Or a banker…
I like this msg board… working at work pleh…
If Jesus was descended from King David, he was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi…not that tribal identities other than Levite existed by the Roman period.
Are you implying that it is racism on the part of blacks, whites, or both?
Because it reads as though you are blaming black anger at whites for the creation of ‘black Jesus.’ All this without trying to understand that white Jesus is not necessarily the correct default position- or that a black (or at least non-white) messiah is a valid position in itself given the historical and ethnographic data available to us.
I guess that I’m not understanding where a black Jesus is less ‘holy’ or ‘correct’ than a white one. The whole ‘black Jesus is better than none at all’ is a bit condescending. Does the idea that your savior might actually have been of a darker persuasion bother you?
I always thought Jesus Christ…known at the time as Ye’shua ben Yusef…was a Sephardic Jew, the brown skinned Semitic race of Hebrews native to the Middle East, as opposed to the “white” race of jews called the Ashkenazi, native to Eastern Europe.
Does anyone know what race situations were like in Jesus’ time and place? Since he lived under Roman rule, wouldn’t his blackness be of more significance and pointed out as such in scripture (assuming he was black)? As I understand it, negro Africans were not common in the middle east or the Roman empire; and the only encounter with them were as slaves.
I doubt a black African could have ushered even a small following among the Jews in that era.
Technical point. The Sephardi were the Jews who inhabited the Iberian peninsula from the early middle ages until their expulsion in 1492. Many moved to the Middle East (among other places) following the expulsion, but Jesus could not have been a member of a group that only became a group 400 or 500 years his departure.
Actually, the evidence indicates that peoples at that time were less concerned with skin color and it would have been quite possible that a person would not be associated with skin color in later descriptions.
Regardless, Jesus was a Jew of his time and place, with, most likely, the typical coloring of his neighbors. However, as has been noted on several occasions, people painting images of people from the past tend to use the forms and colors of their (the artists’) neighbors and it is a fairly modern conceit that a painter might strive for “historical accuracy” when painting an inspirational image.
Hopefully SHAKES is still reading this thread, because I might have some insight into your original question (What’s up with black Jesus?).
I’m not sure that most proponents of “black Jesus” mean “African Jesus”, although I’m sure that there are plenty of examples of African Christian art that depict Jesus as African.
The “black Jesus” movement seems to be nothing other than a concious movement by non-white churches to break the stereotypical “European Jesus” that predominates.
I am intentionally avoiding the debate on what color Jesus actually was – the whole point is that the proponents of “black Jesus” are fighting a stereotype.
I believe the “black Jesus” argument is best personified by this interaction I had with a dark-skinned gentleman in the bathroom of my church in Boston. (I am ethnically Asian)
I walked into the bathroom and he accosted me:
Gentleman: “What are you doing here?”
Dolphin: “I’m helping with the clothes and food pantry.”
G: “No, what are you doing here, at this church?”
D: “Oh! I go to this church.”
G: “No, no, no - why are you here, at a white church?”
D (tactfully): “Our church is open to people of all races, whether you’re white, black, yellow – everyone is welcome.”
G: “Yeah, but Jesus was black.”
D: “I suppose he had dark skin …”
G: “No, he was BLACK.”
D (annoyed): “Well, he was Jewish, but he was outside a lot so …”
G: “JESUS WAS BLACK, LIKE YOU AND ME!”
(pause)
D: “I’m black?”
G: “Yeeeeah. You black, brother.”
Huh. I guess that does explain everything.
hi there all. i didnt read all the postings on this debate,
so i dont know if this has already been covered,
but i thought i would give my input on the black jesus debate.
(now this stuff i got from an email ages ago, so it isn’t my logic,
but nevertheless i think it’s brilliant
and congrats to the guy who wrote it )
um, jesus was born in a part of the world we call the middle east,
which if we were being honest, is basically a part of africa,
seperated from the continent only by the man-made suez canal.
this would firstly give the impression that the chances of him
bieng white or fair are somewhere between slim and none. (we’re not in ‘south’ africa afterall!)
the earliest representations of jesus, mary and christs disciples appear in the catacombs (like little tunnel thingies) of rome, where the first christians, known as “Essenes” buried their dead. all of these portrayals pictured a dark-skinned messiah. in addition, during the time of roman emperor justinian II, the empire minted a gold coin that pictured jesus. the coin, which today can be viewed in the british museum, shows a man with clearly non-white facial features and tightly curled hair, and is consistent with the description of jesus offered in the book of revelations, IN THE BIBLE! :)… wherein it noted that jesus had hair like wool, feet the colour of burnt brass, and resembled jasper and sardine stones (both of which were brown in colour)
ALSO, remember how (going back to the bible now) Herod sent search parties after Jesus’ birth to find him and slay him as an infant. to hide the christ child, his family escaped with him to Egypt … and if there is one thing that you can be ABSOLUTELY sure of, its that one would not be so stupid as to hide an ARYAN baby and family in PRE-ARAB Egypt, of all places. this was afterall, a society of dark-skinned africans (as evidenced in their own hieroglyphs)… they described their home as Kemet (the black land), and themselves as Kemetcu (the black humans)…
the “father” of modern history, Herodotus, himself acknowledged as much when he said, " the egyptians, colchians, and ethiopians have thick lips, broad nose, wooly hair, and are of burnt skin" elsewhere, he actually referred to them as “black”… if jesus HAD been WHITE, Mary and joseph surely would have put Jesus on a slow boat to canada, not trekked to egypt where finding them would be like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel…
hehehehe… how cool is that. i reckon it all makes sense… what u guys think. sorry it was long, i just needed to write down the main points, and this guy had a few arguments…
coolio, write back please with agreement or criticism, both are fine, i like to learn:cool: 
bye then…
(green ambrosia)
That is always a good thing:
The Middle East is clearly in Asia, not Africa. (It hardly changes the color of the inhabitants, but in the fight against ignorance, we should get our geography correct.) The Suez Canal is rather short, connecting the Mediterranean to the Red Sea–two bodies of water that distinctly outline Africa as we recognize it.
The Essenes were a Jewish sect (who generally hung out in the desert South and East of Jerusalem) that had little to nothing to do with early Christianity (although there are always people who are desperate to make that connection).
Any coins from the period of Justinian II (669 - 711) would have been subject to the same issues of selecting images from the local people (as opposed to using historic references) that have been described earlier in the thread.
Images from the Book of Revelation (which was probably written by a person who never met Jesus) are also subject to the constraints imposed by the symbolism used to convey a message, and probably have no basis in factual description.
Egyptians of the first century probably looked a lot like Egyptians, today, with large numbers of people in a broad range of hues and shades. (Paintings from Egypt display a myriad of colors and shades over several thousand years of history.)
Your point that Jesus would not have appeared Aryan is a good one, although, when we venture out into the realm of “who is white?” we begin running into the problem that it is difficult to find two groups who agree on what “white” looks like.
Welcome to the SDMB. I appreciate your enthusiasm, although you may find that if you do read a thread before you post to it, you may discover that others have already addressed your points (sometims confirming them, sometimes rebutting them).
I thought that everybody knew that Black Jesus was created by J.J. and that his eyes were patterned after those of Ned the Wino.
Cite:http://valdefierro.com/times40.html
I don’t know where you people are seeing them, but I have never, in my entire life, seen a painting where Jesus was portrayed as blonde, only with brown hair.
I have seen the “black Jesus” as well (unfortunately) but never blonde. Blue eyes, maybe, I don’t pay much attention to eye color, but blonde, nuh uh.
Ned the wino…
:)oh well. thanks for the reply all. and i think i will start to read the other threads… um… then how come this whole thing is such a debate if you have so many answers to any argument 
… seriously, not being rude, but like… how come there is a debate then… someone just decide… black, or white, or in the middle… thanks “TOM”, your thread was enlightening…hehehe
bye all, thanks again…
green ambrosia
Mohammed was an Arab, correct? Did he not describe Jesus (and I know whether you accept this or not may have to do with your view of his connection with God) as a man with a red face (ruddy)? Now if an Arab describes a Jewish prophet (who is revered in Islam) as red faced and thereby extremely light complected – ruddy is usually reserved for people with red hair – then why is it so odd to believe Jesus was as white as most Jews are today? And as I mentioned, a friend of mine is an Iranian Jew and her Jewish grandmothers from Iran are blonds – so that helps throw out the idea that European Jews are light because they mixed with Europeans.
Isn’t it sort of a racial thing to believe that fair skin is only a “Nordic” thing? As for people depicting those they revere in racial images akin to themselves then why do pictures done of the apostles (some related by blood to Jesus) in Ethiopia show light people, not dark?
The Essenes expanded baptism from just the priests to all devouts. The Christians adopted that principle to their ritual: “One faith, one baptism”.
While the Essees may have introduced baptism as a widespread ritual, (although, it is possible that they were one of several groups who acted similarly), it would seem that by the time that Christians adopted baptism, it had flowed out into a more general Jewish practice and was no longer the “property” of the Essenes. John the Baptist is occasionally mentioned as a possible Essene, yet his purported hermit existence, wearing of skins, and diet of locusts tends to argue aainst that claim. (The Essenes lived in communities, preferred white linen, and John’s diet of locusts would not have been in keeping with their vegetarian diet.)
Even if the Christians borrowed baptism directly from the Essenes, it is hardly likely tht the statement to which I responded, ‘the first christians, known as “Essenes”’ has much to support it.