Jesus was white

What? Caucasians are a new phenotype in the 'middle east' and arose due to the aryan invasions documented exclusively in AEgyptian scripts. From the hittites to the greeks to the romans. The admixture we see today in the levant is due to this european influx that continues up until this very day with the german jewish ppl claiming Israelite descent. The 5% afrikan admixture of this german jewish population is remnant of Israelite ancestry which means only 5% of the mainstream jewish population are in fact Israelites, a very small amount. The rest attest to conversions through khazar, Edomite and other non Israelite groups.

To even suggest that mesopotamia was anything other than 'black' is bordering on scepticism. The Torah itself states that mesopotamia was a so- called black civilization so either you feel the torah is black supremacist or you deny the torah. my take is you believe both.

Sargon and nebu were akkadian/babylonian and as such were clerly not caucasian as the caucasian expansion happened 1,000 years later. They may not have been 'black' but the black civilization of Sumeria is further in antiquity.They would likely be mixed Afro-Asian. You really need to put down your eurocentric text books, quit living the illuminati dream of immortal caucasion idolatry and get with the new reality.

As for asshat. My grandad who is a geordie english looks more levantine than that clown, give me a break lol. everyone knows you are a white nationalist give up the ghost, it wont hurt you, thats just eurocentric brainwashing and its no bad thing, most ppl are like you.

 

your caucasian fantasy is becoming you and its very last century. Only the mainstream braindead believe that nonsense. Its time for you to drop the banner and get with the winning team because we know that your messiah is nothing but an incestuous homosexual see leonardo da vinci's lovers and lucrezia brothers and nothing to do with the most high.

 

ok, I'll admit that Jesus didn't have blue eyes, blond hair, and white skin.

but he most likely was no African-Negro either.

Chances are he looked like your average Levantine.

 

why do ieven bother reaching out to these cavemen. we dont care what these mainstream illuminati reptiles think, its all part of the NWO and how 'all ancient civilizations were caucasian' trash. its mainstream garbage, americas got talent bs. My grandma watches that crap.

 

very intelligent post.

 

Around 50,000 years ago, haplogroup CF split into haplogroup C, which is an East Asian haplogroup common among the Chinese and Japanese, and haplogroup F, from which all European and Middle Eastern haplogroups originated (i.e. H, I, J, K). It was found that haplotype C11 gave rise to haplogroup F with a lighter skin mutation and all Middle Eastern populations are technically Caucasians with the A111T mutation. But Jews (3%–5%) and Arabs (4%–15%) historically admixed with Africans and Jews were affected by African gene flow to a lesser extent. Some Middle Easterners are darker coloured than others due to their partial African ancestry and especially the Saudis and Egyptians have higher admixture rates due to their geographical proximity to Africa.

 

this of course doesn't mean that the ancient Israelites or Judeans were African-Negro.

 

All genetic studies prove you wrong about khazars. I am of mesopotamian descent, trust me, the babylonians and assyrians were not black, neither were the akkadians. My major is assyriology at an ivy league university so please, enough with this afro-centrist nonsense. Its on the same level as british israelitism.

 

The British racists believe they are the Israelites because they make believe that the first syllable in their name is the Hebrew "Brit", and that the Coronation Stone is actually from Israel, proving the British are Israelites.

The Black Hebrew Israelites believe in similar silliness, that all children of Noah were black, King James was black, all British aristocracy is black, the 12 tribes of Israel are in the Americas, and all white people have albinism or lepracy.

 

And all of this 'edomite' nonsense reminds me of the anti-semitic 'moorish science temple'. They talk exactly the same way and contradict themselves all of the time. They even say the holocaust never happened, then they say that Hitler was great man for wiping out the jewish people...literally in the same statement. Watch their videos on youtube, some of the most hateful racist rhetoric I have ever heard spewed.

 

You have it mixed up. Sargon of Akkad was an Akkadian. The Akkadian empire fell to the Gutians who invaded from the iranian zagros. Then after the fall of the Gutian invaders came the the third dynasty of Ur, also known as the neo-sumerian empire. Because of the wealth and revival of sumerian religious and literary texts, Ur III is often known as the period of sumerian renaissance. But the semitic language of akkadian remained the spoken language of the natives of mesopotamia after the fall of Ur and sumerian died as a spoken language but remained in literary and religious use. Later came the invasion of the amorites who formed the old babylonian empire, their most famous king being hammurapi, his very name is amorite. They chose to speak akkadian as the official language of babylon. Amorites also contributed to the formation of Old Assyria in northern mesopotamia. Two dialects of akkadian developed. The babylonians spoke what we call babylonian, the assyrians spoke assyrian (same language, akkadian, different dialects). Sargon II is not the same as Sargon of Akkad (ruling from 2334-2279 BCE). Sargon II ruled Assyria around 1,500 years later. He ruled from 722 to 705 BCE and was one of the strongest kings of the neo-assyrian empire who wiped away the northern kingdom of Israel and scattered the israelites throughout the empire. This was the first deportation.

Nebuchadnezzar was not an akkadian, but a chaldean, son of Nabopolasar and as I stated earlier he descended from the Bit-Yakin, an aramean tribe that settled near modern day Kuwait. Are you seriously implying that the arameans and assyrians were black? This is so laughable. They are mesopotamian, not african. The same goes for the ancient akkadians, the fathers of their language. As for the sumerians, nobody knows for sure where they came to mesopotamia from, but the most popular speculations are that they arrived from either mongolia or iran. How on earth is any of this known history eurocentric? Nobody is claiming that any of these groups came from europe. The semites I have just mentioned were west asian. The sumerians origins are unknown but are thought to possibly be central asian. In either case, why is gilgamesh never depicted as a black man in mesopotamian sculpture or art? And why are other sumerians not depicted as negroid in sculpture?

Sumerian, cleary caucasoid

 

Additional information about Jesus's skin color and hair was provided by Mark Goodacre, a senior lecturer at the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham.[50] Using third-century images from a synagogue—the earliest pictures of Jewish people[51]—Goodacre proposed that Jesus's skin color would have been darker and swarthier than his traditional Western image. He also suggested that he would have had short, curly hair and a short cropped beard.[52] This is also confirmed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul the Apostle states that it is "disgraceful" for a man to have long hair.[53] As Paul allegedly knew many of the disciples and members of Jesus's family, it is unlikely that he would have written such a thing had Jesus had long hair.[52] Although not literally the face of Jesus,[49] the result of the study determined that Jesus's skin would have been more olive-colored than white,[50] and that he would have looked like a typical Galilean Semite. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus

 

Regarding Mark Goodacre's comments and digital reconstruction, I really don't see what new information he has added. It is well known that the Jewish people have traditionally been 'swarthy' as a rule compared to europeans. I think reconstructions like that aren't even necessary, because they state the obvious. If people want to know what jesus or the sanhedrin looked like, its easier to just look at the average dark skinned israeli jews of today. Nobody ever does reconstructions of Aristotle or Muhammad because they don't need to.

 

The obvious reason for the reconstruction is to illustrate to people that Jesus did not look like Traditional Western images. They took the skull from a man who lived in the region Jesus lived at the same time period and applied science to recreate his face, basically recreating a new narrative for the appearance of Jesus even though it should be well-known to anyone familiar with the region that Jesus was a swarthy Jew of Semitic stock. The short cropped curly hair style is something a lot of people wouldn't think Jesus had as the traditional Western image depicts him as long haired.

 

I think since Jesus was from nazareth he would have had long hair correct me if i am wrong though, but I dont want to split hairs and that aspect doesn't matter to me as much. I don't know, coming from a jewish background, particularly an Iraqi and Israeli one, the reconstruction just seems like its preaching to the choir and doesn't offer any information that I don't know as an American. Perhaps others might think he had long blond hair, milky white skin, and blue eyes, but it really doesn't bother me. I don't mind when black churches depict him as black or when asians depict him as asian either. I just think it would have been easier and even more accurate for scholars to describe his phenotype as that of a dark skinned Israeli Jew. Did he look more levantine jewish or yemenite jewish? That we will never know for certain. He may have very well had blue eyes which occur even among yemenite jews, or he could have had red hair (samaritans even have a lot of red hair and freckles). I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I just don't see the point in a computer reconstruction based on a skull found in canaan/palestine/israel whatever we call it. Why not just look at the samaritans of today or the middle eastern israeli jews of today? The reconstruction just looks very amateur and silly to me. Middle eastern jews and samaritans don't really look like that image. But thats just my humble opinion. It doesn't really bother me that much, it just is annoying sometimes. If they felt compelled to do one, why not do a reconstruction of the sanhedrin? Why focus on jesus? Just seems strange. Mel gibsons the passion did a pretty accurate job using mediterranean (italian) actors to portray the sanhedrin. And the movie was in aramaic which was cool too. He got everything from the robes to the phenotypes correct and that movie had a lasting impact on the evangelical community so it got the point across that jesus was middle eastern, not swiss.

 

Clearly non of what you posted indicates that Assyrians or Babylonians were caucasoid. Also you failed to correctly interpret my post. Clearly istated that Assyrians and Babylonians were Afro-asiatic, not Afrikan. Reading comprehension, if you didnt understand that then its likely you mis-interpret much else of what you read. The Sumerians as stated in the Torah were a so- called black ppl. If you do not acknowledge this then you reject Torah, simple.

 

Khazar, Edomite, its all legitimate, that you reject this information indicates that you are cherry picking information to fit your agenda, thats a shame. Real scholars take in all information and reach a conclusion, thats how true academia works not this Quakademia you observe.

 

Of course. Just like if you want to see what an Olmec looked like look at your average european american. Thats poor logic and lacking ANY critical thought.

 

Thats because 'middle eastern jews' are a recent population group to immigrate to Israel from Germany, latvia, russia, poland anywhere on earth as long as it is european. Non of these tribes were present in Biblical Israel. In fact, it would be more accurate to depict the messiah as a greek than as a middle eastern german. At least many greeks have that woolly hair. .that said, if you are looking for authenticity why no look at the earliest pictures in the bible for what the messiah looked like?
Oh but that would mean he looked Ethiopian and we cant have that can we. Israelis wouldnt receive a penny from AIPAC and Congress if americans found out that the Messiah was not european!
..so we play the game.

 

Mod Edit ~ Don't make it personal Are you kidding me?
Elhaik, an Israeli molecular geneticist, says he has proved that Ashkenazi Jews’ roots lie in the Caucasus — a region at the border of Europe and Asia that lies between the Black and Caspian seas — not in the Middle East.

and to compare me to british israelism is laughable where as it is YOU who has the same ideology in that you both tow the line of the biblical Israelites being caucasians.

 

where does the Torah say this?

which book, chapter, and verse?

 

"Middle eastern jews" are mizrahi buddy. We come from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Israel and other countries. We come from Germany? Yeah, ok..you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Middle eastern Jews which make up the majority of Israel never left the middle east to go to europe. You are talking about ashkenazi and sefaradic jews that went to germany and spain.

 

Elhaik sabotaged himself by using south caucasian peoples like Georgians and Armenians as his base for comparison. The Khazar kingdom settled in the northern caucasus for one, and were turkic-mongoloid people that later diffused throughout the crimea possibly, and only their ruling class converted to judaism. Sheesh, how many times do I have to explain this? South caucasians that Elhaik used were not part of the Khazar kingdom, and they are heavily mixed with middle eastern people, which further points to a near eastern origin to the ashkenazi jews.

 

We are talking about mizrahi jews who have no european admixture. Get it? They come from Iraq and Iran. I am Iraqi Jewish from baghdadi origin..

 

I gave you all of that info because you referred to sargon/nebu as akkadian/babylonian, I was respectfully pointing out to you that sargon ii was assyrian, and nebuchadnezzar was from the bit yakin an aramean tribe (chaldean). These groups are not black but are caucasoid as is seen by their descednants today, the modern assyrians of northern Iraq and the arameans who many Syrians, Lebabense and other modern middle easterners partially descend from. Laban in the Bible was known as Laban the Syrian, an aramaen.