Was Jesus dark skinned?

Of course I know the stereotypical Jesus is a while man with a long hair in sandals.

But we all know he was from the east, and just about everyone I have ever met from the east is dark skinned with very dark coarse hair.

Anybody have any pics showing this?

only blaqck anfd white....lol

of a Joshua ben Judas...who may have been jesus...

shall I dig it out?

its from a kabbalah book by z'ev shimon ben halevi (warren kettering...lol)

I always thought he would have been an Arab like in appearance. The early Jews came from Iraq of course. Jesus's family line is overtly Jewish on both sides. I saw early depictions of Jesus as a short dark haired person with coarse brows and dark penetrating eyes. This may be just as much a fabrication as the more femininely soft depiction most popular in the Victorian era which is still in use today. He was not a Netherlander light brown haired Englishman as depicted classically.

Ya Anwar,

I agree with you in that the Israeli people originally were Arab nomads, who settled down as farmers. My theory is also that they came from countries to the east of Palestine; some, like the author Kamal Salibi, say originally from Yemen. Any way, Jesus must have been looking like one of them; otherwise, it would have been pointed out in the Scriptures as an exception, to show his non-wordly connection.

Maize said:

You might find this interesting: The Real Face of Jesus There are some interesting comments on the message board there as well . :lol:

Click to expand...

great find:

Thanks all. Here's my guess.....I heard that Abraham was from a well to do Iraqi family before he left to claim part of Palestine for himself and his clan. So he would have been from the Persian Gulf. Then the Jews left for Egypt and they will have had contact with mostly Africans and Egyptians. After accruing debt and later slavery they were utilized in building the largest Egyptian pyrimids. Finally they were let go to travel as a clan in the dessert for a couple generations building numbers augmenting a closed blood line a little. Then they reclaimed Israel from the Palestines who were actually the Jews that stayed behind to keep the land. So, another mingling occured and out from this David and David's line which includes Mary, Joseph and Jesus. I always thought that David was considered short so maybe the taller African blood will not have played a part. Growing up and employed as a carpenter I am sure He did not look feminine. He may have had thick hands and scars. I read that the feminine depiction was fabricated to appeal to women after the reformation during the Victorian era in order to attract people back to the reformed Church which had grown suspect. He was the new kinder and gentler God. No one knows but we can review parallel historical occurances and speculate a little. Actually that picture above looks more believable the more I consider it!

poor boy would have gotten awfully burnt if he was as pale as they usually show him :lol:

wa:-do

It is daft to suppose that Jesus was anything else but of Middle Eastern appearance. I think the Bible might have mentioned it if he stood out from the crowd in this way!

i believe there will be new and more brilliant colors in heaven. i love all colors.

In my opinion, the pictures portraying Jesus as fair skinned and blonde haired are not as much literal as figurative. We all know that Jesus was middle-eastern, but I think that to victorian era artists, their interpritation seemed the most holy and pure. You could see a renaisance style halo around the white Jesus, but not really around a oafish looking arab guy...

O ya btw i saw that real pic of him, thought that was pretty interesting 8)

I would argue that it was not the Artist's who visualized the Christ as a light in the loafers fair skinned blonde feminine appearing male who never saw a hard days work in his life. Instead it will have been the Catholic church since they commisioned the pieces which were in those days less interpretive and more a service such as photography or mural making. It has a lot to do with (deceptively)selling the Church to the masses after the Reformation. The Reformation occured because of the wide spread corruption and the common person did not trust the Church. It was not long after the Crusades and who wanted to draw attention to the recent corruption by depicting Christ as similar in appearance to the victims of a Church sanctioned rape and pillage campaign.

I do not see why it is important to know what Jesus looked like. In the Old and New Testament it never gives a clear description of Jesus and there doesn't need to be one. We should know Jesus for who he is and not what he looks like. He is our Lord and Savior.

the real face of Jesus. Never trust a scientist to give you any facts on Him.

I do not see why it is important to know what Jesus looked like. In the Old and New Testament it never gives a clear description of Jesus and there doesn't need to be one. We should know Jesus for who he is and not what he looks like. He is our Lord and Savior.

Click to expand...

I agree. Making an issue of Jesus' skin color only draws attention away from who he really was and the importance of his mission. In the past, people's belief that Jesus was white used it as a justification to oppress and enslave people of color.

I think many whites today still look to the phoney depiction of Christ as a fair haired white man in order to feed an unjustified sense of self righteousness. The sort required to fight back a sense of guilt for having consumed much more than thier fair share of resources. It is as if the religion serves to quell guilt which is created by acting out of self righteousness. I think the condition of self righteousness has proved the primary competitve "edge" which has led to wealth creation in the West over the last 1,000 years. It has come at the expense of more mature and compassionate peoples.

i believe there will be new and more brilliant colors in heaven. i love all colors.

In my opinion, the pictures portraying Jesus as fair skinned and blonde haired are not as much literal as figurative. We all know that Jesus was middle-eastern, but I think that to victorian era artists, their interpritation seemed the most holy and pure. You could see a renaisance style halo around the white Jesus, but not really around a oafish looking arab guy...

O ya btw i saw that real pic of him, thought that was pretty interesting 8)

I would argue that it was not the Artist's who visualized the Christ as a light in the loafers fair skinned blonde feminine appearing male who never saw a hard days work in his life. Instead it will have been the Catholic church since they commisioned the pieces which were in those days less interpretive and more a service such as photography or mural making. It has a lot to do with (deceptively)selling the Church to the masses after the Reformation. The Reformation occured because of the wide spread corruption and the common person did not trust the Church. It was not long after the Crusades and who wanted to draw attention to the recent corruption by depicting Christ as similar in appearance to the victims of a Church sanctioned rape and pillage campaign.

I do not see why it is important to know what Jesus looked like. In the Old and New Testament it never gives a clear description of Jesus and there doesn't need to be one. We should know Jesus for who he is and not what he looks like. He is our Lord and Savior.