I think even Jesus would be laughing at this thread. I have so many different races in my ancestry, I don't even know who to cheer for.

For all you assuming that he 'must' have been such and such a color based on the region etc...Don't forget he was the son of god (if you believe that) so he could have been purple for all we know.

He was infrared !!!

But seriously... it makes no difference (although there are indications based on letters written that describe his appearance, as someone else pointed out in a link earlier in this thread).

I believe it might make a difference.
I experienced discrimination based on colour

of course jesus is coloured. he's from the middle east. how obvious could that be.

indeed it doesnt make a difference maybe the creator of this thread was just trying to do a poll of what people thought. the image portrayed versus a more logical thought process. and for the love of god, ok so he was the son of god but god wouldn't send his son in some regionally-suspicious colour to make him special. he had no human dad i think that causes for discrimination alone. why not make him look different too rihgt? i dont get that logic...that jus makes it look like god prefers one colour to be better than the other. i like to think he was like everyone else in his region.. a litlte brown. but no like sine said, not arab.

???

He was born in like... Downtown Arabland, why wouldn't he be Arabian?

(Galillee where he was born is at the juncture of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel... 100% ARAB)

Yeah, I spose it could be important to them. Who wouldn't want to know what thier master/leader/superior one/whatever looks like? If I was Christian, I still wouldn't care, though.

And I wounder whom made those pictures, Veger.

That depends. For light, that's true. But for pigments (which is what colors skin) like paint, combining all colors gives you black, and no color gives you white. Hence the stupid "colored, not colored" distinction.

People, read:




I ask you, how many Arabs have blonde hair?

how ironic.

The ancient Israelites wrote English?

I'm sure they're translations, but I doubt they are translated from actual writings of eyewitnesses.

Most guys wouldn't take the time to describe someone so...precisely. Those descriptions sound incredibly gay also.

Please tell me you're not so naive. Oh no... it's in English on that website, so of course.... ah, never mind.

Actually, many letters from those days dive into great detail about pretty much everything. Dig some up, you'll se what I mean.
People weren't homophobes back then, either. Today, on the other hand... well, just pay another guy a compliment on his appearance, and you'll be instantly dubbed "gay."

If you wrote a letter to pre-civil war Alabama and you were trying to make someone look good would you say his skin was black? No. I think this is the case here.

WTF?!?

Pre-civil war Alabama??

Where the **** did you get that from???

Jesus was coloured it was the part of the world he lived in. If he was white that would just be confusing.

Jesus is maroon/crimson coloured. They always said "Jesus is in your heart", well, all that's in there is blood.

Case closed.

That was the single dumbest thing every said of Massassi.... symbolic heart.

um... what?

wtf.

People weren't homophobes? Everything I've ever been taught about that aspect of history was that homosexuality was NOT accepted and it was considered an incredible sin. It's not that the letter complimented "Jesus", it's the way things were said. His "delectable" hands for example. I've never felt an urge to eat anyone's hands, much less another man.

MW, we know you're stressed out with what's going on and all, but relax man. You're getting a bit jumpy.

As I recall, the Romans and/or Greeks were quite open with their sexuality.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delectable
Note the first definition doesn't mention taste.

My point was that being descriptive and/or admiring beauty of one of the same sex doesn't make it "gay," and people then were actually aware of that, as contrasted to today's society (particularly males).

I haven't been following the discussion so far, so I'll just comment on and agree with the above. Literally thousands of Greek verses have been written about the amazing qualities of the male body. I read excerpts of odes on the olympics and on war veterans, and I couldn't help but feel slightly turned on. Women are rarely mentioned...

Was this coherent or even called for? I dunno, and I'll check back tomorrow to see what my lack of sleep has produced.

Your friend,

Tenshu, master of the Greek Principles

You guys do realize those letters are hoaxes, right? You all seem to be taking them seriously.

I can't find much on the Internet about the first one, but the Letter of Lentulus (not Lentrelus, as the often-plagarized-in-full-on-crappy-angelfire-websites article linked to above states) is not only a hoax, but a bad one at that.

From newadvent.org.


The third letter, from the "Archko Volume" was debunked by one Edgar J. Goodspeed, in his 'Modern Apocrypha, Famous "Biblical" Hoaxes'. A summary can be found here. (He also debunked the Lentulus letter, summary here.)
Basically, according to Goodspeed, the Archko Volume (or Archko Library) was a hoax invented by a certain W.D.Mahan in 1884. Your standard "guy invents a bunch of crazy stories for reasons unknown" sort of thing.

Anyway, the first one in which Pilate supposedly describes Jesus to Tiberius Caesar is much more obscure than the other two, but it seems silly to me to think that a local apointee to a backwater of the Empire would write a letter to the Emperor regarding the physical appearance of some itinerant preacher. Also, the part where he describes Jesus as "... leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude," seems suspect. Jewish teachers usually sat down to teach, and the Bible records Jesus as doing the same.

As a side-note, I must say that this was a rather creepy subject to look into on the Internet -- every second website I found was some white supremacist trying to reconcile his Judeo-Christian faith with his ignorant hatred for all things Jewish. It was like wading hip-deep through raw sewage. Repulsive.

Hmph.

Why would you send a letter to the romans telling them how great one of their slaves is? You would make him seem as non-arabic as possible, the same as you wouldn't be raving to a bunch of souther-slave owners about a black man.

Er, Mikus -- if you were a Roman official writing a letter to the Roman Emperor, what possible reason could you have for describing one of your subjects as Germanic? As I recall, the Germans/Teutons and the Romans were enemies. The Romans had dark hair, if I recall correctly...

Anyway, it's a moot point, since the letter is a hoax.

jesus was clearly white, there was this colour picture of him, he was white.

if its in colour it must be true.

I was referring to accounts by the people, but if the point is moot anyways...
<.<
>.>

/me gebs it.

Ya, those letters are hoaxes kids. Just because it's been printed doesnt make it true.

maybe he was green!!! like YODA!!!!:D

Trust in God you will... hmmmmm

Perhaps I should be a bit more precise when I write? Or maybe you all should just learn to read my mind? Whatever works. The homophobe comment was directed to the Jewish society, not the Romans or Greeks. Since a Roman supposedly wrote the letter though, I said nothing of consequence. Standard fare over the last month

I do know what delectable means though. I know that taste is not the only association, but it made my point nicely. The letter is, by today's standards, quite homosexual in it's description. The average man would not write a letter bothering to describe another man in such detail under most circumstances, and he would not use words like "delectable" in the descriptions. Of course, the letter is not written using today's standards, but I'm comparing it to today's attitudes.

Why? Whats your point?

AND just because it's painted doesn't make it true. No one ever said one way or another. We just assume this because of the old paintings. Most paintings of him on the cross don't show him beat to **** either, that doesn't mean that's how it really went down.

Er... IBTL

Oh yeah, well OUDNDKLNTNDKAY.

What the hell does IBTL mean?

A quick google reveals: In Before The Lock.

Another sh**y acronym for dumb***es.

Oh that's right. I forgot. Obi_Kwiet is a proud member of the Massassi Junior Moderator Squad. Assuring us of the future of a thread since the begining of time. Good Job!