Jesus' Skin Colour

[Unfortunately]

Hey all,

Recently I came across a heated debate about the supposed colour of Jesus' skin and was appalled by the amount of people screaming bloody murder that Jesus was either completely black or completely white. I understand that Jesus' skin colour should (according to Christian practices of love and acceptance) be entirely irrelevant to those of his faith but as I'm not religious myself I'm curious about why people are so avidly trying to support unfounded claims?

Cite me a source if I'm wrong, but I've done some research and nowhere in the Bible does it describe Jesus' appearance. Therefore it's safe to assume he was unremarkable in appearance and shared features similar to everyone else in that time-period. If he had been a white Jew then it would have been remarked upon in the scripture (at least once, but most likely more), that's a given, as he would be the one white Jew in a sea of tanned-to-dark skinned Jews. This would not be glossed over. Same goes if he were black, although this would still be more likely than him being white due to the climate. The middle-eastern people of that time period were tanned-to-dark skinned and had dark features as would Jesus if he existed.

This is not a debate about whether or not Jesus existed. This is saying that if, hypothetically, Jesus were to exist what would his skin colour have been?

Logic dictates he had the tanned skin common to that region and time-period. The reasoning behind the white/black versions of Jesus is quite simple really, it's an effort to make the figurehead more readily relatable to it's followers as people will always find a greater sense of solace in familiarity.

Is there anyone out there that believes otherwise and can provide proper reasoning as to why?

"Because God made him" is not a valid argument and is only used by those who fear the unknown or have no wish to satiate their curiosity. Any other arguments are absolutely welcome.

Edit: Let's be sure to not let this fall into race-against-race territory people. Be civil and mature.
 

Cheers,

-Unfortunate-

Edited August 23, 2018 by Unfortunately
Bolded important info.

[XenoFish]

So we're debating where a fictional character falls on the crayola spectrum? 

[Unfortunately]

Just now, XenoFish said:

So we're debating where a fictional character falls on the crayola spectrum? 

Come on Xeno, first post and already you're being rude to anyone who actually does believe in him, but I understand your standpoint.

" This is not a debate about whether or not Jesus existed. This is saying that if, hypothetically, Jesus were to exist what would his skin colour have been? "

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Unfortunately said:

Come on Xeno, first post and already you're being rude to anyone who actually does believe in him, but I understand your standpoint.

" This is not a debate about whether or not Jesus existed. This is saying that if, hypothetically, Jesus were to exist what would his skin colour have been? "

Here's the thing. Skin color shouldn't matter much. I'd figure the message he supposedly taught would be more important. 

[acute]

Jesus did exist. The Romans wrote about him.

If you look at Jews in the area today, they are white or slightly 'tanned'. Obviously not black or brown.

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, acute said:

Jesus did exist. The Romans wrote about him.

 

Josephus? 

[acute]

Just now, seanjo said:

If he existed he had Arab features and skin colour.

Jesus was Jewish not an Arab!

[Imaginarynumber1]

4 minutes ago, seanjo said:

That's the European Jews that fled Europe before WW2 thanks to Nazism and after the Holocaust. The Arab Jews that were kicked out of the surrounding Apartheid Arab countries are Arab in appearance.

^^^this

 

[Unfortunately]

The Middle-Eastern Jews from 2,000 years ago were much more acclimatized to the middle-east, they would typically have been tanned to dark skinned with black/dark brown hair.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Unfortunately
Bad formatting

[Imaginarynumber1]

15 minutes ago, acute said:

Jesus did exist. The Romans wrote about him.

No. One roman/jew briefly makes mention him, and the authenticity of that work is questioned.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Imaginarynumber1

[acute]

7 minutes ago, seanjo said:

He was a Semite Jew, Arabs are also Semite.

They have common ancestry, but further back than 2000 years.

[Rlyeh]

10 minutes ago, acute said:

Jesus was Jewish not an Arab!

Both Semites

[Grandpa Greenman]

4 minutes ago, acute said:

Jesus did exist. The Romans wrote about him.

If you look at Jews in the area today, they are white or slightly 'tanned'. Obviously not black or brown.

That is because most of them are immigrants from Europe. Take a little time and look up what the conflict in Israel is really about. Jesus, would most likely look like a Palestinian, who are the native people of that land, who included Jews who never left Palestine in the first place.

   

[spartan max2]

I would assume he would be the tan color of the people who lived in the region. 

[Unfortunately]

Someone in the original debate I found said something along the lines of "God did it, he could have made it green if he wanted."

 

Had a bit of a manly giggle at that

[Imaginarynumber1]

Christianity was just another death cult and would have remained that way had Constantine's wife and other not converted. The flaw with the roman gods, as with the greeks before them, wa sthat they were too human. They had faults and ambitions, made mistakes and often ignored the plight of their lowly human charges. The lie that christianity peddles is preferable to most than a cadre of gods whom would rather bicker with one another than make good on offerings. The joke, of course, being that offerings and prayers still go unanswered, but damned if 'Murica jesus just aint as white and proud a George "I vomited the Constitution whole while riding a bald eagle" Washington and single handedly defeated those evil globalist redcoats with his trusty ar-15.

[Rlyeh]

I'd imagine he'd have the same skin colour as the Jews shown in Roman art work.

[acute]

2 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

I'd imagine he'd have the same skin colour as the Jews shown in Roman art work.

I think this is the answer.

*thread closed* 

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

No. One roman/jew briefly makes mention him, and the authenticity of that work is questioned.

About four different people have accounts of him. But only mention him. Three are Roman all of which are questionable, the other one is from I can't remember where some Country beside where Jesus was starting his rebellion. But that account only mentions him being hung, not crucified.

Flavius Josephus, has two different mentions of him, but one is certainly a forgery, Tacitus mentioned him being executed by Pilate. Pliney makes mention of him and his followers as being big headed. However the last two are about 20-30 years after Josephus and are probably influenced by him and other word of mouth.

[Orphalesion]

As others have pointed out the Jews of Ancient Judea where Semites, just like the Arabs and, really, most peoples that inhabited that general area.

So dark (middle eastern) skin colour and likely curly, black or dark brown hair. If the Bible is to be believed there were some redheads among the population as well, and the same is true for neighboring peoples such as the Egyptians but there are modern redheads in the Middle East as well, and not just in Israel. So it's possible that Jesus might have had red/auburn hair, but since red hair was often viewed as a negative trait in that era and place, it's likely that it would have been pointed out if he had it.

Light skinned Jewish people of today are the result of centuries of mixing with Europeans.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Just now, danydandan said:

About four different people have accounts of him. But only mention him. Three are Roman all of which are questionable, the other one is from I can't remember where some Country beside where Jesus was starting his rebellion. But that account only mentions him being hung, not crucified.

Flavius Josephus, has two different mentions of him, but one is certainly a forgery, Tacitus mentioned him being executed by Pilate. Pliney makes mention of him and his followers as being big headed. However the last two are about 20-30 years after Josephus and are probably influenced by him and other word of mouth.

Thanks for the added detail. Didn't feel like going in depth.

I have no issue with people thinking he was real. Go for it. Just don't try to tell me there is evidence, because what we have amounts to little more than hearsay.

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Thanks for the added detail. Didn't feel like going in depth.

I have no issue with people thinking he was real. Go for it. Just don't try to tell me there is evidence, because what we have amounts to little more than hearsay.

Agreed, there is exactly zero tangible evidence of any of the accounts of him from the Bible.

I personally think a person called Jesus existed, he started or lead a rebellion, got killed for it and then loads of people made loads if crap up about him and up sprung a Religion.

He is nothing more than a Rebellion leader, who wanted liberation from his Church and an occupying force. Sounds familiar? Michael Collins, Washington, Spartacus, Wat Tyler, William Wallace, Crazy Horse etcetera. All these just had the misfortune of being in a time when history was recorded otherwise we could have Washingtonanity or Crazy-Horseanity.

Edit: But to stick on topic he described as Rudy in the Bible, as in he is described as having Red hair. I haven't seen any Arab people with Red hair. But he was most definitely not white, unless Roman solider had sex with Mary he might have been white and thus having red hair.

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by danydandan

[Orphalesion]

I mean assuming his existence, it would not be strange at all to have no first-hand account about him from during his lifetime. Consider that even with people from that era who were considered important during their lifetime we sometimes have little/no/spotty/unreliable records surviving, often from sources that wrote long after their lifetime.

So nobody first-hand recording Jesus, who at the time was just one of many, many, many, many wandering prophets in the Eastern Mediterranean and who only turned out to be important long after his death is not exactly strange. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

Interesting article where archaeologists and forensic anthropologists worked together to create a portrait of Jesus.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/

[Robotic Jew]

He was clear.