I don’t know if this is up for debate or not. But does the Bible mention Jesus being a white guy? I was always under the impression that he had been ‘whitewashed’. I would mention it every time I got into a debate with someone complaining about ‘race swapping’.
Scripture says nothing about His race but it’s safe to assume He was someone of the regional appearance - Middle Eastern.
Furthermore, Isaiah states that he was not handsome, had unappealing looks. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him. Isaiah 53:2
Isaiah is from the OT and was written no later than the 6th century BC, so I don’t think it can be considered a reliable source for what someone who lived in the 1st century AD looked like.
That chapter seems to be talking specifically about the Lord during his ordeal and cruxifixction, where elsewhere it was said he didn’t even have the appearance of a man after the beatings of the roman solders.
speaking of “white”, you might want to read the book “The Rise and Fall of the Caucasian Race: A Political History of Racial Identity” by Bruce Baum; Jewish people, or other Middle Easterners, were not always considered “white”. If you’re talking about complexion, then he would probably look like contemporary Arabs.
So who was it describing?
A celestial figure who got Euhemerized into Jesus of Nazareth several centuries later, possibly, but not an actual person who would have lived 600 years after it was written.
No, the bible never describes Jesus. (And Isaiah never saw Jesus and couldn’t possibly have describe him.) And yes, he probably looked like modern-day Arabs.
There are numerous Biblical passages, including Jeremiah 23:5, that mention the Messiah would be a descendant of King David, who was from the Tribe of Judah and was a descendant of Abraham. In other words, he was a full-blooded Israelite.
Are all descendants of Thomas Jefferson full-blooded Europeans?
Non sequitur. Your statement as a comparison does not logically follow or relate to my statement in any way, shape or form.
No.
But the Jews at the time didn’t engage in a lot of outbreeding, and most of the nearby tribes also looked like modern day Arabs.
I took you as saying that, because Jesus was a descendant of David and Abraham, he must be full-blooded Israelite. If I misunderstood, I apologize but then I still don’t understand what you meant to say.
I think the point is that Israelites, being from Israel, which is in the Middle East, are going to look like other people from that general area of the Middle East. Similar to Syrians and Egyptians (and current Palestinians).
Israel was an extremely closed society. You were either an Israelite, or you anything but an Israelite. There are pages and pages of the Old Testament where the exact lineage of famous Israelites is traced through many generations. So-and-so begat so-and-so begat so-and-so begat so-and-so and infinitum. When scripture references say that Jesus was “of the house and lineage of David”, that is exactly what they mean.
“Europeans” on the other hand consist of many peoples crammed into close proximity and have mixed with one another over many generations. That’s why saying the latter negates the former is not an acceptable argument.
Please don’t think that I’m arguing Jesus was a European. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I already said, my problem was concluding that Jesus must be 100% middle eastern if he descended from David. Again, if that’s not what you meant then you have nothing to defend.
In another thread it was asserted that the most recent ancestor of all humans lived about 5000 years ago. I don’t know if that’s true but the arguments that it’s not completely crazy are hard to counter. It doesn’t take much interbreeding to make extremely closed societies closely related to each other.
And, of course, the old testament shows that there was much interbreeding between Israel and its neighbours so, one branch of one family tree notwithstanding, not as closed a society as we seem to think.
None of this means I think Jesus had blond hair and blue eyes.
Ironically, and according to New Testament scripture at least, this discussion would be irrelevant to Jesus himself because he considered all people to be exactly the same; i.e., children of God. The following story sums it up better than anything else in scripture:
What Was the Significance of the Woman at the Well?
She is never named, yet her encounter with Jesus is the longest between the Messiah and any other individual in the Gospel of John. Representing the lowest of the low — a female in a society where women are both demeaned and disregarded, a race traditionally despised by Jews, and living in shame as a social outcast — she not only has a holy encounter with Christ but also receives eternal salvation. And her testimony convinces an entire town to believe, too.
What was the significance of the woman at the well, and why is her tale important to Christian believers?
Look, it’s not as if all Arabs look alike; and the Arabs of the Levant are hardly identical to their ancestors of 2,000 years ago. A lot of empires have passed through here in the meantime, leaving plenty of genes behind. Saying Jesus looked like an Arab describes basically nothing.
As for how Jews and their neighboring peoples looked during Roman times… probably brown-ish. Dark hair. Medium height. Trying to assign modern American racial labels to them would be pointless.
And the sad thing is that the Romans didn’t care even a tenth as much about ethnic features as modern Americans do.