What race is Jesus?

[Petros2015]

Before he became a human id agree with you. But God became a human being forever so he looks like a human. So far a human with short hair and not very good looking.

Probably depended on whether he was smiling or not.
I bet he had a good smile.

 

[Mama-Bear]

I know that's the only answer we will ever know but its somehow not enough to sate my curiosity.

Jesus was the same race as Mary, his mother. Israelite of the tribe of David, which.is why He was born, in Bethlehem.

Shroud of Turin xrayed.

 

[pescador]

As I have posted elsewhere, Jesus was not an emaciated European. That's the way He's depicted on Catholic crucifixes and life-size sculptures of Him hanging on the cross in Catholic churches. Of course, this is blasphemous, since He was only on the cross for a few hours and is not there any longer. And he almost positively was not European/caucasian.

 

[anna ~ grace]

First off, no im not racist but this has been bothering me. Jesus obviously wasn't white because he would have stood out in the crowd and been easily identifiable as not a typical Jew. Ok? So that leaves brown or African. But which was it? And why are some of the earliest paintings of Jesus from only a few decades after he died White? White supremecy did not exist then... did it?

But he can't have been white.... can he?

No, He isn’t white. His Mother, Mary, is a Middle-Eastern Jewish woman. He took His humanity from her, so His features would be Semitic. He may have golden or golden-brown skin, dark wavy or curly hair, and dark brown eyes.

 

[Abaxvahl]

As I have posted elsewhere, Jesus was not an emaciated European. That's the way He's depicted on Catholic crucifixes and life-size sculptures of Him hanging on the cross in Catholic churches. Of course, this is blasphemous, since He was only on the cross for a few hours and is not there any longer. And he almost positively was not European/caucasian.

It's not blasphemous, every act of the God-Man is, considering His Person, infinite, and the Cross is the glorification of God. Not only this it has been approved in the Seventh Council and elsewhere in the Church as good for the meditation of the faithful to see such images. I don't know how you twisted blasphemy into a place where there was the honor of God.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

First off, no im not racist but this has been bothering me. Jesus obviously wasn't white because he would have stood out in the crowd and been easily identifiable as not a typical Jew. Ok? So that leaves brown or African. But which was it? And why are some of the earliest paintings of Jesus from only a few decades after he died White? White supremecy did not exist then... did it?

But he can't have been white.... can he?

He would be middle eastern Semitic but that actually is related to Caucasian if you read an encyclopedia type entry which I did look up on wiki or some place years back.


"The term Semitic in a racial sense was coined by members of the Göttingen School of History in the early 1770s. Other members of the Göttingen School of History coined the separate term Caucasian in the 1780s. These terms were used and developed by numerous other scholars over the next century. In the early 20th century, the racialist classifications of Carleton S. Coon included the Semitic peoples in the Caucasian race, as similar in appearance to the Indo-European, Northwest Caucasian, and Kartvelian-speaking peoples.[10] Due to the interweaving of language studies and cultural studies, the term also came to be applied to the religions (ancient Semitic and Abrahamic) and ethnicities of various cultures associated by geographic and linguistic distribution.[11]"

Semitic people - Wikipedia

 

[pescador]

It's not blasphemous, every act of the God-Man is, considering His Person, infinite, and the Cross is the glorification of God. Not only this it has been approved in the Seventh Council and elsewhere in the Church as good for the meditation of the faithful to see such images. I don't know how you twisted blasphemy into a place where there was the honor of God.

Depicting Jesus as a dead, emaciated European, still on the cross, does not honor God. Jesus was not a European and is not on the cross! I could care less if it has been "approved in the Seventh Council and elsewhere in the Church as good for the meditation of the faithful to see such images" (plural). Why is it better to meditate on the dead Christ, since He is alive at the right hand of God?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

First off, no im not racist but this has been bothering me. Jesus obviously wasn't white because he would have stood out in the crowd and been easily identifiable as not a typical Jew. Ok? So that leaves brown or African. But which was it? And why are some of the earliest paintings of Jesus from only a few decades after he died White? White supremecy did not exist then... did it?

But he can't have been white.... can he?

The Scripture says that we once knew Jesus in the flesh, but henceforth we know Him no longer according to the flesh. This means that what Jesus was like when He lived before His resurrection is now irrelevant. He is now the risen, glorified Jesus with a body that is human, but glorified with the glory of God. Paul was blinded when he was confronted with the glorified Jesus on the road to Damascus, John saw Him and fell at HIs feet as if dead. When we got to Heaven and fellowship face to face with Jesus, we won't retain any identification of where we lived in the world, culture or skin colour. We will be citizens of Heaven.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I don't think that depicting Jesus as a dead, emaciated European, still on the cross, honors God. Jesus was not a European and is not on the cross! I could care less if it has been "approved in the Seventh Council and elsewhere in the Church as good for the meditation of the faithful to see such images" (plural). Why is it better to meditate on the dead Christ, since He is alive at the right hand of God?

People depict Jesus as the race they are, it's irrelevant. He is not on the Cross but if you have read the Gospel of John and studied Christology you'd see that was the Glory of God. No one said it is better, but it is good. Meditating on His whole life is in fact done yearly, weekly, and each day, with the Liturgical Year and various Liturgies. Pre-existence to Eternal Kingdom, the life of the God-Man is meditated on.

 

[pescador]

People depict Jesus as the race they are, it's irrelevant. He is not on the Cross but if you had read the Gospel of John and studied Christology you'd see that was the Glory of God. No one said it is better, but it is good. Meditating on His whole life is in fact done yearly, weekly, and each day, with the Liturgical Year and various Liturgies. Pre-existence to Eternal Kingdom, the life of the God-Man is meditated on.

In your opinion the race of the man on the cross may be irrelevant, but He is no longer on the cross! He was there, suffering, for a few hours, but is there no longer. Why do you enjoy meditating on a man who died an extremely agonizing death, but is now alive at the right hand of God?

Personally, I don't enjoy looking at the depiction of dead person, especially since that person is alive.

Jesus is alive and well. After His agonizing death, He appeared to the disciples and others before going up to heaven. HE IS NOT ON THE CROSS!!

 

[Abaxvahl]

In your opinion the race of the man on the cross may be irrelevant, but He is no longer on the cross! He was there, suffering, for a few hours, but is there no longer. Why do you enjoy meditating on a man who died an extremely agonizing death, but is now alive at the right hand of God?

Personally, I don't enjoy looking at the depiction of dead person, especially since that person is alive.

Jesus is alive and well. After His agonizing death, He appeared to the disciples and others before going up to heaven. HE IS NOT ON THE CROSS!!

All (those whose opinion is worth listening to) confess that Christ is no longer on the Cross. I do not know why you consider it's meditation to be of little account, but it sounds like a personal problem to me. As for me I will continue to glory in and know nothing except the Cross, because it is the well-trodden way of the Saints and the fountain of my salvation.

 

[friend of]

Search up "akiane kramarik Jesus" on Google.

 

[RDKirk]

Search up "akiane kramarik Jesus" on Google.

Too pretty.

 

[Jipsah]

First off, no im not racist but this has been bothering me. Jesus obviously wasn't white because he would have stood out in the crowd and been easily identifiable as not a typical Jew. Ok?

Dunno, I've never met a Jew who wasn't a Caucasian. Most of the people in that part of the world are Caucasians today. Do you have a reason to believe they weren't back then?

So that leaves brown or African.

Brown? Probably, as anyone in the Middle East who isn't Black or spends their whole life indoors generally is. If He'd been a Black African that would have been noteworthy, as Black people were pretty thin on the ground in 1st century Judea. So it's probably that our Lord was a Caucasian Semitic Jew, and probably sun-browned like everybody else was.

But he can't have been white.... can he?

depends on what you mean when you're saying "white". Whiter than a Dane in February? Unlikely. Caucasian? Almost certainly. What kind of ax are we trying to grind here?

 

[Jipsah]

One of my favorites, the Stoning of the Adulteress

 

[Jipsah]

They were mixed even then, so it is not certain.

Not like were are now. People didn't travel very far in those days, and even a busy port city wouldn't be anything like as cosmopolitan as a modern American hick town. Most of the people in Judea in those times was going to be a Caucasian Semite or a Roman. Very few Black Africans, and likely no east Asians at all.

 

[Jipsah]

Some recent research suggested that he might have looked like this. However, Josephus, the first-century historian said that he was a red head (as I recall). In any case, keep in mind that he wasn't likely tall and dominating in appearance because the Romans had to bribe someone (Judas) to point him out in a small crowd.

The thing that always annoyed me in the picture was that the face is entirely arbitrary. The guy is just goofy looking, and that wasn't dictated by anything ethnic features, it was just the way the artist decided to present him.

 

[Jipsah]

deleted

 

[Jipsah]

In your opinion the race of the man on the cross may be irrelevant, but He is no longer on the cross! He was there, suffering, for a few hours, but is there no longer. Why do you enjoy meditating on a man who died an extremely agonizing death, but is now alive at the right hand of God?

"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." 1 Corinthians 2 (Emphasis mine)

 

[coffee4u]

First off, no im not racist but this has been bothering me. Jesus obviously wasn't white because he would have stood out in the crowd and been easily identifiable as not a typical Jew. Ok? So that leaves brown or African. But which was it? And why are some of the earliest paintings of Jesus from only a few decades after he died White? White supremecy did not exist then... did it?

But he can't have been white.... can he?

Jesus came as a Middle Eastern Jewish man.

People showed him as white because they themselves were white and somewhat racist. They could not contemplate that he was not like them, that he would have actually been brown skinned.