@Chelsea Glass: The best evidence based account for the origins of the human species is the so-called "out of Africa" theory (whether modified by the "multi-regional" hypothesis or not). That would strongly suggest that all the original humans were of a type that would most closely resemble what is currently classed as "Afro-Caribbean negro". Furthermore a convincing evolutionary tree has been deduced by studying the genetics of various racial populations via their mitochondrial DNA. Those studies essentially conclude that white skin was originated by natural mutations as non-white migrant populations moved further north to regions which required somewhat less protection from the potentially damaging ultra-violet rays of the sun. As far as historical evidence is concerned most of the people who were enslaved by the Romans were the white people they captured during battle as their Empire radiated out from Rome through predominantly Caucasian populations. You assert that the blacks were enslaved and not worth crucifying well, as far as the combination of historical and Biblical evidence is concerned: The Egyptians probably enslaved some of the ancestral forebears of Jesus the Nazarene whom we are lead to believe was crucified by the Romans. Either the Egyptians enslaved whites, and Jesus was a descendant of the immediate kinfolk of white slaves (whether He was worth crucifying or not), or He was a descendant of the immediate kinfolk of non-white slaves and therefore probably non-white Himself (whether He was worth crucifying or not). I am inclined to believe that Jesus the Nazarene was almost certainly not blue eyes (not least because blue eyes are a recessive gene) almost certainly not blond (in the Aryan / Scandinavian sense) and almost certainly not what most "white" people (including myself) would call "white". Of course it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that He was an albino, but I think that would have been mentioned in the Bible.
There is still the question of how much of what is attributed to Josephus was written by him. Most scholars consider at least part of the Testimonium to be later additions by Christian scribes. I wouldn't put Jesus skeptics in the same fringe as holocaust or moon landing deniers. Another argument might be that Jesus existed but his life story was embellished with elements from the stories of Horus, Bacchus, Zarathustra, Krishna, etc. I don't really have a horse in this race since I don't care if Jesus literally existed or not; I don't believe in God so he couldn't be son of God. Considering the way the RCC controlled knowledge for centuries it would have been possible for them to add or subtract. Remember that the RCC not only ordered Wycliffe's Bibles to be burned but also his bones and every mention of him. They literally tried to erase him from history.
Historically, the facts of the manned landing on the moon is not universally accepted. No doubt the same applies to every known historical figure. Jesus the Nazarene is refereed to specifically (as the brother of James) by the authoritative first century historian Josephus. Although there may be some doubt concerning the authenticity of some of the tracts attributed to Josephus, there is little doubt about the authenticity of the reference to James the brother of Joseph. I(n my opinion, the evidence for Jesus the Nazarene as a real historical person is about as reliable as the evidence for such characters as, Pontius Pilate, William the Conqueror, and Guy Fawkes. Furthermore, it is much more reliable than the evidence for "King David"; "Boudicca"; "Joan of Arc"; " Paul Revere"; "Cochise"; or the Sundance Kid.
Well in the bible it says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. So according to the weather over there, some people say he would be Arab- black hair, dark eyes with a tan. And some people think he's white just tanned. But according so recent studies some people say he would be black. Which I personally think he's white with a tan because has was born near the equator. But most of the books and videos of Jesus they make him white, don't know why they just do. But the colour doesn't really matter, what matters is he died on the cross for you, me and everyone else so our sins can be forgiven :) like seriously what a great dude!!
I don't know what is sadder, how completely clueless you are or the fact that you are unaware that you are a racist. "Back then, who were the slaves? Not the white people", you are mixing up AMERICAN history with MIDDLE EASTERN history. Back then race was not actually a factor for slavery and all mixes of people were slaves. Perhaps you need to read up on the Roman Empire. Then again an education would horrify your parents who've obviously brain washed you. So maybe you are better off living in ignorance. I've often wondered how genocides happen. People like you make me understand.
Historical Jesus is not universally accepted. There is very little extra-Biblical evidence of him ever existing and what little that does is likely to be forgeries. My college philosophy teacher who's specialty was early Christianity and the Classics argued that it is more likely that he didn't exist than that he did. Considering the many parallels between Jesus and hero/saviors in earlier religions you can make a pretty good argument that he was a composite of them.
Surprisingly, the question is asked in the present tense rather than the past tense. . Jesus the Nazarene WAS a real historical person. In all probability he had an "olive complexion": http://funadvice.com/r/154tdlr21hd . He died and is now at best a dusty pile of bones: the colour of which will probably depend upon the ambient minerals located in the vicinity of his remains.
Best wishes - Majikthise. .
Not everything has to be written in the bible for it to be true. Back then, who were the slaves? Not the white people. I didnt write history. Back then if a black man were to come in telling you about what Jesus talked about, he would have been forced to work. He wouldn't have been worth the crucifixion. Its the sad truth and i'm not saying thats how it is now.
To be honest, I think he is white w blonde hair and blue eyes. That is what is seen as "pure". As well as that blacks were not as populated as they are now, back then. Times have gratefully changed but, if Jesus would have been black, people would have not listened to him the slightest bit.
(Not being racist just voicing my opinion)
Yehshua was Hebrew, so he was probably tan or light brown...you know like Mediterranean. If you believe in Him, you become part of the true spiritual Yisrael. He was send for Yisrael, but if a gentile truly believes they can also become part of the covenant. He was a son of DAvid, his mother and Father was of the tribe of DAvid.
Interesting that Jesus is usually depicted either as a defenseless newborn or an impaled skinny man.Why do you think it is so?Don't you think it is rather humiliating to our beloved king?As for what he is today, according to the book of Revelation, he is a powerful warrior king in heavens ready to war against all God's enemies...
The Bible says that Judas had to kiss him as as sign for the priests to be able to recognize him. Therefore it seems he was of the similar skin color and body-shape of the strong sun tanned fishermen that were with him.In other words nothing like you usually see on the crosses.Does it sound logical to you?
WOW. So black people or colored people of any sort are not seen as pure to you?? Jews were/are not white with blond hair and blue eyes. Wasn't he born of a jewish Mother? So he was different looking from all his family and friends? fO.o So all the slaves in the Bible days were black? ~.^
It really doesn't matter. Jesus is Jesus. Actually, he is what ever color you want him to be. Purple, organge, yellow, read, black, white. Anything. The main thing that matters, is what he did for us. And this is coming from a 14 year old girl. Seriously, people. Come on!
According to the Kevin Smith film "Dogma", Jesus was black. According to the pictures in my local church he was blond. According to logic, he must have been middle eastern or mediterranean.
I don't think the bible says anything about his complexion.
I was always of the mind that he would be the colour of the rest of the population where he was conceived, specifically, the colour his mother was ... which would have been "olive" tone, as already suggested.
Jesus's mother was from the town of Nazareth (which is in Israel). I know this because women were not allowed to leave home until they were married. So Jesus was probably the Middle Eastern skin color.
I consider myself fairly adept at forming verbal caricatures, and frankly I would not be able to create a better caricature of racism than the one you have just written. Congratulations.
I honestly dont care what color jesus was, and I think it's sad people really care that much. The color of his skin shouldn't even matter, his teachings should.
He is whatever color you see him in! :D When he was on earth he was probably olive tone though cause of being a son of Mary who was Jewish. :D
I didn't know that you had to have blond hair, blue eyes and white skin to be seen as pure... fO.o Where was that written in the Bible? o.O
Well I don't think he is white because white folks don't have wool has, as it says in the bible that that's what he had, and brown skin
I really don't think anybody would know, the bible doesn't even say. People just go by what they see in pictures.
I aggree 100% and might add that Jesus dosen't care what color we are either because he loves us all.
Yep snds logical to me, all the pics I see of him he is white, I just believe that he was
If you're going to go by Dogma, then his Dad was transexual. :P
I don't care either, I'm just a very curious person that's all
Rufus, the 13th apostle. And the two weed-head prophets. X-)
naw in dogma chris rock was the 13th apostle
Sorry "... James the brother of Jesus ..."
yes. And he said that Jesus was black. :-)
Wait, I thought that was the Holy Ghost?
i honstly dont think the color matters
Invisible.... not real :O