The bible, and the Catholic Church’s/Christianity’s interpretation of it over the years, is the original version of whitewashing.
Why?
Take your time. You might as well, I will cook any goose you bring to this fair either way. But give it a shot.
A depiction of Jesus done by the BBC, using forensics(you know, that pesky thing called science that is based on proven principles and empirical evidence), early artistic portrayals and ethnic traits to get a
better idea of what Jesus (and his apostles and relatives by extension) may have looked like, and which is probably pretty close to reality:
Catholic Church and (European-centric) Christianity version of Jesus:
And LISTEN. I’m not saying anything revolutionary here. I’m not the first person to say this, or note that the whitewashing of Jesus and his disciples has been used for centuries to oppress and erase the histories of people of color. Nor am I the first to note the use of white = pure and good and black = sin and evil in the Bible, which has also been used to bolster racism and oppression of people of color for centuries.
This is not some magical revelation. This post came about because I was sitting in my family’s living room, my mother and sister were once again watching EWTN, the “global catholic television network,” at top volume (so loud I could hear it even through my noise-canceling earphones), which was playing the movie Jesus of Nazareth, which gave us this image:
Hence, whitewashing.
Um…genius…we have no dna of jesus. There was never a body found. that is kinda the point….Genius
That’s a yazidi child
What, did the evil catholic church white wash her?
How about Bashar Assad?
Did the evil catholics white wash him?
That’s Korean Jesus. Was he…yellow washed???
Or could it be that Different Cultures make art depicting themselves?
*gasp*
So what has become of your stupid little argument? There is no DNA to go on (you appealed to a guesstimation) and Mideasterners can be downright WHITE.
So using a CG GUESS, you have claimed that the BIBLE and the Churches INTERPRETATION of it were the original whitewashing because of ART.
Really? Since when does a painting = the BIBLE and the whole interpretation of it??????
GTFO
A CG guess? I suppose that could apply in broad terms. They used the skulls of several first century Jews, and the earliest paintings/depictions of Jesus, dating back to the first couple of centuries A.D., which showed Jesus and his disciples to have dark, short hair, dark beards, and dark skin…
example: Roman catacombs fresco, dated from 4th century A.D.
So you could call that a CG guess if you’re speaking in broad terms. No, it’s not 100% proof, but it’s the closet we’re going to get without a time machine.
And you countered with…a modern-day Yazidi child (cherry-picking the whitest-looking one you could find, I might add) and one of the whitest-skinned modern Jews you could find. Do you not understand the genetic differences between the Jews of Judea in Biblical times and the Jews of the modern day? Do you not understand that there’s a 2,000 year difference there? Do you not understand how appearance can change over time? Do you not understand that modern-day Jerusalem is populated by the descendants of the Diaspora, and the effects that had on their genetics and appearance?
Then there’s the documented fact that as Romans/Gentiles took over Christianity, they began distancing themselves from the Jews, to the point they tried to deny Jesus’s Jewish status/ancestry as much as they could, including white-washing him. That is the early history of the Catholic Church. Which, yanno, is responsible for commissioning much of the art throughout history that depicts Jesus, his disciples and the women around him. Hence “a painting = the BIBLE and the whole interpretation of it”, and that art being a concrete example of the Catholic Churchwhitewashing Jesus.
So to recap…you’ve tried to make counter-arguments with so-called “evidence” that doesn’t apply, and crowed about how that somehow means you’ve accomplished something, when in reality you’ve accomplished nothing.
Feel free to try again. I’ll wait.
Distance themselves from what Jews? The Jews living in Europe, that looked like other Europeans? Europeans that included many Mediterranean peoples?
Bashar Al Assad is an Arab genius.
And that wasn’t the whitest looking Yazidi
Face the facts, People from the middle east can be WHITE. Europeans, just like Asians, painted Jesus with a familiar face.
You provided no evidence of the Catholic Church trying to distance itself from any Jews.
Did you know, there’s this website called google, where if you put in a search term like “early catholic church distancing itself from the Jews,” it will give you the information you’re looking for?
Of course then you have to apply critical thinking to those results to weed out the good sources from the bad/biased, which I’m sure is difficult for you being a conservative Christian and all, but do give it a try.
Now that that’s accomplished – and I do hope you go and read those sources – let me give you a little biology lesson, using myself as an example.
I am, like, one of the whitest girls out there. Very pale skin – what a lot of people have called a “peaches and cream complexion” – light brown hair, and blue eyes.
That is just a 3 (or 4, depending on how you look at it) generation gap between me and my Native American ancestors (who also looked very First Peoples, dark coloration and all.)
However – and this is the important part of the example, pay attention – my whiteness does not somehow magically erase my Native American ancestry, nor does it somehow magically make my Native American ancestors white. Just like the physical appearances of my brother and sister, who are of a darker complexion than me, don’t somehow magically erase the other parts of our family’s ancestry, the Acadians/French and the Scotch-Irish.
Hence my rebuttal of your attempt at using modern Jews and Yazidi children to attempt to demonstrate that Biblical Jews, Jesus and his apostles in particular, were white/white-looking. 2000 years – that’s about 66 generations, using a conservative estimate of 30 years per generation (it’s probably more like 15-20 years per generation, making it 100 – 133 generations). That’s at least 66 generations of living in more northern climes (slowly losing the darker coloration of their skin), intermarrying people with whiter genetics, etc, which happened because of the Diaspora, that influences the genetics, and modern appearance, of the Jewish people.
Genetics is also why people in the modern-day Middle East can be white/white-looking.
Furthermore, claiming that white-washing is a “natural” consequence of people painting people that look like them is hogwash, because a)it’s not like the Jews of Biblical times weren’t there to look at, as evidenced by that Roman catacombs fresco, b)the early Catholics were (mostly) converted Jews, the church was not legally recognized by Rome until Constantine in the 4th century AD, who is the one who moved the headquarters of the church to Rome and gave the Papacy it’s temporal power (there is conflict about this among scholars, some camps say the Papal Donation was a forgery, however without the legitimization and legalization of Catholicism/Christianity and appointing it as the state religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine, the Papacy would likely not have had the temporal power it has had) and b)is the foundation of modern white washing and it’s component/basis in racism.
(Yes, there’s Oriental Jesus. It doesn’t have the same implications/impact because it’s not backed by thousands of years of oppression and fundamental power structures that white Europeans created.)
I mean, come on, I know education and science are anathema to conservative Christians, but would it kill you to pick up a history book? A science book? Neither you nor the book will automatically burst into flames when you touch it, you know. I promise.
Oh I love Education. I went to school for a hard science. Don’t even go thee squit. Especially when I have to correct something as basic as your frikkin reading comprehension.
Your argument that No Mideasterners were light colored until recently is pure horseshit. So don’t come at me about education your ignorant, illiterate little punk.
Moving on…
This darker skinned christ was painted in 151…ooops you’re full of shit.
Oh look at that, there wasn’t actually any medieval white washing of Christ, or even early Roman White washing of Christ! You were just lying! I realized that when I realized how LATE the images you picked were in time.
Go get a job flipping burgers.
And your links…they don’t help. They show anti-semitism among europeans,against other EUROPEANS (just like I guessed). That does not = white washing genius.
BZZZZZTTTTT! Wrong again! Wrong, wrong wrong.
You can’t even read captions right. (This is getting downright hilarious, BTW. At least you’re amusing.)
Caption reads: “Isenheim Altarpiece” The
Crucifixion, centre panel of the Isenheim Altarpiece (closed view), by
Matthias Grunewald, 1515; in the Unterlinden Museum, Colmar, France.
Of course, even comprehending the article you were citing instead of clicking the image gallery (included with the article) would have done it too, since it was featured in the Middle Ages section of the article, not the 2nd century as you’re trying to claim.
It was also painted in Germany, and allow me to clue you in on something that happens to art from the middle ages. It darkens over time. The original painting/colors are light-skinned/white.
The Macedonian Image, Christ Pantocrator painted by Mitropolitian Jovan Zograf in 1384, the style of it did not originate with Mitropolitian Jovan Zograf, but rather he was following the style of this icon that was established in the early days of Christianity/The Catholic Church. You know, based off the Jews of that era. It’s a miracle that he didn’t whitewash this iconic image too in his painting, like so many other Medieval artists did. Of course, much like a white-looking descendant does not automatically make their ancient ancestors white, the paintings of the Middle Ages that didn’t white-wash Jesus does not somehow miraculously negate the fact that the white-washing was taking place, both in other pieces of art from that period and the Church itself.
Speaking of reading comprehension – don’t you source your images? And don’t you read your own links before referencing them? I mean, DUDE. This is BASIC STUFF.
The first “Egyptian” image is from the Tomb of the Lionesses, an Etruscan tomb, and is showing the intermarriage and intermixing of Latin (you know, Greek and Roman) peoples with the Etruscans. The Etruscans lived in Italy, and this is from an Etruscan tomb in Italy. Not Egyptian, not African.
The second image is from Egypt, but it depicts captives of the raiding Sea Peoples – which are posited by scholars to have originated in the Aegean Sea area, specifically the Greek part and, as your own link pointed out, likely the remnants of Troy – raiders/pirates who harried the coasts of Egypt and Africa around the 5th century B.C.. You know, not Egyptian. And captives, not citizens of Egypt.
The third image I’ll give you. It’s an image of Faience tiles from the royal palace of Ramses the III, and depicts prisoners from the raiding population of the Berbers in neighboring Libya. The Burbese come from all over including Europe, but yes, they were living in Africa at the time. However, still not Egyptian. And their existence does not somehow magically make Jesus, his relatives or his apostles white.
And again with the failure of reading comprehension. From my first link:
“Hebrew roots scholar, Dr. Ron Moseley has part of the answer to this question in his book, published in 1996, entitled, Yeshua—A Guide to the Real Jesus of the Original Church.
He says, “After the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, two new religious
organizations grew out of the Judaism of Jesus’ and Paul’s day. The
Pharisees had fled Jerusalem to Yavneh and were spared, while the Jewish
followers of Jesus had fled to the mountains of Pella and also survived
(Matthew 24:16).
From these two groups came two separate religions known as Rabbinic
Judaism and the Christian Church. Today, neither Rabbinic Judaism nor
the Church, which formed much of its theology from fourth-century Roman
ideas, hold the same views as the pre-[A.D. ]70 Judaism of Jesus’ and
Paul’s day” (p. 69). Christian Hebrew roots scholar, professor and
theologian Marvin Wilson argues the same points in his 1989 book, Our Father Abraham—Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith.
He writes, “A cursory look at the beginnings of Christianity reveals a
Church that was made up exclusively of Jews. Indeed, the Church was
viewed as a sect within Judaism, as the book of Acts makes clear in
referring to early followers of Jesus as the ‘sect of the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24:5).
They seemed to function easily within Judaism in that they were
described as ‘enjoying the favor of all the people’ (2:47)” (p. 47).
Wilson then goes on to write that between A.D. 70 when the Roman army
destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and A.D. 135 when the Second Jewish
revolt against Roman occupation of their country occurred the
first-century Messianic congregation began to leave its Jewish roots.”
…I’m not sure how you got “They show anti-semitism among europeans,against other EUROPEANS.” from that. I mean, unless you never actually read the article. The other articles reference the same time period, so….
Speaking of the “lateness of my images,” did you know? Their style is traced back to the time of Leonardo da Vinci, who painted his lover, Cesare Borgia, one of the many illegitimate children of Pope Alexander VI (late 15th century). Pope Alexander VI was one of the most corrupt popes in history, and chose to use da Vinci’s painting of his son Cesare Borgia as a new image of Christ for the church.
He wasn’t the first church official to whitewash Jesus, not by a long shot, but he certainly “went for the gold” by whitewashing Jesus in a hugely nepotistic way. *facepalm*
And then countless artists began creating images of Jesus in that style, which led to the first images I posted.
Where Jesus and his apostles have already been whitewashed to have lighter/whiter skin and Latin/Roman features.
Distort the facts all you want, doesn’t make what you say true. But I figured going in that that’s exactly what you’d try to do.
ORLY? If the paint darkened with Age…
Then what color did the face of the guy on the left, and the robes of the woman on the left darken from? That guy’s face is white you absolute imbecile
Yes, the sea Peoples….such as the PHILISTINES.
You are still laboring under the idiotic preconception that all the Jews in medieval Europe were dark. They weren’t idiot. They were white
The diaspora took place in 70 AD, and mixing takes place FAST.
Also, you have yet to deal with the FACT that your claim that all mideasterners were dark, is a lie, as can be seen by ancient art.
There was no white washing. Deal with it and move on with your life.
Philistines =/= Jews
Therefore (stay with me now)
The appearance of the Philistines of Jesus’s time does not have any bearing on the appearance of the Jews of Jesus’s time, or on the appearance of Jesus himself.
I never claimed that all the Jews in medieval Europe were dark-complexioned. I never claimed that all middle-easterners, of any time period, were dark. (That was your reading comprehension/assumption, and you ran with it.) Go back and read it again. I even referenced that the Romans/Gentiles of the time were white, and doing the white-washing to portray Jesus to look they way they looked, to deny Jesus’s Jewish origins. (You know, white washing.)
I claimed that the Jews, in the Middle East, in Jesus’s time, specifically Jesus, his disciples and his relatives, were dark-complexioned. That’s it.
You were the one to bring in the argument that other people of the Middle East in Jesus’s time were white, and tried to base your claim of Jesus having been white/not been white-washed on that. As if the skin complexion of other people of different ancestry has any bearing on the ancestry, appearance and complexion of Jesus. Much like how Jews having white complexions today does not, at all, disprove that Jesus was dark skinned. Yes, that particular diaspora took place that long ago. Hence me mentioning it before on why the complexion of modern Jews has no bearing on the complexion of Jesus or his disciples.
And again with the failure to, yanno, read up on stuff before talking about it, and once again sticking your foot in your mouth. (How’s that shoe leather tasting, BTW?)
The Isenheim Altarpiece underwent “unorthodox” restoration in Colmar, France. To quote from this article about it:
“Mitterrand and his colleagues at the C2RMF (Centre de recherche et de
restauration des musées de France), France’s main body of art
conservators and restorers, have thus far observed the rapid, one might
consider careless, work on the altarpiece. The yellowed varnish, found
to be from 1946, has been mostly removed from the surface, and the C2RMF
has exhibited fears that the solvent used could move towards the top
layers of the paint.“
So there’s a possible answer to your inquiry of why the other people in the painting have light-colored skin. Art restoration is (usually) a slow process, done by hand, one section of a painting at a time. It also has a checkered history, passing back and forth between Germany and France, notable during WW1 and WW2. Who knows what happened to it during those times. (Especially since the varnish mentioned above was dated to 1946, 1 year after WW2 ended)
(That was a test, BTW. I knew about it when I mentioned the painting in my last response, but didn’t mention the fumbled restoration, or the history, to see what you’d do. And I knew you’d fuck it up. As you did.)
I mean, come on. This is basic stuff you’re fumbling.
Oh so they removed varnish from the Dog, from the book in the guy’s hand, from the woman’s clothes and from the guy’s face specifically…
I never said the Philistines = the Jews moron. I thought, since you think you know it all, that you;d know that mixing took place between them and Israelites LONG before Christ’s time.
That was a test, you failed (dontcha love that game?)
The point, idiot, is that you have no idea what Color Jesus was, of what color his family was, or what color his pals were. There were absolutely light toned Jews in Jesus’ time.
There were even MORE light toned Jews after they migrated to Europe.
And thus your claim that Europeans white washed the bible to distance themselves from Jews makes NO SENSE.
They were represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, curved or hooked noses, and pointed beards. They were supposed to have been of great stature.
Just curious, did your nose grow a few inches just then?
And JULIUS FUCKING CAESAR, how many times do I have to say it? DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH. DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH. DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH.
Seriously, this should have already been drilled into your head during your “education in a hard science.” How on earth did you come out of college education without learning this?
“Remember that it’s hard to distinguish between dirt in the varnish, dirt
on the paintings, and actual pigments put on the painting by the
artist. And even if you do know it, there’s no way to be sure that
whatever you pick to clean it will only get the dirt. Two different da
Vinci paintings have been damaged by attempts to clean them. One
painting at the Louvre got several shades lighter when cleaned, and had
the details washed out by extreme soft-focus. It was like the Virgin and
Saint Anne, in the painting, wanted to airbrush out their wrinkles. A
lost sketch by da Vinci of Orpheus being tormented by the Furies was
destroyed when restorers dipped the sketch in alcohol and distilled
water which took out the ink.“
And as this article shows, this restoration process is done by hand, one small area at a time. And different pigments can react differently to the same solvent. Hence the varying results.
But sure, keep spinning your wheels there, Jr, and convince yourself you’re actually going anywhere.
Yes genius, some people were light skinned. One of the reasons some of the Jews might have been lighter in tone (assuming they were all dark to begin with )was mixing between them and the Philistines (and amorites).
You need a bigger jar of fail sauce.
Alternate scenario…they painted Jesus darker….
Your entire premise has been that evil Europeans did white paintings to cut dark Jews off from the bible. Your premise has been destroyed because it has been proven that even in the Levant, long before Christ, Light peoples inhabited canaan (this includes Jews who mixed in). Add to this the fact that long before your hated paintings, they had migrated to Europe, and mixed more. Thus Europeans couldn’t use white skin vs dark skin to separate themselves from Jews….because of all the white Jews
There was no white washing.
I’m done with your idiocy
And yet, the forensic recreation of Jesus’s face, and the earliest known artwork of Jesus, shows him to be dark-skinned. As I’ve already mentioned.
That’s the facts.
Facts trump suppositions. (Really, I’m starting to seriously doubt the existence of your higher education here.)
And again with the failure of reading comprehension. My premise:
The bible, and the Catholic Church’s/Christianity’s interpretation of it
over the years, is the original version of whitewashing.
(Seriously. It’s right fucking there in the original post, and all the reblogs.)
That’s not just Europeans. That’s Romans/Gentiles, too. That’s also from the founding of Christianity and the Catholic church.
And aw, come on. Don’t be a sore loser. I thought you were going to “ cook any goose you bring to this fair.” Still looking pretty uncooked…
But if you must go – BYE CARTMAN.
Oh so your dumbass wants more thrashing. Fine.
So that CG image of Christ you keep foisting was made from SKULLS> To get skin tone, then said they used some art. They didn’t say what exactly, so I had to go looking. I found a lot of synagogue art from israel and from in Syria.
OMG, the Jews…
…where white washing……
…themselves!!!!
Get a life loser. You have NO EVIDENCE of dominate skin tone in Israel at the time. You are appealing to an image made from three skulls, with colors chosen from unnamed art.
Here’s a task for you. God find this unnamed art.
Assuming OP is a “Christian”, why do you care if Jesus is white or not? He’s our Lord and Savior. Why do people bring up His skin color as if that means anything? Like with a lot of black people. Are you not gonna worship Him if He was white? How silly is that?!
Recent Comments