3 months ago17 points(+0/-0/+17Score on mirror)2 children
amusingly even in black countries Jesus and the Blessed Virgin are depicted with black skin but fairer white/oriental features.
Also, I think most of the early roman depictions of Jesus try to depict Him as how the average Jew of the time looked, meaning that modern schnoz goblins are either incredibly mutated from millenia of inbreeding and demon worship ore they arent even real jews to begin with.
3 months ago17 points(+0/-0/+17Score on mirror)1 child
>meaning that modern schnoz goblins are either incredibly mutated from millenia of inbreeding and demon worship ore they arent even real jews to begin with.
The Shroud of Turin, which held the body of Our Savior, shows what He looked like, as well as his height, blood type, and wounds. This image which was captured on photographs many years ago has been computer enhanced, and reveals much more detail. The early Byzantine depictions of Him appear to be based on the Shroud image.
The bible and at least 4 prominent contemporary historical figures with first hand accounts of jesus described his skin as ruddy (White with effects of sun exposure) with bright blue eyes and fair hair (dirty blond). This describes a White person.
3 months ago8 points(+0/-0/+8Score on mirror)1 child
The middle east at the time of David was mostly Aryan. Even the neighbors of the Jews, the Phoenicians had red hair. The Persians and Medes described themselves as Aryan. The Hittites had blond hair. The early Egyptian mummies are found with heavy Aryan DNA and blue eyes.
3 months ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)2 children
Almost all of the first hand accounts from people that met Jesus described him as having blue or gray eyes and blonde or blonde/brownish hair. The Judeans and Israelites were also able to consume dairy products, which is inherently White. Non-whites (including modern day jews) can't consume dairy products without digestive problems.
> Her skin was pure white; She had long lovely hair; Her limbs were smooth and rounded (her thighs were shapely); She had slender legs and small feet; Her hand were slim and long and so were her fingers.
From the letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar (regarding Jesus):
> His golden-colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect.
A letter from the Roman consul Lentulus to Emperor Tiberius (regarding Jesus):
> [He had] a noble and lively face, with fair and slightly wavy hair; black and strongly curving eyebrows, intense penetrating blue eyes and an expression of wondrous grace. His nose is rather long. His beard is almost blonde, although not very long. His hair is quite long, and has never seen a pair of scissors.....His neck is slightly inclined, so that he never appears to be bitter or arrogant. His tanned face is the color of ripe corn and well proportioned. It gives the impression of gravity and wisdom, sweetness and good, and is completely lacking in any sign of anger.
There were other first hand accounts describing Jesus as having blue-grey eyes, but I can't find them now, even using Yandex. Almost all the search results about Jesus' appearance are thoroughly jewed, and make the fallacious argument that ancient peoples never moved, claiming "because modern Middle Easterners have brown hair and brown eyes, therefore all ancient Middle Easterners had brown hair and brown eyes". It's preposterous.
In any case, here are two links that provide proofs that the ancient Israelites/Judeans were White. They repeat a lot of info, but the info is solid, and they're worth reading through.
Not necessarily. The Bible itself doesn't mention what Jesus looked like, except his visage in the end times. Perhaps they didn't consider the physical characteristics important for Him. Furthermore, back then information sharing was incredibly limited. We can see even nowadays, with instantaneous information exchange en masse, that it still leaves vast, vast swaths of people wholly uninformed. It wouldn't be surprising at all if people in antiquity, even in Jesus' time, be unaware of specific letter detailing him.
> this must also be the millionth time I tell you Christo Genea is cherry-picking nonsense.
That's entirely possible. I don't ascribe, with certainty, one theory over another, at least right now. I will, though, posit that the language and historical breakdowns on Christogenea are much better than what we see in current judeo-Christian globohomo. If Christianity served globohomo's purpose outright there'd be no reason to subvert and corrupt Christianity, or to change the language of the Bible. It should also be a huge mark in support of this position, given that jews are so hellbent on saying that Jesus was brown. While I don't believe with 100% applicability that one should believe the exact antithesis of everything the jews say, at the very least it's a good starting point, and one should seriously question their position if jews support it.
Furthermore, this proclamation that ancient peoples were brown doesn't just occur with Israelites and Judahites, but with other ancient peoples as well. Modern (((historians))) love to leave out details of White people in the past, to obscure, censor, and manipulate the history of ancient peoples. Solutrean theory, out of Africa theory, White people in ancient Egypt, White people giving knowledge to "native" Americans, even Atlantis. Our history is curated entirely by people that hate us. It would be extremely foolish to believe the things they're trying to convince us of.
Duh. I know Jesus was a jew. But the samaritans weren’t dispersed like the jews were. They’ve pretty much intermarried within their bloodline for the past 2,000 years. Not that they’re purely “white”, but they are very fair-skinned.
1. Jesus was a "Jew".
2. Jews are (((white))).
3. Therefore, Jesus was brown.
"Because God chose us to rule over you!"
"Agree to this or you are not a real Christians!"
And the thing is, many obviously fell for it.