- Banned
- #1
Was born in the middle east.
Looks like this though.
Looks like this though.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
I do not get people like you. Any other opinion than the ones you subscribe to, is either shut down or subject to personal abuse. I have presented evidence in this thread, which is what most historians believe in.You are so, so wrong.
View attachment 348157
You dont want to hear another opinion, thats not my problem. Atleast i am not abusing anyone. The race issue of jesus is extremely controversial. There is no easy answer to this.That is a cheap debating point - shame on you.
Additional information about Jesus's skin color and hair was provided by Mark Goodacre, a senior lecturer at the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham.[54] Using 3rd-century images from a synagogue—the earliest pictures of Jewish people[62]—Goodacre proposed that Jesus's skin color would have been darker and swarthier than his traditional Western image. He also suggested that he would have had short, curly hair and a short cropped beard.[63] This is also confirmed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul the Apostle states that it is "disgraceful" for a man to have long hair.[64] As Paul allegedly knew many of the disciples and members of Jesus's family, it is unlikely that he would have written such a thing had Jesus had long hair.[63]
Although not literally the face of Jesus,[61] the result of the study determined that Jesus's skin would have been more olive-colored than white,[54] and that he would have most likely looked like a typical Galilean Semite of his day. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify.[63] James H. Charlesworth states Jesus' face was "most likely dark brown and sun-tanned", and his stature "may have been between five feet five [1.65 m] and five feet seven [1.70 m]".[65]
And 400 years before Alexander the Great, Egypt & parts of Israel was ruled by Nubian Kings from the Sudan region, but Egyptians aren't all black skinned now are they?
True, from the oldest paintings of Jesus christ, this cannot be ruled out that Jesus was actually black. He was born to jewish parents no doubt about that.many jews are black
most of Israeli guys today come from east Europe (unconnected to isreal, when nubian kings were in charge) and only converted to Judaism quite late in history
many jews are black..
most of Israeli guys today come from east Europe (unconnected to isreal, when nubian kings were in charge)
and only converted to Judaism quite late in history
Roylion what ethnicity was Jesus according to you assuming he was real (i am not getting into the argument whether he was real or not). Just interested to know your thoughts on this. Do you think he looked like anything like the modern day Jesus we see on tv or magazines?
Try about 35-38% of Israelis.
Please don't bring up the Khazar theory
. All of the presently available genetic studies thoroughly debunk the very questionable theory that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire.
i simply do not believe you
Wasn't Jesus related to King David through his son Nathan?There are no firsthand accounts of Jesus' physical appearance. He was most likely a typical Galilean Semite. For example the Bible (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Gospel accounts are historically totally accurate) records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples (who were largely from Galilee), then he would have been relatively easy to identify from the general population. Paul condemns long hair in men (1 Corinthians) so given that he possibly knew members of Jesus family, it's possible Jesus actually had short hair, which would have probably been dark.
Any depiction of Jesus (e.g. blonde haired, blue eyed) is obviously a reflection of our idealised, mental image, but I see little reason to disbelieve that he was anything other that a typical dark haired, olive skinned Middle Eastern Semite, typical of the region and time.
Wasn't Jesus related to King David through his son Nathan?
There's ample physical descriptions of King David throughout the Old Testament.
The genealogy of Jesus Christ outlined in Matthew is clearly fictional and is little more than a theological construct (i.e largely if not wholly invented) rather than factual history. Matthew's purportrd genealogy is neatly arranged into three sets of fourteen which is very convenient.The first fourteen is from Abraham to David. The second fourteen spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, such as three consecutive kings of Judah - Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah. These three kings were seen as especially wicked, from the cursed line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah to the third and fourth generation, so of course wouldn't want to be associated with the 'Messiah'. The Davidic line ends with "Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon". The last fourteen, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects the father of Jesus, (Joseph) to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names.
Indeed there are remarkably few names for such a long period.
The total of 42 generations is achieved only by omitting several names, so the choice of three sets of fourteen is deliberate. Fourteen is twice seven symbolizing perfection and covenant, and is also the gematria (numerical value) of the name David.
Matthew and Luke also have vastly different genealogies. 55 generations from Abraham to Jesus in Luke and 42 (14.14.14 as I pointed out above) for Matthew.
Did Matthew leave some of the ancestors of Jesus out? Their motive is also clear - the Gospel writers wanted to demonstrate that Jesus qualified as a Messiah partly because of his descent from King David (as per the so-called 'prophecy').
The Gospel writers invented 'fulfilled prophecies' for Jesus, including his descent from David and it's clear the Gospels were theological constructs.
As recorders of historical truth, including Jesus' supposed descent from David, the Gospels are spectacularly unreliable.
Is there? So? The writers of the Old Testament were contemporaries of David were they? What does this have to do with Jesus, who lived 1,000 years after the purported time of King David?