Talk:Race and appearance of Jesus

Speculation

Obviously this whole article is speculation, but does does anyone know why it says "Jesus probably looked like a typical Judean Jewish man of his time"? Setting aside the question of what a Judean non-Jewish man might have looked like, why not instead say "Jesus probably looked like a typical Aramean man of his time?"--Rusty Tonic (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would have to agree and say that He would have looked very "generic" for His time and place, whether Aramean, Judean, or (in my opinion) Hebrew. Based on Matthew 1:2-16 (or 1-17) as well as Luke 3:23-38 both state He is a decedent of King David through two different lines, meaning Jesus most definitely would have been very Hebrew in heritage and looks. I could mention a variety of things based on religious views, but as this is scientific work, it would not be the place. Kupferert (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Jesus was Asian

A whole article about the race and appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, but it never says that he (if he existed) must have been Asian. Or maybe the border of Europe and Asia were different back then, but I don't think Israel was ever part of Europe in any sense and the term "Europe" was used 2500 years ago. Israelites were Asian. This article could also mention that as a half god, he'd only be half human. So what exactly is his species? God-human hybrid? What about the idea that he was an albino? According to the bible he had white hair and eyes like fire (that probably meant red flames from burning wood). And he had "feet the colour of bronze". Maybe he constantly had sunburn on his feet from walking in sandals all the time. Having a beard and wearing a robe he'd have sunburn at his feet, hands and on his forehead. With severe photosensitivity he might even have been bleeding. This would explain his appearance in many pictures bleeding which is associated to his crucifixion.

I know this is all just speculation, but all of this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.2.83.132 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions: It is argued that Jesus was of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. (followed by more). As for the flames, it appears to have been claims about his spiritual (i.e. archangel) appearence. —PaleoNeonate – 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The idea that anywhere to the southeast of Europe is "Asia" is a peculiar quirk in the UK that does not exist elsewhere. The Middle East is not considered "Asia". In the rest of the anglosphere, there are "east Asians" (e.g. Chinese), and "south Asians" (e.g. Indians). People from the Middle East are not called "Asians" outside of the UK. Jesus was not Chinese, not from Mumbai, etc., i.e. not Asian. Is Netanyahu Asian? The idea that Jesus was "Asian" is quite ridiculous.77Mike77 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's true that people from the Middle East are not commonly called "Asians" in many parts of the world, but they're still in the continent of Asia and thus fall under the definition. This isn't like Greenland where the people are mostly European and the land is in North America, or Russia where the country is split between two continents. They're in Asia. What Anglophone countries dispute this? Prinsgezinde (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus was undoubtedly born in Asia, but describing his origin as "Asian" would be rather too general.--Pharos (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Moses does not refer to Moses as an "African", even though he was born in Egypt, and therefore the two articles adhere to contradictory guidelines. Common English usage would describe both Jesus and Moses as being from the Middle East, and would not call them an "Asian" and an "African" respectively. If Moses had gone to America, I suppose Wikipedia would call him an "African-American". It is not standard English to identify people by continent. J.S. Bach is called a German composer, not a "European composer".77Mike77 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In England, where presumably standard English is used, people are often identified by continent but in an inconsistent way, and it is usually to avoid indicating race. Thus Sub-Saharan Negroes are always "Africans", but the people of the Maghrib may or may not be. Primarily people from the Indian Sub-Continent, but in particular those from Pakistan, are always "Asians"; but the various peoples from East Asia are now as well so why not those from West Asia as well? The origin for this usage seems to stem from the idea that the many peoples who inhabit the continent of Europe are called "Europeans" and this idea is thus extrapolated for the other continents. However, if this article is about race then there would seem to be no need for the use of English euphemisms.--Rusty Tonic (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Though not has black has his highly negroid-looking father Jesus was nevertheless def. Negroid by blood and to look upon. Look no further than Hobbes Leviathan...

I should know.

Sean Thomas Yearwood

False information as reference to biblical verse

Under Biblical references and under In The Gospels, it states "The New Testament describes Jesus wearing tzitzit - the tassels on a tallit - in Matthew 14:36" ( cited being Matthew 14:46, a non-existent verse). In Matthew 14:36, all that is named is the hem of Jesus's garment. Also "and Luke 8:43-44" being another false reference to tzitzit that wasn't there. Only Jesus's garment is mentioned again. Now, if we look for the original Greek of ἱμάτιον in both verses, translated to garment, it means himation. Wikipedia has an article on himation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himation I'm going to amend the article not to reflect false information, whether accidental or blatant. Admins might decide they don't like this. That doesn't matter to me. Accuracy should be key here. 2605:6000:170D:8432:608B:FC16:CBE3:36B7 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)