Was Jesus Black?

[JANOSIK007]

First off, NO. I don't believe that Jesus or Jews of that period were racially negroid. Linguistically, they were semitic. Racially, caucassoid. I am not keen on making these monolithic divisions, but when you consider what I am about to confer to you, I am sure you'll understand.

Second, go quickly to cnn.com

In the video section you can see a report about a new Jesus Christ movie depicting all the Jews as black. Now there are blacks who are of Jewish Ancestry in Southern Africa, but this aside, Jews are not black.

Now I am fine if you make these distortions about Jesus to fit your culture. Europeans have done this for a millenium now. You can make him into a Martian, for all I care. It's the message that is important.

Now that we have the sensitivity disclaimer over with, let's discuss the Jesus as a historical figure, which is what this movie sets out to do. According to the director, who is black, Passion is filled with inaccuracies refering to the Jesus' phenotype. He purports that he was 'black' though not neccessarily negroid, even though he casts him as such.

Just stop right here. Jim Caviezel did a great job of portraying a very close non-European image of Christ. His depiction was a move away from the stereotypical white complexion, brown hair, red cheeks, etc. I would think this is as close as it gets. Then this douche comes in accusing of inaccuracies saying that Jesus was 'black' ("according to what we know," he says), but not quite, and still casting him wery quite black. This is an inaccuracy.

Then he shifts the story of Jesus we all know, the message we have all heard, and turns it into a very hip, ghetto Shakespearre-type adaptation when he adds race into the mix. It's the grand ole' days when them southern folk was killin and lynchin all them blackies. So apparently we have these very white Romans who made race an issue in their persecution of Jesus. All this time, the vioces of high priests and patriarchs are muffled by this director's briliant and more accurate translation of the Gospel, which was apprantly originally written in Eubonics.

Lastly, this insolent image of a man tells me that if I have a problem with his movie (and all that baggage it brings) I have to evaluate my beliefs and asses the kind of person I am. All I know right now is the kind of person he is, a very STUPID ONE.

I was expecting an amusing and heartwarming story about how different cultures make Jesus Christ relevant to themselves. All I got was just a bunch of garbage showed down my throat. I though you'd all like to know that as well.

So sorry. A very wrong section. I thought I was in Thema Devia. Please reroute me there and while you're at it why don't you contribute. Thanks

[italiano]

All caucasian so who cares.

[Matty_P]

jesus wasn't balck.

it's racist propoganda against the true minorty! white people!

[drak10687]

well, to each his own. I bet just as many people, if not more, would be angry if that film was stopped from being shown because of its "different" ideas. The main thing is that all (almost) can still express their ideas, and that none (sort of) are abliged to believe any of them.

[Ulyaoth]

the Jesus is black thing always ****** me off because it's just such obvious racist bs. The Boondocks ****** me off so much with trying to act like it's a proven fact he's black.

[Scazar]

He obviously wasn't caucasian. But he was also in the wrong region to be black also, so he was likely arabian.

[Last Roman]

He obviously wasn't caucasian. But he was also in the wrong region to be black also, so he was likely arabian.

Caucasoid (a race) is different from Caucasian, which is what Italiano meant I think. Jesus was a Hebrew, which is ethnically similar to Arabs and both belong to the same language family (Semitic)

[Mangalore]

Caucasoid (a race) is different from Caucasian, which is what Italiano meant I think. Jesus was a Hebrew, which is ethnically similar to Arabs and both belong to the same language family (Semitic)

caucasoid like mongoloid and some other are not races but ways of charakterizing resemblances between ethnic group. E.g. there are wild discussion wether Native Americans might have some causoid features which would support a theory of European immigration into America.

The important part here is that those terms are used to indicate genetical relations between ethnic groups not race.


And by the way why are the terms "blacks" and "whites" still used even by Afroamerican communities. This colour scheme is an arbritrary invention by European racists to justify their subjugation of supposedly inferior races. It is incorrect, outdated, racist and meaningless.
Jesus was from the ethnic group that inhabitated Palestina in his which was neither of European nor African descendancy.

[wilpuri]

And by the way why are the terms "blacks" and "whites" still used even by Afroamerican communities. This colour scheme is an arbritrary invention by European racists to justify their subjugation of supposedly inferior races. It is incorrect, outdated, racist and meaningless.
Jesus was from the ethnic group that inhabitated Palestina in his which was neither of European nor African descendancy.

What should they use? It is much easier to simply say "white" instead of European American.

[the_mango55]

No, Jesus wasn't black.

But I have no problem with people depicting Jesus to fit within thier own culture either, it has been done since forever.

He wasn't black, but he didn't look like this either:


EDIT: BTW, I think this is in totally the wrong section :tooth:

[Last Roman]

EDIT: BTW, I think this is in totally the wrong section :tooth:

that's been pointed out

Jesus probably had dark wavy hair, tan/olive skin and brown eyes, typical for many mid-eastern peoples. I believe beards were also in fashion back then.

[Matty_P]

he definately wasn't arabian either.

[Miraj]

he definately wasn't arabian either.

He was effectively the same race as the *original* arabs. The *original* arabs and the *original* hebrews were from the same semitic stock, like the phoenicians, akkadians, sabaens etc. Even to this day many real semitic Jews look almost exactly like the average Arab.

Jesus wasn't an Arabian, because Arabian is an ethno-cultural-lingual label. But Jesus was the same race as the Arabs and Cannanites.

[Matty_P]

that's what i meant.

but the region (from europe to india, including north african lands[when excluding ethnic africans], the arabian peninsula, most of the '-stans'[excluding ethnic asians]) is largely inhabitted by people who more commonly have 'white' features.

the whole, narrow[-er] nose, hair texture, etc. i'm trying not to get into racist claims or slander, but the features of white people are typically common to 'arabs' most indians...etc, the only major variation being skin color.

Well, yes, but the Judeans were closely related genetically to Arabians.

well, yes, but genetically Humans are closely genetically related. About 99.9% or so. you're point there, is a little skinny...

Merged double post. - Trajan

[xopium]

he definately wasn't arabian either.

Well, yes, but the Judeans were closely related genetically to Arabians.

The idea of Jesus as a beautiful androgynous man with long flowing blonde hair and blue eyes with pale whiteish skin is about as accurate as if he was a black man with dreads, a bong and a rasta hat. The Byzantine art of him was probably the most accurate.

There are a lot of inaccuracies with race and history. Every representation of Emperor Nero I have seen has him with brown hair because that's more ''Italian'' when in historical sources he clearly had light blond hair.

[JANOSIK007]

EDIT: BTW, I think this is in totally the wrong section :tooth:

So sorry. A very wrong section. I thought I was in Thema Devia. Please reroute me there and while you're at it why don't you contribute. Thanks

I put this in bold. Man those Mods are slow today.

Jesus wasn't an Arabian, because Arabian is an ethno-cultural-lingual label. But Jesus was the same race as the Arabs and Cannanites.

Quoted for truth, except when you talk race the usual denotation of caucasian, black, asian comes o mind. In this sense, Jesus was caucasian. In phenotype, which are the visible features shaped by environment and diet, he was close to the current indigenous inhabitants of Middle East.

Jesus probably had dark wavy hair, tan/olive skin and brown eyes, typical for many mid-eastern peoples.

That's right. Racially, that doesn't make him black.

@Ulayoth: Who is Boondocks? Is it that director? In that case, Yeah that is provocative.

If Jews today and Arabs as well are considered caucasian than why is Jesus black?

[Ahiga]

If Jews today and Arabs as well are considered caucasian than why is Jesus black?

Because, like the Nazis with the Aryan people (Whose sole relation with germanian-speaking people was a common root language, Indo-european. Not race, not being superior, none of that.), making jesus black suits their agenda. It becomes a source of pride and selfishness ("Jesus was a brother, not a cracker, so -we're- the true believers" almost).

There's nothing wrong with depicting Jesus as black to give a message of his kinship with all of humanity. If you do that you should feel that while he may have looked semitic, he truly was of every ethnicity, or say that you feel his race doesn't matter in the big picture. It doesn't except for the fact that if people try and identify his ethnicity as anything other than what it almost undeniably was (Which is 'brown', or related to Palestinians or Middle eastern Jews of today), then he can become a weapon for their politics.

Don't get me started on north africans being depicted as black either. They weren't. Their logic of the arab-muslims displacing or dominating the gene pool of north africa (Their logic saying it was all black, or mostly black) would be like saying Hungarians should all look asiatic.

I had to deal with this on another site, and laughed when I read someone say Moses could have been black because he came from egypt.

They seem to forget his sister getting mad for him marrying a kushite (Black) woman.

[Sidus Preclarum]

sheer idiocy.
Not really to portray Jesus as black in a movie, and use it to make a parallel between racism and religious discrimination: that's potentially interesting artistical licence. But to claim that it is more historical to cast semitic Jesus as a black man than as a white man certainly is. It marrs anything that would have been interesting in the director's vision...

the roman legionaries are hilarious too ...

[nameless]

Didn't stewie said something about meeting Jesus in heaven or something and how it turned out that Jesus was in fact chinese? (Obviously a joke)

Forgot which episode that was.

[Grell]

This is truly and utter rubbish. I hope this film is ignored by the masses and dies at the box office. My sensitivities are insulted, the guy is a clown.

Regards,

Grell