|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jesus
Black or white.
simple question
simple question
Simple questions are often mis-framed.
Jesus would have been of middle-eastern descent and therefore 'olive' skinned.
wiki has a hypothetical construction by a forensic artist;
PS - sorry, forgot to cite the above reference correctly;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Jesus would have been of middle-eastern descent and therefore 'olive' skinned.
wiki has a hypothetical construction by a forensic artist;
PS - sorry, forgot to cite the above reference correctly;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Being Middle Eastern he would very likely be more of a tannish/brownish color...of course one has to prove he existed first 
Had to vote for Both, agree with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ first reply
I would also like to know the absolute correct way to pronounce his name. I'm sure it wasn't gee-zuhs, because that is just how we who speak English read it right? I can't fully grasp hey-zooce because I think that is Spanish pronunciation. Any help? or am I dumb and it is gee-zuhs?
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| I would also like to know the absolute correct way to pronounce his name. I'm sure it wasn't gee-zuhs, because that is just how we who speak English read it right? I can't fully grasp hey-zooce because I think that is Spanish pronunciation. Any help? or am I dumb and it is gee-zuhs? |
A moot point because his name wasn't Jesus. ^_^; If anything, it was probably ישוע (Yeshua). Jesus is an English form of a Latin form of a Greek form of this name. ^_^;
| Indi wrote: | ||
A moot point because his name wasn't Jesus. ^_^; If anything, it was probably ישוע (Yeshua). Jesus is an English form of a Latin form of a Greek form of this name. ^_^; |
lol
| Indi wrote: | ||
A moot point because his name wasn't Jesus. ^_^; If anything, it was probably ישוע (Yeshua). Jesus is an English form of a Latin form of a Greek form of this name. ^_^; |
aahh..very moot indeed
Yes, 'Jesus' is the the English version. In Arabic his name is 'Eessa'.
I think whatever his name is in Hebrew was probably what he was called.
I think whatever his name is in Hebrew was probably what he was called.
As far as I know, he was called Yeshuah Ha'Notzri (I am speaking hebrew and living in Israel, if that's important). Ha'Notzri means "The one from Nazrat [Nazareth]".
He was not white - he couldn't be, that's simply impossible. Nor was he "black", because he wasn't of african origin. I know that he had Iranian roots actually, don't remember where I read that unfortunately. So I agree with Bikerman on this subject.
Anyway, I may be very wrong too...
He was not white - he couldn't be, that's simply impossible. Nor was he "black", because he wasn't of african origin. I know that he had Iranian roots actually, don't remember where I read that unfortunately. So I agree with Bikerman on this subject.
Anyway, I may be very wrong too...
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Yes, 'Jesus' is the the English version. In Arabic his name is 'Eessa'.
I think whatever his name is in Hebrew was probably what he was called. |
'Fraid not.
| Helios wrote: |
| As far as I know, he was called Yeshuah Ha'Notzri (I am speaking hebrew and living in Israel, if that's important). Ha'Notzri means "The one from Nazrat [Nazareth]". |
Doubtful.
If Jesus really lived in the time and area he supposedly lived in, he would most likely have spoken Aramaic. Which means that the Hebrew version - ישוע/Yeshua - wouldn't be correct either.
In fact, since he probably spoke more than one language, he may have called himself different names - just like asian people anglicize their names today, for example. Like Chow Yun-Fat, which is an anglicized form of 周润发 (Zhou Ryunfah). Which one is "correct"? i dunno. Does it really matter? One can only assume that Jesus is smart enough to realize that the two billion or so people calling out "Jesus" with crosses around their necks mean him.
Okay, valid points there. Sure, people might have called him different forms of his name from area to area, but there must have been then one original version of his name, the form that he called himself, that his mother called him.
That, in my opinion (what he was called since birth), is his real name.
That, in my opinion (what he was called since birth), is his real name.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Okay, valid points there. Sure, people might have called him different forms of his name from area to area, but there must have been then one original version of his name, the form that he called himself, that his mother called him.
That, in my opinion (what he was called since birth), is his real name. |
Why? Why "must" there be a single, absolute "right" answer to the question of what his name was?
There's a kid i know - and unlike Jesus, he and his family are not multilingual, they only speak English - his legal name is Brett. His mother calls him "Boo" ("Mommy's little Boo-boo", get it?). He calls himself Brett sometimes, and Boo other times, depending on who he's talking to and his mood. What is his "real" name? The one on the legal books, or the one his mother calls him?
Let's say hypothetically that Mary called Jesus one thing and one thing only from birth. Let's say also that Joseph also called him that. Why would you assume that makes it his name? Isn't he a god? Doesn't whatever his daddy - his real daddy - chooses to call him override whatever Mary calls him? And... does God speak Hebrew? Aramaic? Any aural/verbal language?
Names are artificial constructs. There is no such thing as an absolute "right" name for anything. Observe.
A farmer leads out an animal to show a group of people, and says, "This animal does not have a name. What should we call it?"
An Englishman in the crowd says: "Cow!"
A man keen on precision in the crowd says: "Heifer!"
A scholar in the crowd says: "Bovinae!"
A Frenchman in the crowd says: "Vache!"
A Polish man in the crowd says: "Krowka!"
A Japanese man in the crowd says: "Ushi (牛)!"
Finally someone in the crowd suggests: "Why don't we ask the animal what its name is?"
Everyone agrees this is a good idea, so the farmer says to the animal: "What is your name?"
The animal replies: "Quack."
| Indi wrote: | ||
Why? Why "must" there be a single, absolute "right" answer to the question of what his name was? There's a kid i know - and unlike Jesus, he and his family are not multilingual, they only speak English - his legal name is Brett. His mother calls him "Boo" ("Mommy's little Boo-boo", get it?). He calls himself Brett sometimes, and Boo other times, depending on who he's talking to and his mood. What is his "real" name? The one on the legal books, or the one his mother calls him? Let's say hypothetically that Mary called Jesus one thing and one thing only from birth. Let's say also that Joseph also called him that. Why would you assume that makes it his name? Isn't he a god? Doesn't whatever his daddy - his real daddy - chooses to call him override whatever Mary calls him? And... does God speak Hebrew? Aramaic? Any aural/verbal language? Names are artificial constructs. There is no such thing as an absolute "right" name for anything. Observe. A farmer leads out an animal to show a group of people, and says, "This animal does not have a name. What should we call it?" An Englishman in the crowd says: "Cow!" A man keen on precision in the crowd says: "Heifer!" A scholar in the crowd says: "Bovinae!" A Frenchman in the crowd says: "Vache!" A Polish man in the crowd says: "Krowka!" A Japanese man in the crowd says: "Ushi (牛)!" Finally someone in the crowd suggests: "Why don't we ask the animal what its name is?" Everyone agrees this is a good idea, so the farmer says to the animal: "What is your name?" The animal replies: "Quack." |
LOL...lets hope Jesus' real name isnt quack. Though I do think despite any nicknames or anything people who knew him called him..there is an official name. My friend from Cambodia his name is Penter over here but before he came over here it was something different. If I asked him what his real name was he would tell me his Cambodian name. It is very possible Mary called Jesus something out of love (my mother calls me bud), but there has to be an officially dubbed name, whether it was or wasn't used for long, over even changed.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| LOL...lets hope Jesus' real name isnt quack. Though I do think despite any nicknames or anything people who knew him called him..there is an official name. My friend from Cambodia his name is Penter over here but before he came over here it was something different. If I asked him what his real name was he would tell me his Cambodian name. It is very possible Mary called Jesus something out of love (my mother calls me bud), but there has to be an officially dubbed name, whether it was or wasn't used for long, over even changed. |
In order for anything to be "official", there has to be an authority. And as if names weren't arbitrary and meaningless enough, authority is totally without any absolute basis. Authority has no meaning unless it is recognized. If your friend chooses to recognize Cambodia's legal registration of his name as official, that's his choice. i am not obligated to recognize it. Nor is anyone else.
Here's a counterexample for your friend, for instance. i once knew a guy who was born John Smith (obviously not his real name) - named so by his parents and legally registered in the government of the country under that name. Seems pretty clear cut, doesn't it? Not so. John found God. Specifically, John became a Rasta. And, under the thrall of that religion, he declared that his name was now Ras Bongo Congo I (again, not his real name, but a real Rasta name). If you asked that person what his real name was, he would answer: Ras Bongo Congo I. Was it?
But don't take my personal example alone. Consider a real, well known example. There was once a boxer, born Cassius Clay - again, so named by his parents and legally registered in the US under that name. Well, Clay didn't find God right away, first he found Malcolm X, who told Clay to ditch his "slave name", making him Cassius X. Then he found God. Specifically, he found Islam. He changed his name to Muhammad X, then finally... Muhammad Ali. What's his "real" name?
Coming back to Jesus, whatever authority you choose to recognize as the chief authority in the matter of Jesus's name... it is an arbitrary choice. The legal authority of the time was Rome, which would imply Jesus's "official" name was Iesus... ie, Jesus. Go figure. Of course, if you choose Jesus himself as the authority, overriding Rome (which might make sense since he was God), you end up in the multilingual mess again. But, supposing you assume he spoke predominantly Aramaic, he would probably have generally given his name when asked as: ישוע (Yeshua).
But...
Let's be realistic. If you asked Jesus his real name, what do you think he would answer? Do you think it would be precisely ישוע? Or is ישוע just the best one can do at transliteration in Hebrew-Aramaic? (To put it in perspective, there is no way to write the Japanese name 隆 (りゅう) in English. The closest we can come is Ryū or Lyū - it's somewhere in between. The actual sound does not exist in the English language. So if Jesus has a "real name" in "God language", is the Hebrew-Aramaic a precise interpretation, or is it just like interpreting 隆 as Ryū - a "best guess"?) Do you think a human voice can be used to give the name of a god, or that a human ear can detect it?
Would he even have a name at all? If there is only one god, what is the point of it having a name? Our sun does not have a name, because it is the one and only sun we have - science fiction writers who have to deal with other suns have coined the name "Sol" for our sun, but that's just "sun" in Latin. Another example: what is the name of our universe? It's just... the universe. It doesn't have a name. We can talk about other, hypothetical universes (and science fiction writers that do so give those universes names: our universe is "Armstrong universe" in Heinlein's The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, "Betaverse" in Charlie Jade, etc.), but because our universe is the one and only, singular universe, we haven't named it. If the point of a name is to identify something to differentiate it from other things of that type... why name a perfectly singular object?
So basically: ^_^;
- Names are completely and totally arbitrary. Nothing has an absolute name.
- Whatever Jesus calls himself when he's not talking to human beings - it does not follow that human beings can perceive, understand, or replicate it.
- Jesus may not even have a name at all.
| Yantaal wrote: |
| Black or white.
simple question |
Jesus was a Jew and Jews are more or less white, aren't they...? Therefore Jesus also was more or less white. But the point anyway is that he died for all, blacks and whites, yellows and reds.
| Indi wrote: |
| Let's say hypothetically that Mary called Jesus one thing and one thing only from birth. Let's say also that Joseph also called him that. Why would you assume that makes it his name? Isn't he a god? Doesn't whatever his daddy - his real daddy - chooses to call him override whatever Mary calls him? And... does God speak Hebrew? Aramaic? Any aural/verbal language? |
It seems you submit to the idea that Jesus had a real dad, but........... since "Jesus" (if that is his real name) was "actually" born by a virgin who was "impregnated" by God, I would have to agree with you Indi - I'm pretty sure his name is pretty much not a factor here.
| roxys_art wrote: | ||
It seems you submit to the idea that Jesus had a real dad, but........... since "Jesus" (if that is his real name) was "actually" born by a virgin who was "impregnated" by God, I would have to agree with you Indi - I'm pretty sure his name is pretty much not a factor here. |
There's no submitting =/ It's kindergarten biology...there's no getting around it.
I heard his birth name was actually Chuck Norris.
Is it so important?
it would be much cooler if JEsus was a black man. And from the jungle of Africa...
He could be an ape or a fish. Wouldn't make any difference.
| catscratches wrote: |
| He could be an ape or a fish. Wouldn't make any difference. |
I think if he was an Ape or a Fish instead of a person it would make at least a tiny bit difference...lol
Doesn't really matter.
"Don't sweat the small stuff"
It's not what he looked like, but what he did ... the point was mentioned earlier.
"Don't sweat the small stuff"
It's not what he looked like, but what he did ... the point was mentioned earlier.
Zeus + Isis? Sounds pretty close. The only Jew on the block with a roman-greco name!
| Whong wrote: |
|
Jesus was a Jew and Jews are more or less white, aren't they...? Therefore Jesus also was more or less white. But the point anyway is that he died for all, blacks and whites, yellows and reds. |
Um, you really don't know much about geography. Think about it. Middle East is where the Bible takes place. That is where Jesus was born. So how could Jesus be white? The answer is not possible. Would have to be Middle Eastern looking. Still, I think my "favorite" pictures are the ones where Jesus is portrayed as white with blonde hair and blue eyes. Always makes me laugh.
| Indi wrote: |
|
A Polish man in the crowd says: "Krowka!" |
Not that krowka isn't right but it means something like a Diminutiveof a cow. (small cow)
ka makes it smaller.
so infact it's better to say krowa
anyway on topic,
jesus was from the middle east so he would have been... just like bikerman said.
A better question is to ask: what kind of scin color does god have?
...in the Middle East. He probably would've been darker, having olive-pigmented skin.
Too, skin is only one aspect of the Man.
~ Doug
Too, skin is only one aspect of the Man.
~ Doug
i think it best of both 
| Yantaal wrote: |
| Black or white.
simple question |
does it matter?
He would have been around ~ the same color as Muhammed and Moses (Muhammed in the Quran is described as having fairly light skin).
Related topics
 |