[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Your assertion ("Jesus appeared as a Negro") is based entirely upon speculation. The fact that the earliest known painting of Jesus was painted around 200 AD, by an artist who obviously never SAW Jesus with his own eyes, does in no way suggest that Jesus appeared as a Negro.

Of course not. I merely presented these facts to Herr_Doktor Phd. to prove that the painting he showed us couldn't be used as evidence to suggest Jesus was in fact white.

The fact which you state, that Ethiopians depicted Jesus as a Negro, is likewise based upon the speculation of their so-called "artists". It is reasonable to expect that no Ethiopians were befriending a Jewish carpenter in Jerusalem.

Sorry, there is no logic in your leap of faith.

I have found no real evidence that suggests Ethopian Christianity pre-dates European Christianity. But that is definitely a reasonable point that you present.

[Deaner]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

The picture painted at least 200 years after Jesus's death. Fact.
Definitely by someone who didn't know or see Jesus in his lifetime. Fact.

Does it ever occur to you why the first known picture of Jesus wasn't black; or was whitey conspiring against you way back then too?

[JennyD]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

No description from Tiberius Caesar, so point is moot.

I guess that carved emerald is not a description? Seems like a portrait to me.

And since Tiberius Caesar was alive at the time Jesus walked the earth, you'd think he'd have a fairly accurate rendering in hand. If Jesus had come in the form of a flat-nosed, thick-lipped Negro, you can be sure Tiberius Caesar would have known about it.

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Does it ever occur to you why the first known picture of Jesus wasn't black; or was whitey conspiring against you way back then too?

Yes, it did occur to me:
Mill: The bottom line is that there is no description of Jesus’ ethnicity or physical appearance in the Bible. And no one has uncovered any drawings or paintings of Him made while He was alive. The first pictures of Jesus came hundreds of years after His death, by artisans commissioned by the white Roman Catholic Church.

I guess that carved emerald is not a description? Seems like a portrait to me.

And since Tiberius Caesar was alive at the time Jesus walked the earth, you'd think he'd have a fairly accurate rendering in hand. If Jesus had come in the form of a flat-nosed, thick-lipped Negro, you can be sure Tiberius Caesar would have known about it.

Looks like this copied portrait came from the same book which held the so called letter from Publius Lentulus, someone who never existed. I'm sure you understand what this does to the validity of this portrait.

The Gospel of the Holy Twelve - A Critique

Popular Mechanics has an image of Jesus based on the techniques of forensic anthropology.

Does the picture in Popular Mechanics show the real face of Jesus?
Israeli and British forensic anthropologists and computer programmers, using the techiques of forensic anthropology, produced this artists' conceptualization and is largely based on the work of Richard Neave, retired medical artist from the University of Manchester in England.

The researchers started with an Israeli skull dating back to the 1st century. They then used computer programs, clay, simulated skin and their knowledge about the Jewish people of the time to determine the shape of the face, and color of eyes and skin. The resulting figure has a broad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. He would have stood 5-foot-1-inch tall (155 cms.) and weighed about 110 pounds (50 kilos)

"Using archaeological and anatomical science rather than artistic interpretation makes this the most accurate likeness ever created," Jean Claude Gragard, producer of the BBC documentary "Son of God," told The London Times. Gragard used the same image last year in his series. "It isn't the face of Jesus, because we're not working with the skull of Jesus, but it is the departure point for considering what Jesus would have looked like," he added.

They turned to the Bible to determine the length of his hair. In the New Testament, "would Paul have written, 'If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him' if Jesus Christ had had long hair?" the article speculates.

Looks like a "flat-nosed, thick-lipped Negro" to me, doesn't it?

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

just because you read something in some book doesn’t mean it is right.

It's good to look to more than one reference, unless you're only looking for the one thing that will support your position. We True Christians™ always use multiple references when we do research!

Jenny, are you not researching this stuff before you come to accept it as fact, like Bobby Joe advises?

The book begins with some rather audacious claims. It tells us that a picture of Jesus found in the prefatory material was "copied from the portrait carved on an emerald by order of Tiberius Caesar" which was passed down via the Turks to Pope Innocent VIII. It also tells us of a letter that is "now in the possession of Lord Kelly and in his library," which was written by a Roman official and goes into extensive detail describing Jesus' physical appearance. (As if any Roman official had time for such things; but don't ruin the magic by asking.) Of course by now you know better than to take this book for anything other than a nice place to rest your coffee cup. It's amazing that we don't hear about that emerald, for example, on the National GeographicBiblical Archaeology Review -- did someone later trade it in at the flea market for one of those Chia pets? specials, or in But for those who know no better, or desire further entertainment, read on. Proof of Barnum's adage about suckers is in the offing.

...

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Your arguments are shallow and self-centered, they lack all application of evidence and, more importantly, faith. The lack of faith indicates that you are, and are unlikely ever to become, a True Christian and are thus damned to the eternal fires of the pit of Brimstone.

I do not say these things lightly for at Landover our pleasure and duty is to guide those who will hear and rebuke those who will not.1

Let us look at the Bible, for therein all things are clear. I think that it is worthwhile to see how God sees having a black skin:

Job:30:30: My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.

Obviously, it is a sign of affliction and very much not to be desired.

Now let us look at God’s treatment of blacks. First realize that there were no white Ethiopians and still are not.

2Ch:14:13: And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the LORD, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.
2Ch:16:8: Were not the Ethiopians and the Lubims a huge host, with very many chariots and horsemen? yet, because thou didst rely on the LORD, he delivered them into thine hand.
2Ch:21:16: Moreover the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians, that were near the Ethiopians:
Isa:20:4: So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
Jer:13:23: Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Here we see that of the 18 references to Ethiopians in the Old Testament, blacks are not well regarded by God, Who tends to slaughter them. So let us look at the New Testament:

Ac:8:27: And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
Ac:8:28: Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Ac:8:29: Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
Ac:8:30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Ac:8:31: And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

And here we see the conversion of the very first Ex-Negro (Landover is proud to be the only church that follows in these Glorious Footsteps.)

From this, we can see that if The Acts 8:27-31 mention this, then the ex-Negro was unknown prior to this.

• So, in simple terms, being black is an affliction of the Devil.
• God slaughters blacks and makes them the subject of reproving comparisons
• There were no ex-negro True Christians before Acts 8.
• Christ was born before the story told in Acts,
• Thus Christ was not black.
• If Christ was not black he was white
• All blacks have brown eyes and black hair
• Christ must therefore have had blue eyes and fair hair.

Now I hope this puts an end to this stupid speculation, as sharing my knowledge and faith has cause me to miss my duty with the Landover Volunteer Orphan Catcher Squad.

[Orelia]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

• So, in simple terms, being black is an affliction of the Devil.
• God slaughters blacks and makes them the subject of reproving comparisons
• There were no ex-negro True Christians before Acts 8.
• Christ was born before the story told in Acts,
• Thus Christ was not black.
• If Christ was not black he was white
• All blacks have brown eyes and black hair
• Christ must therefore have had blue eyes and fair hair.

Umm,think you missed something in your biology class!
The darker pigmentation of the skin (that makes people black) is simply the body's self defense mechanism to protect from the sun! Have you ever noticed that the darkest skinned people are those that come from places like Nigeria where the sun is waaaaay stronger? Black people have a much superior protection against the sun than we do with our light skin, simply because they live in an environment where the sun rays are way too strong to be continuously exposed to the sun without major protection! Although we do get our share of sun during the summer time, the sun is no where near what it is in othe places, thus we have not needed to adapt with white skin! Its really just a question of your clever body adapting to its environment over time! In fact, the pigments in your body that make you sun tan, or even have freckles (if you have some) are the EXACT same as the ones that can make skin black! Its just that your pigmentation is not as intense.... actually, a white person can literaly become black with a ridiculuously bad and EXTREME exposure to the sun! I know a lady that went in Bronzing Saloons.... she fell asleep in the thing... which was already not very well regulated, and now she looks black!!

Oh and... just WHERE did you hear God slaughters black people???

"If Christ was not black he was white" Thats like pointing a dog (not knowing what it is) and saying "if this animal is not a cat then its a mouse" . No one ever said he was pitch-black! That would not make sense either considering where he came from! But you can't claim pure-white with blond eyes because he simply would not of survived t'ill adult hood had this been the case! Where he grew up it would of been a downright akward thing to be blond with blue eyes and white skin... in fact someone depicting these unusual traits (considering the place they lived) would of certainly have been shunned if not called "demon" or "witch". And most of all, no one would of listened to him!!! No one would of called him son of God because they would of shunned him for being so outrageously unusual! Its the same as if a back came today and said he was Jesus, being white and not accepting black people, then there is no way you would believe or accept that huh! You would shun that person, call him demon and wish his death... just because he looks different!! Having white skin and so on in Jerusalem was linked to being a Roman soldier... and lets just say Romans to Jews were the same as black people to you!

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Umm,think you missed something in your biology class!

Son, the bible has all the answers, nothing was added, nothing was missed out.

The darker pigmentation of the skin (that makes people black) is […secular dumbed-down science omitted] black!!

You are quite aware that black absorbs more heat per square inch than white skin, so what protection is black going to give against heat? I don’t mind those who say they don’t know, I can’t abide those who have no grasp of elementary science.

Oh and... just WHERE did you hear God slaughters black people???

Look at my post above, cretin.

"If Christ was not black he was white" Thats like pointing a dog (not knowing what it is) and saying "if this animal is not a cat then its a mouse"

No it’s nothing like that there are many choices of animal and only 2 of skin color. Look at your friend the Islamist, Obama – he says he’s black – the media say he’s black but his mother was white. Based upon what this failure of a presidential Demoncrat says, you’re either black or white, and if you ain’t all white, your black

No one ever said he was pitch-black!

So according to you, we should go around measuring skin tone, width of nostrils, thickness of lips, fuzziness of hair, etc to ensure racial purity? You sound racist friend and Landover does not tolerate racism!

That would not make sense either considering where he came from!

Unless you’ve forgotten or are a heathen, you will recall Jesus came from God because the Son of God is God

But you can't claim pure-white with blond eyes because he simply would not of survived t'ill adult hood[… irrelevancies deleted]

You show me in the Bible where anyone was persecuted for being white.

Its the same as if a black came today and said he was Jesus, being white and not accepting black people, then there is no way you would believe or accept that huh! You would shun that person, call him demon and wish his death... just because he looks different!!

If you see the post above and read this one, you will doubtless have the good manners to state that God could never be black.

Having white skin and so on in Jerusalem was linked to being a Roman soldier...

Oh! You were there at the time were you?... No, I thought not. Have you any biblical proof for this at all? No, I thought not.

and lets just say Romans to Jews were the same as black people to you!

Because of the Constitution and Freedom of Speech, regrettably I cannot prevent you from saying anything, no matter how inane – however when you say, “Let’s just say” (note, I added the apostrophe) do not include me in that.

Anyway, what’s with your name? Orelia? Is that a fungal infection of the gums?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Looks like a "flat-nosed, thick-lipped Negro" to me, doesn't it?

Nope. Looks like a Semite to me.

I see no Afro. I see no heavy forehead or forward-thrust jawline. According to the article you quote, a Jew at the time would have "olive skin". Is "olive" the same as "ebony"? Is "curly" the same as "nappy"?

No.

So get over it.

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Your arguments are shallow and self-centered, they lack all application of evidence and, more importantly, faith. The lack of faith indicates that you are, and are unlikely ever to become, a True Christian and are thus damned to the eternal fires of the pit of Brimstone.

What a bunch of crazy talk. You've got a few screws loose. Throwing bible verses at me isn't evidence. And faith in no way should be used as evidence in a debate like this.

Like I said before faith is only required for your belief in God. Faith is not required to believe the BS of another man's words - I believe the correct term for this is "gullible".

Nope. Looks like a Semite to me.

I see no Afro. I see no heavy forehead or forward-thrust jawline. According to the article you quote, a Jew at the time would have "olive skin". Is "olive" the same as "ebony"? Is "curly" the same as "nappy"?

No.

So get over it.

Thank God someone a little more normal...and not crazy.

Fair enough Rev, you bring up good points on this thread.

But really, is he white? It seems to me that all of Christs depictions stray very far from this true image - thanks to the white Roman Catholic church setting the image for what Christ supposedly looked like.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

But really, is he white? It seems to me that all of Christs depictions stray very far from this true image - thanks to the white Roman Catholic church setting the image for what Christ supposedly looked like.

By "white Roman Catholic church" I assume you mean the "olive-skinned, dark-haired, swarthy ITALIAN" Roman Catholic church?

Yes, I thought that's what you meant.

And what makes this a "true image"? That's not a "true image" of Jesus, that's a hypothetical image of a typical 1st Century Jew!! What makes you think God would not stand out from the typical Jew of the time?

Even if Jesus looked EXACTLY like the image your magazine article presents, that would certainly not make Him a Negro, which is what you claim it says.

[StreetPreacherLew]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!



That's the picture I scanned out of my Deluxe Red-Letter Edition KJV and that's the picture hanging on the wall at Landover Sunday School.

God said it.
I believe it.
THAT SETTLES IT.

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

By "white Roman Catholic church" I assume you mean the "olive-skinned, dark-haired, swarthy ITALIAN" Roman Catholic church?

Yes, I thought that's what you meant.

Sure, if you want to get technical about it. Let's just say European for the sake of not having to type that much.

And what makes this a "true image"? That's not a "true image" of Jesus, that's a hypothetical image of a typical 1st Century Jew!! What makes you think God would not stand out from the typical Jew of the time?

I stand corrected. "Truer" would have been a better choice of a word, since it is hypothetical. I think you're also right when it comes to God's son being able to stand out from a crowd. I found an interesting point regarding this:

Conservative Christians generally believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. They accept the statements in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. That is, Jesus’ conception did not involve male sperm, This would imply that God either:

• Created an living embryo with a unique human DNA in one of Mary’s fallopian tubes.
• Created special DNA which fertilized an ovum produced by Mary’s body.

Thus, Jesus would have had DNA that was either 50% or 100% created uniquely by God. If so, then Jesus could have had any height, hair color, eye color, skin hue, style of nose, etc. He may or may not have resembled a typical Palestinian from 1st Century CE.

What makes you think God would not stand out from the typical Jew of the time?

But to answer this question, we also must remember that Judas had to point out Jesus in order to lead to his arrest. Had Jesus differed so greatly in look from the common people of the time, it would have been easy for those arresting him to spot him out from a crowd, thus not even requiring Judas to sell out Jesus.

Even if Jesus looked EXACTLY like the image your magazine article presents, that would certainly not make Him a Negro, which is what you claim it says.

What makes a Negro a Negro? Is it that he comes from Africa? Is it the dark skin? Is it the brown eyes?

Afros certainly aren't the tell all. "Every Negro has an afro!" No, that's just silly.

At this juncture, it's safe to say Jesus is definitely not a blonde hair, blue eyed white person.

That's the picture I scanned out of my Deluxe Red-Letter Edition KJV and that's the picture hanging on the wall at Landover Sunday School.

God said it.
I believe it.
THAT SETTLES IT.

Score 1 for Ignorance.

Hip hip hooray.

[Deaner]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

But to answer this question, we also must remember that Judas had to point out Jesus in order to lead to his arrest. Had Jesus differed so greatly in look from the common people of the time, it would have been easy for those arresting him to spot him out from a crowd, thus not even requiring Judas to sell out Jesus.

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Is the above really part of your argument that Jesus was black?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Sure, if you want to get technical about it. Let's just say European for the sake of not having to type that much.

Or for the sake of not having to be accurate since you haven't a "proven" answer to your question. And because southern Italians are quite similar in appearance to Semites, and therefore would not want to paint a Northern European Jesus if they wanted to relate Him to themselves. Oops, huh?

I stand corrected. "Truer" would have been a better choice of a word, since it is hypothetical.

Again, I don't see why it would be "truer". As you've noted, nobody was there painting a portrait, and the Bible has no description. Therefore . . . you have no idea what is a "truer" description.

But to answer this question, we also must remember that Judas had to point out Jesus in order to lead to his arrest. Had Jesus differed so greatly in look from the common people of the time, it would have been easy for those arresting him to spot him out from a crowd, thus not even requiring Judas to sell out Jesus.

An interesting point. So, in order for your assertion to be correct (that Jesus was black), you are saying that all Jews in Palestine in the first century AD were Negroes. Yes? And you base this upon their looking, according to your article's "forensic reconstruction", like Semites?

What a brilliant argument you put forth.

What makes a Negro a Negro? Is it that he comes from Africa? Is it the dark skin? Is it the brown eyes?

I'll let you look up the characteristics of the Negro race. It is a race, and it's neither Semitic nor Caucasian.

At this juncture, it's safe to say Jesus is definitely not a blonde hair, blue eyed white person.

At this juncture, I'd say it's safe to say you have no more idea what Jesus looked like than Mills, and no evidence to fall back upon. In fact, the best you can possibly say is -- if all the historical descriptions are truly discredited, which I do not believe -- that nobody knows what Jesus looked like, except that He was not sufficiently remarkable in appearance for him to stand out as a freak when in a crowd of Jews.

I don't stand out as a freak when in a crowd of Jews. Does that mean I look like Jesus?

Hip hip hooray.

Indeed.