i certanly hope your not talking about me because i asure you i have no f’n clue what your talking about.
As a fellow Catholic, sxe, I hope you have a meaningful Lenten season.
You know, Mohammed probably had the right idea in forbidding his followers to draw pictures of him. I suspect that the depiction of Jesus as Caucasian for so many years is a major reason why many African-Americans have converted to Islam…
There’s a very good reason you don’t find any description of Jesus in the bible. The Jews at the the time considered any depiction of the human form to be idolatry. Yeah, I know Jesus was divine, but you don’t dump such a deeply ingraned rule easily. Even today, Israel doesn’t have any money with people on it.
As for what Jesus looked like: he looked like a mid-easterner. Not black, nor “white” as it’s usually defined (although mid-easterners are technically caucasian).
–It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
Bosda, if sxe is indeed Michael Mastersons new persona (as seems likely), perhaps we could try being a bit patient with him this time.
In the last MM post that I saw, he more or less apologized for his trolling, and promised to try and become a good SD member. (I’m sorry, I don’t know how to make a link). He was advised by at least one person to adopt a new screen name, because the MM one had messed up so bad, that people were not likely to be able to get over it.
In this new incarnation, he seems to be trying to ask real questions, without trolling. If he is not doing it all that well, well, have you never been an insecure 14 year old? I have, and when I look back on it, I am very grateful for the adults who took my age and immaturity into account, and
helped me to make my behavior more acceptable, without being judgemental.
I asure you I have no knowledge of this MM character. Maybe someone could explain this to me so i can understand just what you people are talking about.
The oldest extant paintings of Jesus in the archetypical form (ascetic caucasian with long hair and beard) date to around 200 years after his death, as I recall. While this is no doubt just an artist’s fancy, it probably does represent the general look of the people in that area at that time. It would have been heretical to paint Jesus in a way that was not intended to be an ‘accurate’ depiction.
WhiteNight said:
Are you trying to start a great debate?
I’ve heard several things in this regard. One is that the Jews at the time were prior to the influx of more “caucasian” influences and were likely a lot darker in complexion than typical now. Not “African” dark, but darker. Something like a Middle Eastern complexion. Maybe Indian coloration?
Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor said:
What is this incessant fascination with labeling every newbie a troll? Why accuse him of being MM? Face it, MM may have been an obnoxious punk, but many of the questions he asked were asked by many other people here prior to his arrival. Just because MM didn’t act polite does not mean someone couldn’t ask the same question seriously. In fact I’ve heard this question come up numerous times when discussing religious topics, so there’s no need for jumping to that conclusion just because the question is the same. Please. And by doing so, you’ve made this yet another thread about that incessant prick we all want to forget. Come on - DROP IT! Wait till a person does something truly offensive, and then bust them on that. Stop bringing up MM. YOU’RE STILL FEEDING THE TROLL!
Sxe dopefiend, if you have a serious question, go ahead and ask. Most of us will give you a chance, even if we’ve seen the question before. And I won’t accuse you of being a troll until you exhibit troll behavior, whatever past incarnations some accuse you of. Your IQ and age are irrelevant to whether you can contribute to this board meaningfully.
Check out MPSIMS. Read the threads by him and about him. But please don’t post to any of them - let them die.
what is a troll? I dont mean litterally but well you should understand what im talking about
“Troll” is a message board term and one of my favorite modern coinages.
It is used to describe someone who posts messages not because they care about the answer, but because they want attention. They deliberatly try to irritate people beyond reason. Trolls make posts like:
Is my penis is inconviently long?
[Racial Group of your choice] are inferior.
I am smarter that all you &^%#s.
I added punctuation and regular spelling, because I can’t stand not to. Pretend otherwise.
Now then, there is a twofold reason these individuals are called 'trolls" First, they are trolling, like a fisherman with a net, throwing out posts at random looking to get any response. Second, they remind us all of little nasty creatures that live under bridges, inconviencing everyone and adding nothing to the enviroment. We don’t feed them in hopes that they will starve, and go away to another bridge.
If I can make a humble suggestion, I recomend you change your name. Never mind what it is * supposed* to mean, when the rest of us see “sxe dopefiend” we assume that you are the type of annoying 14 year old whose mind is so consumed by thoughts of sex and drugs that he can’t think of anything else–or worse, the type of fourteen year old that thinks that other people will think he must be cool because all he thinks about are sex and drugs. For most of us, the novelty wore off a long time ago. I am willing to take you at your word that you are not like that, but your name implies it, and people will always assume that that is how you want to be seen unless you change it. Kinda sucks, but communication is not what one means, it is what everyone else understands.
Finally, remember that here you will be held to the same yardstick as all the other people. This is both oppurtunity and curse–on one hand you have the chance to get
treated with real respect, on the other you will be given real critism when you make mistakes. If you are smart you will pay attention to it and learn alot. A hint–read a lot more than you post. If you are responding to every thread you open, or even 1 out of every 5 threads, you are talking to much. Make sure you sit back and listen. That is how the rest of us learn. Furthermore, don’t try humor or sarcasm on any message board until you been there several months and established a persona. Otherwise, everyone will misunderstand you and think you are being an ass or just really stupid. Good luck, and I hope you enjoy the board.
Not at all. I just think that it’s a lot more likely that Jesus, as a person, existed, than that the whole thing was made up. I don’t doubt the existance of Jesus much more than that of Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, etc. What I doubt, and I think is reasonable to question, is if Jesus was the son of god, etc.
The existance of a prophet is nothing spectacular. We’ve got a million of them now, Jimmy Swagart and David Koresh are only two of the better known examples. The only reason to doubt the existance of Jesus would be if you assumed that he had to be a literal son of god as well as a prophet.
Hmmm. I might buy that the jews, originally, were a different color than the surrounding people, because they were nomadic. But by the time of Jesus, they were a fairly settled people and had a lot of time to mix with the surrounding people.
So, a bit lighter or darker, sure. Completely different racial colouring, not likely.
But, that’s just my opinion.
http://www.abacom.com/~jkrause/jesus.html
definitevely answers this question and tells you a lot more about the life of Jesus. It makes for amusing reading
Two kids at Sunday school once got on this same subject, of whether Jesus was white or black. They couldn’t figure it out so they asked they teacher nor did she know. Well the white kid goes home and asks his mother the question and she doesn’t know either. Finally when the black child arrives at home he calmly looks at his mother and say, “mommy was jesus black too”. His mother turns to him with a sad face and says “no…jesus isn’t black”. After pondering this question all day he wonders how his mother knows this so he asks. She responds by saying “Son, Jesus isn’t black because he said ‘I AM WHAT, I AM’” with a sigh she continues by saying “if he had been black he would have said I IS WHAT, I IS”
This is General Questions, not the Barbecue Pit. With that understnding, we prefer to address issues of fact and understanding rather than mere bad jokes.
Bad jokes that are both stupid and racist are particularly unwelcome. I’d suggest you give a bit more thought to your contributions before you make them.
(And the joke was specifically stupid because it did not even present an accurate depiction of actual black dialect. If you can’t deliver even racism with accuracy, you are hopelessly out of your element, here.)
Tom~
While Jesus’s image does vary, there is a constant depiction of him as having dark blonde hair and usually having a beard. A friend claims that he was modeled that way to represent a citizen of Rome, which the Christians were of course trying to convert. With the rise of Christianity coming at about 200 A.D., a standard of his image might have been created which, starting in A.D. 330, would then have been reinforced through the iconography of Byzantium. The image would have been standardized during the next 1123 years until Byzantium fell and would have been carried throughout Europe by artists and merchants all the while.
On the other hand, I’m not an expert on Rome, Byzantium or Christian studies, so I may be just blowing smoke. In any case, hope this helps.
cornflakes, Wouldn’t the Romans have been generally dark-haired and clean-shaven?
2000 years ago? I don’t know. This was before the fall of Rome, the Dark Ages, the rise of Islam, etc., etc., but I don’t know what a Roman looked like. Hey, I warned you that I’m not an expert…
Maybe he was supposed to look like Charlemagne.
Jesus descended from the line of Shem; His lineage from Noah through Abraham is shown in Genesis 11:10-27 and Luke
3:34-38: Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram a.k.a Abraham.
Jesus’ lineage from Abraham through David is shown in Matthew 1 and Luke 3: Matt 1:[2] Abraham, of Ur of the Chaldees
& Sarah, Isaac & Rebekah, Jacob & Leah, [3] Judah & Tamar [Canaanite ?], Perez, Hezron, [4] Ram, Amminadab,
Nahshon, [5] Salmon & Rahab [Canaanite], Boaz & Ruth [Moabite], Obed, [6] Jesse, David & Bethsheba, who probably
was a Hamitic Hittite. (Historically, there are two unrelated peoples called “Hittites” – those descended from Ham, (Hamitic)
and those descended from Japheth. The group descended from Japheth were Caucasian and are among the oldest of the
Indo-European peoples.) (Moabites were Semitic – descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot; see Genesis 20:36-37.)
Rahab was a contemporary of Joshua, successor to Moses. Seventy Israelites went into captivity in Egypt and during the 430
years the Israelites were in captivity in Egypt they and their descendants intermarried with non-Israelites. The group of over
600,000 men plus women and children that left Egypt under Moses was a “mixed multitude”. Ethnically, their ancestors were a
combination of Hamitic Egyptians and Semitic Israelites. Although the Bible lays out Jesus’ ancestors through Shem, it does not
mention that His ancestors’ would have had Hamitic blood from this intermixing, e.g. on their mothers’ sides.
Jesus’ human paternal genealogy after David, mainly as shown in Matthew is: [7] Solomon (1Ch 3:5), Rehoboam, Abijah,
[8] Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, [9] Uzziah (Ahaziah 1Ch 3:11), Joash (1Ch3:11), Amaziah (1Ch3:12), Azariah (1Ch3:12),
[Matt 9] Jotham, Ahaz, [10] Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, [11] Josiah, [12] Jeconiah, Shealtiel, [13] Zerubbabel, Abiud,
Eliakim, [14] Azor, Zadok, Akim, [15] Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, [16] Jacob, Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus.
Jesus’ maternal genealogy after David, as shown in Luke 3:23-31: Nathan (1Ch 3:5), Mattatha, Menna, [31] Melea, Eliakim,
Jonam, Joseph, Judah, [30] Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, [29] Joshua, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, [28] Melki, Neri,
Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, [27] Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, [26] Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos,
[25] Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melki, Levi, [24] Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus.
THE BLACK PRESENCE IN JESUS’ LINEAGE
Jesus’ male ancestors trace a line from Shem. However, ethnically and racially, they were mixed Semitic and Hamitic from the
times spent in captivity in Egypt and Babylon.
Rahab and probably Tamar were Canaanites. Although Canaanites spoke a Semitic language, they were descendants of Ham
through his son Canaan. Bethsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah the Hittite, probably was a Hamitic Hittite herself.
In the United States today the general view on whether someone is “black” is the One-Drop Rule – if a person has any black
ancestors s/he is considered “black”, even with a clearly Anglo skin color, e.g., Mariah Carry, Vanessa L. Williams, LaToya
Jackson. (cf., for example, The Politics of Egyptology and the History Kemet (Egypt))
Regardless of U.S. race relations and the arbitrary assigments we make within those cultural problems, (and without addressing all of the various issues that come oozing out of the woodwork when we try to make sense of the genealogies of Jesus), there is a more serious flaw with this approach in that it relies on a very late interpretation of scripture (nineteenth century?) to assign Ham as the father of all/only “black” races. There is simply no Scriptural basis for this retrospective assignment of race. While no’omiy anderson’s post takes a good shot at “settling” the issue, I doubt that many readers of this board will accept enough of the presuppositions in it to accept it as conclusive.
(And that is without even getting into the whole furor over the likelihood that the story of Noah has any basis in historical reality.)
Tom~
Did the board swallow my last response?