
 
Last edited:
40.png
FrDavid96:
You’re not making any sense.
Of course I’m making sense! I’m showing you where, in the Bible, it says King David was “ruddy.”
So what does that have to do with knowing exactly what Christ looked like?
And I did study theology for six years, with a special emphasis on the historical Jesus.

Of course I’m not being argumentative just because our opinions differ.

I asked you for a clarification, which you chose to ignore.
When did that happen?

If I missed it, re-post it and I’ll respond. I did not intentionally ignore time you asked for a clarification; not that I know of. Again, if you think I did, repeat it in a separate post and I’ll do my best to respond.

I posted that you’re being argumentative because you posted the same thing I dd, but in different words.
I said: We cannot say that we had “no idea” what he looked like.
Then you said: we probably know he had olive skin, dark eyes, dark, long hair, etc.
Now, if that’s not being argumentative for its own sake, what is? Fer cryin’ out loud, we said the same thing, and you want to turn it into an argument.
That’s your right, I ignore some posters, however, of course I’m not being argumentative by pointing out a bible passage.

What about that biblical passage does not make sense?
I’m not going to go off on some silly tangent about King David’s hair.
 
Father,
I don’t think the archaic mid-20th century attempts to divide humanity into neat races holds much water in the modern scientific community. With our modern knowledge of genetics, the reality is much more complex. The term “Caucasian” or “Negroid” are not scientific terms…not anymore…they’re more of social constructs than anything, and definitions will vary.
For example, the various peoples of sub-Sahara Africa have greater genetic diversity amongst themselves than do all non-African peoples (e.g Northern Europeans are more closely related to the Japanese than certain African groups are to each other)… yet we lump them all together as the “black race”. It’s a social construct, not a scientific reality.
 
I do not know his exact appearance…but when he appears to me, I hope I instantly recognize him and follow…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top