Technically there is no way to know this for sure since a great many people in the bible don't have their race, let alone their skin color, defined within the bible. All we really know for sure is that it is likely most of the members of the bible were more of a beige based on location, location, location.
.
I'm not actually even sure what her point is, unless she's arguing against the whole concept of black people being stated to be lesser in the bible because of the whole ham thing
Jesus wasn't really "whitewashed" in the way you might be thinking. Early Christian missionaries to Britain, Ireland and Scotland specifically, had trouble getting the Celtic people to really understand what Jesus and His message meant. To help, they tried to use local and cultural heroes, Cuchulainn specifically comes to mind, to put a face and a little context into their stories. Iconography was then made based on that description. It wasn't done to be insensitive or racist.
My only guess is that it's meant to be a commentary on racism, most likely to do with the passage white people used to [incorrectly] cite to justify owning slaves.
.
Either that or to prove to white people that they have no reason to think they're worthwhile [or at least no more worthwhile than everyone else,] because they aren't even mentioned in their own religion.
.
Which, in that case, causes problems because 1) it's an incorrect and impossible to prove claim and 2) a lot of white people aren't religious, and a lot of the ones that are don't necessarily follow the same religion as each other
.
It made her feel clever for 5 minutes, though, and I don't want to tread on that too much
How is it relevant? The picture says "there are no white people in the bible" yet there were romans in the bible and the romans were white. Obviously, you fucking idiot.
Dude, chill out. Picture lady is clearly uneducated and doesn't know what she is talking about. In the grand scheme of things, what color Jesus was is not relevant, it's the message He spread.
Just feel inclined to point out that harperfan is not a fan of religion Iirc (if I'm thinking of someone else than I apologize), so this is a conversation that has potential to sour very fast. Mostly saying that so you're not surprised
No. Romans were not white. The ones from the northern Roman territories, sure, but they weren’t the ones running businesses and cities in the Bible.
Though in any culture at that time paler skin was achievable by the upper classes who didn’t have to labor under a hot sun. Nevertheless, still not white.
No. Romans were not white. The ones from the northern Roman territories, sure, but they weren’t the ones running businesses and cities in the Bible.
Though in any culture at that time paler skin was achievable by the upper classes who didn’t have to labor under a hot sun. Nevertheless, still not white.
.
I'm not actually even sure what her point is, unless she's arguing against the whole concept of black people being stated to be lesser in the bible because of the whole ham thing
potato/potahto
.
Either that or to prove to white people that they have no reason to think they're worthwhile [or at least no more worthwhile than everyone else,] because they aren't even mentioned in their own religion.
.
Which, in that case, causes problems because 1) it's an incorrect and impossible to prove claim and 2) a lot of white people aren't religious, and a lot of the ones that are don't necessarily follow the same religion as each other
.
It made her feel clever for 5 minutes, though, and I don't want to tread on that too much
Though in any culture at that time paler skin was achievable by the upper classes who didn’t have to labor under a hot sun. Nevertheless, still not white.
Though in any culture at that time paler skin was achievable by the upper classes who didn’t have to labor under a hot sun. Nevertheless, still not white.