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, too, am white and appear to be darker than the Syrian President Bashar al Assad.
 
And here I just thought Rose was writing in a language she does not know very well…
 
One of the most beautiful things I have seen is a collection of Nativity scenes from around the world. Each scene reflected both the physique and scenery of the culture, so there was a great variety. It is like each of the artists took the Baby Jesus into his own heart…

Just search for Nativity scenes from around the world and hit images.
 
Additionally, I have seen one of those facial reconstructions and the person it was supposedly of. It is not at all accurate; it is not like the ones on TV where it looks a lot like the person.

Everything “fleshy” about the person is done by averages and guessing. The shape of lips, eyes, and cheeks are all up in the air.

To me, pictures of Christ are culturally driven idealizations. Is a wise man is considered to have a certain “look,” that will be reflected in the representation. The look of a kindly mother and beautiful young girl within the society will show up in representations of Mary.

Wwhyy do people quibble about this? The fact that we can do this and are not “stuck” with one idea seems to enhance to universality of the Church.
 
Cordelil said:
ust trying to give context to the appearance and features of a Mediterranean person, Jesus Christ. I have no idea what you are trying to convey by the points you are making about Mother Africa & Noah’s Ark.
Click to expand...
Respectfully and thank you for kind reply and discussion. I know you have no idea, your not alone, I began the same way, search out History going back to our roots. Look within the Bible, which is recorded History, like the story of Noah?
Know also there was no such thing, what we call today as The Middle East in Jesus time or before, all was part of Africa. What we call Africa today was not also known by that name either, which was later changed to Africa. Learn’t also Egypt lived through 28 dynasty long before we were given birth to. Just seeking out truths and where ever that truth leads us. Peace 🙂
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FrDavid96 said:
This post is just a bunch of random words thrown together.
Click to expand...
One is correct FrDavid96, sorry for my random words thrown together, forgive me? I confess my laziness in not rereading over my post. Thank you for correcting me and bringing that to my attention. I promise I will work harder on that and take the time to reread my post. Forgive me if at times, if I miss some poor sentence structure or spelling. Thank you also FrDavid96 for doing so kindly, which I greatly admire you for!! Peace 🙂
 
Annie said:
Everything “fleshy” about the person is done by averages and guessing. The shape of lips, eyes, and cheeks are all up in the air.
Click to expand...
Respectfully asking if Jesus was short, fat and bald with big ears, with a big nose would we be discussing or be concerned with this today? Just pondering. It was his message and why he came to save>> not about his physical looks right? Peace 🙂
 
ConstantLearner said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
Now, can we also agree that he did not have green skin, scales, and 6 legs? Do you agree?
Click to expand...
Of course I agree.
Click to expand...
Great!

So let’s narrow that a little more…

Can we agree that He had a human body that looked mostly like every other typical human body of His time? Meaning, just basically, he fit somewhere in the range of average height (not 3 feet tall, not 12 feet tall), and that he had 2 arms, 2 legs, a mouth, nose, etc.etc. He walked on his legs (not all 4s).

So now that I’ve narrowed it a little more, do we still agree?
 
We need to be charitable. The poster in question could have cognitive problems, etc. Please, make allowances.
 
Annie said:
Additionally, I have seen one of those facial reconstructions and the person it was supposedly of. It is not at all accurate; it is not like the ones on TV where it looks a lot like the person.

Everything “fleshy” about the person is done by averages and guessing. The shape of lips, eyes, and cheeks are all up in the air.

To me, pictures of Christ are culturally driven idealizations. Is a wise man is considered to have a certain “look,” that will be reflected in the representation. The look of a kindly mother and beautiful young girl within the society will show up in representations of Mary.

Wwhyy do people quibble about this? The fact that we can do this and are not “stuck” with one idea seems to enhance to universality of the Church.
Click to expand...
First, how can you possibly say that it’s “not at all accurate?” You cannot say that unless you’re basing your statement on some kind of scientific research.

The people who did that were experts in genetics. They took what they know to be known physical traits of the people of his time and came up with a generic possibility. They are not trying to claim that it is an accurate picture of Christ, but instead a general idea of the features that were typical to that time and place for a 33 year old Jewish man.

To your second point: we MUST make a distinction between art (ie nativity scenes) and history. I am all in favor of depicting Christ according to ones own cultural leanings. We’ve been doing exactly that for 2,000 years now.

However, at the same time, we must understand the difference between art on the one hand and history & theology on the other hand.

Variations in art are fine. But we must keep in mind that there was only ONE actual Incarnation of Christ. He had one body. Yes, that body matured over time. It also changed the same way our own bodies change—so he needed the occasional haircut. His skin tone would get a little darker in summer and lighter in winter. As he aged, he grew taller. By 33 he probably had more than a few hair turn grey. So yes, His body changed, but it remained the one same body.

The danger inherent in trying to apply the artistic principle to the historic reality is that it can be taken too far. Just because we may depict Him in different ways does not mean that He actually did have different bodies. Unfortunately, there are some people who want to draw that conclusion.

No human being has more than one body. If we say that Christ “could have” or worse “did have” different bodies, then we deny the reality of the Incarnation. Christ is no longer a real human being. And if He was not a true human, then it’s all for nothing; so of course, we cannot believe that.
 
FrDavid96 said:
When Christ ascended into heaven, He did so in His earthly body. ONE earthly body.
Click to expand...
Respectfully if one says is true, can one ask this question?

1 Corinthian 15:50 " I declare to you brothers and sister that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor do they inherit the imperishable"
Question>>So what enters the Kingdom then?
Jesus is not a liar is he? Interesting Peace 🙂
 
I think this is the other way around. In fact, modern DNA research does categorize races as negroid, caucasian, asian, etc. This is a biological construct that has been used extensively in forensic anthropology to reconstruct appearance of victims based upon the skulls shape.
 
Thank you for the photos!!.
Respectfully color/photo misconception topic. Was it ever a concern to Jesus??>> In all of Jesus teaching, preaching etc?

When searching within his Spoken Word is the answer given?

1 Corinthians 15:50 " I Declare to you brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor do they inherit the imperishable"
Seems skin tones are of no concern to Jesus is it?

John 6: 63 " It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and Life."

So if it is written, We are told no flesh and blood enters the Kingdom, then what enters the Kingdom?

Fact reality, We all know our flesh> made of matter is buried and matter returns to the roots from which it came? So what enters the Kingdom?
Peace 🙂
 
guanophore said:
I think this is the other way around. In fact, modern DNA research does categorize races as negroid, caucasian, asian, etc. This is a biological construct that has been used extensively in forensic anthropology to reconstruct appearance of victims based upon the skulls shape.
Click to expand...
Respectfully Thank you for the photos and been thousands if not millions of years, all has evolved over time in all forms of life? And do we not have all different skull shapes, larger or small and would depend also where skulls were found in what era etc? Very interesting is it not? Peace
 
Skull shapes doesn’t equate DNA research. Genetically it’s silly to lump all africans together. As I said, there is far more genetic diversity in Africa than elsewhere.
 
Yes, and it is notable that the 1-4% Neanderthal DNA found everywhere else in the world is not found in African populations that did not migrate into Europe.

DNA cannot predict phenotype as well as it might have for ancient populations that had much less migration and interaction.
 
guanophore said:
I think this is the other way around. In fact, modern DNA research does categorize races as negroid, caucasian, asian, etc. This is a biological construct that has been used extensively in forensic anthropology to reconstruct appearance of victims based upon the skulls shape.
Click to expand...
and apart from the first scam that is white there, i tell you solemnly, the two other scull belong to African black too, even the white one still belong to other African nation
 
Ancient Jews were probably light brown, there’s no reason to think Jesus would have been any different.

Artistically, Jesus and Mary have usually been depicted like whatever group of people is the majority in a given place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top