Belief in white Jesus linked to racism

[Excon]

SIGHS. Jews are a religion, not a race.

Oy vey.
Judaism is the religion. Jew has been used interchangeably with depicting them as a "race", as well as just followers of the religion.

People BORN in the Middle East are dark skinned, of course with no photographs we have no certainty how dark or light Jesus was,

That is an inaccurate statement.
They can be of a darker skin. They can also be of fair skin.
What they are though, is Caucasoid.

Besides knowing from skeletal remains that the people of that area were Caucasoid, we do not need photographs to ascertain what the skin color from that area likely was becasue the Egyptians left us images of the four races from over a thousand years before the time in question.
They were definitely fair skinned (as in, not dark), and lighter than the Egyptians. (See the Asiatic) Asiatic is from the Levant region which included Judea. All linked so you can inform yourself.

The four races of the world: a Libyan ("Themehu"), a Nubian ("Nehesu"), an Asiatic ("Aamu"), and an Egyptian ("Reth").
An artistic rendering, based on a mural from the tomb of Seti I.
Link
​

even the Greeks aren't considered "white."

Wut? iLOL Yes they are.

since people on the African continent - which includes the countries of the middle east - are darker than even Greeks.

More "Oy vey" deserved.

No. The African Continent includes some Middle East Countries and some of those people have a darker complexion then Greeks.

The Middle East is a transcontinental region in Afro-Eurasia which generally includes Western Asia (except for Transcaucasia), all of Egypt (mostly in North Africa), and Turkey (partly in Southeast Europe).
Middle East | Wikipedia
​

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Oy vey.
Judaism is the religion. Jew has been used interchangeably with depicting them as a "race", as well as just followers of the religion.

That is an inaccurate statement.
They can be of a darker skin. They can also be of fair skin.
What they are though, is Caucasoid.

Besides knowing from skeletal remains that the people of that area were Caucasoid, we do not need photographs to ascertain what the skin color from that area likely was becasue the Egyptians left us images of the four races from over a thousand years before the time in question.
They were definitely fair skinned (as in, not dark), and lighter than the Egyptians. (See the Asiatic) Asiatic is from the Levant region which included Judea. All linked so you can inform yourself.

​

The four races of the world: a Libyan ("Themehu"), a Nubian ("Nehesu"), an Asiatic ("Aamu"), and an Egyptian ("Reth"). ​

An artistic rendering, based on a mural from the tomb of Seti I. ​

Link​

​

Wut? iLOL Yes they are.

More "Oy vey" deserved.

No. The African Continent includes some Middle East Countries and some of those people have a darker complexion then Greeks.

​

The Middle East is a transcontinental region in Afro-Eurasia which generally includes Western Asia (except for Transcaucasia), all of Egypt (mostly in North Africa), and Turkey (partly in Southeast Europe).​

Middle East | Wikipedia​

​

Like so many others who have commented on this thread, you missed the ENTIRE POINT. If you had bothered to read the article I posted, the study done - by a Christian school no less - was to affirm that those who view Jesus as white also had biases and prejudices.
IT is highly unlikely that Jesus, considering where he was born, was "white" but more of an olive skin color or darker. The issue, and I have pointed this out multiple times on this thread, is those who are SO upset at the suggestion that he couldn't have been white and INSIST he "might have been", I have to ask the question "WHY is it SO important to you that he is?" I would guess for those who keep throwing semantics at me (what is actually "white"? Middle eastern people can be white) miss the point that pictures of Jesus as white in skin tone is very unlikely and it speaks to the mind and attitude of those who can't even accept the notion, that by golly, maybe he wasn't white after all.
Even the older paintings of Jesus showed him as darker skinned, so where did the notion come from, that he was "white" blond-haired and blue eyed?
I guess the study done in the article I linked proved the author's point.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

That looks like a white person with brown hair.

---

Yes, but more specifically, a Jewish person.

And yes, they would look Caucasoid.

---

No.
Jesus was what we would now call an Israeli.

---

He definitely was Caucasoid and what people today consider white.

---

Still is.

---

And she was correct about Santa.


I am sure that is exactly what Satan would say.

---

To Greek parents.

Your welcome.

---

Wrong as usual.

IF you are insisting he must have been white, we have to question your motivation. Same with the students in the study conducted by a Christian school that demonstrated the attitudes of those who felt Jesus was white.

 

[Daisy]

the study done - by a Christian school no less - was to affirm that those who view Jesus as white also had biases and prejudices.

That is what I got from it...the article has nothing to do with those who strive to be a Christian in every sense of the word and everything to do with how some hide behind the title of being a Christian, in order to promote their bigotry and hatred for those of color...

 

[Eatomus]

In 40 years of being a Christian and speaking with Christians of every country and ethnicity I have yet to hear one person mention what they think of the color of Jesus's flesh .
The priority of a true Christian is not the color of His flesh, but always about the wounds He received in His flesh for our salvation .
You are fretting over people who are not even Christians , quit wasting your time and follow Him & Him alone .

" And one shall say to Him, ' what are these wounds in thine hands ? '
Then He shall answer , Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends ."
( Zechariah 13:6 )

 

[Excon]

Like so many others who have commented on this thread, you missed the ENTIRE POINT.

Wrong.
I didn't miss the point. I chose not to address it and instead chose address your inaccuracies with some relevant information.

If you had bothered to read the article I posted, the study done - by a Christian school no less - was to affirm that those who view Jesus as white also had biases and prejudices.

I read what you provided. So you are of course, wrong again. You should really learn to stop being wrong about things.
Your comment is also irrelevant to the factual information I provided.

IT is highly unlikely that Jesus, considering where he was born, was "white" but more of an olive skin color or darker.

The factual information you were provided says otherwise.
Or maybe it is just your understanding of what "white" is.

The people of that area were definitely Caucasoid.
The Egyptians at that time showed that they themself where much lighter than Nubians, and that the Asiatics were far lighter that them.
That is all accurate information.
The fact is he would have likely been of fair skin (as in; not dark) as depicted by the Egyptians.
And please note, at no time did I ever say he was white.

The issue, and I have pointed this out multiple times on this thread, is those who are SO upset at the suggestion that he couldn't have been white and INSIST he "might have been", I have to ask the question "WHY is it SO important to you that he is?" I would guess for those who keep throwing semantics at me (what is actually "white"? Middle eastern people can be white) miss the point that pictures of Jesus as white in skin tone is very unlikely and it speaks to the mind and attitude of those who can't even accept the notion, that by golly, maybe he wasn't white after all.

All irrelevant to the factual information I provided.

Even the older paintings of Jesus showed him as darker skinned, so where did the notion come from, that he was "white" blond-haired and blue eyed?

"The older"? Wut?
You are are again doing some piss poor presenting here. Yes, some old paintings (18th century?) show Jesus to be darker. So what?
The oldest show a lighter image. Again; So what? They are all disconnected by hundreds of years.
None of those artists would have any knowledge of what he looked like. Which is unlike the Egyptian artists and their first hand knowledge of the skin color of those who occupied that area at the time they painted their images. . . . Do you get the point, or not?
But if you still want to argue the darker images somehow being relevant, we can do that. I have seen the oldest ones and can point out the disconnect of time, That they are Caucasoid, and that given that they are depicting Caucasoids, that the paint has likely darkened with age.
Not that any of it would be as relevant as the Egyptians first hand knowledge of what they painted.

IF you are insisting he must have been white, we have to question your motivation. Same with the students in the study conducted by a Christian school that demonstrated the attitudes of those who felt Jesus was white.

1. Wrong. You do not have to do anything if I insisted he was white.
2. But since I never insisted he is white, it would be a foolish endeavor on your part to attempt such stupidity. Especially since what I have said regarding his skin color is in agreement with the evidence I already have provided.

 

[calamity]

In 40 years of being a Christian and speaking with Christians of every country and ethnicity I have yet to hear one person mention what they think of the color of Jesus's flesh ...

...but the images hanging on walls in their their homes all depict him with blond hair and blue eyes.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

That is what I got from it...the article has nothing to do with those who strive to be a Christian in every sense of the word and everything to do with how some hide behind the title of being a Christian, in order to promote their bigotry and hatred for those of color...

The students studied may not have been overtly racist or even aware of their racism, as the article states:

Wrong.
I didn't miss the point. I chose not to address it and instead chose address your inaccuracies with some relevant information.


I read what you provided. So you are of course, wrong again. You should really learn to stop being wrong about things.
Your comment is also irrelevant to the factual information I provided.


The factual information you were provided says otherwise.
Or maybe it is just your understanding of what "white" is.

The people of that area were definitely Caucasoid.
The Egyptians at that time showed that they themself where much lighter than Nubians, and that the Asiatics were far lighter that them.
That is all accurate information.
The fact is he would have likely been of fair skin (as in; not dark) as depicted by the Egyptians.
And please note, at no time did I ever say he was white.


All irrelevant to the factual information I provided.


"The older"? Wut?
You are are again doing some piss poor presenting here. Yes, some old paintings (18th century?) show Jesus to be darker. So what?
The oldest show a lighter image. Again; So what? They are all disconnected by hundreds of years.
None of those artists would have any knowledge of what he looked like. Which is unlike the Egyptian artists and their first hand knowledge of the skin color of those who occupied that area at the time they painted their images. . . . Do you get the point, or not?
But if you still want to argue the darker images somehow being relevant, we can do that. I have seen the oldest ones and can point out the disconnect of time, That they are Caucasoid, and that given that they are depicting Caucasoids, that the paint has likely darkened with age.
Not that any of it would be as relevant as the Egyptians first hand knowledge of what they painted.

1. Wrong. You do not have to do anything if I insisted he was white.
2. But since I never insisted he is white, it would be a foolish endeavor on your part to attempt such stupidity. Especially since what I have said regarding his skin color is in agreement with the evidence I already have provided.

You are still insisting by the "facts" you are presenting that he "might have been" white. Despite the fact that he likely wasn't. White as in "white skinned, blue eyed and blond haired."
SO present whatever "evidence" you have that he "might have been white", it just presents to me the same question as to why certain students in the study concluded he was white.
You won't let this go, until one of us, or myself, comes out and says " by golly, maybe he was white after all." And to me, I have to question why it is SO important to you that I or anyone has to concede to that.

Since you can't let this go, have the last word, I have said all I need to say on this topic.

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, but more specifically, a Jewish person.

And yes, they would look Caucasoid.

Typical ignorant bs.

You'll just defend anything racist, huh?

 

[calamity]

Typical ignorant bs.

You'll just defend anything racist, huh?

Come to think if it, these are the only threads wherein I ever see his nonsensical spam. Zimmermann threads, police shootings, white Jesus....check, check, check.

 

[Eatomus]

...but the images hanging on walls in their their homes all depict him with blond hair and blue eyes.

This is the only image directly connected to Jesus a Christian will have in their home, save an image of His crown of thorns .
Notice the absence of a body ?
This absence of a body upon the cross is paramount to a true Christian as it speaks to His coming forth from the grave & our salvation from our sin & death .


These things connected to Him can be historically known , and spiritually discerned through the scriptures which mentions each of them .
However the Scripture gives no detail of His physical appearance .

 

[ecofarm]

Come to think if it, these are the only threads wherein I ever see his nonsensical spam. Zimmermann threads, police shootings, white Jesus....check, check, check.

People should stop giving the support of racism the "benefit of the doubt". This is the internet. Giving a "benefit of the doubt" is stupid, just plain stupid.

 

[Daisy]

The students studied may not have been overtly racist or even aware of their racism, as the article states:

Racism is usually passed down from one generation to the other...my Dad's parents were terribly racist and Church of God people...go figure...that racism continued on to him...I remember when schools 1st began to be segregated around here, I can remember my Dad saying when I was very young, "My daughter is not goin' to school with no n*****"...thankfully, he and Mom began studying the Bible with JW's when I was around 17 years old and they learned, that is not the Christian way...now, we have many brothers and sister all over the world of different races, creeds, and colors...

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Racism is usually passed down from one generation to the other...my Dad's parents were terribly racist and Church of God people...go figure...that racism continued on to him...I remember when schools 1st began to be segregated around here, I can remember my Dad saying when I was very young, "My daughter is not goin' to school with no n*****"...thankfully, he and Mom began studying the Bible with JW's when I was around 17 years old and they learned, that is not the Christian way...now, we have many brothers and sister all over the world of different races, creeds, and colors...

Hope more of "those" kinds of people read what you just wrote and "get" it

 

[mrjurrs]

That looks like a white person with brown hair.

---

Yes, but more specifically, a Jewish person.

And yes, they would look Caucasoid.

---

No.
Jesus was what we would now call an Israeli.

---

He definitely was Caucasoid and what people today consider white.

---

Still is.

---

And she was correct about Santa.


I am sure that is exactly what Satan would say.

---

To Greek parents.

Your welcome.

---

Wrong as usual.

Lots of bluster and opinion. Not many definable facts, and the ones you list...false.

 

[calamity]

This is the only image directly connected to Jesus a Christian will have in their home, save an image of His crown of thorns .
Notice the absence of a body ?
This absence of a body upon the cross is paramount to a true Christian as it speaks to His coming forth from the grave & our salvation from our sin & death .

View attachment 67328887
These things connected to Him can be historically known , and spiritually discerned through the scriptures which mentions each of them .
However the Scripture gives no detail of His physical appearance .

nonsense. The "Head of Christ" is the most popular image of Jesus found in Christian homes throughout the US.

 

[Eatomus]

nonsense. The "Head of Christ" is the most popular image of Jesus found in Christian homes throughout the US.

The only color attributed in Scripture to Jesus by those who walked, ate, slept with Him for 3 years , is the color blood red .

" But with the precious blood of Christ
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot ." ( 1 Peter 1:19 )

For me, I will take their word for it .

 

[calamity]

The only color attributed in Scripture to Jesus by those who walked, ate, slept with Him for 3 years , is the color blood red .

" But with the precious blood of Christ
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot ." ( 1 Peter 1:19 )

For me, I will take their word for it .

**** what it says in scripture. I am talking about the most common depiction of Jesus hanging on the walls of Christians in America. Pay attention.

 

[Eatomus]

**** what it says in scripture. I am talking about the most common depiction of Jesus hanging on the walls of Christians in America. Pay attention.

Only the ignorant ignore the historical record in favor of " common depictions "

 

[calamity]

Only the ignorant ignore the historical record in favor of " common depictions "

We are discussing common depictions. Pay attention.

 

[Excon]

Typical ignorant bs.

That is exactly what your post is.

You'll just defend anything racist, huh?

Just more of your typical ignorant bs.
I have not defended anything racist in this thread, so stop lying.

---

Come to think if it, these are the only threads wherein I ever see his nonsensical spam. Zimmermann threads, police shootings, white Jesus....check, check, check.

Oh look, another person having delusional thoughts wants to make it about the poster and not the topic.
While your focus on the person says far more negative things about you, someone may find me in those type of threads providing accurate information instead of jumping onboard the bandwagon of blame like many of those with idiotic thoughts do.

---

Lots of bluster and opinion. Not many definable facts, and the ones you list...false.

Hilariously wrong as usual.
If what I provided was false you could prove it, but your inability to do so just shows everyone that you are being dishonest.

 

[nota bene]

In 40 years of being a Christian and speaking with Christians of every country and ethnicity I have yet to hear one person mention what they think of the color of Jesus's flesh .
The priority of a true Christian is not the color of His flesh, but always about the wounds He received in His flesh for our salvation .
You are fretting over people who are not even Christians , quit wasting your time and follow Him & Him alone .

" And one shall say to Him, ' what are these wounds in thine hands ? '
Then He shall answer , Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends ."
( Zechariah 13:6 )

I've never heard anybody talk about what color Jesus's flesh was either. Will you recognize Him if you meet Him? This is what matters.

And an even more important question is will He know me?

 

[Excon]

You are still insisting by the "facts" you are presenting that he "might have been" white.

Wrong. Those are your absurd thoughts.
Again.

The people of that area were definitely Caucasoid.​

The Egyptians at that time showed that they themself where much lighter than Nubians, and that the Asiatics were far lighter that them.​

That is all accurate information.​

The fact is he would have likely been of fair skin (as in; not dark) as depicted by the Egyptians.​

And please note, at no time did I ever say he was white.​

Despite the fact that he likely wasn't.

The position you have taken is outright stupid.
Clearly you are not comprehending what you have been told.

The Egyptians showed us that fair skinned people inhabited that area and that is more than likely the same Jesus had. What do you not understand about that? And what did you not understand about this when I said it?

And please note, at no time did I ever say he was white.​

White as in "white skinned, blue eyed and blond haired."
SO present whatever "evidence" you have that he "might have been white", it just presents to me the same question as to why certain students in the study concluded he was white.
You won't let this go, until one of us, or myself, comes out and says " by golly, maybe he was white after all." And to me, I have to question why it is SO important to you that I or anyone has to concede to that.

The above just shows you are have delusional thoughts regarding this topic.

And your insistence that I claimed "white" when I clearly have not, coupled with your insistence that it means ?something?, begs the question as to why it is so important to you.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Wrong. Those are your absurd thoughts.
Again.

The people of that area were definitely Caucasoid.​

The Egyptians at that time showed that they themself where much lighter than Nubians, and that the Asiatics were far lighter that them.​

That is all accurate information.​

The fact is he would have likely been of fair skin (as in; not dark) as depicted by the Egyptians.​

And please note, at no time did I ever say he was white.​

The position you have taken is outright stupid.
Clearly you are not comprehending what you have been told.

The Egyptians showed us that fair skinned people inhabited that area and that is more than likely the same Jesus had. What do you not understand about that? And what did you not understand about this when I said it?

And please note, at no time did I ever say he was white.​

The above just shows you are have delusional thoughts regarding this topic.

And your insistence that I claimed "white" when I clearly have not, coupled with your insistence that it means ?something?, begs the question as to why it is so important to you.

 

[Excon]

[Irrelevant image.]

Your idiotic reply indicates you dislike factual information.