Jesus' Skin Colour

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

20 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Alright getting tired of you.

What have I done to deserve this ? Have I said something that wasn't true ?

Quote

If there is only one human race, why are there different races? However you want to name them, there are three known basic skin colors: white, black and the reddish or tan color everyone else has.

Skin colour is not a race. Homo Sapiens Sapiens comes in many variations. 

Does the bible ever adress the question of race ? 

If you really do believe in the bible we all descend from Adam and Eve, who were made in Gods image, so we all have the same ancestor. In that case why is it so important for you to put people into different races ?

Edited August 27, 2018 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[XenoFish]

Here read something.

https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/adapt/adapt_1.htm

[Opus Magnus]

If homosapiens have  been around for 200,000 years. Then why did it take 190,000 years for us to make any cities. If we had the same brains, then it doesn't make sense for it to take so long to figure out.

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

If homosapiens have  been around for 200,000 years. Then why did it take 190,000 years for us to make any cities. If we had the same brains, then it doesn't make sense for it to take so long to figure out.

There could be a combination of reasons, but the successful domestication of certain food plants, particularly grains, would figure prominently. You can't have cities where the provision of food depends on subsistence hunting and gathering.

[Opus Magnus]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

There could be a combination of reasons, but the successful domestication of certain food plants, particularly grains, would figure prominently. You can't have cities where the provision of food depends on subsistence hunting and gathering.

Yeah, so imagine yourself 200,000 years ago and it is the same today or else it wouldn't be homosapien. So, we all just sat around for 190 thousand years in groups in the dust? This seems like far too long for no progress at all. Unless it took like 190,000 years before someone like prometheus could steal fire for mankind. People are hunting and they need to cook the food and make shelter from the elements. I don't see why it would take 190,000 years before someone would realize to build a hut from the rain and then expand from there or someone else learning from what they did. There are a lot of driving forces for us to build in such a timeframe.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Opus Magnus

[cormac mac airt]

9 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

If homosapiens have  been around for 200,000 years. Then why did it take 190,000 years for us to make any cities. If we had the same brains, then it doesn't make sense for it to take so long to figure out.

Actually recent evidence from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco has tentatively pushed that back to circa 315 +/- 34 kya. 

Genetic evidence has shown that we DIDN'T have the same brains, morphologically, that far back in time. Current evidence suggests that modern cranial morphology didn't occur in Homo sapiens sapiens until sometime between 100,000 and 30,000 BP. As to human skin color, particularly the black vs white argument, genetic evidence suggests that with the loss of long body hair in our ancient ancestors circa 1.2 million years BP human skin color became darker and it wasn't until around 12,000 - 6,000 years BP before light skin occurred. 

cormac

[Opus Magnus]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Actually recent evidence from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco has tentatively pushed that back to circa 315 +/- 34 kya. 

Genetic evidence has shown that we DIDN'T have the same brains, morphologically, that far back in time. Current evidence suggests that modern cranial morphology didn't occur in Homo sapiens sapiens until sometime between 100,000 and 30,000 BP. As to human skin color, particularly the black vs white argument, genetic evidence suggests that with the loss of long body hair in our ancient ancestors circa 1.2 million years BP human skin color became darker and it wasn't until around 12,000 - 6,000 years BP before light skin occurred. 

cormac

Based on how many specimens?

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Opus Magnus said:

Yeah, so imagine yourself 200,000 years ago and it is the same today or else it wouldn't be homosapien. So, we all just sat around for 190 thousand years in groups in the dust? This seems like far too long for no progress at all. Unless it took like 190,000 years before someone like prometheus could steal fire for mankind. People are hunting and they need to cook the food and make shelter from the elements. I don't see why it would take 190,000 years before someone would realize to build a hut from the rain and them expand from there or someone else learning from what they did. There are a lot of driving forces for us to build in such a timeframe.

Peoples that never "progressed" ( one might question whether it was progress) from the hunter/gatherer society, are no less intelligent than those that did, so we didn't suddenly get "smarter" and adopted the civilized life. Fire is certainly not a modern tool in the kit-bag, and shelters and huts the same. But you also have chance discoveries along the way, like smelting of metals, that had far-reaching consequences.

[cormac mac airt]

13 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Based on how many specimens?

How many specimens do you require? 

The evolution of modern human brain shape (2018)

cormac

[Opus Magnus]

24 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

How many specimens do you require? 

The evolution of modern human brain shape (2018)

cormac

Ok, I get it the naming of sapiens is an outdated idea as it gradually evolves. However, in the Genesis account man and beast were both created on the 6th day. The length of the 6th day isn't an actual day. The sun isn't the measure of the first 7 days of creation, they symbolise something else and could be millenia long.

[Opus Magnus]

Well, I think the first 7 days follows the evolution on earth, except for plants predate the sun because they fed on divine light before the sun was created. If you accept they aren't 24 hour days, then it goes from the ocean, to birds, to beasts to men.

 

[Unfortunately]

40 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Ok, I get it the naming of sapiens is an outdated idea as it gradually evolves. However, in the Genesis account man and beast were both created on the 6th day. The length of the 6th day isn't an actual day. The sun isn't the measure of the first 7 days of creation, they symbolise something else and could be millenia long.

I'm not sure I understand the reason you are trying to rationalise the Bible in this particular thread. I could have sworn this thread was about what skin colour Jesus would have had.

Also, in regards to the people stating that race is irrelevant, racial differences are not important but they do come into play as one of the variables of skin colour. To try and exclude them from the discussion would be difficult and pointless. As long as we don't devolve into some form of racism we are perfectly entitled to speak of races.

[cormac mac airt]

50 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Ok, I get it the naming of sapiens is an outdated idea as it gradually evolves. However, in the Genesis account man and beast were both created on the 6th day. The length of the 6th day isn't an actual day. The sun isn't the measure of the first 7 days of creation, they symbolise something else and could be millenia long.

Not entirely as YOUR understanding of Homo sapiens is what I'd question as implied by you in your recent post, to wit: 

Quote

Yeah, so imagine yourself 200,000 years ago and it is the same today or else it wouldn't be homo sapien. 

Homo sapiens is the parent species under the genus Homo, which for us comprises a minimum of Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens (Us). We are the last member of this direct line under the parent species. That we (Homo sapiens and subspecies) qualify as Anatomically Modern Human (AMH) IS NOT the same thing as being morphologically the same as there have been many changes in the last circa 300,000 years. This is a distinction that it appears you are not understanding. 

The Genesis timeline is both wrong and irrelevant to actual history.

The Genesis timeline for the creation of man and beast is so out of line as to be ridiculous. They're not even close. 

cormac

Edited August 27, 2018 by cormac mac airt

[Unfortunately]

12 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The Genesis timeline is both wrong and irrelevant to actual history.

The Genesis timeline for the creation of man and beast is so out of line as to be ridiculous. They're not even close. 

cormac

I agree, there is much more evidence standing against Genesis than for it. In order to rationalise Genesis in accordance with established facts you would have to completely rewrite it.

As such, it's best to just disregard it.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Unfortunately

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

I agree, there is much more evidence standing against Genesis than for it. In order to rationalise Genesis in accordance with established facts you would have to completely rewrite it.

As such, it's best to just disregard it.

It is a nice bit of fiction though. 

cormac

[Timothy]

C’mon people, why hide from the truth:

[Golden Duck]

12 hours ago, Grandpa Greenman said:

Why are people are in such denial the Jesus may have looked like the native Palestinians.  Should it really matter if he looked like an arab (semite).  Are y'all all really that racist?   (For those who think he looked like Cat Stevens, Cat Stevens was born of a Greek father and a Swedish mother.)  If you really want to think of the Torah as a history book (which it is not), then the Jew's are descents of Abraham who was from Ur, which would make him Iraqi in today's world. if you must have a white Jesus, because  you are white, you might want to rethink your interpretation of your religion. It is possible he was a light skinned Semite, humans are really not all the different, we are all Homo sapiens, after all, so does it really matter what color he may have been?

 http://serendipstudio.org/exchange/kristin-jenkins/story-race-and-classification-people-generative-or-not 

 

Almost a parable there.

"... Goodness comes in unexpected places.  ... Have a good think about your attitudes ..."

 

[Doug1029]

21 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

Alright getting tired of you. If there is only one human race, why are there different races? However you want to name them, there are three known basic skin colors: white, black and the reddish or tan color everyone else has.

Phylogenetically we are all of the same race.  The differences are simply local population differences.  They don't breed true.

Doug

[Grandpa Greenman]

22 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

Alright getting tired of you. If there is only one human race, why are there different races? However you want to name them, there are three known basic skin colors: white, black and the reddish or tan color everyone else has.

I guess you don't read the link I provided with a great article on race being used for classifying peoples.  Using color to classify "race" goes back to the slave trade as a way to justify keeping africans as slaves. This isn't something we need to align ourselves to in an enlightened age, especially since science isn't using color to classify differences in human gene pools. 
 

Quote

 

       The idea of classifying people and placing them in definitive groupings has been around for hundreds of years. The idea of classifying people based on their looks, however, has not. As far back as 400 BC, ancient Greeks were classifying people based on purely cultural differences like language, religion, and customs. Hierarchies in society were more likely to be based on social standing than on appearance. The idea of classifying peoples based on their appearances did not come about until much later in history. In 1680 AD, the idea of classification by appearance slowly began to permeate society as lawmakers in the early colonies of North America began to use “white” as a classification of themselves rather than “Englishmen” or “Christians.” 1776 AD marks a turning point in the history of race in which the word “Caucasian” was first used by a man named Johann Blumenbach in his workOn the Natural Varieties of Mankind. Blumenbach outlines one of the first hierarchies based on skin color, placing “whites” on top and four other “races” underneath. Superiority based on skin color soon became a widespread idea (2).

http://serendipstudio.org/exchange/kristin-jenkins/story-race-and-classification-people-generative-or-not

 

 

[Mr Walker]

On 27/08/2018 at 12:03 AM, Grandpa Greenman said:

Why are people are in such denial the Jesus may have looked like the native Palestinians.  Should it really matter if he looked like an arab (semite).  Are y'all all really that racist?   (For those who think he looked like Cat Stevens, Cat Stevens was born of a Greek father and a Swedish mother.)  If you really want to think of the Torah as a history book (which it is not), then the Jew's are descents of Abraham who was from Ur, which would make him Iraqi in today's world. if you must have a white Jesus, because  you are white, you might want to rethink your interpretation of your religion. It is possible he was a light skinned Semite, humans are really not all the different, we are all Homo sapiens, after all, so does it really matter what color he may have been?

 http://serendipstudio.org/exchange/kristin-jenkins/story-race-and-classification-people-generative-or-not 

 

Historically there was bias based on prejudice  but i don't think posters today are displaying any.

Of course Christ was unlikely to be white, as shown in many historical paintings 

 However it is almost impossible to say how he did look as it would be impossible to say with surety what ANY  one person from that time looked like.  He was probably coffee coloured with darkish curly hair and that is the best we can say 

Palestine and Palestinian are just "modern" words for a place, and the people who currently occupy that place.  Ie Palestine was a roman name given more than a century after Christ, and did not apply in ancient times.

Historically, many races and religions occupied the area over time  Christ' appearance has no connection at all, to/with the arab israeli  conflict  

[Mr Walker]

On 27/08/2018 at 8:41 AM, Grandpa Greenman said:

Semite, person speaking one of a group of related languages, presumably derived from a common language, Semitic (see Semitic languages). The term came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews. Mesopotamia, the western coast of the Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa have all been proposed as possible sites for the prehistoric origins of Semitic-speaking peoples, but no location has been definitively established.

By 2500 BCE Semitic-speaking peoples had become widely dispersed throughout western Asia. In Phoenicia they became seafarers. In Mesopotamia they blended with the civilization of Sumer. The Hebrews settled with other Semitic-speaking peoples in Palestine.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Semite

 

Habiru and the biblical Hebrews[edit]

The biblical word "Hebrew", like Habiru, denotes a social category, not an ethnic group.^[14] Since the discovery of the 2nd millennium BCE inscriptions mentioning the Habiru, there have been many theories linking these to the Hebrews of the Bible, but such theories have long been disputed.^[15] Most modern scholars see the 'Apiru/Habiru as potentially one element in an early Israel composed of many different peoples, including nomadic Shasu, the biblical Midianites, Kenites and Amalekites, runaway slaves from Egypt, and displaced peasants and pastoralists.^[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru

^{The hebrew, who became the jews, were a very mixed bunch, ethnically}  

^{On the other hand, studies of the human genome show tha t almost all jewish people are closely related genetically} 

^{Individuals within each Jewish group had high levels of IBD, roughly equivalent to that of fourth or fifth cousins. Although each of the three Jewish groups showed genetic admixture (interbreeding) with nearby non-Jews, they shared many genetic features, suggesting common roots that the team estimated went back more than 2000 years}

^{http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/06/tracing-roots-jewishness}

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Mr Walker

[hetrodoxly]

People appear to be reading racial connotations (because they want to) into the fact Jesus has traditionally been depicted as being white, the reason is the first artists in the west knew no better they painted him in their own image but he could have been white many Arabs and Jews are, Mohammed was white.